Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Addition of a separate BLP protection section

The consensus is against adding a separate BLP protection section. Cunard (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In the current page protection format, sometimes, urgent requests for BLPs' protection languish behind many normal protection requests. BLPs constitute some of the most critical issues faced by our project. Can we create a separate BLP section above the Current requests for increase in protection level? We could possibly title it Urgent requests for increase in protection level of BLPs. Opposes, supports, comments are all welcome. This is just a suggestion for ease of handling BLPs. Thanks for giving your time. Xender Lourdes (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

__________Views below this line please__________

• Oppose/Support/Comment:

• Weak oppose: BLPs aren't being left to wait around any longer than other articles so it might be a generalised fix to a problem that affects every article and page regardless of their content. Increase the amount of admins clerking RFPP and a separate section for BLPs wouldn't be needed. tutterMouse (talk) 07:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Instead of opting to have a separate BLP section, imho it would be enough to mention the BLP-issue in the request. I for one look at them first then. The problem really is clerking, as mentioned above. Lectonar (talk) 09:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment If this rolls out, then automated tools (like Twinkle) would benefit from updating to include awareness of the BLP subsection. (As of right now, all entries default to "increase".) I suggest that it's up to the closer of this RfC to let that team know. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 09:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Any changes to RFPP will involve notifying any automated tool maintainers about them being both critical components for en.wiki so don't worry about that. tutterMouse (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Weak support I generally agree with Lectonar the problem is clerking, however due to past delays these days I routinely just find an admin who is online and ask them directly, as it is much faster for a BLP issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. This creates an artificial divide; even if one accepts the premise that BLP violations are more 'deserving' than other issues, the idea that "BLPs" are some kind of separate class of articles which can be separated out is a myth (albeit a particularly persistent one). BLP applies to all articles, not just to those which happen to have a {{BLP}} template on their talkpage—"John Doe raped and murdered a nine-year-old boy in Macclesfield in 1998" is equally problematic whether it's written on John Doe, Macclesfield or 1998 but under this proposal protecting the former would be considered a higher priority than the latter two. ‑ Iridescent 16:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Iridescent; biographies are not more equal than others and don't need their own section. Nyttend (talk) 17:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• Weak oppose – there are mechanisms with which to speed up the request for protection. In particular, we can't request protection for an issue which hasn't been noticed, and once it has been noticed we can generally be confident in a swift response to BLP violations. On the other hand, this proposal might slow down the response time to requests for BLP violations on pages which are not BLPs themselves. In my recent tenure as a reader rather than editor, there seems to be an increased trend for creating such articles in the – wrong but de facto accurate – belief that BLP policy can be more easily avoided there than on the BLP itself. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support While Iridescents comment is true, in practical terms BLP violations are much more likely to be presented on the persons own page rather than one tangentially related. However I do like the idea of tagging or highlighting the BLP nature of the request per Lectonars comment. AIRcorn (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is this doable?

So I nominated Act II: Patents of Nobility (The Turn) for deletion. Within the AfD, it was stated that this album has been in production for years (a la Chinese Democracy, but without the press), and has been redirected four times already. I thought it was just that information was changing, or that the "keep" bar had changed.

Anyhow, the history tells me that this is going to be a problem no matter what happens. It might get recreated if it's deleted, or if it redirects again, it'll just get reversed. I think we might be better off redirecting than deleting, but can we perm-protect the redirect so it can't be edited or changed without someone being asked about it first? MSJapan (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Unable to make request because of false positives by 'edit filter'

I have tried to make an unprotect request.

I'm not allowed to do so because my IP has been assumed to be a serial abuser. All the edits tagged by this 'edit filter' have been by me using this IP. All my edits have been made in good faith.

The request I was trying to make is this:

Teacher

• Teacher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unprotect: This page has been protected for about six years. Originally the protection was put in place in 2010 to stop persistent vandalism.

The admin who last protected it has their talk page protected. --98.122.20.56 (talk) 06:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Courcelles:--Ymblanter (talk) 07:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I initially responded to the false positive report - the IP is acting in good faith, but their wording (Special:AbuseLog/16400585) perfectly matches a LTA string (granted, a wholly ambigious one). It's difficult to explain in this case without giving too much away :( -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Requests to protect user pages

What are we currently doing with these types of requests? Admins are all over the place and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Protect user pages by default does not have clear consensus yet. Pinging @KrakatoaKatie, Ritchie333, Airplaneman, MusikAnimal, and Widr:. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I want it protected to prevent any tests by newbies. I have seen many times such requests have been accepted! VarunFEB2003 12:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I've semied VarunFEB2003's pages (as per custom) as there was no need to keep them hanging while we hash this out here. VarunFEB2003, take some advice from Yoda. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• I have no problem with semi upon user request, particularly for the vandal fighters. I do have a problem with ECP upon user request. However, the current policy is the current policy, and if there's no current need, I'm declining. When did "if a need exists" get into the policy, anyway? Any idea? Because I don't think it used to be there. Katie^talk 13:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: the discussion seems to have taken place here, with little consensus that I can see, despite the confusing discussion summary posted on the top. MikeLynch (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• The current policy is wrongly and confusingly worded IMO. It says "...can be protected upon a simple request from the user", with nothing to explain what a "simple" request is, and goes further to say "...as long as a need exists". If one has to prove a need, then it is probably no longer a "simple" request, in my understanding. The next sentence then says "...should not be automatically or pre-emptively protected", which is more clear. I would think that admins who choose to do either (approve/decline the request) aren't in the wrong according to current policy, although it does seem to be an inconsistency. MikeLynch (talk) 13:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: I requested semi only can you please pass it. This ip is Varuns 180.151.247.77 (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• If I remember rightly, this wording was strengthened after a whole pile of requests, and I mean lots of requests, for user sub-pages to be protected, which flooded the page. This is a situation I think admins on this page would still like to avoid. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• I almost always grant requests for semiprotection on the userspace. My reasoning reflects options 2 & 3 in the RFC linked by NeilN. In my experience, I haven't seen any productive anonymous editing on userpages, and they're fertile ground for vandalism and harassment, especially for those who are on the front lines (e.g. dealing with vandalism). I think I'm pretty liberal in assessing "demonstrated need" for protection in the userspace. In the past, I haven't required evidence of vandalism on a specific userspace page to give semiprotection to that page. I think it comes down to assuring a good quality of life for editors (see I JethroBT's arguments in the RFC); if userspace protection provides a boost in that and does not restrict the productivity of anonymous contributions—which I don't think it does—I will gladly grant it. I agree that there's currently no consensus among admins on this issue, and this has definitely given me pause in the past when fulfilling these protection requests. Hopefully this discussion and the RFC can steer us in a clearer direction. This full protection request for a userpage is also relevant. Airplaneman ✈ 14:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Airplaneman: Can you do it then ?? 180.151.247.77 (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

