Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Quit it bot

@Cyberpower678: please stop your bot from reverting my improvements to the headers. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

example. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd page-block this bot for edit warring with a human - but it looks like the crippled tool workflow mentioned in the above section is reliant on this bot making edits so it would likely be a net-loss. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Xaosflux, That page is no longer meant to be edited so it's using a predefined template and enforcing that. If you need changes made, you should probably make them, and point me to the changes so I can implement them. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 17:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Changes implemented. Cyberbot should restore your modifications shortly.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 17:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 18:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Gap in archive repaired

A gap in Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2021/07 has been repaired manually, but the page is too large to double-check my work. July 15 and part of July 16 was missing. The missing page Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2013/10 still hasn't been created, despite sittting at WP:BOTREQ for over 2 weeks. And we should really considder splitting the archives further by day — Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2021/01, for example, is over 1.6 MB. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Twinkle is unable to find the correct place to insert new RPPs

Twinkle is producing the following error when users try to make a RPP: Wikipedia:Twinkle/Fixing RPP. ––FormalDude ^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 05:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually it is Twinkle that needs updating.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 05:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd noticed that when I was requesting protection onto the associate project page, the bot removed entries of mine and moved them to the appropriate subpage even though I used Twinkle. I see I am definitely the only one which has not had this situation however this was the first time for ages I used Twinkle to request protection to certain pages. How strange... Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Bad requests...redux

Seems we are getting more and more of these malformed requests for edits to a protected page...I can see that the subpages, in contrary to the main Requests for protection page, are not protected. I am not a tech-whizz, but: would protecting them solve the actual problem before a technical solution can be found? Lectonar (talk) 11:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Twinkle is unable to find the correct place to insert new RPPs

Twinkle is producing the following error when users try to make a RPP: Wikipedia:Twinkle/Fixing RPP. ––FormalDude ^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 05:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually it is Twinkle that needs updating.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 05:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd noticed that when I was requesting protection onto the associate project page, the bot removed entries of mine and moved them to the appropriate subpage even though I used Twinkle. I see I am definitely the only one which has not had this situation however this was the first time for ages I used Twinkle to request protection to certain pages. How strange... Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Bad requests...redux

Seems we are getting more and more of these malformed requests for edits to a protected page...I can see that the subpages, in contrary to the main Requests for protection page, are not protected. I am not a tech-whizz, but: would protecting them solve the actual problem before a technical solution can be found? Lectonar (talk) 11:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Tool workflows all broken?

So it looks like there are a high-use tools that were not updated to follow the new format - requiring constant bot clerking here? Is someone following up on this, because this is a very poor workflow. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Most visibly, Wikipedia:Twinkle - but also at least Wikipedia:RedWarn. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• @ToBeFree: (looks like who initiated the new system). — xaosflux ^Talk 16:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Xaosflux, no, yes, well. For Twinkle, I'm waiting for someone to merge a pull request ([1]). I didn't think about RedWarn, though; it also simply didn't exist when the proposal was made. I have requested an update at Special:Diff/1035964634 now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Amorymeltzer: it looks like this is normally you (?) - if so is this on your radar? — xaosflux ^Talk 18:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm well aware, yes, but I stepped away from all Twinkle development earlier this year and decidedly won't be making any changes. Your best bet is MusikAnimal, though I hate to drag him into it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

There's an open pull request that I can try to review soon, but like Amorymeltzer I'm mostly not that active with Twinkle these days. I'm certainly around to help with deployment, if I can get some help with code review and testing. SD0001 more or less took over as lead maintainer, perhaps he is available?

With all due respect to everyone involved, I think it was a bad idea to move forward with the new system without coordinating with Twinkle devs first, given Twinkle is the main avenue for reporting to RFPP. — MusikAnimal ^talk 13:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

MusikAnimal, I issued a hot fix directly to the gadget a moment ago that gets Twinkle going again until the devs can review the pull request. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 10:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi MusikAnimal. FWIW there's a new dev script (`npm start`) that may simplify testing. My interest in maintaining Twinkle has been thoroughly depleted for reasons you're familiar with. It needs a new maintainer. – SD0001 (talk) 07:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll see if I can try reading through the code base, but no guarantees... Enterprisey (talk!) 08:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Bad requests

The new workflow seems to be resulting in more malformed requests, esp at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Decrease. Perhaps an edit filter for this page to stop publishing if "example page" is being requested? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Requested at Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#Blank_RfPP_requests on 31 July 2021 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I have quite boldly implemented a new JavaScript form for the "Increase" side. If it looks OK, could we use it for the Decrease and Edit workflows, too? Enterprisey (talk!) 09:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks good @Enterprisey. Reusing the rrequest page for the js form causes a brief flash of wikitext (before it disappears and the form appears). IMO it's better to use a standalone page like Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Create new request to put the JS form. – SD0001 (talk) 10:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a better idea; done. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Enterprisey looks like brilliant work so far. Can you sync with User:SD0001/rpp-form.js? I've implemnted live preview and fixed the caching for JSON load (the maxage params only work for api.php and also require uselang=content param). – SD0001 (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

That's awesome, thanks! Enterprisey (talk!) 08:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

That's a wonderful form, thank you very much, Enterprisey. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Unable to correct a request and 2 different edits with the same diff number

I made a major mistake in my request, and went back to correct it, it was correct in the preview page so I saved it. However, the next edit to the page, by Cyberbot 1, reverted my correction.
This my diff [2] and this Cyberbot 1's diff [3] Interestingly, they both have the same diff number =1042936593 although the text before is different
Is Cyberbot 1 supposed to revert corrections to requests? If so. how do I correct a request if/when I make a mistake in the future? - Arjayay (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

How to request protection of a group of pages

Is there any way to request protection of a group of pages, rather than one page at a time? UTC±00:00 has been subjected to vandalism by a group of IP socks, some of which have been subjected to 1-month blocks, but new IPs keep appearing with the same disruption. This applies to many of the pages in Category:UTC offsets. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

You use a heading such as "UTC offsets" and follow it with a list of the pages using the same template to report a page that is used in all the other sections requesting protection. However I just blocked the latest IP and will have a look at the pages in that category soon and see what should be done. Johnuniq (talk) 10:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: I semi-protected quite a lot of articles in that category for three months in an attempt to break the habit. I did not touch several where a very quick look made me think there had not been the same recent disruption. Let me know if they return. Johnuniq (talk) 10:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Ask administrator warning

I recently submitted a request to decrease protection (it seems way less solid than I initially thought). One thing I noticed was that when editing the page you get a flashy warning about asking the administrator first if possible, but there is no trace of anything similar in the form (seeing the warning after having submitted the request is kind of disappointing). The whole route from viewing the source to submitting a request is surprisingly straightforward and brings you directly to the button, skipping also the header with relevant info at the top of Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection. Not sure if you get too many less than appropriate requests, but if this is the case, some warning/links on this path wouldn't hurt. 31.26.85.7 (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Something is wrong with the code on the page - can't open sections to edit/update

