Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

I was looking at another editor's contributions and noticed that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Mastro was proposed here for protection on June 22. However, I cannot find this discussion in the archives. Please be gentle with me as this is my first visit to this page (I think?) Ottawahitech (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see anything for Michael Mastro back on June 22. Additionally, that AfD was just made recently so it would not have been proposed for protection. Perhaps you meant the actual article, Michael Mastro? Neither of them have ever been protected and I do not see a request for either made back on June 22. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a reminder that WP:PC goes live in a little less than three hours. I've just updated the headers to list it as an option. The policy is at the regularWP:Protection policy page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Just so we are all clear on this, admins are allowed to apply PC as of about an hour ago. We forgot to get the interface page updated to reflect that, I have out in a request to have that done but don't be scared off by the warnings. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

  Do you mean MediaWiki:Flaggedrevs-protect-legend? I've removed the warning. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

There were two, you got one and another user zapped the other one. Thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought we are not supposed to use Pending Changes level 2, but the pages in this category indicate that currently five articles are using it. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 17:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

From what I gather, there is no community consensus to define the rules and policies on how it should be used. However it is technically possible, active, and there is no consensus against using it. Salvidrim! ✉ 18:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

But according to the protection policy at WP:Protection policy#When to apply pending changes protection...

Only what is known as "Pending changes level 1" should be used, which is labeled "Require review for revisions from new and unregistered users". Pending changes level 2, or "Require review for revisions from everyone except Reviewers", should not be used at this time per WP:PC2012/RfC 1.

...it says it should not be used. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 18:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the RfC should be closed as "No Consensus"; I disagree that the lack of consensus on how it should be used makes the policy default to forbidding its use. This is not the appropriate venue to discuss it, however, and there have been plenty of back and forth on AN/I-AN about its use. I believe for the moment the admnistrators applying it should be the one justifying its use on a case-by-case basis (and they've been doing it since the RfC). If it is the best solution, just use it, but keep in mind the community hasn't defined rules on how it should be used and be ready to justify its use over PC1 or FPP. Salvidrim! ✉ 18:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess IAR (as you said) is the best thing to do in this situation. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 18:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure were to ask to have a template lockup or protected. The Template:Help navigation has recently gone under a major update. Its "now" seen on 200+ help pages thus highly visible and has minimal watchers. Not sure if this is even a reason to lock thus i am asking here first.Moxy (talk) 06:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I've added it to the requests section. See WP:HRT. Given where it's used and what it's used for an indef semi might be justified, but best thing to do is add a request so an admin and make a decision.Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok thank you very much - was not sure.Moxy (talk) 07:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm currently floating an idea at the chocolate factory about using PC2 on a subset ofWP:HRT. Since this is the primary working board for protection I thought I'd drop a note here soliciting input. Regards, Crazynas^t 10:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

If there are articles that are in permanent semi-protection, would it be a good idea to move a number of them into Pending changes as this would allow some more editing for anonymous IPs.

Is there a list of semi-protected articles by duration?

JASpencer (talk) 19:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Special:Protectedpages is what you're looking for and it's simple enough to narrow the list down to indefinite semi-protections. I haven't checked how many pages there are but would be nice to review these now that pending changes is available. – Steel 01:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

there two i can think of the top of my head that shouldnt be moved to pendign changes as ip vandelism is very high and you be rejecting loads of pendign chaanges not makign it worth having the two i can think of are Rangers F.C. and Celtic F.C. and any related article of them on permanent semi protectionAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

High-traffic pages in general should be avoided for PC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Many of the permanently semi-protected pages can just be unprotected. Crazynas ^t 05:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyone care if I update the terminology per WP:page name? — CpiralCpiral 11:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Plus, the page is not edit-protected, just move-protected. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course. Well then, having that, I would like to prescribe that the terminology be doctored to the description at WP:page name. The columns in the table could be reduced to a small table associating just two things, an acronym that is the to-protect- or to-unprotect-template name, and the namespace. All the other terms in the table (HELP, PAGE, ARTICLE, USER, CATEGORY, PORTAL, BOOK, and more) are the same term: fullpagename. Fullpagename is a term that could be either defined or linked and then used as a table intro or description, that would have the term '{{acronym|fullpagename}}', instead of "Example Article name" or "Example Template Name" or "lx|example page where x stands for the namespace".

And about that last quote, well x doesn't really stand directly for the "namespace" as that term might be understood by a new admin reading the current wording. The term "x" is only standing for "one or two letters that, when formed into a two- or three-lettered acronym, respectfully, beginning with the lowercase letter 'L', stands for a namespace." The beauty of the term fullpagename is that you don't have to explain anything like that ugly but precisely reworded quote. The letter x and its explanation could be X'd-out. The terminology Rx is to remove x et al and add fullpagename. — CpiralCpiral 00:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking the bold, revert, discuss cycle, of WP:BOLD can "just do it", knowing that in either case, reversion or discussion, acceptance or rejection, my justice will be served if I act. — CpiralCpiral 02:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that might not fly introducing a whole new system for how to list requests here. Thing is, I don't know if it improves anything and I'm having a bit of a difficulty even understanding what you're proposing. Some examples would be good. tutterMouse (talk) 07:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It's your same system, but with the WP:Page name terminology applied to /Header.

<snip request>

Note: For MediaWiki blah blah blah blah. — CpiralCpiral 04:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

So, instead of the various templates used now for namespaces you're asking to use {{ln or {{lnt with {{FULLPAGENAME}} for the request itself as an alternative? One issue, doesn't that magic word only work relative to the page it's placed on? I think it's adding an unnecessary layer of complexity to something which hasn't confused too many admins or users. If you can, put it very simple terms exactly what this will do as then it's a lot easier to just see what the intent is with without wikispeak or templating terms getting in the way. tutterMouse (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does indeed add the abstraction layer that terminology is for: 3)reading about 2)talking about 1)writing. It Does add it for the established ones here who you know and who use this page's terminology to 2) talk about (Admin's instructions) this page's 1) writing (writing the protection task). But no, the same terminology for a new admin--the two terms pagename and fullpagename that are not magic variables--is already learned, because (hypothetically speaking) the same two terms are their established abstraction layer for interfacing all their other pages. It is quite understandable and even acceptable to say things like "We do not want to shave any time off the learning of this particular administrative task (for good reasons), but please try a terminology drive at Meta or in a wikiProject"? Thank you kindly for your response. I'm starting to like the new table, but it seems entirely unnecessary in the first place! Can't we just go generic with fullpagename and delete all those templates in that table? — CpiralCpiral 08:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I understood the last line perfectly. To answer it, no. The advantages are outweighed by the disadvantages, {{ln}} doesn't work with mainspace (articlespace) pages and the use of the template actually makes things harder from my testing it out, not easier. The table is fine, it's been that way for a good few years, tells people in a fairly uncomplicated way what to do and has an example which is also worded that anyone could do it, when I tried to use {{ln}} myself it was far too involved even for me and I'm no new editor so consider their knowledge levels in this. Out of all the requests that hit that page, very few have malformed templates (most use Twinkle besides) and the range of templates are used wiki-wide so personally I feel upending all that to replace it with a simpler but much harder to work out system wouldn't work out even a little. tutterMouse (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

You've answered the friendly question, but not the other, more business-like one, about terminology. I'm not here to question changing anything except the lack of the terms fullpagename and pagename. And I think you'd like the new table better. And don't you? As doubtless as the current terminology currently seems, as tried and true, "uncomplicated", and "anyone could do it", so I hope I can seem here to actually really help the new.

Please understand that the term set {pagename, fullpagename} is elsewhere and true, even less "uncomplicated" than the term set {PAGE NAME, ARTICLE, TEMPLATE, PAGE, USER, CATEGORY, FILE, PORTAL, HELP, MESSAGE, BOOK}, and "anyone new could traffic more protection" using even better instructions. Is there a debate? — CpiralCpiral 01:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

One set of terms is an abstraction ("complication") that is no more difficult than one meta plus two newly defined variables. That's three concepts for the new. The other is a larger set of homonyms, which are not what their sound-alike term "means", a layer of eleven new definitions. For example, I have to translate BOOK not as the namespace definition (as used in the same table!), but a new definition of what is the book's title, BOOK. I have to do this eleven times: PAGE NAME is pagename (these are not always the same term), a CATEGORY is either a topic-subcategory or a set-subcategory, and so on, adding eleven new lines to "the inner dictionary". That's eleven concepts for the new. But alas, my time-saving and your computational-shaving arguments are both weak. Logic may have a little better argument for my side, but an objective aesthetic beauty is my draw, and bias my bow. Is there now enough understanding for this specific debate? — CpiralCpiral 01:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

One set of terms is an abstraction, which interfaces widely over the wiki, the other is an appendage to a page-dictionary or page-glossary. This page is lexicographically heavy. My terminology doesn't need a dictionary. WP:Page name is terminologically heavy. Is there any debate?— CpiralCpiral 01:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

What you might be referring to as your "system" as the other templates in that table. But the template documentation is of the lowest quality style of all other namespaces, wouldn't you say? Debate? I'm trying to wikimplement Project terminology for good style, and this page is a project page, not a template documentation page, although none could be closer. The template documentation of those templates in the table have there own system of terminology, and this page is trying to mimic that? But they too use what seems like a stylishly unsystematic terminology, as if it was somehow "native" style. Debate? There "system" of terminology does not match this project page's terminology, there style does. Is there a discussion on this point? — CpiralCpiral 01:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

"The rest of your system"? There is no system. Are we talking about the wiki-template-programmer documentation wiki-ness of the terminology of the topic page here? There is no system. If there was a system I was disrupting, I would notice /Header transcluding a "system of terminology". — CpiralCpiral 01:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I can safely conclude. 1)This is a valid discussion I am making for good reason. 2)This is the start of "ya gotta start somewhere" — CpiralCpiral 01:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm slightly annoyed at you because prior to this, you removed most of this talkpage's comment and removed my own followup which is not within the policies. Nonetheless, you did modify your talking points but I still think this whole issue is "use my terms, mine are better" which isn't good enough a reason especially if you only ever bounced it off one person. I've done a little rummaging in your history and it seems your inability to write in a way which makes sense to others but you is a continuing issue, EdJohnston is right and I fully agree with his sentiment. it is key to write well if you want to be understood through text and I note you mention that "If my writing were lucid, "anyone" could understand it and "everyone" would say I was a good writer" which is the entire point, this is a communal effort not one written to satisfy your linguistic quirks and being understood by everyone is important. You've been here much too long to be ignorant of this and not make efforts to be more lucid in your writing, I only ask this for the benefit of you being understood by others here, clarity and succinctness means more than being poetic or verbose.

Back to this whole thing though and so far, you haven't actually made a very valid reason for this change but I will try and answer some of your points though I want to make it clear I don't like being prompted continuously for debate, that's a battleground mentality I have little time for. I agree simply using "page name" (two words, not one) would be much more simple but I feel also we somewhat agree but not on the method. As you know, I don't see a reason for change based seemingly on people not getting it even though they seem to get it well enough. This new proposal makes more sense but I'm more concerned with efficiency and clarity over appearance and this version lacks both. We don't need links to the pagename because if an editor is here, we assume a certain level of competence of them and that they know what a namespace and a page name is, this seems a reasonable courtesy and they don't need several examples when one which isn't hard to parse and use for other namespaces. Personally, I feel it's more an insult to change it that it is to leave it be but I'd advise you to see if anyone else will give you input. I am stepping back from this so won't be involved from this point forward but I'd strongly advise you to poll for opinion from others. tutterMouse (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Information: The following table and bullet list is necessary to form a request.

This is a table of templates, all of which take pagename as the first parameter. (Parameter {{{1}}})

Namespace:	Article	Template	Wikipedia	User	Category	File	Portal	Help	Book	MediaWiki
Page space:	{{La}}	{{Lt}}	{{Lw}}	{{Lu}}	{{Lc}}	{{Lf}}	{{Lp}}	{{Lh}}	{{Lb}}	{{Lm}}
Talk space:	{{Lat}}	{{Ltt}}	{{Lwt}}	{{Lut}}	{{Lct}}	{{Lft}}	{{Lpt}}	{{Lht}}	{{Lbt}}	{{Lmt}}

The following set of templates require the parameters namespace, pagename, and fullpagename of the request.

• {{pagelinks|fullpagename}}, or use
• {{ln|namespace|pagename}}, and
• {{lnt|namespace|pagename}}.

Prerequisites:

1. Go the the page being requested and check for any redirect messages under the pagename. A common delay stems from trying to protect a redirect.
2. If you are requesting removal of protection, edit the page being requested and message the protecting admin you see on the protection notice. Note also: protection done by MediaWiki must be undone by MediaWiki.
3. Copy the pagename while you are there, for what follows next here. (This prevents many common errors.)