IP, you really need to stop now. Katie^talk 14:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• I am inclined to be as liberal as Airplaneman with regard to semi. ECP as well, but that's a thorny issue. "Need" for me can be just a good reason, not previous vandalism, and anyway I think userspace should default to semi anyway. I see why we don't want RFPP flooded, but we could mandate user requests to go on a subpage so as not to distract from more urgent requests. I do worry about silly or vexatious requests, but we can deal with it. BethNaught (talk) 15:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• How do we handle "protect all my subpages"? I've seen this in the last few weeks and if I recall correctly, there were over 60 subpages. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• The "...should not be automatically or pre-emptively protected" clause was news to me... it definitely wasn't always there. This philosophy that everything should be open is of course ideal, but the fact is the userspace (minus the talk page) is not really meant for collaboration. We are very lenient with userspace pages, allowing self-expression, testing, etc, and there's no reason for others to interfere with it. If the user does put up something inappropriate, semi is going to allow most to intervene if need be. So really my only rule is the user has to be able to edit the page (so I never fully protect). ECP I think is OK but only if there has been actual disruption. It's too new and contentious for it be used in the userspace upon simple request, but frankly I am inclined to follow the same logic that so long as the user is able to edit it, and we know they're not going to put up something disruptive, there's really no harm in shutting out other people from editing something that is supposed to be "theirs". The only place WP:OWN is actually a thing, one might say. I will however adhere to whatever the consensus and current policy is, so since I've been made aware of the "no pre-emptive" clause being applied to user pages, I haven't protected unless I see there is a need for it. NeilN If you're wondering how the heck you are meant to protect 60 subpages, you can do so with Special:PrefixIndex then use Twinkle's P-Batch tool. Users who want this should simply ask, no need to list them out at RFPP. Flooding the noticeboard is not something we should worry about; If it happens, feel free to blank the requests and create a new one that just says "All user subpages" and act on the request accordingly — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all and Yes I shall keep in mind what you said. VarunFEB2003 06:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Greco-Italian war

I submit that the page protection be immediately lifted from the Greco-Italian war article as the article itself is heavily biased and misleading to its readers in that it is written as if the war was a victory for the Greeks whereas in reality, it was an Italian victory. The Greeks signed a surrender document to the Italian General, Ferrero two days after they surrendered to the Germans.

The article is totally misleading to its readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.174.4.14 (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

See also

Please see a new proposal on Wt:Protection Policy. Comments are required. VarunFEB2003 11:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Pre-emptive PP

This may have been asked about before, but can bio articles be pre-emptively protected, such as for athletes who have a major event taking place within the next 24 hours? For high-profile professional boxers in particular, pre-emptive protection would be greatly beneficial due to all the IP vandalism which invariably occurs for around a few days afterwards, usually in the form of changing nicknames or deliberately inserting incorrect stats in the infobox and record tables. Don't believe me? Take a look at Canelo Álvarez within the next 24 hours. I guarantee the revision history will be lit up with shitty edits until around mid-next week. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

No, but policy prohits pre-emptive protects, that's why I'm strongly opposed to pre-emptive protects. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 22:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Why the strong opposition, and why is such a policy in place? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:NO-PREEMPT. It's always been a fundamental belief that you don't need to register an account to edit whatever you want here. Protection is seen as damaging that spirit, with the acknowledgment that it prevents more severe ongoing damage. Practically speaking, many editors get their start editing articles which are "in the news". We don't want to shut them out if we can help it. Preventive protection is also a slippery slope as it can be applied to many different articles, many of which, in the end, don't need it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

OK. That's answered my question. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

User:A085TO has made three disruptive edits to the RPP page - rewording an answered request by inserting a different article title - initially changing Cigarette to D A V Public School, Tanda and then changing that to Hazi Azimulhaq Pahalwan
Their edits to this page were their 1st, 3rd and 5th edits to Wikipedia, so they may be assuming that this achieved protection. Everytime I try to revert these edits I get an edit conflict. - Arjayay (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC) - Arjayay (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe I have figured it out here by replacing their edits with the original (answered) request. I've left the user a warning about the proper use of RfPP. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 01:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

AE protection requests

We've had a flood of 500/30 AE protection requests in the past couple days. While I'm not reluctant to protect if there's a need, I believe Ged UK's "Whilst the ARB motion is clear, the remedies say that it may be enforced by various methods, of which PP is one. However, looking at the edit history of this specific article, I don't believe that protection is necessary in this case at this time." is the right approach (i.e., it's not an automatic protect). Thoughts? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Relevant post in favor of blanket 500/30 protection: User talk:Ged UK#Hi! Airplaneman ✈ 00:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