When I click to edit the section, the wrong section opens up. I have no idea why. I've noticed other admins are not updating that they've protected pages. I think this may be why. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

OK, this looks to be connected to the new subpage structure. I was able to edit the sections normally if I went to the subpage. But it looks like most haven't figured out to try that, which is resulting in a lot of wasted time as we start to look into requests that have already been taken care of. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

When you click "[edit]" to edit a section, you edit a particular section number. For example, the URL to edit this talk page section includes "&section=19" because this is currently section 19. The bot frequently archives sections on the protection page so it is fairly common that if you have the page open for a few minutes then edit a section, you will edit the wrong section because the bot has removed earlier sections. When you see that happen, click "project page" at the top to open a fresh view of the page, then find the section and edit it. Johnuniq (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Please lock the singer K S Chithra's Page.

Please keep the full lock protection to K S Chithra page to avoid unwanted edits. Please consider my request Simha Gorji (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Urgent Page protection required

There has been a consistent attempt to vandalize article Lavanasura for quite sometime by both autoconfirmed users and anonymous IP addresses. Please check the history of the page. The article is being used to target a public figure. I request admin to immediately lock the page for both autoconfirmed users and IP addresses. Urgent intervention is required. Thanks. Kridha (talk) 11:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Protection increase form fields

Am I missing something, or is there no way in Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase/Form to change "Reason" to the specific type of protection being requested, as was the previous practice? CMD (talk) 04:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. I patterned the form after the preload. Apparently the old instructions did indeed ask for a specific protection level. I assume nobody really missed it because as ToBeFree observed at the discussion, the responding admin comes to their own judgment about the type of protection anyway, so it was advisory at best and confusing newbies at worst. I would be OK with re-adding it for "experienced users", but I'm not sure what line to draw. And they'd be using Twinkle anyway, I guess? Enterprisey (talk!) 06:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2021

98.17.33.246 (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

This is a different user this was given 2 me and I want the old user to have no access 2 it

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 16:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Why do we archive RfPP?

What is the value in retaining years of archives for a page as ephemeral as this? We don't keep archives at AIV, for example, and I can't see a use case for a request for protection from nearly a decade ago (the archives go back to late 2012!). The rolling eight-day archive was somewhat helpful when I was last active here but keeping years of archives feels like a waste of resources. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

There is no reason but it was mentioned at WT:Requests for page protection/Archive 9#Archive?? and discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 179#Archive RfPP reports (April 2021) and had been talked about before. Johnuniq (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

If anything, the VP discussion seemed to have a consensus that archiving was unnecessary. Harmless, but useless. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The question of /Edit formatting

Is there no scripted process allowing one to file an /Edit request? About 80-90% of the reports I see on /Edit are literally default text with nothing else, and most of the remainder have the request written out below the default text. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 05:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Indefinite semi-protection

I had requested the removal of indefinite semi-protection for one article, and out of curiosity, I looked to see what other articles were indefinitely semi-protected, as seen here. I can recognize that some topics are likely always volatile, but others surprised me. I'm wondering if there are any guidelines for considering adding and removing indefinite semi-protection. Perhaps I am missing something, but it seems very easy to add indefinite semi-protection to an article and forget about that status for years and years, even if the reason for that protection could potentially have expired. Is there not any kind of process to review some articles' protection statuses? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Erik Wikipedia:Protection policy § Guidance for administrators describes guidance to administrators for semi-protection and says that [a]dministrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages that are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy (such as biographies of living persons, neutral point of view).

The removal of any page protection, including indef semi-protection, is described further up that page at Wikipedia:Protection policy § RemovingProtection and says Except in the case of office actions (see below), Arbitration Committee remedies, or pages in the MediaWiki namespace (see below), administrators may unprotect a page if the reason for its protection no longer applies, a reasonable period has elapsed, and there is no consensus that continued protection is necessary.

Asking for a review of a indefinite semi-protection is the same at the moment, from what I understand, as any other protection (including temporary). Which is to ask the protecting administrator first (if they are still an admin) and then ask here. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps. I guess I am not understanding how anyone would know if vandalism would continue or not, for lesser-known articles. What if vandalism was prompted by something at that specific point in time, and would not happen again? To use a random seemingly-banal example from the list, Starmedia is indefinitely semi-protected due to a sockpuppet from 2012, and it seems unlikely to still be warranted a decade later. And I'm not seeing anything that would encourage a transition from WP:SEMI to WP:PCPP, which seems like a good draw-down step. If I am missing something about protections that I may not realize in my normal editing, please let me know. Otherwise, I'd like to see if unnecessarily locked-down articles could be freed up for general editing. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I have removed the protection from Starmedia, which shouldn't have been protected indefinitely in the first place imho. As regards the lowering of protection at Alexander Graham Bell, my note was meant to invite other editors/admins to comment, and so form at least a little consensus. BLPs mixed with nationality controversies will rarely really quiet down. Courtesy ping @AmandaNP:. Lectonar (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing Starmedia. I guess it makes me wonder how many articles shouldn't have this protection in this first place? It seems like it's an out-of-sight unintended backlog. As for my individual request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Decrease#Alexander Graham Bell, I'm fine with continuing the discussion there specific to that topic, apart from this general inquiry. I had just been curious, based on that instance, what other articles had indefinite semi-protection. Another instance I saw was The Dark Knight (film) having this protection, where the previous film Batman Begins and the following film The Dark Knight Rises don't have this, and I think they'd all have the same kind of traffic. I'd like to be able to pinpoint topics that warrant decreases in protection so no one wastes time making requests that are unlikely to be approved. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Multiple requests mysteriously removed

Hello! For whatever reason a user in this edit removed a bunch of requests for seemingly no reason. I would revert to before that user did that however that would remove a lot of legit requests made since then. What should I do in this case? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Blaze Wolf, a late reply: In such cases, manual fixing may be required. Check which lines were lost in the edit conflict, then restore them manually by copying them. Ideally attribute the revision you're taking the text from in the summary of your edit. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Reduce size of instructions

^{(previous headings improved multiple times to ensure neutrality. I hope I managed to do so, feel free to fix further. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC))}