Instructions:

1. Locate the template from the informational table above.
2. Navigate to the protect-list or unprotect-list.
3. Edit the section. Your request will form parts of a dynamic list. An admin will soon respond to a new request entering the top of the list. Your request must go at the top.
   • Fill out the template you chose from the information table. Paste the pagename being requested into the table template you chose. Wrap it in four "=" characters. In this way each request becomes a level four subsection.
   1. Specify a type of protection: full-, semi-, creation-, upload-, move, or pending-changes protection.
   2. Specify a tagline for a reason for the request.
   • Mention time intervals involving related blocks
   • Do not ask for maximum protections. Admins will review the request.
   • Expiry intervals such as "one week" or "indefinite" can be set to automatically deactivate edit-protection and move-protection, but please do not try to discuss or negotiate expiry interval times.
4. Sign your request with four tildes ~~~~.
5. Watch for correspondence. Items move downward.

Example list of requests for unprotection:

Wikitext of the request	A List of requests
===={{pagelinks|Category:Stubs}}==== Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. <your username>	====Category:Stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)==== Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. <your username>
===={{pagelinks|Category talk:Stubs}}====	====Category talk:Stubs (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)====
===={{ln|Category|Stubs}}====	====Category:Stubs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)====
===={{lnt|Category|Stubs}}====	====Category talk:Stubs ( | category | history | links | watch | logs)====
===={{la|Article}}====	====Article (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)====
===={{lat|Article}}====	====Talk:Article ( | article | history | links | watch | logs)====
===={{lt|Tdeprecated}}====	====Template:Tdeprecated ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)====
===={{ltt|Tdeprecated}}====	====Template talk:Tdeprecated ( | template | history | links | watch | logs)====
===={{lu|Example}}====	====User:Example ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)====
===={{lut|Example}}====	====User talk:Example ( | user page | history | links | watch | logs)====
===={{lw|About}}====	====Wikipedia:About ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)====
===={{lwt|About}}====	====Wikipedia talk:About ( | project page | history | links | watch | logs)====
===={{lc|Stubs}}====	====Category:Stubs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)====
===={{lct|Stubs}}====	====Category talk:Stubs ( | category | history | links | watch | logs)====
===={{lf|Wikipedesketch1.png}}====	====File:Wikipedesketch1.png ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)====
===={{lft|Wikipedesketch1.png}}====	===={{Wikipedesketch1.png}}====
===={{lp|Television}}====	====Portal:Television ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)====
===={{lpt|Television}}====	====Portal talk:Television ( | portal | history | links | watch | logs)====
===={{lm|Common.css}}====	====MediaWiki:Common.css ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)====
===={{lmt|Common.css}}====	====MediaWiki talk:Common.css ( | message | history | links | watch | logs)====
===={{lb|Business}}====	===={{lb|Business}}====
===={{lbt|Business}}====	===={{lbt|Business}}====

• Note: Protection by MediaWiki ||{{lmt|MESSAGE}}
  Should not be protected

Sorry, but I'm just not clear what problem this is supposed to solve. I should think 99% of requests here are done correctly, because they're requests to protect an article. Where they do occaisionally go wrong, there's enough watcers here to fix it, and patrolling admins aren't so picky as to throw it out if it's formed wrongly. GedUK  13:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, all is well, but could use some improvement; and many phenomena evolve by means of multiple drafts. That's what's so great about a wiki. I tried to improve the experience I came here with when asking for unprotection. The documentation seemed highly irregular, as is uses many peculiar terms. I am familiar with the terms fullpagename and pagename, and not all the new and strange definitions being offered here as part of a system. If you'd like please see WT:page name/Major surgery#Terminology (note 10), and the article Terminology. I tried to make it clear here that the problem was the newly advancing editors' problem, but instead, I took the reaction I got, and used it to help me rewrite WP:Page name document (note 10). Thanks for your condolences. Time will tell. — CpiralCpiral 05:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Moved from main WP:RFPP page. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the correct place for this question, but is it possible to get protection for a project's talk page? We are trying to minimize the effects of abusive commentary on our Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket and Englishness from an outside editor. I'm not sure what the protocol is in this situation. --Oline73 (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

What seems to be the issue? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Terminology? Imagine if it just said, per the previous discussion "To protect/unprotect a page use fullpagename in {{Ln}}, but if its in the talk space use {{Lnt}}"? (I know there is another sentence or some clauses left out of that simplification, but isn't it basically that simple?) Then the answer is {{Lnt|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket and Englishness}}. — CpiralCpiral 09:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Erm... I'm sorry, but that was already quite clear from the request. I mean what seems to be the issue prompting the Talk page to require protection. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Must have added that in the wrong section, the "wikiproject" itself and the issues involved with it though it is at ANI if you're interested [1] . tutterMouse (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

See discussion at Village Pump (policy)#Protection and management of scripts?. Relevant to Lua, userscripts, and user scripting generally. Comments appreciated.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

What's the policy for today's xkcd ([2])? It changes according to the first NASDAQ Top 100 company that appears on a random Wikipedia article, which changes every so often. The article in question is repeatedly vandalised because of this. Are the articles semi-protected? (I know some were), or do we deal with the vandalism on-the-go/after it disappears from the comic? Rchard2scout (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC) (p.s. Is this the place to ask this question?)

I was contemplating the same thing. I guess it depends on whether the target article is updated periodically or in reaction to it becoming protected. If the latter is true, perhaps it might be worth picking one target article to leave unprotected, so all subsequent xkcd-related vandalism will be concentrated in a known location. If it is the former, then I guess all we can do is try to solve the clue and monitor potential targets, in which case it might be a good idea to keep a list of target articles somewhere so they can all be checked again once this is over. Whether that should be here, and whether it is worth protecting all these articles, is a different matter. Rubseb (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I wonder why this page process continues to be so ineffectual. It's always been my experience in the past that it's perfectly useless to ask for semi-protection here unless the page is right in the middle of an anonymous-IP vandalism storm, and the obvious right thing to do on "Kurgan hypothesis" was done by somebody asking elsewhere, and not of course in response to the request placed in what should be the obvious place to ask, this board... AnonMoos (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, what is obvious for the one isn't obvious for the other (especially if the other is only a janitor and goes by the protection policy, and not into the topic, which would make it far easier for him to evaluate requests), and the "obviousness" does not present itself on a platter each and every time. Then there may be the fact that only about, let's say 15 or perhaps 20, admins are active at all at RFPP, and in some times of the day only 1 or 2. Anyway, the article is protected now. Lectonar +(talk) 07:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

And of course now we need semi-protection on Talk:Kurgan hypothesis, and it would be completely and utterly useless to ask for it here... AnonMoos (talk) 05:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Funny, I have followed this, for afar, and I am somewhat on Uncle Gs side here. The problem is the anon user, not the topic. If she/he could get of the high horse, I daresay there could be fruitful discussion. Lectonar (talk) 07:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC) And go ahead: request the protection, I will not comment, as I consider myself involved now. Lectonar (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've been disappointed every single time I requested semi-protection through this page, even though my requests seemed quite reasonable to myself and some others (as evidenced by the fact that on several occasions, including in April above, semi-protection was applied from some other source than from a request on this page), and I don't feel like getting snubbed again. Sorry if my message of "05:20, 14 May 2013" was self-indulgent, but I was marking where I would have made a request if I wasn't firmly convinced that it would be completely useless to make a request. I probably won't be bothering this page again, ever... AnonMoos (talk) 10:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes one simply gets unlucky, me thinks, so do not get disappointed. I simply think that using semiprotection when dealing with a single user (even when IP-hopping) is like using a cannon to shoot at sparrows: much to heavy-handed. Lectonar (talk) 11:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi folks, Does this page automatically purge or cache? If so, neither system is working today. Bearian (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I almost always add the small protection templates after protecting, but is it necessary? It's obvious to anyone who tries to edit that it's protected, so adding the templates feels like a waste of time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• When you hover mouse cursor on the template, you get details about the block like 1) block type b) block period. --Tito☸Dutta 05:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. I can see "this article is semi-protected," but no length. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you give the article link please? --Tito☸Dutta 04:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Slim, we can supply both reason for protecting and duration, and if we do, these parameters show when you hover; if not, not. Like this: {{pp-vandalism|expiry=17 August 2013|small=yes}}. I've found that if I merely invoke the little padlock by putting {{pp-protected|small=yes}}, a bot will often add the duration, but not reliably. Bishonen | talk 04:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC).

Tito, the one I was thinking of was Stephen Milne. When I first hovered over it (padlock only), I saw only that it was semi-protected. I've just done it again, and now I see a date too. Thanks, Bish. I was hoping I could leave out this step. I wonder if we could get the bot to do it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, the bot works fine and very quickly. You can use Paste Email plus (search in web) or any other quick single click content paste gadget. A saved code like {{pp-semi|expiry=DATE|small=yes}} might be handy. --Tito☸Dutta 05:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking it would be handy if the bot would add the protection template as part of the request – where the protecting admin specifies which tag while protecting, and the bot then adds it to the page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I hope this is the right place to request this as I am in a hurry. I am an experienced user that had to create a new account. I don't know why but I've been unable to sign in to my former account for over a month. I've tried resetting and that's a fail. Selene Scott was my former account name and this new one is Selene Scott II. I would like to add a section on the Tupac page that talks about the belief that Tupac is still alive and the widely publicized details surrounding these claims. Thanks. "Selene Scott II (talk) 05:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)"

I have answered on your talk-page...Lectonar (talk) 07:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I semi- and move-protected 2017 in film and 2018 in film, each for 1 month, due to various issues, but left the earlier years 2014 in film, 2015 in film, and 2016 in film unprotected. My reasoning is that the years farther out have been filled with BLP violations and/or random rumors by IPs, while the articles for years coming up soon are more likely to have the correct information in them. If anyone wants 2014-2016 protected, please list them on the request page, with reasons. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Just thought I'd raise this comment by User:PinkAmpersand here. What template should we use when request protection of modules? Mark Arsten (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit_warring#Other_revert_rules says: Additional restrictions on reverting are sometimes imposed on particular editors and/or particular pages, by ArbCom or under administrator enforcement, or by the community (see Editing restrictions and General sanctions). 1rr has helped a lot in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles.

Since I couldn't find info in archives about editors having requested this, I didn't want to ask for protection without checking here first. Is it possible to request temporary 1rr on a whole category of articles, without some big arbitration? I.e., there be a tag made up just for those articles which editors can put on if the article is in that area and/or problems arise? Thinking specifically of several WP:Biographies of living people in Category:Austrian School economists. Already 6 or 7 of these articles have been the scene of constant edit warring and noticeboard discussions, including WP:ANIs, for the last three months and I think everyone who keeps seeing it is getting fed up with it. I'm sure I could find a few supporters for this. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 17:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The main problem of 1RR by category is that an article's category change will not be registered at the category itself. There is no page history, for example, of which articles were so categorized, and when they were removed from the category. This makes enforcement nearly impossible. Binksternet (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess that would lead to edit wars over who should be in the category. And saying "related articles" opens a whole can of worms. However, in WP:ARBPIA some barely related articles, like on religious interpretations of Israel's existence, etc. do get tagged 1rr with little debate. Guess have to keep working the policy angle issues. User:Carolmooredc 13:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Administrators, I would like to request you for semi protection for a page called Ayaan Chawla, if it's possible.

Regards

Ron Gates —Preceding undated comment added 20:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Requests of this type need to go on the list, rather than this talk page. Follow the instructions at the top of that page, and you'll be able to request protection. If this is still confusing, reply here with the reasons you think protection is necessary, and another editor or I will request protection by proxy.  drewmunn  talk  21:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't look like protection is merited here though, no edits by IPs or non-autoconfirmed users. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I declined this request before the bot did its latest rounds (on which it archived two items I had dealt with later). Was there something wrong with my decline of Orthomolecular medicine, that prevented Snotbot from finding it? I used a template, or at least so I thought. Bishonen | talk 00:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC).

The bot can be weird sometimes like that. Let's see if it picks it up later tonight. Nothing seems wrong about the template though. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it's been leaving it several times! Good, I'm immortal on this page! :-) Bishonen | talk 05:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC).

Looks like it finally came to its senses. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

@Bishonen and Mark Arsten: The bot is programmed to wait before archiving requests. It waits different amounts of time depending on whether the request was denied or accepted. Those amounts of time can be viewed (and changed, by an admin) at User:Snotbot/RFPP. Currently, the bot waits a minimum of 6 hours before archiving a denied request, and a minimum of 2 hours before archiving a fulfilled request. This is designed to give adequate time for any discussion/appeal that someone might want to have after their request was denied.