If you write a rule someone will try to enforce it. The relevant ARBCOM decision (WP:ARBPIA3#500/30) is fairly clear that IPs and new users are "prohibited" from editing Israel/Palestine articles. I personally think this is an example of ARBCOM attempting to create policy by fiat. In practice edits will often be accepted if they're not controversial and many articles will remain unprotected. ARBCOM themselves talk about using PC protection (huh?). I therefore personally go with the NeilN interpretation that this is an extra set of tools for enforcement of dispute resolution where necessary (but to be used fairly liberally). If we wanted to ECP every relevant page we should run it past VPP and write a big batch script to protect them. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for starting a discussion here about this, Neil. I'd been a little confused on what "the right approach" is to 500/30 as well. I'm in agreement with zzuuzz and Ged UK here. I'm inclined to use 500/30 protection liberally (but not automatically) to enforce ARBCOM sanctions on articles that need it, with demonstrated need being any disruptive edits that relate to the ARBCOM decision. Airplaneman ✈ 16:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Hey there. I simply wanted to keep articles open as much as possible, which is my general approach to protection, which is the main admin task that I do. I understand ArbCom's position, but it's such a wide scope that I can't think that every single article that might possibly be related to the broad subject was intended to be locked. The articles I didn't protect had no edits from accounts that would be affected by protection, in around a month, so it seemed to me that they weren't targets of edits that might be problematic. I'd recommend that keeping articles open as much as possble this be the way to proceed. GedUK  10:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
• Agreed with the above. Like I told the sock on my talk page (who ironically recently requested many pages for ECP), if an admin wants to protect or a user wants to revert and edit solely because of the ArbCom decision, I won't fight them. But I for one am more or less treating all articles the same. It doesn't make sense to protect an article that has experienced zero disruption, under any protection level, or here where there was but one disruptive edit over the past year, or here where only constructive edits have come from non-EC users. No thanks. Remember rules can be broken. We're putting the encyclopedia first. Again, I won't edit war, but if I see a good edit from an anon get reverted because they "aren't allowed to edit there", I will happily restore it as if it were my own edit. Use your judgement... the rules are there to prevent disruption, not to prevent progress — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
• Airplaneman's "liberally but not automatically" seems to be the correct standard to me. I'd love to hear from some arbs who wrote the sanction to know if this is at least roughly in line with their intentions. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Quicker alternative?

Are there any quicker alternatives to requesting page protection? Almost every occasion of massive vandalism on a page is due to some spurious, usually controversial real-world event that by the time a page gets protected, vandals have all but lost interest in. RFPP has been criminally slow lately, and in my opinion isn't really a viable option for most vandalism cases. Lizard (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

There's no real alternative other than more admins clerking the requests. If it's a major issue with a lot of edits then an admin is likely to swoop in anyway. tutterMouse (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I've been busy for a while finding sources. You can always leave me a talk page message if there is a major problem with a particular page or this one gets backlogged. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Could you protect my user page?

HI! I have experienced three things being put onto my Userpage over the past week. It is annoying me now because the people doing it is making a fool of me. They want to hassle me because they think I annoyed them in another online page. I know the names of the people. Could you help? The450 (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done, for 1 year.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Ymblanter (talk) Thanks mate! The450 (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Protected pages question

Okay, so I've seen a lot of users removing the {{pp-protected}} templates from the top of protected pages (example). What's the point of having this template if people just go around removing it? Primefac (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The point is, it does not actually remove the protection - just the lock symbol from the top RH corner of the page - yes this could be transcluded from an admin-only page - but that would need an admin to add and remove it - Arjayay (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I know that. My question is why we have/use it if a) people keep removing it anyway and b) it doesn't really do anything? Primefac (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

We have it because users generally find it useful. Most people don't remove it (and others will usually put it back). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Downgrading protection on templates to ECP

I can't mass request yet on multiple templates. In fact, I want to know whether ECP is appropriate for templates. If so, by what range of transclusions would ECP be justified? --George Ho (talk) 05:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that at all. Templates use complicated syntax, and requires a level of technical competence to maintain. If there was an initial reason to template protect them it is because of two things. One, to protect from vandalism, and two, to protect from users meaning well who end up breaking the template and consequently messing up thousands of pages. Not only dos it disrupt pages, but it disrupts the job queue on the server to purge every page on the server transcluding it. If someone messed up Cite Web, it would be immediately noticed, and take a bit to fix, for example.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 15:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

According to WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED, the amount of users is getting close to 30,000. Is that big enough to justify template-protection and disregard ECP? --George Ho (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

If downgrading the protection isn't appropriate, how about upgrading the protection from semi-protection? George Ho (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

This is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Pre-emptive Extended confirmed protection for templates. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposal/Question

My proposal/question is that for my bot DatBot (talk · contribs), there would be a page of filters. If specific filters are hit five times in under five minutes, then the bot will make a request for protection. The filters can be ones such as 99% vandalism hit rate. I believe that this would help, so that if the user does persist to try to circumvent the blocking edit filter, most of the vandalism will be prevented. Thoughts? Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 20:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

As a first comment, it would need to take into account whether the vandalism is coming from one source (request block) or many (request protection). Samsara 00:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@DatGuy: The idea seems fine but if it's hit five times within five minutes, chances are an admin using Huggle or doing RCP will catch it and protect anyway. Letting a bot do assessments for protection sounds good in theory but it needs to have a very low margin of error to make it effective but I feel the abuse filters might help with that. tutterMouse (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Samsara: can add that. TutterMouse, I can change it to 10 hits within 5 minutes? Also, most of the filters at User:DatBot/filters.js are set to disallow, so that's why one visible act of vandalism could be actually over 10. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 17:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@DatGuy: A high frequency would be helpful, especially for these persistent disruptive edits. Would need more input though on if it's okay. tutterMouse (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think tripping a filter N number of times is a good reason for page protection. In general we should let the filter do the work, so that others can still edit. I might support if we can specify which filters would cause an RFPP report, but even then I suspect it would seldom be used — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's rephrase that. I've talked with MA on IRC, and we somehow reached the following suggestion. If there are x (this can be determined later) amount of reverts in a space of x time, then the bot will make a request for page protection. MA and I agreed that adding a bot section would be simplest, and CP678 said that it is also easy to incorporate in their bots' code. I'll update this later and start a BRFA if the code is ready. Please do and try to establish consensus for this suggestion. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 22:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I admit going off of the number of reverts as opposed to filter hits is a fine idea, but I also explicitly said you should reach out to various venues before getting too involved. I don't think this bot task is trivial (essentially vandalism/edit warring detection) and will probably attract opposition from some. I would not start a BRFA without seeking broader input. That is left to you — MusikAnimal ^talk 07:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Increasing protection of already-protected pages