Should the size of the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection be reduced? A proposed example can be found at User:ToBeFree/Rfpp proposal. RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 01:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Strong support until I had twinkle these instructions have always flummoxed me. Thanks for trying to improve it. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC) (moved to "Survey" when converting the discussion to an RfC; feel free to undo ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC))
• Support - the pros set out are all correct. I noted that something about length might be beneficial, but Nom was correct in the sense that "beginners need a stripped down simple version" - and ToBeFree is correct that experienced editors use Twinkle anyway! Nosebagbear (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support. MER-C 02:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support Anything to make instructions more straight-forward has to be good. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support I just looked at the page and it's awful. For example, instead of a nutshell at the start, it has a link farm listing every other noticeboard. I looked at the source to see if I could clean it up myself but it's a morass of nested templates. KISS. Andrew D. (talk) 13:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support. This page is one we expect relatively new users to handle quickly, it needs to be kept simple. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support I am a new user, And if I ever have to use this feature, I would like the process to be as quick and simple as possible.Billster156234781 (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support. My first idea of a place with a good pre-loaded option is WP:GL/P; I don't see why RFPP couldn't use the same thing. It helps to have the instructions up there, I'd say, since you ought to be able to look up the details if you need them, but by all means give us link(s) to preloaded request(s) like ToBeFree has proposed, and put them in a prominent place above the details, or collapse the details so they're only seen if you un-hide them. Nyttend (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support Looks good but please no "click here to edit" links. Edit links already exist for each section. Also, mystery meat navigation :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  Also, probably goes without saying that you'll need to give time for Cyberbot and Twinkle to be updated. — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  (moved my reply to the discussion below) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• Strong support: less is more. The buttons are speedier and more obvious than expecting the user to edit the appropriate section. The text is still a bit lengthy and the "Skip to" bar gets naturally glazed over by the eye but it's definitely a big improvement. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 02:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support better.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support. A clear improvement for inexperienced users. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support. This proposal significantly eliminates the necessity to scroll through a ton of text in order to make a request and looses little/no information that's actually useful. I see no reason not to do this.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion below has been converted to an RfC 15:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC); the original state of the discussion can be found at Special:PermanentLink/872689493#Reduce_size_of_instructions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Please allow inexperienced users to use a simple pre-filled "new section" link to request protection. The current "Instructions" are a bureaucratic mess. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Just install WP:TW. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind as response to new and unregistered editors. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

First draft: User:ToBeFree/Rfpp proposal -- Inspired by the intentional simplicity of WP:AIV. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

It will make it easier. In the User:ToBeFree/Rfpp proposal/Decrease is there anyway to make the person adding it give the original protecting admins name and if they already aked them? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi CambridgeBayWeather, thanks! The corresponding "preload" text can be edited at User:ToBeFree/Rfpp_proposal/Decrease/Preload; it might be useful to add a line such as "I have asked the protecting admin, {{u|Example Administrator Name}}, but they seem to be inactive.". The editnotice at User:ToBeFree/Rfpp_proposal/Decrease/Edit-notice also contains advice, which will be displayed above the editing box when creating a new request.

Ideally, I believe that users should not be asked to look up this information before coming here. I believe that the clerking bot should automatically ping and message the protecting administrator, informing them of the discussion on the central board. The protecting administrator may then add a comment, accept or decline the request. If the protecting administrator does not respond, other administrators or experienced users can probably better decide how and when to continue. If the request is about full→template protection, other administrators can also see this and implement the request directly.

Note: If I understand correctly, the current instructions at WP:RFPP do not require the user to specify the protecting administrator's name. The proposal does not change that. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what is the best way. I know there are quite a few requests where someone asks for unprotection but doesn't say who did it. Then you have to look up the page to see which admin it was, check to see if they are still active. Finally either unprotect it if the admin isn't active or, more often, leave a message at WP:RFPP asking them if they asked the protecting admin first. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• @ToBeFree: - in most ways I prefer your version, however there are two key decisions that have to be made when requesting an article's protection: Severity & Duration. 2 lines explaining when permanent and when temporary would seem beneficial (potentially something in the auto-create as well, but that's marginal). Nosebagbear (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

  Hey Nosebagbear, thanks for the ping. Hmm. If you insist, I will probably add more text to the instruction proposal, but I hope to be able to convince you against this:

  The original text in the current WP:RFPP header says: "Please do not add arbitrary requests for a protection expiry time to your request". Twinkle offers a choice between "indefinite" and "temporary", but in the end, it's not really the requester's choice to make. I believe that the protecting administrator needs to decide themselves which protection settings are appropriate, if any. The administrator must make an own decision. If semi-protection is useful, semi-protection will be used. This does not require an explicit request for "semi-protection". Maybe pending changes protection is more appropriate and will be implemented instead, or vice versa.
  Users don't ask for specific block durations or block settings at WP:AIV either, because it's the blocking administrator's choice how long the block will be, and which settings will be used.

  That all said, experienced users can (and will, I guess) still request specific protection levels and durations; the proposal does not forbid nor prevent this. It just doesn't instruct new users to make administrative choices before being able to request administrator attention. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

  @ToBeFree: - hmm, a good response. I'm not sure I completely agree, but you're right in the sense it won't impact experienced users and shouldn't cause major negative effects in other cases. Consider me a neutral on this specific facet then. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Added to WP:CENT: RfC expired, but Legobot has not notified anyone of the discussion during the 30 days. Creating a new village pump thread about an already-existing discussion on a different page also probably doesn't work nicely. I hope that WP:RFPP is considered to be "central" and "widely impacting" enough to be appropriate for this notification. The requested changes are *technically* relatively complex, and without more participation, an edit request would likely be declined. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Removed from WP:CENT: Okay, this is now obvious and unanimous enough. 30 days RFC, 7 days CENT, no oppose, I'll start requesting edits. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

"Click here to edit" links

@MusikAnimal: Regarding the "click here to edit" links, these edit the transcluded {{/Increase}} page directly. MediaWiki sadly seems to provide no other way to add a sub-section to a specific section of a page. See also and feel free to comment at: phab:T210483. Maybe someone has a better idea than shown in the current draft. For backwards compatibility, Cyberbot will probably need to be configured to move old tools' requests to the {{/Increase}} page anyway. And of course there won't be an edit request before the main tools and bots are ready for the change. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Update: I think this may solve the ambiguity: Special:Diff/878489986
There are no misleading "edit section" buttons anymore, only the correct links that actually edit the {{/Increase}} page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Update 2: Because the magic word "NOEDITSECTION" also made the "edit section" buttons next to specific requests disappear, I had a look at meta:Help:Editing sections of included templates and implemented this at Special:PermanentLink/878491055. If you like to, we can still remove the "click here to edit" text completely, or make it less bold and less visible. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: There are still edit links for the individual requests, is what I meant. Do we need an edit link for the outer section? I kind of like it not being there :) It will help ensure a consistent format since they'll have to use the "Add request" button. — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: ah, I see. I have now commented out the "click here to edit" link. If a malformed request is added without a heading, it may be necessary for administrators to edit the "/Increase" page as a whole. In this case, however, they can manually navigate to "/Increase". An interesting shortcut is clicking the "request protection" button, then clicking "Project page" at the top left.