On a different topic, this bot task is currently being taken over by User:Cyberpower678. Things might get a bit bumpy in the transition, but after it's done the bot should be more stable (mostly because it won't be running on flaky toolserver anymore). ‑Scottywong| comment _ 17:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI, the template documentation template for page protection templates, Template:Pp doc ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Please have an eye on pages related to sexism and feminism. I do not expect the edits from the students [3] to be neutral! But ****neutrality**** is the major idea behind wikipedia. I cite the first comment on that page: "Catherine MacKinnon has asserted, objectivity and neutrality are male concepts, and unfavorably bias men". Such people should not be allowed to force their ideology into wikipedia! Allowing them to manipulate neutral articles and make them not neutral would be fatal! --92.202.63.94 (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I recently requested lower-protection level on articles in this page and user talk pages recently because we can't rob everybody else's editing priviledges due to primarily vandalism. While a topic's nature (aka nature of an article's topic) may attract vandalism, somehow I see over 1,000 pages currently indef. semi-protected. I've also brought this to administrators' attention in WP:AN#Category:Wikipedia indefinitely semi-protected pages. --George Ho (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

So where has the bot been lately? It hasn't updated the page for over 24 hours. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I (and GedUK) have left Cyberpower a note on his talkpage, he's aware that it's not doing the clerking but doesn't seem to have made any moves on getting that script working again. Other duties the bot does are still being done, just not the one for RFPP, he suggests it's a pywikipedia issue but then it's not the first time the bots have just not bothered to clerk here for a day or so until told to. tutterMouse (talk) 07:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Just as an update, the bot is back to clerking, turns out a script needed to be manually restarted. Cyberpower has said he'll be moving it to a different codebase (pywikipedia to Peachy) so it should improve reliability. tutterMouse (talk) 06:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Given the introduction of the new "template editor" right, we need to expand things a little: we now have a new "template" level of protection, which can be edited by admins and template-editors, because the right doesn't enable its holders to edit fully-protected pages. As a result, we should soon see requests that fully-protected templates be downgraded to "template" protection. Nyttend (talk) 11:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

This should be cross-posted at Template talk:RFPP if template protection is separate from PC, semi and full protection. Also might need to ping User:Cyberpower678 so he's aware of the changes for bot clerking purposes. tutterMouse (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The project page is clerked by Cyberbot I. Discussions are removed after they are marked with the {{RFPP}} template several times a day, sometimes only half an hour or an hour after the previous clerking edit.

I think that sections that are marked with the RFPP template should remain on the page for 24 hours for reference. It has happened to me upon occasion that 1. a request I made was removed before I had the opportunity to see the discussion and subsequent decision, or even 2. I had to manually return a request to continue a discussion, which was in my opinion decided upon in haste.

I have left a message on the bot's talkpage to ask if that is technically possible, but I would like your opinions here as to whether this is desirable. I see 40 requests these last 24 hours, and I do not think that is too many to have on the project page simultaneously. Debresser (talk) 01:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

40 is a very large amount and often this place is cluttered after half that so I'd argue very hard against it. Anyway, half an hour is a bit quick as they should be around for three to six hours but we do tell people to go check the archive for the last seven days of requests if it's no longer on the page. Situation before the bot was "go check the page history" and I do feel segregating older requests to the archive is the best way of making a readable archive of requests without requiring the main page to become very difficult to read and very stale quickly as anyone clerking here when the bot isn't functioning will tell you. tutterMouse (talk) 07:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the archive is definitely a good thing, given the situation. But I really see the bot doing his clerking thing after half an hour, an hour, or 2.5 hours, often. And we agree that that is too fast.

If you have a look at any logpage from WP:AFD, you'll see 40-60 sections, each of them very large, compared to the often one-line comments here. So the question what is considered a "cluttered" project page it is also a matter of what you are used to.

We could of course also decide on 12 or 18 hours, which would mean something like 20-30 sections simultaneously. If consensus would be that 40 is too many for this project page. Debresser (talk) 07:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Like AfD has a process for their logging as does AIV, no process will work right for every project page. We're used to less than 10, anything after that is usually considered a backlog as there's several in a day and you don't want to be staring at a completed request for hours in a section for unresolved requests. We could reintroduce moving completed requests to another holding section and then move those off later to the rolling archive as we used to (bar the archiving), would enable requests to stay on the page for longer but keeps them out of the moving traffic of the pending requests section. Personally, I do like how things are and whilst the timing is off at times it's much more preferable having the active page clear of stale requests than having ten or more of them linger for hours when they have a page they can be easily viewed elsewhere. The page does tend to move fast much like AIV though much slower and we did move completed requests to the archive to handle both a need for a relatively static archive and of clutter being confusing, would have to get more input from other clerks but that's just my input on the matter. tutterMouse (talk) 08:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I've always thought that accepted requests (ie protection has been applied) should be cleared away much faster; 30 minutes seems perfectly reasonable for those. For declined requests I'd like to see them stay for about 3 houors. Any longer and the page can get clogged. It's easy to lose unactioned ones in a long list. GedUK  13:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Is indefinate create-protection ever really appropriate? Wikipedia standards change over time and who is to say that 5 or 10 years from now a topic that doesn't pass WP:N in 2013 will pass a newer, relaxed standard in 2018 or 2023?

Please consider limiting A7/notability-related create protection to several years rather than making it indefinite. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• This would need a global consensus, so belongs at AN or VPP, I would think. Regardless, this is a bad idea, as it depends on WP:CRYSTALBALL being disregarded entirely. Wikipedia standards get tougher over time, not laxer, as a rule of thumb; but that's irrelevant anyway. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • An indefinite create-protection is the crystal ball, here, as it involves predicting that the non-notable person never will be notable. A limited period, say two years, allows any editor to create the article if the topic's notability changes in the future. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

This strikes me as a solution in search of a problem. Can anyone point to a case where a valid correction was prevented by a create protection? Not that someone had to ask the protecting admin, but the admin actually refused?—Kww(talk) 03:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I thought the salting was 'infinite' not 'indefinite' - yes, it is the default. I've never used pp-create, but I have used SALT quite often - repeatedly recreated. Usually this is a non-notable subject writing about him/herself (or their group, business, etc). I can't see the point of a separate A7 based criterion. If it's something dodgy, the 'offensive' criterion will apply, and something failing A7 the first time will often improve for the second go. Nothing should be create protected on the first or second time unless BLP or offensive. I for one (but probably the vast majority of admins) will happily unsalt a title if approached by a regular editor (one whose judgement can be trusted) or by a newbie with a good proposal including references. The infinite bit is to put off the damn nuisance who has been wasting our time. It can be reversed the next day (or sooner) if things look like improving. It's not the same as infinite damnation to Hell (although I hear that even that isn't necessarily infinite these days...). Peridon (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll be honest here and say I'd never even noticed that A7 based protection. Now that I have seen it, I won't be using it, and think it could be removed. I'm open to good reasoning from any supporters of it. Peridon (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The whole list is huge. I don't think I can spend too much energy on so many templates, especially ones trascluded by 20,000+ pages. If there are semi-protected templates, shall we upgrade protection to "template protection" then? --George Ho (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I think all templates above 50,000 transclusions are either template protected or full protected at this point. I manually checked the ones with 50,000 to 100,000 a few weeks ago, anyway. I thought it would make sense to make sure all templates above, say 20,000 transclusions were at least template protected. 20,000 came to mind as the minimum number, but that was admittedly somewhat arbitrary. My worry was that since it is pretty easy to get autoconfirmed, without much effort someone could pick a few semi-protected templates with over 20k transclusions and really cause some server load by vandalizing them. I could be mistaken though, I'm open to other opinions. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

My main concern when considering what gets protected is that I don't know who gets to be a template editor and why they should be trusted. John Reaves 03:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

And which registered editor is to be trusted to edit a semi-protected highly visible template? My edit on a highly-visible semi-protected template, template:PD-US-1923-abroad, was reverted by another registered editor because language, like English, is found to be irrelevant, and copyright may apply to foreign sculptures. Of course, that template is not highly visible enough for template protection. George Ho (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a fairly small group right now, but they all have had several accepted edit requests on full protected templates. See here for the exact details. It's a strict enough criteria that a number of admins (myself included) wouldn't qualify. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

As I just mentioned in the thread above, and in decling a protection request, I think we have to be very very careful about changing existing semi protections. There was a discussion at ANI a couple of years ago which covered this issue to a degree. Changing from full to TPE is loosening the protection. Even though the group of editors is smaller, the method of getting onto it is simpler than becoming an admin (EVERYTHING is simpler than becoming an admin). However, it's harder to get on that group than it is to get a confirmed account, so changing semi to TPE is tighening protection. Tightening protection en masse would require more consensus than we could generate here, in my view. It needs to go to AN (and probably have the discussion there rather than here) and possibly the VP. Or maybe even an RfC *gulp*. GedUK  15:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

From WP:PROT:

"the existence of the new right should not result in more templates becoming uneditable for the general editor population."

I would certainly oppose upgrading any protection as goes against one of the basic philosophies of Wikipedia. John Reaves 15:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, whatever your opinion of protecting high visibility templates is, doing so is in accordance with the longstanding guideline. At this point, everything with at least 40,000 transclusions is protected. If I had my way, I'd make that everything over 20,000, but admittedly that's an arbitrary figure. Doing so would require protecting a few dozen templates, I believe, but those 50-100 templates aren't a crucial issue. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

As it is a longstanding guideline, I would think the only need here is for the lowering of protection on templates that currently fully protected and thus established as high risk. As for currently semi'd templates, their protection should probably be raised on a case-by-case basis as the guideline suggests. John Reaves 20:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Going case-by-case for semi to te is Ok by me. I'll probably just semi all the unprotected ones I find above that level though. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Is there a formal definition of “high visibility” somewhere? How to we define what is and isn't? John Reaves 21:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I wish it was, and that's part of the reason I brought this up. It would be great to be able to have a number of transclusions and say that above that templates receive a certain protection. A lot of people prefer to leave it as a "I know it when I see it" situation though. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. Has there been a change in policy/consensus that says it's OK for non-admins to decline protection requests? One user has recently declined two requests. As it happens, I agree with them, but the point would be that they can't necessarily see deleted items etc. I couldn't actually see anything on the page that says only admins should be declining anything so I was suddenly uncertain about whether this was consensus or not. GedUK  15:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I have no problem with non-admin closures here (as long as it's the right call). I know we allow them at Afd and a couple other places, as well. Not sure if there was past consensus though. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• Mark makes a good point. However, while at AfD, one can review non-admin closures quite easily (looking at the discussions) as these are almost always done in the most non-contentious of closures (and there are many a time multiple editors to protest in case a closure is incorrect), at RFPP, almost each article nominated needs to be thoroughly reviewed and one cannot assume that any of the requests can be non-contentious in closing. And in case a non-admin declines a request for protection, it might be procedurally cumbersome to double check, apart from closed requests being archived. Wifione ^Message 16:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
• I asked this question six years ago, with two admins replying; both of them didn't mind a "trusted established user" (non-admin) closing obvious non-protect requests, although the first admin didn't want it to become a fad and the second admin didn't want harder requests being handled by non-admins. Again, that was six years ago; I think a couple of threads about non-admins closing requests have popped up over the years, with the consensus being that it's better if admins handle the requests. Acalamari 17:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem I see with non-admins closures is that admins have been somewhat "vetted" by the community, and thus, it can be assumed that they are trustworthy and capable of correctly implementing protection per consensus and/or policy. When someone isn't an admin, there is no way to quickly establish their competency regarding the potential use of an admin tool. John Reaves 17:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

We could have a note at the top of the page that mentions that non-admins can only procedurally close only already done cases on the noticeboard. Alternatively, we could have trusted editors whom we designate as RFPP clerks after discussions here on the talk page; these clerks could be allowed to close page protection requests either way (and request admins for action where they can't take an action). That's purely my opinion. Wifione ^Message 03:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Wifione's point is the only sort of non-admin closure I would support on this board. Lacking access to revdelled and oversighted edits, or the history of deleted pages, as a non-admin I wouldn't close an RFPP otherwise; I simply don't have all the tools to make a proper decision. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is or has been a reason for clerks, just another unnecessary position within the bureaucracy. I do like the idea of adding a note. John Reaves 14:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

No, a note only helps to tell non-admins "your place is here, not there" and it needn't be written out as there's really only one non-admin who has made declines. I wouldn't object to a protection right though, not everyone who can be trusted needs every damn key on the janitor's keychain and not everyone would pass the ritual of fire that'd allow them to actually help rather than just wikignoming. tutterMouse (talk) 15:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) The way I see it, it doesn't really harm anything. Even if an admin declines it, if another admin comes along and doesn't agree, they just protect it and open a discussion about it if needed. It's not like non-admins can actually protect or unprotect anything so it doesn't affect the article and wiki any, just prompts discussion if there is disagreement. Technical 13 (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