At what point should we request an upgrade in protection of already-protected pages? History of basketball appears to be under constant vandalism even with pending changes protection. Zupotachyon (talk ⋅ contribs) Ping me with {{SUBST:reply to|Zupotachyon}} 03:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Zupotachyon: Usually when the ratio of good non-confirmed edits are outweighed heavily by bad ones and there's a high enough frequency then there might be reason to up it to semi-protection. You probably won't get indefinite but it had a year back in 2014 so I feel there's decent precedent to show this isn't going away. tutterMouse (talk) 07:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Zupotachyon, KrakatoaKatie, and TutterMouse: I'd actually be inclined to apply indefinite semi protection here. The article history is almost exclusively vandalism. I'm pinging the most recent protecting admin in case she has any additional input. Airplaneman ✈ 17:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm good with that. Looks like PC has outlived its usefulness here. Katie^talk 22:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Cool, I've applied indefinite semi-protection to the page. Airplaneman ✈ 23:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. y'all. Zupotachyon (talk ⋅ contribs) Ping me with {{SUBST:reply to|Zupotachyon}} 06:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Unprotection?

Some years ago, a user kept doing vandalism to my user page but I think it's over. Where can I request that my user page be unprotected? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

There's a section on the main page to request unprotection, but  Done anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Preemptive protection or protection watch list?

While IP vandalism mostly occurs randomly, there is a limited amount of pages for which one can predict with 100% certainty that there will be vandalism on a particular date; not before, not shortly after, but definitely in some small time window. The easiest example is the NFL Draft. Even though there is no disruptive editing on 2017 NFL Draft right now, there will be on April 27, 2017, from 8 pm ET to shortly past midnight. It's a 100% guaranteed. Just like there was this year, April 28, on 2016 NFL Draft.

In light of this (and similar corner cases), I wonder if we could have something like preemptive page protection, or at least some sort of watch list that protects a particular site after the first incident of vandalism? Like something that basically says: "admins, on this particular date at this particular time, have a very close eye on this particular article."

The reason I'm asking is because the reaction time on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is sometimes very slow, compared to the frequency of vandalism occurring. It was particularly bad last year, when top NFL draft prospect Laremy Tunsil had an infamous social media incident about 5 minutes before the draft, which resulted in massive IP vandalism on his article. I literally had to revert vandalism on that article more than 100 times within two hours on draft day (check the page history), while admins on this page were slow to react.

So ideally, I would like to list 10-15 articles that on this particular day (April 27, 2017, from 8 pm ET on) are going to be most likely targets of "during-draft vandalism" and thus should be watched by admins, ready to pull the trigger and protect the page if necessary. Is that possible? --bender235 (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

If you search through Wikipedia:Protection policy for "preemptive" you will see that it comes up several times. All of them say not to do it. If it is bad then post on the page and then make a comment at WP:AN or on an individual admins page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I realize blocking literally in advance is discouraged by our guidelines. What I had in mind was more like a schedule for high alert regarding particular articles. --bender235 (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I misunderstood you. Wouldn't this list be required/useful for more than just the NFL draft. I haven't looked but I suspect that most major North American drafts get hit, There would be other events around the world that could probably added to this list. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the NFL draft was just an example, from personal experience. --bender235 (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Does this situation quality, or is there a better option?

There is potential for an edit war at Visual Pinball concerning which is the "official website." The page does not contain heavy traffic, but on a regular basis, anon users change the website from the one linked in the About section of the software to another popular community. You cannot ban every anon that comes along. Reverting over and over is an issue in itself knowing that this act of minor vandalism will never cease. Is this grounds for requesting indefinite simi-protection? — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 19:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Probably not a candidate for protection, IMO, whether or not it's disruptive is debatable at this point, and with a handful of these edits since September it's pretty far from the threshold where protection would be desirable, especially indefinite protection. It doesn't look like there's ever been a note or discussion about which website to use, and I see that many of these IPs have no talk page which indicates that nobody's attempted to explain the situation. I find that when anons repeatedly change something that isn't blatant vandalism, it helps to put a commented note right next to it in the article text explaining why what's there shouldn't be changed, for example [1] or [2]. The edits are often in good faith, and a simple <!-- don't change this without discussing first --> often works wonders. Then again if you have attempted to address the anons and the website keeps getting changed in spite of a request not to change it, then this would probably be a good candidate for pending changes protection. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC

There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Request moved from project page

I'm trying to find out who has protected a page from creation. According to the info above I should "If you are requesting unprotection, the correct protocol is to ask the protecting administrator first for unprotection (the admin's user account name can be found in the page's edit history)." But there is no page, so I don't know who to contact. Can anyone help? Kirkmc (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kirkmc: I'm assuming you're talking about OpenIO? The protecting admin was Cryptic so you should leave a message on their talkpage. tutterMouse (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

ARBPIA3 logging

I've just logged the recent ARBPIA3 requests served by me at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log. While this duplicates the ECP log, others may wish to do the same until we are explicitly instructed that this duplication is not needed (or perhaps it's been discussed and I'm not aware - pointers gratefully received). Regards, Samsara 21:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 is not a discretionary sanction and therefore does not need to be logged as one. BethNaught (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, BethNaught. @Oshwah: This may interest you. Samsara 21:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Decrease waiting time before archiving?

The page has been looking quite full at times lately. Samsara 01:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Probably a good idea to provide a decreased waiting time if there are more than 20 requests on the page. Keep it from ballooning up. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Mass unprotection requests

Lately, we've had multiple instances where an editor has added mass requests to unprotect certain classes of articles. The latest soup of the day is our semi-protected templates with just over 500 transclusions. Given limited administrative time, I think we should heavily discourage such unprotection requests made at RFPP unless a specific rationale for unprotection accompanies them (i.e. certain changes needing to be made, talk page requests, etc). We just don't have the resources to individually consider potentially hundreds of unprotection requests for templates which will rarely (if ever) be edited by editors who aren't already autoconfirmed. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Samsara, who's responded to many of them with questions. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

This is exactly why I asked them if they needed to edit those templates. Absent such reason, I don't think we should unprotect, especially those templates likely to be growing in use, such as the youtuber infobox. Samsara 00:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with that.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I think all the recent requests could be reasonably declined using Mlpearc's rationale (see current last request). I have also boldly added this as a templated reason. Samsara 02:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Absent any further comment here, I'll give it a few more hours to see if any of the variously notified or pinged people want to comment, and then decline all of the current template unprotection requests. Samsara 12:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