We could replace the HTML comment by a "sysop-show" span. This would avoid confusing new users while allowing administrators to do clerking easily. Using the link will only ever be necessary for malformed requests; normally, there will be a convenient "edit" link next to each section. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

PS: Now that I think about it, the usage scenario for the "click here to edit" link is unrealistic: Good-faith malformed requests won't appear at the top. Bad-faith edits could simply remove the link. So there is indeed no need to keep it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Technical roadmap

Phase 1: Ensure backwards compatibility.

• Create "/Increase", "/Decrease" and "/Edit" and their respective "/Header"s.
  (Done during discussion to clean up the page history without causing attribution issues. Should the current consensus suddenly turn around completely, feel free to delete these pages. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC))
• Transclude these pages at WP:RFPP, at the top of each section. Make sure that Cyberbot I won't "helpfully" undo this change.
• Update User:MusikAnimal/responseHelper: The script should transparently work on the transcluded subpages, too.

Phase 2: Server-side fixes.

• Make sure that phase 1 is completed.
• Reconfigure Cyberbot I: Implement a full archive per WT:RFPP/Archive 9#Archiving RfPP requests.
• Reconfigure Cyberbot I: {{subst:RFPP}} will replace {{RFPP}} in the future. Prepare the bot for the HTML comment syntax of Template:RFPP/sandbox. Discussion: Template_talk:RFPP#Substitution
• Reconfigure Cyberbot I: Work transparently on the subpages (/Increase, /Decrease, /Edit) too.
• Reconfigure Cyberbot I: When clerking, move all requests from WP:RFPP to the bottom of the respective subpage. No complex logic, no sorting.
• Reconfigure Cyberbot I: When making an edit anyway, at WP:RFPP and the subpages, replace "\n\n\n" by "\n\n" for consistency.
• Reconfigure Cyberbot I: If a request without L3 heading exists on top of a subpage, add "=== (no heading) ===" above it. See discussion above for the reason.

Phase 3: Client-side fixes.

• Make sure that phase 2 is completed.
• At WP:RFPP/Header, replace content entirely by the proposal.
• Update Twinkle to use the subpages instead of WP:RFPP. GitHub issue: https://github.com/wikimedia-gadgets/twinkle/issues/1429
• Update "protection-request-page" at Wikipedia:Huggle/Config.yaml and Wikipedia:Huggle/Config.
• Update Module:Protected edit request to allow edit requests on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit
• Update Module:Submit an edit request to provide the usual preloaded form when submitting edit requests to RfPP

  Coded in Module:Submit an edit request/sandbox and Module:Submit an edit request/config/sandbox * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• Update User:MusikAnimal/responseHelper: Subst Template:RfPP. Done in Special:Diff/1034426397.

Feel free to extend and update. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Pages transcluded next to the heading; Cyberbot I didn't complain yet. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Moved template edit request to phase 3 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Template substitution added to roadmap per discussion at #Archiving bot below. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit requests

Request 1

^{Heading added ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)}

Hi MusikAnimal, as a first step, could you modify responseHelper to work on the subpages too? Thank you very much in advance. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@ToBeFree:  Done. Sorry for the delay! Note the script intentionally only works when editing sections (individual requests), so if you edit Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase right now for instance responseHelper provides no response links.

I am a little worried about the technical roadmap. It sounds like "At WP:RFPP/Header, replace content entirely by the proposal" is the change that instructs people to use the new system, right? That probably should at the same time as the Twinkle updates are deployed.

Thanks for your work on this, — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi MusikAnimal, thank you very much! About the roadmap, good point, that should probably better happen after the bot overhaul. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Request 2

^{Heading added, indentation reduced ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)}

Cyberbot is now available, this request is now moot. Hhkohh (talk) 08:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
ToBeFree, just a thought. Since Cyberbot is currently blocked, can we skip phase 2 and clerk manually temporarily for now? Hhkohh (talk) 02:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC) Hey Hhkohh, thank you very much for the offer. Because this suggestion comes from a user who actually regularly dedicates time to clerking, and because I will be happy to help with this, this may be a reasonable request. It's not about a specific bot, it is about having something or someone who does the necessary clerking. The archiver's workload will be minimally increased by copying the text from a different page than before, but there is no real additional work necessarily involved in this when Twinkle and Huggle have been reconfigured. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC) MusikAnimal, do I understand correctly that your concern was the delay between header and tool changes combined with the lack of a bot to ensure consistency until all tools use the same page? As Huggle and the header are easiest to change, I guess updating Twinkle should be the first step anyway. Should I wait before making a GitHub feature request until Cyberbot I works again? To me, there seems to be neither a deadline nor a problem with Hhkohh's suggestion; the only downside I notice is the introduction of human error sources to a previously automated process. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)  Note: Per the discussion at #Archiving bot below, we probably just need to wait for imminent system administrator action: phab:T213475. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Archiving bot

ClueBot III can be used to maintain the full archive, as is done at Wikipedia:AN/RFC. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Clever idea, I think. I have set up a sandbox at User:ToBeFree/Sandbox_archive. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks like this will end up needing a |key= parameter, because the archives are stored in a central location and not as subpages of the individual subpages. Alerting the bot owner to this disucssion. (ToBeFree, see the commented out ClueBot Template at WP:ANI for an example). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Hi Cobi, we'd need keys to archive discussions from the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Decrease
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Edit
• User:ToBeFree/Sandbox_archive/subpage1
• User:ToBeFree/Sandbox_archive/subpage2
• User:ToBeFree/Sandbox_archive/subpage3

...to the following archive pages:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Archive_1 (etc.)
• User:ToBeFree/Sandbox_archive/Archive_1 (etc.)