There is potential to harm though. If a non-admin closes a request that needs protection as a decline, it could potentially be archived by the bot without any review. But then again, so could an admin. John Reaves 18:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

If it was archived by the bot, and there was a legitimate need for the page to be protected, I'm sure it wouldn't just go unnoticed. It would likely be re-requested, unarchived, brought up on one of the drama boards, or noticed somehow. Don't you agree John? Technical 13 (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Protection attempts to prevent immediate damage to the project. Therefore, the whole process of archiving and then waiting for someone to bring the issue up again might work to our detriment, especially in the case of BLPs that see vandalism. Wifione ^Message 01:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• Protection request are not really analogous to AFDs. A deletion discussion is a just that, a discussion seeking to find a consensus on a particular issue. As such we allow non-admin closes in any case where the consensus is obviously in favor of keeping. Non-admins can't close obvious deletes, but that is only because they lack the technical ability to do so. Protection requests are not really about consensus, they are about users asking for administrative action, which implies that they expect an actual administrator to evaluate their validity. Unless the board was overwhelmed with dozens of obviously invalid requests (it gets backlogged, but not with piles of invalid requests) I don't believe anyone should be saying no when they aren't able to say yes and have not been vetted by the community for their policy knowledge. This is why we have admins in the first place. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Unless I had a way to perform a protection, or mark a page as needing protection (similar to the way a CSD tag functions), I would not think it appropriate for me to close any request in a way that would require me to protect or unprotect a page. However, I would feel confident to mark requests declined when no change in the level of protection is necessary, or if I had observed that the protection level had been changed to the requested level by an admin, but the request not marked for the archiving bot. (I have yet to decline or "perform" –(in quotes, since I cannot "perform" any protection level requests) any protection/unprotection requests. Also, I would not support what I mentioned earlier about a possibly creating an equivalent for protection as marking a page with a CSD tag: it would cause additional unnecessary work to be done when it can be done directly by administrators who decline/approve protection submissions.) Steel1943 (talk) 09:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I were to lower the edit protection level from "sysop" to "templateeditor" on the 85 maintenance templates listed on this page? I'm not familiar with the criteria we use to decide when this is appropriate, so I'd like a sanity check before I do it. Anomie⚔ 23:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• I'd like to see this taken to ANI or VPP, depending on which is more appropriate; it probably needs a strong consensus before doing so. I don't consider it a bad idea, but I feel that we'd need to go through the formal motions, etc. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I would have no objections to going ahead and doing that, actually. A few thousand full protected templates were bulk downgraded to templateeditor right after the right was announced. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I've done so in WP:AN. George Ho (talk) 03:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not have problems with this suggestion.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• This seems like a reasonable change to me, but I agree that a well advertised discussion is needed. DES ^(talk) 17:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

No objection. In fact, I don't understand why it wasn't done already. If I recall from the "templateeditor" user right discussion, the plan/consensus was to convert ALL fully protected pages in the Template namespace converted to template protection, provided that the template did not have cascading protection. Steel1943 (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. There are already more visible templates that have been reduced. AFAIK, basically every template that is protected solely due to transclusion count/visibility is eligible to be changed. Mr.Z-man 18:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

This sounds OK. The first one I looked at was already changed. The plan was for template editors to edit this kind of thing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Templates may be protected for reasons OTHER than merely being highly-transcluded. They may have a low level of transclusion but are used on several highly-visible web sites. They may be protected due to intricate code and the risk of breaking the wiki if they are changed incorrectly. They may be protected simply due to repeated vandalism. Let's hope that those who get the template editor user-right have both the technical ability and the wikipedia experience to be as careful as any administrator would be when editing such templates. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• I have created a page a while back that lists all of the potential templates that should be reduced to templateeditor protection. It does not include ultra highly visible templates nor does it include templates that are transcluded into the MediaWiki namespace. I'm trying to find the page.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

  Found it: Wikipedia:Template editor/Unprotection list—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• This is a fine idea. Knowing all the complicated ins and outs of template parser functions and so forth has little to nothing to do with being an admin, which is why this new userright was created in the first place. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
• I too agree. I'd suggest that we not reduce a very few of them, e.g. {{!}}, but I'm only talking about the core metatemplates and others with equally high rates of use. Things like these, which don't really get used except by themselves, are fine. Nyttend (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Note, I went ahead and did this earlier today. Anomie⚔ 21:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Has my support, however, we need to make sure this is only about lowering from full to TE, not going 'up' from semi to TE. GedUK  15:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

My link above generated by Cyberbot I a month ago lists only fully protected templates not transcluded into MediaWiki Namespace and not ultra highly visible.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Per discussion on the talk page for Twinkle, I'm looking for discussion/consensus about the possibility of adding a new section here for lowering the protection level of fully protected pages to TE or semi as it may be ambiguous and confusing as is. Currently, people can either request protection be added at the new TE level, which could be misunderstood as the page already has the higher full protection level and gets denied as already protected or, it it could go under unprotection which may misunderstood as a request to completely unprotect the page/template and gets denied. There needs to be a clearer option for this. For these reasons, a new "Change existing protection" section may be appropriate. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support obviously useful change. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• I think it would be simpler to change the "requests for unprotection" section to "requests for change in protection level" or something along those lines. The directions for that section can be modified to accommodate these concerns. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support (preferred) as that section seems underused anyways. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict × 3) @Technical 13:, I oppose adding a new section for downgrade requests on WP:RFPP, but I support renaming the sections to include requests for protection upgrades and downgrades. I think that the sections #Current requests for protection and #Current requests for unprotection should be renamed so that Current requests for protection's title included "protection upgrades" and Current requests for unprotection's title included "protection downgrades". Since the two sections already accommodate protection level upgrades and downgrades anyways, creating a new section for one task specifically is unnecessary. If a new section is created, that would require a lot more work to change the programming for the bot that archives WP:RFPP when instead it can be changed to only have to deal with a section namechange.

And also, just a note about what I did to accommodate for the need to convert protections from full to TE: There was a discussion started here that briefly mentioned the fact that the full to TE requests would start happening on this page, but did not bring up any concerns to update the instructions to accommodate for the new protection level. With that being said, I boldly edited Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/URheading to include instructions for requesting full to TE protection downgrade requests. The same could be done to mention a broader statement for ALL of the protection levels, as well as possibly updating Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/PRheading to include verbiage in regards to using the Current requests for protection section for protection upgrade requests. Steel1943 (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit conflict note: so basically, I have the same idea as Beeblebrox, with the exception that I think that both the "protection" and "unprotection" sections should be renamed. Steel1943 (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've no problem with a simple rename of sections. I'm neutral to how this is accomplished, as long as it is accomplished in a way that is simple and can result in my original request for modification to Twinkle to make it easy to request such changes. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

@Technical 13: At present, this change breaks Twinkle, since it can't find the headings it looks for per Wikipedia:Twinkle/Fixing RPP. Can you either self-revert or get support added to Twinkle (or ideally the former until the latter is imminent)? —me_and 15:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Going to fix it with a <span style="display: none;">...</span> for now (I hope) and am going to get ahold of Twinkle people to update now. Technical 13 (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Update: (AzaToth—This, that and the other—Amalthea) Pull request submitted. Technical 13 (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
    •  Done _→AzaToth 18:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
• Whilst I'm really glad we managed to get consensus based on three non-regular clerking editor's opinions, why didn't anyone consider telling User:Cyberpower678 who runs the archive bot about these changes? tutterMouse (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• I would expect C678 to have a page like this on his watchlist and be aware of it. :p Technical 13 (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• Hm, good point. tutterMouse (talk) 09:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

  And then again, maybe the sheer amounts of edits it gets a day is why I wouldn't notice such an edit. The edit summary used wasn't helpful either. Took me ten minutes to find the edit. I don't watch this page 24/7 and if you guys want a functional bot, it's your responsibility to tell me the changes. Not assume that I am watching it all. Quite frankly, I wouldn't have noticed if it weren't for tutterMouse.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 12:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Placing a tag that utilizes "ch", "chck", "q", "ques", "n", "note", sets a 24 hour timeout for the request since it is being marked as an ongoing discussion. Alternatively, you can use an RfPP tag with "ar", "arch", "archive", to tell the bot to immediately archive the request.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 12:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Helpful, thanks. tutterMouse (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm in the process of debugging AfDBot and RFPPBot and while I'm at it, I was wondering if I should tell Cyberbot to stop following redirects since most requests intend to target the redirect itself rather than the redirect target.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 20:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Yep I think that'd be the best idea. If the person requesting it gets it wrong it's not hard for us to note that they requested it for the wrong page (which I would anyway). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

•  Done Hangup bug fixed as well right here.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 01:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there an easy way to list several templates that I would like to be template-protected rather than fully-protected? or should these be listed individually? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 15:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

There isn't any easy way (like Twinkle) to list multiple pages in one request besides the manual method listed in the header but if you should do them individually? I'd say not to, depending on how many you're wanting to be downgraded it'll be cluttered fast so if it's anything above three then put them in as one request. tutterMouse (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

List them on User:HJ_Mitchell/Sandbox3; you'll need to link to each template, but you don't need any other formatting (eg Template:1Tempalte:2, etc, etc). That's probably the quickest way, and then I (or another admin) can use Twinkle's mass-protect function. Suggestions for easier ways welcome, but that's the best I can think of. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, HJ Mitchell! The sandbox page is red-linked – do you want me to create it? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 19:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, just create it; I'll probably delete it again once I'm done with it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

To editor HJ Mitchell: Okay, thank you! The {{R from other capitalisation}}'s protection is still full because it is transcluded along with another, {{R from title without diacritics}} on this page: Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items#Ceranium's stuff. Can you remove those two Rcats from that page, as well? Template editors won't be able to edit them until they are no longer cascade-protected, unless you know a way to keep them on that page and still make them accessible to template editors. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 19:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. Just let me know if there are any more. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that did it. I'll start working on that Rcat list. Thank you, again! Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 19:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, tutterMouse! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 19:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah but it's much better a kindly admin came in and helped you out where I couldn't. tutterMouse (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, but you were very helpful, too, tutterMouse – great advice for down the road! Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 02:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I have fixed the bug that was causing the bot to see requesters as blocked if they linked blocked users in their requests.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh good, that one was annoying. Has the update removed the bot's ability to still immediately archive a request tagged with {{RFPP|ar}} within comment tags? It hasn't, it was a header thing but I'm sure that anchor tag was there to assist Twinkle (or at least that's what I read...) tutterMouse (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

To editor Cyberpower678: not sure exactly what you mean by this:

This is breaking the bot, among other things. Section headers are to be left as is.

Can you please explain how inserting an anchor that fixes broken links into a section header, where it is supposed to work seamlessly, goes about breaking bots? This is the first I've ever heard of this. If your bot breaks because of an anchor, then it sounds like your bot needs to be upgraded. Anchors are a common way to fix broken links on Wikipedia. The anchor comment template explains all this, and you are the first ever that I know of to revert such an edit.

<!-- This Anchor tag serves to provide a permanent target for incoming section links. Please do not move it out of the section heading, even though it disrupts edit summary generation (you can manually fix the edit summary before you save your changes). Please do not modify it, even if you modify the section title. It is always best to anchor an old section header that has been changed so that links to it won't be broken. See [[Template:Anchor]] for details. (This text: [[Template:Anchor comment]]) -->

I look forward to your response! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 21:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Because adding the anchor template straight into the header changes the header name, and changes the section title name when editing the section. It breaks a lot of things. If you need the anchor, place it underneath the header. It won't break the bot and still work as it should.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 22:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. And thank you, cyberpower! Your suggestion reminded me of a discussion that took place earlier this year. The objective was to get the template to pull the page down a bit so the header will appear even when the anchor is set below it. Then Lua came along but has not incorporated the needed improvement, yet. I have raised this issue on the template's talk page. Hopefully, this will be fixed soon. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 03:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi,
I noticed a grammatical error in one of the headings which I don't want to try to fix myself so as not to screw up Twinkle and archiving. Can somebody who knows a bit more about what they are doing please fix the page? Thanks!
The error is as follows.

In the heading for Edit Requests, the third bullet point reads "Page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves not here." I think that the sentence is incorrect and should read "Page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves, not here." Can somebody please fix this? Thanks!