1,276 admins

and maybe three of them regularly check this page. There's five ongoing RfAs; maybe this is something that should be addressed with those candidates. I had a request for semi go unanswered for 8 hours today (for a BLP!) until an admin finally got to it. Lizard (talk) 05:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I've had a COI username sitting at UAA for over 12 hours now. We need administrators. I'm tempted to run myself, but I tend to be a little too abrasives to be effective at times. John from Idegon (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I've seen recent RfA candidates advertising as wanting to work in those areas... Samsara 15:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:List of administrators there are only 551 active admins. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I ran on a platform of closing discussions, but I was quickly side-tracked when I noticed that some of our most basic administrative areas don't receive enough attention. For a couple months, I popped in once a day or so to close the one or two dozen requests that had accumulated, but ultimately, I want to get back to clearing the backlogs requiring a closer. I have more of a comparative advantage there and find it far more enjoyable. We need to recruit additional administrators who want to work primarily in these areas. Everyone ping Sro23 until he runs. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Me? No. To be clear, I could never do it. But that's okay. There are so many other users with better judgment who are more qualified than I. Sro23 (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll accept any nominations if someone wants me to run. tutterMouse (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm - *checks contribs* -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 19:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I rotate around areas which interest me, trying to clear a couple of reports off here and there - what'd be good is a way of knowing the "priority" of such requests. Obviously that'll never work (everything will be high priority) but at least then `drive-by` admins will know what to action first -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 19:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Samtar: I have tended to prioritise BLPs. As they are marked as such in the wikitext, a bot should, in the majority of cases, be able to highlight them if we decide to adopt such a system. Similarly, recent edit counts (last 24 hrs, say) could be noted on the request page. Samsara 01:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, may be one to consider - if only to help categorise RfPP requests. I think it would be quite useful if reports appeared as:

• Sangh Parivar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (BLP)

or similar. This could be done by a user script I imagine -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 10:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a userscript expert, but how about:

Jorge Ortiz de Pinedo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (4 recent edits, BLP)

That way we can see which ones are flooding and swoop on those ones right away. Samsara 12:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@TutterMouse: I am too busy now to nominate anyone since it involves a serious contribution check, but I would strongly recommend using this page.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Some "BLP prioritizing" would be nice right about now. Lizard (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Standard response added to template for collateral damage

Review at Template:RFPP/codes or see changes of the template and of the doc (less exciting). Comments welcome before I ask for the bot to be updated. Samsara 06:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Sro23's talk page not to be protected

Sro23 requested on my talk page that his talk page henceforth not be protected. Please therefore decline requests by other users to protect his talk page. (Or comment here if you have further thoughts on this.) Thank you. Samsara 13:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Noted. Thank you.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 01:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

At the risk of being the butt of trolling and/or harassment? I respect his decision though. Blake Gripling (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Short-term protection I'm okay with. If that's what it takes for the vandal to get bored, then fine. It's just the long-term protection that makes me uneasy. I truly appreciate the concern, but please, you don't need to worry about me. I'm so used to the vandalism by now. Sro23 (talk) 04:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Mass requests on upgrading high-risk templates to template protection

I would like to do more mass requests on high-risk templates, but that would be very time-consuming and require a lot of inspection. Here are the list of most transcluded templates. Meanwhile, the consensus at RfC as of now opposes using ECP on high-risk templates. --George Ho (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal, Ymblanter, BU Rob13, and CambridgeBayWeather: and others: What shall be our consensus cut-off value for this, in terms of #transclusions? Samsara 02:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I would prefer not to automatically TP templates because of a number. Rather increase protection where there is a problem. If a semi-protected template is being hit a lot then increase the protection even if it is only used a 100 times. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

If a semi-protected template were being targeted a lot, we could use ECP, since the community has endorsed its use for ongoing disruption in all namespaces. As for what defines a high-risk template worthy of template protection, I tend to think 10,000 transclusions is a bright line for being protected. Below 10,000 is an area for administrator discretion. If a template is transcluded on high-profile articles like United States, Russia, etc. or articles that are prone to vandalism like something in an ArbCom-sanctioned topic area, I might template protect it with as few as 500 transclusions. If something's only transcluded in userspace or talk pages, I probably wouldn't template protect it unless it had at least 5,000 transclusions, probably more. It's up to admin discretion. I've been told the community has tried to define this in the past but has failed to. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

10k transclusions in article space right now would mean 1 in 500 articles would be affected in case of vandalism or other abuse. That seems like a high number. While I agree it would be good to prioritise templates that are transcluded in high profile articles, I'm not aware that we currently have such metrics available to us. Samsara 11:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Unlike highly disputed articles, templates (especially templates with high number of inclusions) are not (should not be) edited often, and I do not see much of a problem of applying template editor protection even if there was no sign of recent disruption. The policy does not grant us an authority to protect them preventively, but I would have no trouble of template-protecting them if there was some disruption in the past.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

So far, we seem to have clear consensus for TP above 10k. I may do a review specifically of WikiProject templates to see if their editing patterns merit an exemption on the side of lower protection, as they are "only" used on talk pages. Furthermore, I served two requests today for Template:Infobox Wikipedia user (TP) and Template:Infobox academic (semi). I consider a specific request being made an aggravating circumstance along the lines of WP:BEANS, but am open to further input. We should probably also work towards a consensus criterion for semi in the sense of, above x transclusions, definitely semi unless there are good reasons not to. It is my understanding that ECP need not be discussed as a pre-emptive measure given the recent RfC outcome. Samsara 09:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: The protection policy definitely does give us the authority to preventatively/preemptively template-protect templates. Note that each section of the protection policy (full, semi, pending changes, etc.) each individually states that protection should not be used to preemptively prevent disruption. This disclaimer is absent in the template protection area, which states instead that the protection is usually used solely due to large transclusion counts. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