Thank you very much in advance! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

ToBeFree, we should archive completed requests after 1-hour response and denied requests for 4-hour response. So archiving is very complex Hhkohh (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Hhkohh, but anyone wondering why their request was declined can have a look at the archive? And any administrator interested in re-checking declined requests can do so as well. I see no reason to keep done entries in the list at all. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

ToBeFree, the requests in the archive is preserved for checking, but not for discussion. Some requests may be discussed by several editors (for example the admin who responsed requests but forget protecting or if admin makes a mistake/the response is controversial, the requester (or even some editors) may comment under the requests.) Also, few of admins/editors may be interested in checking. If admins want to archive the requests immediately, they should use {{RFPP|ar}} template in the requests. Also, in WP:PERM, they also do not archive requests in 72 hours after the last response/comment. Hhkohh (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Update: Pppery, Cobi, Hhkohh, ClueBot III just archived the sandbox. Without the key, it forcibly did so at User:ToBeFree/Sandbox_archive/subpage1/Archives/_1. The result is a mess. The "semi-protected" requests have not been archived despite appearing in the "archivenow" list. The automatic {{tl}} substitution does not preserve parameters. Let's just wait for Cyberbot I. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Given that it's now going to be used for historical posts in the archives, shouldn't {{RfPP}} be substituted (the analogous Template:Esp is). That would moot all of the concerns except the lack of a key. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Good point, discussion created at Template_talk:RFPP#Substitution. There's still one more concern left, however, presented above by Hhkohh. When using substitution, I do have a solution for this "complex" case, however. We can use {{Do not archive until}}, with varying duration, dependent on the type of closure. Successful requests can be marked as "do not archive until now + 1 hour", and declined requests can be marked as "do not archive until now + 4 hours". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Cobi, I am trying it on my talk page right now, but can you confirm (or fix, if not the case) that DNAU overrides ArchiveNow? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the source code of the bot, that does not seem to be the case. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think using multiple bots, one to clerk and one to archive, is a good idea. Also, substituting {{RFPP}} will make is harder (if done correctly) or impossible for a bot to reliably parse RFPP and its archives. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@JJMC89:There won't be clerking work left once the other changes are done, I think. My roadmap above contains an entry about replacing newlines, and one about adding headings if needed, but both entries are entirely optional, possibly unnecessary and have just been a quick convenience idea.

About parsing, that won't be a problem either: The templates will substitute to HTML comments that can be parsed easily. Huggle and ClueBot NG do this kind of HTML comment parsing all the time, on user talk pages, where all templates are substituted. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion about removing the clerking. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

JJMC89, which clerking exactly do you mean? The whole roadmap has only been created after consensus was gained for the general change. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The posts that Cyberbot was making to RFPP: (un)protection was actually done, recently denied requests, already been handled, blocked requestors. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@JJMC89: Ah, I see. Cyberbot will probably continue doing that once it has been overhauled and unblocked. If archival should be done by the same bot, it will be easy for Cyberbot to take over that task as well, as soon as the bot has been rewritten. I don't believe that this will happen soon, however. We can always comment out the ClueBot configuration template and let Cyberbot continue where ClueBot has started. For now, using ClueBot seems to be a good intermediate solution that does not prevent any future takeover by Cyberbot. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

ToBeFree, do not forget once phab:T213475 is resolved, cyberbot will be back. So our manual clerking and using Cluebot is just back up. Also, cyberpower678 promised to use new code in the future Hhkohh (talk) 02:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

ToBeFree, another question is do you know what is the maximum of the archiving rate if we use Cluebot? Hhkohh (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the recent history of WP:ANRFC, it usually takes a few hours for ClueBot III to notice it needs to archive something, which I guess moots the whole Do Not Archive Until buisness. There's no "maximum rate" per se, though, because there is no practical limit to the number of discussions the bot can archive in one edit. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Pppery, in Cluebot page, they said Edit rate maxlag = 2. I do not know what it means Hhkohh (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The DNAU template would prevent archiving a request too early; it does not guarantee immediate archival after the specified timestamp.

According to Cyberpower678, Cyberbot "runs on ancient code" and he's "working to rewrite it to use newer, more error handling code" (Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#Cyberbot_II). The proposed updates for WP:RFPP "may take some time to implement" (Special:Diff/879339386).

I did, however, misunderstand the current reason for its block. As Hhkohh has explained, the phabricator ticket phab:T213475 seems to be the current major issue, and once that has been fixed (now I actually guess "soon"), the bot may be back.

I think that the only thing left to do is to add "template substitution of {{RFPP}}" to the roadmap above, because that will be useful for a permanent archive, no matter which bot creates it. All the "DNAU" and "ClueBot" ideas can probably be thrown away if Cyberbot comes back soon.

Using ClueBot III instead of Cyberbot I for the duration of the block was a nice idea, but seems to be unnecessary per Hhkohh's explanation and JJMC89's multi-bot concern. For the same reasons, we should probably not start doing this manually.

It was a wonderful discussion, but in the end, it boils down to "damn, let's just wait for phab:T213475." ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Hhkohh: The "maxlag" limit means that the bot will not edit if the servers are currently very busy. It is not a fixed rate limit, and it will probably not happen too often. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

ToBeFree, Cyberbot is now live. Hhkohh (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Historical archives

Would it be a good idea for someone create archives from the history of WP:RFPP? {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. The proposal was about future requests "to avoid technical issues". Storage-wise, Wikipedia can definitely handle this. A single video on Wikimedia Commons could use more space than all of these archives.

I think that creating historical archives from the huge revision history will be a task that requires a new one-time bot, and it can still be done in a few months or even years. One day, someone may take the time to do this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I seem to have lots of time on my hands; Coding... a bot to create past archives. * Pppery * _{has returned} 01:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: My coding has finally come to a conclusion. I've posted several sample archives in my userspace at User:Pppery/RfPP archive 1, User:Pppery/RfPP archive 2, User:Pppery/RfPP archive 3. A few notes:

1. I've given up on bot archiving anything from before late October 2004 (RfPP dates back to October 2003), because the algorithm I use relies on section headings to distinguish individual requests.
2. There are a few bugs that cause the same request to be added twice, caused by a request being removed and then re-added in the history.
3. From 2004-July 2005 and September 2005->June 2006, there was no section for handled requests, and thus admins sometimes removed requests with the only explaination in the edit summary. I therefore chose to include a copy of the edit summary and the date the section was removed in the archive.
4. The number of archives produced (if they are the same size as my samples) will be in the hundreds

I'm also going to give a courtesy ping to A2soup, who somehow wasn't notified when their proposal headed toward implementation. * Pppery * _{has returned} 00:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Wow, this is wonderful! Next step is a BRFA? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: I'm going to wait until the rest of the proposal goes live before filing any BRFAs; Cyberpower678 said it would be ready within the next week. * Pppery * _{has returned} 20:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh! This is delighting news. Thank you very much for doing this, Cyberpower678. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I changed my mind and decided to manually create an archive for the 2003-October 2004 period at User:Pppery/RfPP archive 0. * Pppery * _{has returned} 21:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

/Edit

I've made some changes to the structure of what's going to be Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit, to make it use the standard edit request templates. I'm thinking, that, in the future, Cyberbot I won't clerk this page that subpage (except possibly to archive it). Is this a good idea (note: this will require some changes to Module:Protected edit request and Module:Protected edit request/active, which I've put in their sandboxes. (Also, ToBeFree, I hope it's OK that I created a page in your userspace). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC) (Modified: 20:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)}}

Pppery, Why shouldn't Cyberbot clerk this page. How will your changes eliminate the job Cyberbot does on there? —CYBERPOWER (Be my Valentine) 21:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Pppery, I did see any consensus that Cyberbot will not clerk that page Hhkohh (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: What clerking does Cyberbot currently do for requests in the "current requests for edits to a protected page" section? {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Pppery, oh you meant for that particular section. I don’t think it does much there. Working on a new Cyberbot exclusive framework. —CYBERPOWER (Be my Valentine) 02:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

This proposal suggests splitting each section into a new subpage, so it would be "that page": Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I misunderstood that as well.