Sincerely,
Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The header is transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/SRheading and the warning is only for code changes on the page itself, not transcluded pages. I've made the change for you. tutterMouse (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I've always been confused by the layout that we use here. All of the links are put in each header, producing section URLs such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#.7B.7Bla.7CSidharth_Malhotra.7D.7D instead of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Sidharth_Malhotra making it impossible to use the section links. What if we started directing people to provide headers with just the name of the page and to provide the {{la}}, {{lafd}}, {{lmd}}, etc. links immediately below it? I believe that it would make the page simpler to use without causing any problems. Nyttend (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Would make section linking simpler but the most likely reason it's never happened is that the requests are transient and there's not much reason to section link for that reason whereas you might link to a diff instead if you want it to last longer than a day or two. Wouldn't say it makes it easier, probably would argue it introduces visual clutter even as it's making titles bigger but reducing the important links to body text while duplicating the title. There's a way to do this I'm sure but I'm not sure how, I'd be interested to see methods we could possibly use that doesn't obscure the (IMO) important links those templates make. tutterMouse (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not that I want to make section links. Rather, when I edit a section and respond to a request, the resulting URL includes the section title; if we had a simple section, I would be taken there, rather than being sent to the top of the page. It would be easier to just go down the page from top to bottom if I didn't have to start all over and find where I was before whenever I respond to one request. Nyttend (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Right now, our instructions say to use the following code:

===={{la|Example Article Name}}====
'''Semi-protection:''' High level of IP vandalism. ~~~~

All we need to do is to change the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Header so that they're something like:

====Example Article Name====
{{la|Example Article Name}}
'''Semi-protection:''' High level of IP vandalism. ~~~~

This wouldn't take much work and wouldn't obscure the important links, but it would fix the header names. Nyttend (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't that make the title duplication issue I was thinking about? I guess it should be done but I'm not opposed, would like to see what others think. tutterMouse (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I misunderstood what you were talking about. Now that I understand, I don't think it a big deal; we use this format in AFDs. To pick a random example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mcmillan Chiwawa; at the very top is the name of the article, and the links (supplied by the same template, {{la}}) are placed just below. WP:AFD gets more traffic than WP:RFPP; if it were a problem, I think it would have been removed there a long time ago. Nyttend (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

AfD does get more traffic but usually there's a lot of discussions on one page and they run long so it doesn't look overly cluttered. However, RFPP isn't AFD, most you'll get is two lines of response and it's a lot more visual traffic to parse through. Cyberpower's concerns regarding the bot are also an issue, might affect Twinkle in similar ways but I figure futzing with the headers is no small matter. tutterMouse (talk) 06:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

This change will completely break the bot, and will complicate it's implementation, based on current design, IIRC.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I would like to request that a semi-protected talk page be unprotected to allow questions and edit requests by unregistered editors. The policy says that I should ask the protecting admin. How do I determine what admin imposed the protection. (I remember why it was protected, but not what admin protected it.) By the way, the specific page is Talk: Cold fusion, and I am not requesting that Cold fusion itself be unprotected. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

To find the protecting admin, look at the page history for the edit that protected the page. Cold fusion was protected with this edit [4] by user:Callanecc. (Can the protecting edit be searched for using the tag filter?).--Wikimedes (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

To find the protecting edit directly, under the title of the history page (Talk:Cold fusion: Revision history) click "view logs for this page". If the protecting edit isn't immediately visible (though it is in this case) select the "Protection log" filter. (It's not a tag after all.)--Wikimedes (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I've unprotected it, if the disruption returns I'll protect it again. Callanecc ([[User talk:Callanecgame c|talk • contribs • logs) 01:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for unprotecting. Perhaps now that consensus is against the unregistered editors (in spite of an attempt to game the system by an ArbCom motion while the RFC was in progress), they may be less insistent on their POV. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

How come this page is "New item at the top" when everything else in Wikipedia is "New thing at the bottom"? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Is it a WP intelligence test....? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It's just the way it's always been! Not a good answer I know, but it's all I can come up with. GedUK  12:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I had the same answer so I thought I'd wait to see if somebody else had a better one, but Ged has been around longer than I have. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You should be able to archive requests after you think you're done with this page as requesting a page for protection. Saying that [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Archive_1]] would be fine to archive them. --Allen ^talk 04:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this for a while. I'd like to propose two relatively minor changes to RfPP that will make the page much easier to use for admins:

1. Have the newest requests placed at the bottom of the relevant section. This is the way every other noticebaord works, and it means that when an admin comes along, they see the oldest requests first. Much more importantly, from my perspective, though, is that it will prevent section numbers from changing while an admin is Working through the backlog. At the moment, if there are requests for page X and page Y and I answer the request for X and come to edit the request for Y, if a request for Z comes in before I've saved the page, my response ends up in the wrong section (example).
2. Remove the template from section headers. Currently, requests are in the form of ===={{la|foo}}====//*Temporary semi-protection: persistent vandalism. This makes navigation around the page a real pain, especially when there are 20 or 30 outstanding requests. I'd like to change this to ====Foo====//{{la|foo}}//*Temporary semi-protection: persistent vandalism. That means the section header will be the same in edit mode as when it's displayed, and so the software will return you to the section you just edited after saving the page. It also means (as minor side benefits) that the section links in edit summaries will work properly, that it's easier to link to sections, and that links to sections can be previewed in Popups (I know not everyone uses it, but I can't live without it!).

What do other people (particularly admins who regularly handle requests here) think of this? Courtesy ping for Cyberpower, who can tell us whether it would be practical to change his excellent bot to cope with the new format (I'll notify WT:Twinkle, as well). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with removing the template from headers as the issue with navigation being broken because of the templating has been mentioned in the past and would want for * '''{{la|foo}}''' for the formatting of that section but that's more for visual readability purposes. As for moving oldest to the top and new ones at the bottom, it'd be a good way to present the oldest to admins but I feel also more immediate requests might end up stagnating until they end up at the top, I'd have to see how it works out but I don't oppose it. Additionally, making this a formal RFC be a good idea as it does involve changing the operation of the page a bit and it's always good to get a wider opinion on critical aspects of the site like this. tutterMouse (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

We can do it as an RfC, I suppose. I was just hoping that a few of the regulars might weigh in and shoot it down if I've missed some obvious problem or refine the proposal a little. But hey, let's go with an RfC. As for requests stagnating, I think they do anyway—I quite often come here to find 20 or 30 outstanding requests and find that some of the more urgent cases have been dealt with by other admins who are probably unaware of the RfPP request. And I normally work from the bottom up, because there's no obvious way of differentiating urgent requests from any other (perhaps we should change that?). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: I suggested an RFC as at least it'll draw attention this way from regulars and others alike but no, I feel your proposal is fine. Some requests do tend to stagnate true but I hope reversing the order helps with that issue occasionally. If we really want to try and minimise the amount of overflow and and old requests then we could do with a second proposal, possibly coming up working out how to draw attention to requests older than, say, 18 hours or thereabouts would be helpful as often critical or complex requests do go unheard for a lot longer than I feel is reasonable, often feel like comparing it to a vandal at AIV who nobody bothers to block. tutterMouse (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I think the main problem is a lack of admins handling requests. Plenty of admins regularly look at AIV, and quite a few patrol recent changes, so active vandals usually get blocked reasonably quickly, but only a handful of admins seem to regularly answer RfPP requests and even fewer are willing to clear a backlog rather than just answer one or two requests. But one thing at a time—perhaps making the page easier to use will encourage more admins to pitch in... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Restructuring RfPP so it invites more admins to help out would be good but like you say, something for another proposal. tutterMouse (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, this page is the only area I get thanks' via echo on a regular basis for m work as administrator. For most of the other things, I typically do not get anything or get booed. This can be a good argument for attracting more admin power here.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. "Tired of being booed? Want appreciation for wielding the mop tirelessly? Come to RFPP where people will reward you with thanks merely for protecting and upto 80% less boos for general clerking! Why wait, come clear a perpetual backlog today!" tutterMouse (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Approximately like this.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I support both of these changes (no braces in the header, and new requests at the bottom). The template brackets in the section header are particularly annoying. It's understandable that templates in a header don't expand, but Mediawiki's behavior in this case is frustrating. (It should treat the unexpanded template brackets as pure text). We can't easily fix that, but we can stop putting braces in the header so that indexing into the section will work again. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I support removing templates from the headers, this should simplify things. I do not have a strong opinion on what should at the top and what should be at the bottom though I personally would prefer to have the oldest at the top - this makes them more visible, since at the bottom they are sandwiched between sections.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I always support anything that makes editing easier. Oz\^InterAct 09:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes to the second idea. As for the first I'm not really bothered where the new ones are listed. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 15:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Un-archived as there was support for this but it never reached a formal conclusion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

As there's been modest support and no opposition, I intend to implement this. I've spoken to Cyberpower678, who intends to modify the bot in the near future. I'll post updates as I have them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Modest support is about all we expect in this neglected part of the wiki, good to see it's going ahead. tutterMouse (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd support this as well. As the page stands now, sections often get added as I'm editing, resulting in my responses going to the wrong section. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Meh. Modest support, here, except: A highly visible counterexample would be WP:AFD, where new nominations go at the top. I don't mind either way, though. Putting new requests at the bottom probably makes things easier for archiving bots, perhaps, but I see no advantage to me as a human one way or the other. If I happen to be editing the bottom request and someone else adds a section, I end up with an edit conflict. But I agree with Jackmcbarn that it's more irritating to see your response go into the wrong section because someone added a new one at the top. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Please add instruction or link on how to identify the protecting admin of a protected article. This will help editors make the unprotect request to that specific admin before making the request here. 74.77.153.157 (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this, there's no instructions to tell people how to identify the protecting admin if they don't know how to find it and if you don't know how then being told you should isn't much help. Any input or someone looking to make up a help subpage? tutterMouse (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't it say when you try to edit an article? I see a giant pink note that says it's been semi-protected for example and when the protection was placed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Only if you have the rights to edit the page, so tuttermouse would be see the pink box for semi-protections but not for full protections. I've added a dot point which explains how to find the protecting admin. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

I am not formally asking for Taxi (2015 film) to be protected, I am just suggesting that responsible administrators begin keeping tabs on it. To explain, Jafar Panahi has a twenty year ban on making films in Iran, which recently has appeared to be unofficially ignored by the (somewhat) more liberal government (although there has been debate and criticism of western interpretations of his imprisonment that unfortunately is not currently reflected in his article). Anyway, his newest film Taxi is premiering at the 65th Berlin International Film Festival in a few hours. According to an article by Jean-Michel Frodon, the cast (and presumably the crew) are not listed in the credits. So, I am assuming that this means they are meant to remain anonymous for political reasons, regarding their own personal safety and well being. I am not suggesting censorship, but I would suggest that, if indeed only Panahi himself is listed in the film's credits, Wikipedia does not include any names on this article. I have not looked into any policies regarding this, but this seems to be a unique case that, for moral reasons, should be respected. This is just a suggestion and my two cents.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC) I am also asking this because I myself had previously added a sentence that could be interpreted as suggested a specific cast member, and to be honest I now feel badly about that, so I am aware of the fact that up to this point I am the only one who has added such questionable material to the article.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – attracts continously persistent vandalism due to the work cock. Hafspajen (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - Seems to pop up for a few edits once a month. Should be manageable without putting up a barrier to new and IP editors. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but a couple of vandalism per month that's what is called persistent vandalism, and should be quite enough. Hafspajen (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Also it looks to me that you denied most of the requests, like this one Arun (name) - and I don't understand why. Hafspajen (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• I don't understand why the above was declined. Hafspajen (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC).