As an aside, Samsara, I'm against establishing transclusion counts for template protection, so I wouldn't count my guidelines as consensus for/against protection in certain situations. We also can't really call anything here with a handful of admins consensus when the broader community has addressed this before and found no consensus. Protection is highly discretionary due to the different nature of each template and its transclusions. It should stay that way. We're elected to use our discretion, and this is one of the areas where we need to use it. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, then I don't know why we have "highly visible template" as one of the drop-down reasons to protect. That sure sounds like it's supposed to be for pre-emptive use. To me, establishing some consensus is better than lone roaming cowboys... Samsara 00:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, in my mind this discussion isn't so much about forbidding exceptions as it is about establishing a common yardstick that can be used to say, "look, we've discussed this and a number of us think that x is a good idea; in the absence of another admin opinion, give me a reason why I should do y in this specific case". Taking just the 2300 templates over 10k transclusions, I think there's a good argument to be made for not waiting for each one to first suffer abuse before we can protect it. I hesitate specifically to say what kinds of disruption are imaginable, but to paraphrase Dürrenmatt, if it can be thought, it will be thought again. There is thus an argument to be made that any high use template being vandalised means that protecting the others is not really "pre-emptive" any more. Samsara 01:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, every template with over 10K inclusions can be bot-protected at the TP level (unless it has been already full protected, which requires an attention of a human).--Ymblanter (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

This archived ANI thread is worth a read. Anyone who's dealt with protecting templates will have noticed in the history more than one admin mass-protecting templates, then reverting themselves or being reverted after an ANI discussion. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Mass request on pages related to Arab-Israeli conflict(s)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have done so many individual requests on pages related to the matter, subject to ArbCom (WP:ARBPIA3). I could do more individual requests, but that is time-consuming. What about others directly related to the Israeli-Arab conflict? --George Ho (talk) 09:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

You know as well as I do that mass requests rarely if ever get protected unless an Arbcom decision says they should be. This does also apply to your wholesale request of lowering template protections where a decent amount of them require admin intervention to be edited given how widely they're used. As with any article, behaviour will dictate protection and if there's no urgency then it won't be protected given you can't hit barely edited articles with the same force as a rampantly conflict-ridden one. tutterMouse (talk) 13:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

For admins, there are so many pages at Category:Arab–Israeli conflict, Category:Arab-Israeli conflict navigational boxes, and Category:Arab-Israeli conflict navigational boxes. These should help you upgrade protection for such pages. George Ho (talk) 05:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@George Ho: You duplicated one of the links. Is there a third one? Thanks. Samsara 13:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing you meant Category:Israeli–Palestinian conflict and Category:Arab-Israeli campaignbox templates? Samsara 13:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. George Ho (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC) Pinging Samsara. 07:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Also ones at Category:United Nations General Assembly resolutions concerning Israel. --George Ho (talk) 07:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Not sure about other admins, but I would not ec-protect an ARBPIA page unless it was recently edited by an IP or a not ec-confirmed user. There are too many of those articles, most are uncontroversial, and we can have our time spent elsewhere.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ymblanter for chiming in with this. I was just drafting a question for ArbCom on this subject as you posted the above. Samsara 08:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive284#Extended confirmed protection & ArbCom sanctions and User talk:CambridgeBayWeather/Archive46#B'Tselem. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I see that you had the same concern that I had - and also that the clarification was not made easily accessible. Samsara 10:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Given the responses at various aforementioned venues, I propose hatting this discussion and not further pursuing pre-emptive protections under ARBPIA3. Samsara 04:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm late to the party, but I've asked this of specific arbitrators in the past. The answer I've gotten was that the protection policy probably still applies here, in the sense that we shouldn't protect pages preemptively. I generally only protect a page if an IP or non-extendedconfirmed editor has edited it since the remedy went into effect. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@BU Rob13: Are you mass-protecting pages now? Samsara (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Samsara: Those protections were in response to a non-extendedconfirmed editor mass editing those pages. It was not preemptive. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Samsara (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

ECP in practice

When asked to extended confirmed protect, I have so far always told requesters that semi must be instated first, and only if semi then proves ineffective while enabled, can ECP be applied. In my mind, this requires that more than one account continues to cause problems "after and while" semi is in place. Most requests I have seen start from a position where there is no protection at all, and therefore if there is indeed found to be a problem, my response would be to enable semi only and watchlist to hopefully catch further developments, if any. In addition, I've always explained to requesters that ECP is not to be used as a first response, although I think I would stop short of asking requesters not to request ECP, as they may well have a good intuition of a case and be convinced that ECP will ultimately be required (and they may turn out to be right).

I was just curious whether, arbitration enforcement aside, others are assessing these requests in the same or similar ways, so that we can all do it somewhat consistently.

I have deliberately posted here rather than a WT:PP, as my goal is to understand the factory-floor perspective.

Thanks for your input and best regards,

Samsara 17:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that's what I've been doing. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Well since you've asked, may I propose a scenario? Two auto-confirmed users are in a slow-burning edit war over article content at some low traffic volume random article that has no article protection. They are both auto-confirmed only and are both equally culpable in the edit-war. DR has failed to achieve anything and the editors refuse to use the article talk page (all discussion is in edit-summaries). One of the two editors comes to RFPP and requests an ECP. Now, we do have several options here; RfC, EW blocks, ECP, etc. Let's assume that this is a rather wide-ranging many things dispute so that I can force RfC off the table because that seems to be one of the be all end all solutions that editors use. Both editors are acting in good faith, both are being civil, but, neither is letting up on their edits. What do? Well, a semi-protect won't prevent either editor contributing and perpetuating the edit war so that's not a solution. ECP? well, it'll force them to use the talk page won't it? what good is a block when have a better option in front of you that will stop the edit-war, besides, one of the editors graciously came forth and requested ECP did they not? It's clear that they're trying to solve the dispute amicably before admin intervention in the form of blocks is required. My point is that I think RFPP requests should be considered on a case-by-case basis, and not necessarily on some arbitrary(?) ruling that semi-protect must come first. Sure, these instances may be rare, but, what good is admin discretion and the ability to IAR if you're not thrown a curve ball every once in a while. I hope all that makes sense. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I would fully protect. ECP may not be enough to stop them and I prefer full over blocking. If editors are blocked they can't discuss the issue. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, valid solution CambridgeBayWeather it'd have the same effect as ECP for those two editors. Why Full over ECP? just to prevent any other random parties with extended confirmed from joining in? Mr rnddude (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Plus there will be some pressure on the edit warriors from the editors who ain't edit warring. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: I think we all know WP:IAR exists, but my feeling is that it should be used sparingly, and the way I read the message that was sent to all sysops at ECP launch, we have been specifically asked to always use semi first. So unless we subsequently decide otherwise, we're not really "free to do whatever", to quote a song. Also, in your statement, Let's assume that this is a rather wide-ranging many things dispute so that I can force RfC off the table because that seems to be one of the be all end all solutions that editors use. I cannot discern the connection between the first half and the second - I would think that wide-ranging issues are the ones that we should particularly have RfCs on. Samsara 07:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