At the source code of Special:PermanentLink/882661196, if a user enters the page name inside the HTML comment, the information is completely lost. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, ToBeFree, I think I've resolved that concern. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid that converting the comments to plaintext is only technically resolving the concern. Suddenly, we have the text appearing in the finished request. How about Special:Diff/882924080? The template automatically detects the type of protection. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: The text only appears in the finished request if you modify it, as it is otherwise stripped out by my code at User:ToBeFree/Rfpp proposal/Edit/Request. I would strongly oppose your suggestion, because it is inconsistent with the way edit requests on talk pages are handled. It seems to me like there are less ways to break things if a /Request template is used than if we force the user to meddle with the preloaded template in more than one place. If the user does put their request in the instructions, then it's better to show them rather than inaccurately try to guess what they mean. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: Have you forgotten about this task? {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Bumping thread for 365 days. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: It's been over two and a half months since you said "this may take some time to implement". Any updates? {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678 and Pppery: - hi I was just explaining RFPP to a new counter-vandal, and I remember the discussion to reduce the complexity. Has there been any progress on that side, that I know ran into various technical roadblocks? Nosebagbear (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: Cyberpower678 hasn't ever gotten around to recoding his bot, despite claiming he would do so "in the next week or so" almost two months ago. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Pppery: Thanks for the courtesy ping above! Just coming back from a wikibreak, and it's cool to see that my archiving proposal seems to have ended up as part of a larger technical roadmap for RfPP. However, it seems like the implementation of the roadmap is still stalled. Is that correct? Just checking. A2soup (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@A2soup: Yes, that is correct. I've mostly given up on this, though I do still have the code for the one-time bot I proposed above and will run it if a full archive ever does get coded. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Any update on the archiving implementation?Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

An archive index exists at WP:Requests for page protection/Archive now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Bumping thread for 1000 days. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

This can be safely archived now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Requesting semi protection for page "Charles Taylor (Liberian politician)"

Hi, due to recent numerous vandalism, and with the subject being considered controversial across Africa, I'm requesting for a semi protection on the former Liberian president Charles Taylor wikipedia article. Thanks. Iphone7xx (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Iphone7xx, a late reply: Please use the blue button at WP:RFPP instead of using this talk page here for requests. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay thanks! Iphone7xx (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Inconsistent request buttons

Hi! Why do the "Request protection" and "Request unprotection" buttons lead to forms, but the "Request edit" button leads to an edit page? 91.129.102.205 (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

​ 91.129.102.205 (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Noone has created a form for the latter yet, that's all, I think. Initially, all three buttons led to editing pages. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Change dependencies for Mobile

Change dependencies in MediaWiki:Request-page-protection-form.js with the below code.

$.when(), $.ready, mw.loader.using(['mediawiki.api', 'mediawiki.widgets', 'mediawiki.util', 'oojs-ui-core', 'oojs-ui-windows']).then(function()

In this way, it will work on the mobile UI as well. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 17:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

And also add the below code to MediaWiki:Mobile.js

:mw.loader.using( ['mediawiki.util'], function () {
:	var extraCSS = mw.util.getParamValue( 'withCSS' ),
:		extraJS = mw.util.getParamValue( 'withJS' ),
:		extraModule = mw.util.getParamValue( 'withModule' );
:	if ( extraCSS ) {
:		// WARNING: DO NOT REMOVE THIS "IF" - REQUIRED FOR SECURITY (against XSS/CSRF attacks)
:		if ( /^MediaWiki:[^&<>=%#]*\.css$/.test( extraCSS ) ) {
:			mw.loader.load( '/w/index.php?title=' + encodeURIComponent( extraCSS ) + '&action=raw&ctype=text/css', 'text/css' );
:		} else {
:			mw.notify( 'Only pages from the MediaWiki namespace are allowed.', { title: 'Invalid withCSS value' } );
:		}
:	}
:	if ( extraJS ) {
:		// WARNING: DO NOT REMOVE THIS "IF" - REQUIRED FOR SECURITY (against XSS/CSRF attacks)
:		if ( /^MediaWiki:[^&<>=%#]*\.js$/.test( extraJS ) ) {
:			mw.loader.load( '/w/index.php?title=' + encodeURIComponent( extraJS ) + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript' );
:		} else {
:			mw.notify( 'Only pages from the MediaWiki namespace are allowed.', { title: 'Invalid withJS value' } );
:		}
:	}
:	if ( extraModule ) {
:		if ( /^ext\.gadget\.[^,\|]+$/.test( extraModule ) ) {
:			mw.loader.load( extraModule );
:		} else {
:			mw.notify( 'Only gadget modules are allowed.', { title: 'Invalid withModule value' } );
:		}
:	}
:});
:

Check source: tr:MediaWiki:Mobile.js 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 17:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I've marked this as an edit request to get the attention of an intadmin. Aidan9382 _(talk) 17:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done extending these deprecated loaders to mobile.js is going to need wider discussion, please start a thread at WP:IANB. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Making the buttons consistent

Hey! I was recently looking at the different between /Edit, /Protect, and /Unprotect, and I noticed that the edit button feels very out of date compared to the other two. What would other editors think of making this in line with the other buttons (the JS edit form)? I've been doing some testing and the groundwork is already in place, but I want to ask for editor's opinions before converting this system from one to another as this is the type of thing that needs consensus.