• THIS WAS semiprotected before - by MusikAnimal and as soon the protection expired it started again. Hafspajen (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Could anyone please look at this again. Hafspajen (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I commented at the actual discussion in response to Hafspajen's request for someone to look at it again. What I said was: "I concur with Panyd's decision. I would also have declined. The earlier semiprotection was in response to a surge in vandalism, but since that protection expired the vandalism has been at a low/manageable level. (Note that I earlier approved a similar request for Cockney, where the level of vandalism was much higher and more persistent.) --MelanieN (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)" I welcome the opinions of other admins here, about the appropriate treatment of this kind of situation. --MelanieN (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

In that case could some other people kindly watchlist this article. I don't think it is watched enough. If you look for example somebody added big amounts of content with no references too, by simply puting the content in front of an old ref. This article needs to be watched by several editors if protection is denied. Pedling changes would also be welcomed. Hafspajen (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I configured pending changes for 6 months, this is exactly the situation when they should be useful.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I was worried for this one. Cluebot doesn't recognize when 'cock is added for some reason of its own.... Hafspajen (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Ymblanter, I learned something. --MelanieN (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I want the page protected, but the "Article" page where I ought to be placing my request is written in a foreign language, and I cannot figure out what I am supposed to do to make that report. The reason I want it protected is that I am fed up of having to remove stuff about taxidermy buffaloes that IP's and Alex fans have been inserting into the article for a long long time (years not months). Restricting editing was requested in the past, but I cannot remember why protection was refused. Comments? (not about my lack of wikiskill) please. Thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 19:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

My thanks to Marnette D who has filed my request, in less time than I took to write the above sentence I might add! -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 20:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I am not sure what you are talking about in regards to a foreign language Roxy the dog. Request for page protection are made on the main page here Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for increase in protection level. Compared to AFD's and the like the process is fairly straightforward. I have taken the liberty of filing the request for you. As I do not know the history of any problems in dealing with the article I can't say whether protection will occur or not. Please check on the request from time to time to see what the outcome is. FYI your post came before I could finish this Roxy so you will already have noticed some of what I mention. Cheers MarnetteD|Talk 20:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Marnette, and again thanks. When I wrote foreign, perhaps I should have written "I only want to ask for protection, but my 58 yr old eyes just glazed over at trying to figure out yet more complicated instructions here that include heiroglyphics that mean nothing to me, all I want is some page protection at Alex Hirsch. For background, he's a writer of TV shows of some sort, and has encouraged his fans to vandalise the page, by posting stuff at Redditt. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 20:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

This article was fully protected after several users and IPs engaged in content disputes. Since the protection, the show has progressed (airing three nights a week) and the current page does not reflect its cast members current positions in the show. This has brought the attention of several users and IPs who continue to take to the page and request that the article be updated in accordance to the show; one has tried reaching out to me on my talk page. I am not an admin but its been some time since the first request by an IP and currently no edits have been made, despite the general consensus. I understand that admins are not robots and cannot tackle a task right there and then but if anyone is wiling to help me and other readers who are very much invested in this show, can you please take a look and help us out? Thanks, jona^(talk) 19:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem with most of the requests is that they're basically entire article extensions and while it's helpful, it's not logical for any admin to blindly be able to replace the article with the requested version especially if they don't know anything about the show like was mentioned earlier on the talkpage. Anyway, if there's a content dispute, why is there little to no discussion regarding it? Lots of full article edit requests, very little discussion besides indignant fans angry they can't edit. tutterMouse (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but there is CloudKate's request that actually goes into detail about what should be updated; the rest of the requests have been hidden inside a collapsible template. Best, jona^(talk) 14:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

It is detailed but also seems to involve very heavy duty template work which most wouldn't be upto doing unless they were certain about their changes which they can't be. The issue I had was with entire page replacement requsts, a section such as a template or table is fine if you detail what changes you made and possibly provide the changes too if they're complex. Like I said though, I'm not convinced the editwar is over because there's no discussion to that end and the protection expires on Friday so I can't see the immediate need for edits to be made when conflicts haven't been resolved. tutterMouse (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Is there such thing as file creation protection, as in preventing particular file names from being created? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes we can prevent files being uploaded to a specific title and the file page itself being created. There is also the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Now how do you request for file creation protection? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Making a request on the project page of this talkpage, you can do it manually or use Twinkle and it'd be create protection you'd require. tutterMouse (talk) 06:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Noticed this message a few times: "Automated comment: This request has been formatted the old way. I have attempted to fix the request using the new formatting". Could someone please explain what it means/what the apparent "New Way" is? Joseph2302 (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

See one section up. That what was a test of Cyberbot's new script before deploying fully. The reason you may not be aware of it yet, is because it hasn't been published to the main page yet.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 23:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't there some proposed plan to change some things about RfPP?—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 13:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

There was but nothing came of it, it's still out there as an idea but just hasn't been implemented yet because nobody has done it nor has there really been any effort to make it happen either. Probably a good time to come up with what we mean to change and inform Twinkle's devs. tutterMouse (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm ready to make the necessary changes, but I don't remember what's I'm supposed to change.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 21:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the idea was to change header style from using {{lx}} and using whatever the title is with the {{lx}} on another line because the templates in header prevent anchor links working. Something for Phabricator I'd have thought but guess not, there was also something about going from newest top to newest bottom, I still question that as it sounds counter-intuitive but that's more an issue for Twinkle and other tools. Guess the code would be like this:

==== Article name ====
* '''{{lx|Article name}}'''

'''Protection''' Description here. ~~~~

I'm not sure when they plan to implement, whomever bothers to implement that is but yeah, that's the plan. Would have to make sure Twinkle's devs know, it's a fairly big change so I doubt it shouldn't happen without an RFC. I'll ping HJ Mitchell as the one who initiated it last time to see what could happen with this. tutterMouse (talk) 11:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

As long as the bot can cope with it, I can't see why we shouldn't make this change. Deryck C. 14:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The bot will most certainly crash if not updated to handle the changes.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 15:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

That's why I've been waiting on you, Cyberpower. The changes that were greed were the slight change to formatting mentioned by TutterMouse (to take the template out of section headers, which makes navigation easier) and to reverse the order of requests (newest at the bottom, oldest on top) which has various advantages for patrolling admins. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Before anything, I think it would be important to have it modified on Twinkle first. Twinkle is the most common method used to submit protection requests.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 00:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

That does seem best, other tools can adjust as and when the adoption rate goes up for the new format but my main issue isn't with the tools being able to use the new format but just making sure people know we changed the format and to follow it, need to consider non-admin patrollers who'd have to fix those malformed entries as well so they don't snarl up the bot. tutterMouse (talk) 05:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I could add subroutines to the bot that detects old format, and attempts to fix it, or otherwise leave a comment that it can't parse the request.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 11:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good mitigation to have the bot fix these requests, leaving a comment would be helpful too but there'll have to be a period when the bot will stop fixing old-style requests and just leaves notices without getting stuck. Who's maintaining Twinkle these days? They'll need a ping. tutterMouse (talk) 13:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

At last check it was User:Amalthea.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 14:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Mmk, Amalthea isn't as active these days but User:This, that and the other is. Huggle won't require many tweaks as it's all controlled from a config page anyway with parameters for what it posts and where in the section so shouldn't be more than one edit for that. tutterMouse (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I asked at WT:TW a while ago an was assured that the change of format could be incorporated into Twinkle without too much difficulty, so we just need to coordinate everything so that everything changes at the same time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as I said here, it should be do-able within Twinkle. The main issue is one of co-ordination. A suggestion could be to have some kind of special comment on the page (like <!-- RFPP OLD STYLE -->), which would instruct automated tools like Twinkle to continue to use the old RFPP posting style; when all tools have been updated to work with the new style, the comment would then be removed, giving tools the signal to start using the new style. Subsequent to that, the code for the old style would be removed from Twinkle et al. (For reference: Here was the original discussion on this topic.) — This, that and the other (talk) 05:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good, just need to implement it this time, when do we do that? tutterMouse (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll work on changing the formatting on the bot tomorrow, and the subroutines to convert old format to new format.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 18:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Will need to change the header information to reflect the new format, I could do that tomorrow too unless someone else wants to do it. tutterMouse (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, sandboxed revision here, feel free to make tweaks if any. tutterMouse (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

 Doing...—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 12:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Testing...—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 22:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I have, what I believe to be, a bug-free source code ready for deployment, except for that labs had to get more restrictive on security and now I can't get in to manage my own bots, and xtools. Grrr.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 23:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

[Committed changes] waiting to be deployed.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 00:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

•  Done I have deployed the code.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 02:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, all good, hopefully people won't abuse bullet points because they're everywhere now and it looks a little sparse right now, might consider moving the headers upto lv3 for added prominence seeing as they were at lv4 because of the horizontal space they took up before. tutterMouse (talk) 06:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Just considering the implications of changing this and people being annoyed no consultation was made and out of process and whatever, do we announce the change at WP:AN or is it too minor to bother with? tutterMouse (talk) 06:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Why would it be out of process. People that are part of the RfPP process had time to respond here. The consensus was pro change. Honestly, it's just a formatting change. We're not changing the entire process. And I'm traveling today, so I can't get to those until very later.—^cyberpower_Chat:Offline 08:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Eh, just waiting for someone to say it, they might not and everything will run as usual because we did consult twice, people got involved and it was a minor change. I mean I don't think it's a big deal but someone else might. We'll deal with it should anyone complain. The changes can wait, no rush as usual. tutterMouse (talk) 08:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: Amazing work! Thanks for implementing the changes and updating your bot. Deryck C. 09:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• I have now upgraded section headers to level 3. The advantages of having internet on the coach bus. :p—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 12:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
• I have updated Twinkle's code to adapt to the new style. (I chose to consistently use the {{pagelinks}} template under the header, as it just seems easier that way.) I've asked Amalthea to perform a code sync, so Twinkle will start posting using level 3 headers et al. relatively soon. — This, that and the other (talk) 12:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)Why have you switched to page links. :| Give cyberbot something to do. :p—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 13:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• I know I should be more careful not to jinx anything by saying "well done" until all bugs are sorted out, but... well done. This is a definite improvement that will make things better, simpler, and more intuitive, which to be honest is a pretty rare thing to happen on WP. I haven't looked closely to see who was the driving force behind this idea, nor who beside Cyberpower and TTATO and Amalthea were involved in implementing it, so this general hat tip will have to suffice. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Cyberpower just brought it back up, HJ Mitchell brought the initial proposal, TTATO and Amalthea are just keeping up with the changes implemented and I just floated around the edges for most of the time but could be said to have the most minor of roles. tutterMouse (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Thank you and allow me to distribute the credit appropriately for you. @HJ Mitchell: is the initial proposer of this change, while @TutterMouse: coordinated and delegated to get it moving smoothly. I am the maintainer of Cyberbot I which clerks RfPP and am the driving force behind the updates to it, while @This, that and the other: is the driver force to updating Twinkle. While other software, like Huggle will need to be update to accommodate the new change, Cyberbot I will be there to convert the format for those that are still submitting the old way. Also, I spent all day yesterday modifying and testing Cyberbot before deploying. The scripts should be bug free.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 13:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• I think it would be nice to take this opportunity to get rid of the enormous table of linking templates and just advise manual posters to use {{pagelinks}}. This would simplify the process for those who choose to post manually. What do you think? — This, that and the other (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be easier, guess if we're simplifying the process then we should go as far as we can. tutterMouse (talk) 06:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've done it. — This, that and the other (talk) 05:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Submitting an Edit Request didn’t seem to work, so I’ll try this approach as suggested in the guidance.

On the page: Help:Editing

The paragraph headed: === Edit screen(s) === contains the text: “This will take you to a new page with containing the editable contents”

I suggest removing the word “with”.

Sorry, I'm new to this. I hope I've submitted this in an appropriate way.

Regards, Nottooclose (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)Rob 23-May-2015

It's not the right place but I did edit the page for you. tutterMouse (talk) 10:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to the awesome maintenance of toollabs, my bot died from a bug and I can't restart it with the fixed code. I will temporarily being running the code from computer.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 11:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

How many bots does this affect? Just yours? Those running on Peachy or PHP? I don't know why I expect you to know this stuff, does explain why CitationBot wasn't doing my bidding today. tutterMouse (talk) 12:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Mine crashed from a bug I introduced into the script to manage RfPP, but I hear that the outage has crashed many bot tasks at random. It seems my bot scripts, except RfPPBot, which I am running locally on my computer for the time being, are still functional.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 13:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

So you crashed many of the bots on Labs, I see. tutterMouse (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

:p Yep. Right. That's what happened. :p—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 13:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no reason to believe otherwise, you rebel. tutterMouse (talk) 14:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

You uncovered my dark secret. Now I shall unleash Skynet. :p—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 14:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Secret? Thought it was well known... ah well, I'll keep your future thing with en.wiki's equivalent of the Agony Box secret, just don't unleash Skynet. Knowing how things are it'll probably fall to Earth moments after going online and crush a village. tutterMouse (talk) 16:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Back up an running autonomously, on Labs now.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 20:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Fine, just don't mess it up with your attempts on world domination through malevolent AI constructs working as humble clerking bots. tutterMouse (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Fine. How can you expect me to do my job when keep tying my hands behind my back? :p—^cyberpower_Chat:Offline 08:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello RfPPers. This morning a serious bug surfaced in Cyberbot which started to cause it to blank pages. To make matters worse the bug is completely undetectable, as a trial run revealed Cyberbot working perfectly. I have eliminated a data communication error as Cyberbot was still clearly able to process the requests but somehow posted a blank page. Logs are for some reason wiped so I can't use them either, and another bug that was brought up on my talk page is also undetectable.

All I have I have right now are 2 unexplainable phenomena, that are causing completely random, and chaotic results, which is never something a programmer wants to hear, witness, or bear news to. I have some ideas, but I would like to recreate exactly the scenario that Cyberbot to malfunction and see if I can find the bug then. This will however require me to hog the RfPP page for an hour or two as I run tests on it.