With regards to RfC, I meant it to be a varied group of problems that couldnt be solved in a single RfC. With regards to ECP and IAR, Cambridge Bay Weather had a good point about Full protect. I cant think of a legitmate situation where FP wouldnt solve a similar problem to my proposed scenario. Thanks for the response though. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Samsara 10:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

While it seems obvious that this is the standard course of action, I think there's a good argument that it is not the most productive for the project. Ideally, full protection means that well supported consensus based edits are decided upon by editors and enacted by an administrator, but I think it's fairly common knowledge that full protection usually means that all editing simply stops.

Part of the reason noticeboards (and other pages like this one, which are magnets for disputes) are useful, is that they are helpful in mobilizing a small contingent of bottom feeders like myself, who wind up picking up projects from them. This seems to be what more of less has happened on Pizzagate (conspiracy theory), the first ECP page I've been heavily involved in. Even though one of the editors will almost certainly be TBANned by either ANI or AE, even they have managed to make (intentionally or unintentionally) a handful of suggestions that have positively contributed to the article. This was all mediated by more experienced editors, but progress was still made where otherwise, had the article been fully protected, it would have predictably been about half a long, with half as many sources, and half as much information as it currently has. TimothyJosephWood 12:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

So as a footnote, I today EC protected Two-Face, where several autoconfirmed editors were making the same or similar unsourced change, although only one did so during a semi-protected phase. Listing that here for transparency's sake so hopefully y'all don't call me a hypocrite - it was an eligible case in my opinion. Samsara 09:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem, Ferret, K6ka, Cyberpower678, and Primefac: Just letting you know about this work-in-progress discussion we've been having about interpreting extended confirmed protection policy and consistently applying it. Samsara (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I haven't read this discussion entirely but I would prefer semi over ECP as a first response, unless the page is under Arbitration 30/500 restrictions which have been violated.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 20:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. ECP is something I am not a huge fan of and I think I've only done it once since I got the bit. That being a situation where a prolific sockmaster had a few EC accounts, and then only briefly so the SPI team could track down and block them all. All of which said, I'm new to this and still getting used to things. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Problematic unprotection requests

To my fellow admins: Please be careful not to unprotect pages protected under ArbCom provisions, as you may be desysopped for doing so. I just declined two such requests today. Samsara (talk) 14:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Kim (Korean surname); request protection/semi-protection

There are currently one or more "vandalists" that write false unsorced information and do not stop to change it again. (user:2600:387:9:5::6f , 2600:387:9:5::67 , 67.177.106.18) 일성강 (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a dispute and slow edit war. No sources used on either side of the argument. One version looks simpler and more plausible than the other, but I'm really no expert in this area. Second opinions? Samsara (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Should we semi-protect the request page itself?

Should we semi-protect the request page? Yesterday and today, I'm seeing IP requests to protect templates that are already protected. IP 219.78.191.75 today; 219.79.127.74 yesterday. — Maile (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Like AIV and other 'emergency' pages, this page should only be protected as a last resort, and then for as short a time as possible. From what I've seen, the IP is typically requesting a change of protection level. They seem over-keen to lock everything up, IMO, but the requests can simply be declined if that is the case. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

No need as it's not really a problem. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Seconding what zzuuzz said about being overly keen (also see above thread). I'll keep mentioning that Wikipedia_talk:Protection_policy#Transclusion_count_to_justify_TE_protection needs to be finalised and the outcome displayed in a place with appropriate visibility. Right now, we're like lonely cowboys in the night, likely to implement vastly differing individual standards. RfC? Samsara 19:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

"Handled requests" section

Seems that the "Handled requests" section, which directs everyone to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Rolling archive, is more of a hatnote at the bottom of the page nowadays. I thought about merging it into Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Header. However, I welcome alternatives. --George Ho (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended Confirmed protection

I'm getting confused on this, with the changes to it. And what I am confused about, I tend to avoid touching. I get that it can be applied to any article "reasonably construed as belonging to the Arab-Israeli conflict". What I am confused about is how long that should be, how old should the article be? Do we preemptively protect such an article on an indefinite basis from the moment it's created? Right now, Celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the Liberation of Jerusalem has been on the requests for "Extended confirmed" for more than 10 hours with nobody touching it, so I'm probably not the only one confused by this issue. The editor is not specific about how long they want. The article was created on April 28, and really has had no disruptive edits. Do we just preemptively put Extended confirmed as Indefinite on something like this? We need clarification of the guidelines, because one size does not fit all. It would really help if we just had a bullet-point list of possible scenarios on how to handle these. Please advise. — Maile (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Maile66: Arbcom has mandated indefinite preemptive protection for any article in the topic area. An admin who agrees with that stance just has to come along and fill the request and log the protection. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Rolling archive

Anyone know why the rolling archive has been messed up, keeping only a fraction of the days its supposed to, for the last little while? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678:, do you know smth about this?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I was hoping there would be some one off element in there and that it would fix itself, but alas, it didn't. :(—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: Is there a fix in the works? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately not yet. I've been very busy lately.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

FYI on arb enforcement page protections

Per this motion, WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 protections should now be logged. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, this means I will not be imposing ARBPIA 500/30 sanctions any longer, at least not until a bot is written which automatically logs these protections. I think my time can be best used elsewhere.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Such a bot is probably not possible, Ymblanter, as it's context-specific to determine whether a protection is made as an arbitration enforcement action, what case it's specific to, etc. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