For those who are curious, I have applied changes to these pages as they have no major or visible effect:

• Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit/Form (This is fully functional and visiting this page will actually show it in effect - Click the try again link)

And the remaining edits to:

• Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Button edit
• Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit/Preload
• Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit/Request (In the form of a deletion request or notice of out-of-use, although this is entirely optional)

are currently backlogged as they are what actually change the system. Opinions? Aidan9382 _(talk) 06:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Archive bump. Aidan9382 _(talk) 06:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware that the general rule is to gather consensus for a change before requesting an edit, however this page recieves little traction, and I'd rather be bold and get the attention of someone as opposed to archive bumping repeatedly. This change is done in the idea of making the edit button (See Button, JS Form (currently unused)) use the same JS form as protection (See Button, JS Form) and unprotection (See Button, JS Form), as this presents a much easier format for new users who may have formatting trouble with working on the existing system. The change would involve an edit to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Button edit, changing its content to the text below:

{{{!}} 
{{!}}style="valign:center;padding-right:0.5em;"{{!}}
{{!}}<big><div style="text-align:center;">Request a specific '''edit''' to a protected page<br>Please request an edit directly on the protected page's [[Help:Talk pages|talk page]] before posting here</div></big>
<div style="text-align:center;padding-top:0.5em;">{{Clickable button 2|class=mw-ui-progressive|Request edit|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Edit/Form?withJS=MediaWiki:Request-page-protection-form.js}}</div>
{{!}}}

It could also be worth considering changing the contents of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit/Preload to the following:

=== [[Example Article Name]] ===
* {{pagelinks|Example Article Name}}
I would like to request that... (Your edit request here) . ~~<noinclude/>~~

{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>void|After changing the text above, you can click the "Publish changes" button.}}<noinclude>

{{Documentation|content=This preload template allows users to easily add a request to [[Wikipedia:Requests for page protection]]. It is not empty; please have a look at the source code.}}
<noinclude>

This would provide a similar experience to the protection and unprotection wikitext forms (1, 2) for users who are unable to use the JS forms. I would change this now myself, but I'd rather see the JS form edit go through first before changing this. Note that this change will make Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit/Request defunct, as it will no longer be required for the preload to function. It could be worth marking this page for deletion as it would no longer be useful, but I'm undecided on this matter. The JS form has been tested and works (See Special:Diff/1092733353), so the functionality behind this request is already prepared. Aidan9382 _(talk) 09:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Form for page protection and editnotice

When requesting by form in /Decrease and /Edit people can't see the editnotice, so they may miss certain information. Thingofme (talk) 08:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protect or ANI range-block? Or both?

Hello, I need some advice. I am currently considering how best to act in order to protect the encyclopedia from a persistent but slow-moving IP-hopping serial vandal who targets data-rich pages related to India. Typical action: stuffing an incorrect population figure or demographic percentage into a row in a table or list. If these escape immediate notice on someone's watchlist, they are very difficult to find later, and I suspect that many articles have been tainted this way, with entrenched errors that may remain for years.

Most of the vandalism is at two articles, so perhaps I should ask for semi-protection for: List of Indian states and union territories by Human Development Index and List of Indian states and union territories by poverty rate. That accounts for a large percentage of the problem, but not all of it, so I've considered heading to AN/I with a range-block request for 42.105.176.0/23 which narrowly targets the many IP addresses involved without netting any false positives, afaict (pre-August 11 edits seem okay). See User talk:42.105.177.36 for a specific list based on one of the articles.

What do you think the considerations are here, as far as choosing between semi-protect, and range-block? Is there such a thing as a hybrid request, such as: "please semi-protect articles A and B for this CIDR range?" That might be ideal, if it's possible. Adding Arjayay who may be interested in this topic. Thanks, (please  mention me on reply; thanks!) Mathglot (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

We can block a range from editing articles A and B. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot. Pinging Mathglot. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Nearly all of the recent edits by Special:Contributions/42.105.176.0/23 have been reverted by others, going back six months, so think a long /23 rangeblock (e.g. for one year) would be amply justified. It should also be OK to indefinitely semiprotect the two articles mentioned above. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Malcolmxl5 and Ed J; I've made a request on the project page. I bundled them together in one request; if it's easier to handle it as a separate request, I'll add a second one; lmk. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Mathglot - Unfortunately, I don't have any IPs in Guwahati, Assam, nor any editors known to be in Guwahati on my lists. I would support "both", but if it is to be an either/or, given how little collateral damage the range-block would appear to inflict, I would support that, rather than article protection, as they would probably just move to different articles. - Arjayay (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Arjayay: I went ahead and requested both indefinite semi-protection and a one-year range block; you can follow along here. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Mathglot - I saw you had asked for List of Indian states and union territories by Human Development Index (which has now received 3 months protection), but not List of Indian states and union territories by poverty rate - was there a reason for that? - Arjayay (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Arjayay: I bundled them into one request, and both articles are now semi'ed for three months. Mathglot (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Mathglot Sorry, my bad - I always list multiples with separate asterisks in the opening lines - apologies again - Arjayay (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Arjayay:, I should have done so; I'm not that familiar with procedures here, and had to edit it several times even to get it to that point; I should have listed them as separate bullet items within the request, and will do so in the future. Mathglot (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Broken archive page

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2022/11 seems to be broken. Can someone please fix this. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 17:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok I’ve fixed the problem now. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 17:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Duplicate entry bot needed at WP:RFU

I am told that this page has bot to tag duplicate entries, a problem that requires a similar solution at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Does anyone here know how this would be implemented? Cheers! BD2412 T 18:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@BD2412: Did you get a response for this here or at other venues? —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 15:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@CX Zoom:, thanks for asking, I did not, and the problem persists at WP:RFU. BD2412 T 15:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@BD2412: Page statistics suggests that User:Cyberbot I does all maintenance tasks on this page. I'll just make a duplicate request here to check which bot (if any) responds, then you can contact directly with the bot operator because they'll most likely have all the infrastructure and codes already prepared, just add another page into the list. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 15:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@BD2412: It appears that there is no bot that tags duplicate entries. Cyberbot I has done two runs on this page since my addition of a duplicate request. And the page statistics above indicate that no other bot does that type of maintenance task. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I suppose there are worse things than dealing with duplicates manually, then. I feel like it should be pretty easy to set up such a bot, though. BD2412 T 17:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

How best to submit a list of pages to be protected?

I have a list of 31 pages (so far) that are the target of an IP-hopping vandal making unsourced changes to dates and other information and appending galleries of images at the bottom of pages (below the categories). IPs and IP ranges are getting blocked, but the disruption is continuing. What is the best way to submit the list of pages for requesting protection? It would be a bit tedious to have to enter each one separately through the "Request Protection" form at WP:RFPP, so I am hoping there is an easier way. — Archer1234 (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Archer1234: As far as I'm concerned theres no set way to do it, but what I've done before is to just manually edit instead of using the form and list all of the pages using {{pagelinks}} in 1 section.

Something like the following:

=== Multiple pages ===
* {{pagelinks|Page 1}}
* {{pagelinks|Page 2}}
* {{pagelinks|Page 3}}

General reason for protection. ~~~~

Hope this helps. Aidan9382 _(talk) 14:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Another possibility to head this sort of thing off is an edit filter. If the person in question has a recognizable pattern of editing, it may be possible to set up an edit filter to stop them. See WP:EF. --Jayron32 15:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Follow along?