I would like to request template protection on the page for a max of 2 hours and grant my bot template editor rights temporarily.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 06:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

For the last several hours today I experience various connection issues to wikipedia, but there were also some oddities yesterday. Sometimes I had unusual access-error messages, otherwise just slow access and weird things like I had to refresh a page to see a section that I just posted. I have no idea which part of my connection to wikipedia is glitching, but if it is in the mediawiki servers, could this explain problems with your bot? Materialscientist (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It could possibly explain it but it's not certain. If it were random access errors, other parts of the bot would be affected too, and it wouldn't keep happening in succession once it started. I did notice a bug like that this morning, when I posted, I had to purge the page to reveal it. There is however the other unexplained bug where the bot is randomly removing individual requests. I haven't been able to trace that either. My best bet to get some answers is to hog RfPP for a bit to see if I can replicate the 2 bugs.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 06:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I am a newbie in these matters, but I had a feeling that such removals might happen because the bot received erroneous latest version of a page from wikimedia servers, and the servers didn't detect an edit conflict, i.e., the bot didn't notice recent changes to the page (you don't have to answer this rumbling). Materialscientist (talk) 07:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I would've suspected erroneous data too, but the bot was able to successfully spout in the edit how many requests were pending and how many were being archived.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 07:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: Done. You've got two hours... — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• I found the first bug. :-) Definitely would never have noticed hadn't I recreated the scenario.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 07:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
•  Fixed I have found 3 different bugs when recreating the scenarios and have fixed them all. Cyberbot should no longer blank pages. Thanks for letting me have RFPP for 2 hours.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 09:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

  You're welcome. :) I've removed Cyberbot I's template editor rights - glad to hear that it all worked out. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The instructions on the page say to add new items to the Bottom of the list, but the edit notice says to add to the Top of the page. Can someone make them consistent? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, the rule has changed to the bottom of the list. We literally just changed this up and may have forgotten an end or two. :-)—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 19:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

And it hasn't changed yet because the editnotice is template protected, slightly over-zealous but nonetheless we'd need an admin or someone with TE rights to change it. tutterMouse (talk) 10:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm a TE. Can you give me a link?—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 12:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind. I found it rather easily and made the change.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 14:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Great, been away so wasn't able to come back with a link when you asked, sorry. tutterMouse (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Just curious & with a ;-) : I have put my request at the bottom, and later all others were added above. Now I'm still waiting. Is that a way to jump the queue, or do handling admins have to get used to the change too? ;-) -DePiep (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Kinda but no, more like people have to follow the damned instructions already! That or get Cyberbot I to resort requests based on the age of the request, descending from oldest to newest. tutterMouse (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear. :p—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 19:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds bad. What did or didn't happen? tutterMouse (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

(ec)Well, I could have started a subsection for my loose-talking part. (btw, I asked for a template space change, which explains the delay more logically). I'm fine. Next: I'd never want to address a wiki-editors problem with "follow the damned instructions", but hey this might be me missing the subtlety. -DePiep (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Aside from Cyberbot I, most of this is coming from Twinkle still putting new requests at the top. Majority are from TW so most end up in the wrong order, feel free to code in sorting should you want to (or barring something that's worthy of a :P-type "oh dear") C678. tutterMouse (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I suppose I'll have to implement bottom-posting in the Twinkle RPP module, won't I?... It's somewhat non-trivial, I'll have to figure out a good way to make it work. But it should be possible. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't get how it's non-trivial though. Obviously twinkle is able to filter out the needed section to post to and pre-pend the request. How much harder could it be to set it to append the request? I could be missing something big though. JS isn't my specialty.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 11:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, TTO did say "somewhat"... tutterMouse (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Adding a sorting mechanism is non-trivial, but should be easy enough to do, given the existing code in the script. That's why I jokingly said "Oh dear. :p" :-)—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 11:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh... okay! Should get on that along with pinging protecting admins should they have forgotten to protect, I know that idea's been sitting around a little while. tutterMouse (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Well I just ran my first test and completely wiped out RfPP as a result. :p Oops.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 14:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Second test was slightly better at least, only got a section header buried in the middle of a request so making progress! tutterMouse (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I added a sorter and squished some more bugs. I will work on the pinging part later. I'm headed out to dinner.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 16:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Added pinging, and squished some more bugs.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 22:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@TutterMouse: Reported this to the Twinkle developers: [5] Gparyani (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

That's good but like you were told at Github, it's been fixed for around a week, just that Amalthea hasn't committed it so it'd be in the live version yet. No, I'm not sure what the holdup is on that. tutterMouse (talk) 06:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there a link to the consensus to move new items to the bottom? Curious what the rationale was. Having just posted to the top out of habit, I imagine lot of people will not be reading the new boilerplate text.—Bagumba (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

They will eventually, if not the bot is resorting the ones which aren't anyway and Twinkle has been updated to post at the bottom, the rationale was to expose older requests to any passing admin to handle so they didn't end up ignored by newer requests which happened frequently with some sitting around for upto three days. The header change was to facilitate linking to a given section because anchored linking didn't work if a template was inside a header. Previous discussion for this is above following from this older discussion. tutterMouse (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Good luck!—Bagumba (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if there is any way to unsalt a create protection? Qwertyxp2000 (talk - contributions) 03:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Same way as it instructs you to, add a request under "Current requests for reduction in protection level" for whatever article name requires unsalting. Also, it's best if there's a draft ready to go in there as usually create protection is for non-notable subjects and there's no point in unprotection without knowing what'll go there instead. tutterMouse (talk) 06:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Another way is to absorb the salt by creating the page, thereby removing the protection. :p—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 11:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, just move the draft page over to mainspace, and the protection goes away. GedUK  11:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

If RFPP is ever semi-protected and some IPs want to request, why isn't it that there is ever a link leading to the talk page of RFPP, rather than the main project page itself? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 20:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

If you're a non-admin? It seems like the only way for me to know is that if I click on a red link, it doesn't give me the option of immediately creating the page myself. Which is a pretty indirect way, relying on deduction rather than a straightforward message or banner.

Is there some other way to know? Thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Shawn in Montreal, I have a script (or a setting) that shows a pale blue padlock beside the redlink if the page is salted. I can't remember what it is or where it is set, but I will see if I can find it.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The one I use is User:Anomie/linkclassifier, which also colours redirects and DAB pages, and pages nominated for deletion, and fair use images different colours. I like it, but others don't. It's also customizable (although I don't know how to), so you could turn off everything other than the protection marking. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

That's kind of you. Unfortunately, I don't know how to install scripts, though. The wiki has been improved so much in terms of new features and I've got to think that at some point the someone will come up with a banner or notice of some kind that clearly states what the protection is on a non-created page, for all to see? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem, if you wanted to try it I can help you out (including turning off everything but salted pages). Currently the only stock way to do it is to click on the actual link and see if protection has been applied. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course. And I see that there is such a notice. I'd recommend that the phrase "This page is protected from creation" be bolded with a piped link to the RPP project, perhaps. We do have other such bolded piped links on the automated message that displays on a protected page -- and this does seem to be important. Where would be the best forum to make or discuss such a recommendation? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Probably one of the village pumps. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

What can I do about the unfounded abuse and complaints im copping on my user talk page User talk:Simione001? Simione001 (talk) 05:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Simione001, I have protected your talk page for 24 hours. I looked at performing a rangeblock, but it appears that the collateral is too great. Hopefully this will resolve the problem, Tiptoety ^talk 05:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. But this has been going on for months. This individual will just come back and do it again when it expires. Simione001 (talk) 06:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Protection can be re-applied for a longer duration next time. We tend to not take preemptive administrative actions, so lets give the limited duration protection a chance. Tiptoety ^talk 06:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

My user page is now being vandalised User:Simione001. Simione001 (talk) 07:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you want it indefinitely protected? Tiptoety ^talk 07:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, i think that's necessary. Simione001 (talk) 08:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

My talk page is being vandalised again. Need protection please. Simione001 (talk) 09:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Could speak with Tiptoety on his talkpage if you want, sure he'd be fine with protecting your talkpage for a little longer. tutterMouse (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The first sentence on the Bedouin page from claims they are an "ethnocultural" group - something which is synonymous with ethnoreligious group (which wasn't linked originally). This is grossly inaccurate in describing the Bedouin (IMO), so I edited it to read they are an ethnic group, with the corresponding link. I also started a section to discuss this in the Talk page. My edit wasreverted without any engagement from the editor in the Talk page. I fear this may lead to an edit war, so can I please ask for help and advice from Wikipedia administrators on how to get the editor to engage in discussions rather than just editting the article as they please. This is the edit in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bedouin&diff=673379371&oldid=673378767 May thanks for your time and help. SaSH172 (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@Nabuchadnessar: This sounds like a content dispute to me so you may have better luck in resolving this at dispute resolution. tutterMouse (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I am requesting someone to add a reduction of protection level to semi on Template:Notability essay for me. Because the page is semi-protected I cannot add it myself. 189.106.231.36 (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I've unprotected that template. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I've been automatically dropping full protection down to template editor protection upon request if the full protection was done before 2013 and there's nothing in the logs that indicate full protection is necessary. I've been doing this under the reasonable assumption that the template editor right did not exist or was little known before then. Thoughts? Pinging CambridgeBayWeather, Alakzi. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree, did one myself yesterday.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

My thought is that I am disappointed you didn't ping me too. Seriously though, I think this is a good idea. Maybe even have a bot do it?—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 03:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

You'll have to exclude some such as genuinely high-risk high use interface templates so we probably could do with a baseline transclusion count where past a certain limit it won't downgrade protection. tutterMouse (talk) 12:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The current instructions at the top of the 'Current requests for reduction in protection level' currently say:

Please post requests in this section for removing or reducing the protection level of a page if the protecting admin is inactive or you have already asked them.

I'm wondering if this wording is really necessary. Shouldn't it be some version of the above, plus:

Please post requests in this section for removing or reducing the protection level of a page if the protecting admin is inactive or you have already asked them – otherwise, be sure to 'ping' the protecting admin in your request here. (or words to that effect...)

Wouldn't that be just as effective? Why is going to the protecting Admin, sometimes years later (in the case of "unsalting" requests), better than asking here, while 'pinging' the original protecting Admin along with the request?... Thoughts? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@IJBall: Sorry for only seeing this a month on from the request. We should ask people to ping admins in question but you wouldn't need to if you asked already, the protecting admin has some responsibility for their protection and may be able to assess it better, it's an anti-bureaucracy thing and prevents admins stepping on toes. tutterMouse (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

We now have, "All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of Pending Changes, and appropriate edit filters." I'm thinking that until a better solution is put in place, this means any protection requests that fall under this remedy should be automatically indefinitely semi-protected. Thoughts? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

A "superautoconfirmed" user group would be ideal, for performance reasons and given this editing restriction appears to be becoming more common on this wiki. However the edit filter will work just as well. We had a lot of discussion on introducing a template system for this, where we'd add something like {{User:MusikAnimal/pp-30-500}} to an article or talk page (passing it |small=yes will turn it into a padlock icon), and the filter would look for that to enforce the editing restriction. More info on this at User talk:SpacemanSpiff/Archives/2015/October#Your AE request about 500/30. An additional filter would ensure only admins can add/remove the template. — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @MusikAnimal: If the 500/30 restriction is going to be the new standard for "at wit's end" remedies then a new user group would probably be the best way to go. I feel like that would result in the minimal amount of issues and work for all the editors involved in those articles. It may also be better to add a different colored lock icon to the pages affected. A different color would mark the page as different from a regular semi-protection and draw attention the minute you load the page. --Stabila711 (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I agree, just wanted to say it is possible to replicate this behaviour using edit filers. We discussed the colour ended up deciding on a jet blue (see here). — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

"We discussed the colour ended up deciding on a jet blue..." All right, this made me laugh. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh I like that. It took me a second to get it to come up (you have to use both active=yes and small=yes to get it to work). The blue lock also links to WP:AC/DS so any curious person can see what it means. It is different from all the other locks and should draw attention. Nice. --Stabila711 (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I think for time being (at least until a new usergroup has been created) we need indeed to semiprotect all the affected articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

As the remedy refers to "any page", how do editors feel about talk pages? My inclination is to initially leave them alone but semi-protect liberally if needed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Is this remedy supposed to stop edit semi-protected requests as well? I understand that the disruption has been ongoing for a long time but protecting the talk pages right out of the gate seems like a little much (unless ArbCom specifically says that is how it should be). We allow ESp requests on normal semi-protected articles, I don't see why this should be any different unless there is ongoing disruption. --Stabila711 (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Stabila711, the 500/30 on GamerGate included the talk page as well. Arbcom is usually careful to specify "articles" or "pages". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not think we should semi-protect talk pages. If editors behave disruptively, we have other means to stop this.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

My gut feeling is that individual talk pages may be semi-protected if the need arises as determined by editors at the talk page (unless there is consensus against, an uninvolved admin may add it for any period either at their discretion or if they agree with a request made by one or more editors who meet the 500/30 requirement). I don't think talk pages should be semi-protected as a matter of routine though. Thryduulf (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but even though below may be in the wrong place, I do not know how to do edit requests to an article if the article page and the talk page are protected.

{{Edit protected|Jesusian}} Add {{pp-protected}} to Jesusian. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 08:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea who's asking what here but yes, if both the article and talkpage are protected where you can't edit them then an edit request can be made at the "Current requests for edits to a protected page" section on RFPP. tutterMouse (talk) 10:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I too am confused, will tb Qwertyxp2000 -- samtar ^whisper 10:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@TutterMouse: Okay, how exactly do I make an edit request for a protected article that also has its talk page protected? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 19:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

As I suggested, make an edit request at the "Current requests for edits to a protected page" section on RFPP. You won't need to use the {{edit protected}} template and can be requested like any protection request but with what edit you want made. tutterMouse (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh. That is good news. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 19:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Qwertyxp2000 (talk · contribs) has created a new parameter "cpif" with a shortcut "pf". The bot will not yet acknowledge it but I thought I should point it out. See Template:RFPP for more info.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 14:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Currently, what I had put in says "No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time" (which fortunately was an improved version of my previous reason description). My original description was once "Current protection is fine", hence the "cpif" (current protection is fine) and "pf" (protection fine). Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 06:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Recently, more parameters have been added but given it's at a point in time none of C678's bots can be maintained any changes so far should be reverted so we don't have the bot ignoring them when they're used. tutterMouse (talk) 06:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't have an absolute specific target for my new parameter, but I do say that you can use it for if there is renewal of protection, such as renewal of pending changes or some pre-emptive indefinate pendings. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 22:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (Shiran Sendel is a famous actress and model,

you can see her on galis i dont think this page shold be deleted!) --Shavivbar

(talk) 09:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC) And I also want to return all the information that was registered there.

plz Answer quickly

Thanks

Bar Shaviv — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shavivbar (talk • contribs) 10:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Shavivbar, I am sorry, but this is not the right place to place speedy deletions. By the way, you may like to read this page to find out why your submission was deleted. If you really think Shiran Sendel is famous, then please try to give evidence to the reader why she is significant, rather than just simply descriptions about her. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 22:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Katie says I shouldn't have to worry about pages pending changes and shouldn't request renewals anymore. However, who else will? If not for me, administrators wouldn't have noticed. I often request renewals at user talk pages, although occasionally, I ask such requests. But I have to check frequency of editing and reverts before I do so. Can someone else make certain requests if I can no longer frequent in Wikipedia? --George Ho (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I did not say to stop requesting renewals. You can continue to do that, but you're rarely getting those requests granted these days, so perhaps it's time you reassessed your thinking about your process. It's causing big backlogs at RFPP, too, which causes admin eyes to glaze over and move on from addressing the long lists of tasks to be done.

What I actually said was to stop worrying so much about expiring protections. It's the nature of a wiki to have a certain amount of vandalism. The TFA is almost never protected and it's vandalized dozens of times a day. Take a look right now at the history of today's TFA, Freedom of Worship (painting). There are lots of eyes on it and the vandalism/disruption is reverted quickly, and there's no harm. I simply want you to step back from your dramatic language of "pages are at stake" and so forth and understand that this is the way the whole thing is supposed to work, and that it's all going to be okay. Katie^talk 18:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

No part of Wikipedia is a toy (except the sandbox). RFPP is not the toy where you can make the game to extend pending changes as long as possible, and then seeing out those pretty effects from the positive-looking green plus symbol, or whatever. Instead, RFPP should be used in a manner when there is truly a large amount of vandalism or disruptive editing, not to play your silly game of renewing as many pending change protected articles as possible. Please take your time to make your requests as quality as possible, making the most quality reasons (not just "Oh <admin> is not here. Renew this article") and cut down the number of requests by trimming those requests that do not have enough quality evidence for renewal of pending changes protection. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 09:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I thought low frequency is enough to enable pending changes. What is minimum amount of frequency enough for PC or renewed PC? George Ho (talk) 06:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I would recommend a large steady stream of vandalism. By the way, whenever requesting PC or any other request for protection, always add a good reason. Good reasons, other than the admin being away, which you already were doing before, include providing evidence of a steady line of reverting vandalism, particular significant vandalism issues (such as a suppression of an edit), and the trends along the time of pending changes or whatever protection. In the January 5th 2016 archive, I had re-written some of your requests that were declined by Beeblebrox. By the way, with that "low frequency is enough to enable pending changes", yes but you must state the fact that "the article is infrequently edited but has a long history of vandalism", or whatever issue (such as general disruptive editing, unsourced/poorly sourced content, NPOV or COI issues, or whatever). Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 08:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Minimum amount of frequency? My rule of thumb is to see the history of the article and see if the last 50 edits have a gap of fewer than 6 months, or the last 100 edits having a gap of fewer than 12 months if you'd like, and if the gap between the latest and the 50th-to-latest revision is not too large then pending changes would be all right. You can adjust my rule of thumb to your standards if you'd like, but my rule of thumb is just my standard. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 08:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It appears that from every single request since 8 Jan 2016 has been much more convincing. Well done George Ho for making convincing requests! :) Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 22:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Is is possible to request a per-page range block? (so that an IP-range cannot edit specific pages, instead of all of Wikipedia) -- this would seem to be better than semi-protection, and less workload than pending-changes -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 05:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

No, this is not possible.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

It is possible, but I don't think the community is fond of the method for this kind of situation. Sam Walton (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

This may have a problem with the legitimately good-faith users who happen to live in a bad-faith-contaminated area. This may cause too much issues for the IP block exemption, including the large numbers of pingings of "Can you please have IP exemption? ... (plus the reasonable reasons)" or similar type requests. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 08:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Another reason we don't do that kind of blocks is that it opens the way for geopolitical partisan warriorship on sensitive topics. Deryck C. 16:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Please see the first paragraph of this edit. The edit request itself is now moot, so I've deleted it, but the part about being sent off to find instructions that don't exist still applies. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The instructions do exist, it's telling you to go to the top where instructions on how to format your request for bots and clerks to read them like you read. They apply equally to protection, unprotection and edit requests but it didn't state that so I've reworded it a little to help clarify the scope of the instructions. tutterMouse (talk) 07:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

What should I do if an administrator has edit warred and then prevented IPs editing Pall Mall, London after he has inserted his own version. The edit he has inserted reads "The street was developed during the reign of Charles II and became a fashionable London residence with several grand houses." I have told him twice that a street is not a residence and a more appropriate version would be either "a fashionable London address" or "Pall Mall became a fashionable residential street". I don't wish to register, I have never knowingly made any articles I have edited worse and in several years have never been involved with an edit war until now. The definition of residence is not a street. 94.196.211.94 (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

There are many pages in Wikipedia that are not protected, despite frequent vandalism during the last several months. One of them is the Cougar article, which has been frequently vandalized during March and April 2016. Can we obtain some reliable statistics about the frequency of reverted IP edits for each article? Jarble (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Note that now we have an option of protecting a page such that it could be edited by extended confirmed users. I guess we can not use it without holding an RfC first, but this is smth to think about.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

We won't be able to use it anyway until both the bot and Twinkle work with the new template parameters, probably even Response Helper. It's a new level of userright though so we should make sure we have accommodations for it, pinging This, that and the other, Cyberpower678 and MusikAnimal for input. tutterMouse (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I need some clarification on this, when you say admins now have the option of protecting to the level of extended autoconfirmed (like 3/4 protected) then any admin can add it to any page like the other protection levels? WP:PP says that this "300/50" user right protection level is usually only used for contentious article and handed down by Arbcom, any info you can point me to regarding the full ins and outs of the right and who can apply it? tutterMouse (talk) 06:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I did not try, but it shows up as an option, I guess technically I could have applied to the articles I protected earlier today.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes. it works...tried it on my userpage for 2 seconds :). Lectonar (talk) 07:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

It has now been added to the protection policy page, and it is quite clear that it can only be used "..when authorized by the Arbitration Committee....". Although I think it might prove quite helpful for all protection requests. so would opt to extend its use for all pages. And I still am a friend of pending-changes level 2. Lectonar (talk) 07:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I think sometimes the option could be useful, we may think about holding an RfC on it.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd welcome an RfC on it but I can also see why it's been implemented like it has. tutterMouse (talk) 08:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

This is only to be used on topics authorized by ArbCom to be under 30/500 protection. However new pages clearly falling under these topics will be created, and we need a way for users to request protection. It's the responsibility of the admin to verify the page qualifies, and if they are unsure, simply defer the request or ask at WP:AN. I'll update Twinkle to support the new level of production, and will make it clear to the user that this is only for authorized topics, which perhaps we might want to list out — MusikAnimal ^talk 14:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, I'm in full support of an RfC about expanding the new protection for general use. For now we'll stick with why it was created. I'll write back here when I have some Twinkle work done — MusikAnimal ^talk 14:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Concur that the RfC close clearly includes significant limits on implementation of the 30/500 page protection. Appreciate & thank MusikAnimal for the work making sure that the tools call out those limits. Note that, AFAIAA, so far, the single topic space authorised for individual admin application of the restriction is the Arab-Israeli conflict. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: is it now OK to change pages with the template and semi-protection (plus the filter) to extended protection? BethNaught (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

That RfC close notably has an "or the community" in the title - however excludes using RFPP to enact it; I think that using it by the community may be OK but needs a better explanation for how the community would go about implementing it. I see this akin to topic bans that can be placed by the community - so perhaps ANI? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually Gamergate controversy and several caste-related articles also have 500/30 protection (enforced by an edit filter in the GG case and by undoing edits in the caste articles). These articles had the editing restriction imposed at AE so I assume that "community approved" applies to that noticeboard. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

At any point of time, you should be able to use WP:DSLOG to figure out which pages have had 500/30 explicitly applied to them. The Gamergate 500/30 comes from an individual administrator acting under WP:AC/DS back in May 2015. There doesn't seem to be a requirement that Arbcom give individual approvals to cases where 500/30 restrictions are allowed. ARBPIA has a 'blanket' 500/30 issued directly from Arbcom, but the committee didn't specify how to enforce it on individual pages. If the community wants to apply its own 500/30s independent of Arbcom, they need to determine how to do that. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Ditto to Ed. We need broader discussion on when exactly this protection is appropriate. I recommend we not add anything to RFPP or Twinkle just yet — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Can we please get 30/500 into the template and script infrastructure? People are requesting semi-protection when they mean 30/500 and it's a bit shambolic. I notice that Twinkle has been updated though - nice work on the scary warnings. BethNaught (talk) 07:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

  Just gonna poke Cyberpower678 about the addition of ec and excp to the template, hope we can eventually find a better name than "30/500" for it but I'm using extended confirmed protected for now. tutterMouse (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

  These requests usually come at bad timing. I have currently almost completely suspended bot maintenance and limiting myself to emergency maintenance, for the next two weeks, as I wrap up my final semester.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 16:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I do have a habit of picking you to do something right when you're busy or unable to do bot maintenance. I doubt there'll be many requests in the next two weeks or however long you might be unable to handle this request given the limitations of how the protection is used and as usual, we opt for as minimal as possible an application. Admins will just have to use {{RFPP|done}} until then. tutterMouse (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• If there is work being done to include this new protection level in coded tools, could we please ensure that it is clear to the admin that the new protection level is not approved for general use. At this stage, it can only be used discretionarily^ in the WP:ARBPIA topic space. ^ I know that's not really a word; but if it's good enough for The Bard ... - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

It hasn't been implemented anywhere like Twinkle yet but it is available when protecting for admins. Not being an admin, I can't really tell you if it warns any admin regarding the scope that it has. Personally, I wouldn't want to see it being limited for too long as it is a very effective protection level for articles with a specific type of vandalism and if anything limiting it to articles under DS is regressive. tutterMouse (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Has the rolling archive been changed from seven days to one day, or is it just a glitch that there is currently only one day (May 1) in the archive? --MelanieN (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it was a glitch, would need to talk to Cyberpower678 about any bugs like that. tutterMouse (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hannah Huston-somehow this got recreated despite being salted earlier today. Wgolf (talk) 01:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Wgolf: It looks like Ymblanter create protected it but mistakenly requiring (auto)confirmed instead of sysop. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

No, it was not a mistake, I usually believe that if auticonfirmed users start to misbehave to such an extent that protection is needed they should be blocked (with the exception of edit-warring). However, I am fine with the indefinite full create protection.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot I completely messed up the formatting of the outstanding requests. I misread the cause and over-reverted a little. I have written to the editors concerned to ask that they resubmit. I have also written to the bot [!] --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

where how do I request that a page be unprotected?68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

First, you should contact the admin who placed the page protection and ask them to reduce the protection level. If they're inactive or don't respond, then you can post a request at WP:RFUP. clpo13_(talk) 16:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Global Terrorism Index's table is often being vandalized by IP addresses who are changing its content almost everyday. If it's possible to protect only the section that contains the table, please do it. Faltur (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, unfortunately the table is a part of the article itself so we would be unable to protect only the table. Thanks, Nakon 04:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)