How come we can't subscribe to RPP requests the same way we can now subscribe to talk page threads so that we can follow along? Thanks - wolf 04:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Subscribing only works on level 2 headers (see this test page). RPP sections use level 3 headers. Aidan9382 _(talk) 07:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Well... that sucks. But anyway, thanks for the reply and the info. - wolf 07:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

cyberbot I is terrible

Cyberbot I aggressively archives the page so often that I cannot find the information on the page that someone alerted me about. I have to search through the page history. How is this convenient for anyone? It seems like a ridiculous setting. Shouldn't you keep the information on the page for at least a 24-hour period? (I would say keep it up long as a week, but Wikipedia is kind of nuts about this stuff....) – ishwar  (speak) 23:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ish ishwar: The exact settings are visible and changeable on this config page, where it appears requests can be archived as early as within an hour upon completion. The fast archive time is likely due to the fact this page receives a significant amount of requests constantly, and leaving a bunch of complete requests could quickly clog up the page, though I agree an hour feels potentially a little fast. Aidan9382 _(talk) 07:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

As someone who occasionally handles protection requests, the fast archiving is very helpful to allow focus on the outstanding requests. The problem is that a convenient link to the current archive should be available somewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 07:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Do we really need to allow people to report using emojis as title shortcuts?

I think the title says it all, but I shouldn't have to mouse over to find what the page in question is.

Honestly, I thought it was a joke or vandalism at first ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

No, the "emojis" were really redirects and the vandalism was AWFUL. Courcelles (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Daniel Case:, see the history here. The redirect itself was being vandalized, not the target. Whether such redirects should exist, of course, is beyond the scope of RFPP. Courcelles (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  OK ... thanks. Daniel Case (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

General sanctions enforcement?

I've noticed several requests for arbitration enforcement ECP on Arab-Israeli conflict articles get declined for lack of active disruption. While that's consistent with protection policy writ large, it contradicts the guidance at WP:ECR: If a page (other than a "Talk:" page) mostly or entirely relates to the topic area, broadly construed, this restriction is preferably enforced through extended confirmed protection, though this is not required. What's the appropriate course of action for such requests? My sense is that generally we should follow the ECR directive and protect such pages as soon as they are brought to our attention, but that appears to not be current practice. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

For me personally, violations of the extended-confirmed restriction on such pages, sometimes a single edit, is sufficient justification for page protection, and a protection request indicates a need for the action. I'm hesitant to protect if there have been absolutely none so far, and I'm generally unwilling to mass-protect such pages if a single mostly unexperienced user collects a list of them and requests protection for them all.

Regarding current practice, as "this is not required", I think there is no contradiction: If an administrator is willing to protect a page that mostly or entirely relates to an extended-confirmed restricted topic area, they can always do so even if someone else has declined to take action. That others might be more hesitant is probably just a natural part of Arbitration Enforcement in general. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

At least for articles that entirely relate to the topic area, I don't see any reason to not "preemptively" protect, since any edits made to the article would violate the restriction automatically, so the protection doesn't actually make any difference beyond a technical matter. But I think mass protecting articles is probably not necessary. Galobtter (talk) 09:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Dancing with the Stars

Hello I'm Vegawolfdog, I've been editing for 5 years and I want the dancing with the stars (American TV series) protected from unnecessary removal,i keep trying to fix the site but Bgsu98 keeps changing and is not respectful of my edits Vegawolfdog (talk) 00:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Kevin Porter Jr.

Lately I’ve been seeing guest users vandalizing the page of Kevin Porter Jr. due to the recent controversy he is currently in. I’m requesting the page to be temporary semi-protected until things cool down.

Thanks you in advance. MikeTimesONE 22:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The Lee Van Cleef editor

I'm bringing this to the talk page because I'm not sure what to ask for as far as protection. This concerns an IP-hopping editor who has edited the article Lee Van Cleef and has added false information about the actor to many related articles. I have already requested, and received, various forms of protection for Lee Van Cleef (semi-protected), Golden Boot Awards (semi), and Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actor – Motion Picture (pending changes).

This editor has edited from IPs beginning 5.119 and 5.120, and most recently 5.124. Recent articles edited are 50th Academy Awards, 55th Academy Awards, 46th Golden Globe Awards, and 43rd Golden Globe Awards, changing IPs every session, and sometimes during the same span of editing. Past articles edited include Jack Palance, Jack Elam, Dollars Trilogy, and several others.

I've been chasing this editor around for a few weeks now, and, other than asking for page protection every time they pick a new article to mess with, I'm not sure what to do next. I know range blocks are possible, but blocking all three ranges would produce a lot of collateral damage, and the editor would probably just move on to another range in time. Any suggestions or help would be appreciated. I'm running out of energy for this. —ShelfSkewed Talk 20:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The title of DreamDoll (musician) should be shortened to it's original title DreamDoll

I noticed the original title of her page was protected, and I assume someone tried to make one before she rose to fame, and it dates to 2018. While there is a film titled Dream Doll, both articles state the difference at the top, and moving her page after protection removal, if done would not clutter it. AbsentPat (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit filter request - re. Example Article Name

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested § Protection/Unprotection requests for Example Article Name. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 14:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

For the record, filter has been created as requested, see Special:AbuseFilter/1291 --DannyS712 (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Can Cyberbot I archive this noticeboard more granually?

The month pages literally crash my perfectly good Chromebook. I know consistency is desired in these things but can the bot please just archive arbitrarily, like at most other pages, rather than per-month? Mach61 (talk) 03:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I 100% support this! It would be much easier to load some of these pages if it was done like ANI. jayhawker6 (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm late to this discussion but I also support this - the RFPP archives are massive. If archiving consistency is desired, perhaps the requests could be archived by week, rather than by month (similar to m:SRG)? All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 08:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

OTOH small archives make it much harder to Ctrl-F search for something. Johnuniq (talk) 09:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The Hive (Minecraft server)

1. REDIRECT Minecraft server#Notable servers

Maxeto0910 (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

So many requests; no response

Why there are so many requests on the page; but, not much of them have been answered in the last 24 hours. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 02:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Update

I suggest moving the fourth bullet to second since it's very similar to the first, but more importantly, it says follow instructions at the top, but it should say click "request edit" at the bottom of the page. Seananony (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC) (Comment moved off of WT:Requests for page protection/Edit. I take no position on this request.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 01:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Instruction not visible when clicking the "Request unprotection" button.

Title. It takes you to a generic form without the header detailing instructions being present. Some users may not know it's customary to contact the protecting admin beforehand, Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not just customary to contact the protection admin, it's actually mentioned in the line below the button, and it's highlighted in yellow. I think it's rather difficult not to see it. Lectonar (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes that is true for the second button located below, but I meant the more prominent button in the header: Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Header. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah, you meant to one on top, my bad. Lectonar (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)