ARBPIA is a standard protection reason in the drop-down menu, so the bot would just need to collect those.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Twinkle doesn't have that option, so I type manual rationales. Many other admins do as well. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Considering that WP:ECP is allowed for general use, and that ECP is already automatically logged at WP:AN#Pages_recently_put_under_extended-confirmed_protection, manual logging of ECP does seem a bit silly. Rami R 08:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that will have to be taken up with the Arbitration Committee. See WP:ARCA. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I hope the arbitrators will personally find time to log at least five entries each manually. They probably do not realize how much time does it cost if one starts from scratch.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Possible discussion of interest

I have started a discussion related to page protection, specifically, moving the Did You Know template from "Full protection" to "Template protection". Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Bot not archiving cases

It hasn't done anything here since June 23. I notified the bot's handler. Enigma^msg 19:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Disputing withdrawal of requests

Recently, I have been thinking about withdrawing my 2 requests for protection (currently on this list) as I suspect my own behaviour is causing some admins to skip over my requests and recent events involving such have come up that makes me question my own purpose here on the encyclopedia. I may resubmit the requests later once the issues in the articles develop and my {{Discouraged}} feeling has healed.

Thanks Chrissymad for monitoring my every edit on this encyclopedia. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Jd02022092 I am not following any of your edits, however the SPI I filed was obviously on my watchlist, hence why I asked you not to do what you did and the declined CSD pinged me as a decline on a live feed that I follow on IRC and now this third interaction is because you pinged me. And I'll also add that I'm not sure what exactly my comment has to do with you requesting PP...CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Got you. Thanks. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Spacetime

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

There is an error in the variable used in the article. Under Spacetime in Special relativity/Spacetime interval, instead of this text

'Because of the minus sign, the spacetime interval between two distinct events can be zero. If {\displaystyle s^{2}} s^{2} is positive, the spacetime interval is timelike, meaning that two events are 'separated' by more time than space. If {\displaystyle s^{2}} s^{2} is negative, the spacetime interval is spacelike, meaning that two events are separated by more space than time. Spacetime intervals are zero when {\displaystyle s^{2}=\pm ct} {\displaystyle s^{2}=\pm ct}. In other words, the spacetime interval between two events on the world line of something moving at the speed of light is zero. Such an interval is termed lightlike or null. A photon arriving in our eye from a distant star will not have aged, despite having (from our perspective) spent years in its passage.'

it should be

Because of the minus sign, the spacetime interval between two distinct events can be zero. If {\displaystyle s^{2}} s^{2} is positive, the spacetime interval is timelike, meaning that two events are separated by more time than space. If {\displaystyle s^{2}} s^{2} is negative, the spacetime interval is spacelike, meaning that two events are separated by more space than time. Spacetime intervals are zero when {\displaystyle x=\pm ct} {\displaystyle s^{2}=\pm ct}. In other words, the spacetime interval between two events on the world line of something moving at the speed of light is zero. Such an interval is termed lightlike or null. A photon arriving in our eye from a distant star will not have aged, despite having (from our perspective) spent years in its passage.

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Gulf War

I'm a bit confused about the protection level of Gulf War and I am not familiar with details of page protection. It seems to me that the page is unprotected, but there is a Template:Editnotices/Page/Gulf War which comes up when I edit it, so either the protection level is wrong, or the application of that template is wrong. I ask because there have been a couple of unhelpful edits by IP editors recently that have been reverted. I'm hoping a friendly admin type can help me understand! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:. This article was 30/500 protected for 3 months in 2015. Obviously the editnotice was not removed. For now it is not protected. Lectonar (talk) 08:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and the page needs not to be protected right now imho; disruption level is low. Lectonar (talk) 08:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Protection is just one means of enforcement of the somewhat questionable ARBPIA decision. The article was placed under 1RR through ARBPIA in 2010.[3] The 1RR notice was then changed to a template in April 2015[4]. The page was then only semi-protected 2 months later. Six months later the template was modified to add the other restrictions.[5] TBH I'm not sure how this should be properly interpreted, however there's quite a lot of pages which fall under ARBPIA which are not protected, and it's enforced on various articles to varying extents. The protection level and edit notice are not totally inconsistent - it just means it's not enforced through protection. Most of us have learned to live with the inconsistency. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

At Gulf War, random vandalism is still occurring, but not really any POV-pushing. I never had this under WP:ECP, it was only semiprotection. The editnotice (placed in 2010 by User:PhilKnight) which says it is an ARBPIA article and that IPs must not edit is technically correct, as of this moment. I have restored the semiprotection but I could remove it if others disagree. The only long-term warring is from a number of people (registered and not) who want to change 'Gulf War' to 'Persian Gulf War' regardless of the fact that it breaks links. EdJohnston (talk) 14:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

IP vandalism

There needs to be some sort of regulation when submitting requests for protection. An IP here had placed a header in-between my header and specific request, making it look like I was requesting protection on a different article. I don't know how long this has been going on, but is there anything administration can do to stop this kind of behavior from happening? This includes editors deleting other users' requests to add their own request. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The only way to do that is to semi-protect the page and that does happen. You can't really regulate user error. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

And it's not all IP vandalism. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Cyberbot

The bot often goes long periods without archiving reports, and instead makes ridiculous edits. See here. Enigma^msg 04:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Another example. The article was protected and the bot comes in after and says it was not. I left several messages for Cyberpower. Enigma^msg 04:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Another example. All three of those pages were indeed protected. Enigma^msg 04:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

I would like to change something on Jesus's wiki page. It says that he is Jewish when there is proof that he jewish. I would like to have that removed.

 Not done Where is the proof for anything he did? He was a believer in God from a time before Christianity existed, thus making him Jewish by default. Additionally, if you have any further edit request, please place them on the talk page of the corresponding articles. — IVORK _Discuss 06:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

ARBPIA3 500/30

In a previous discussion, it was decided (with input, if memory serves, from one or two arbitrators) not to EC-protect articles that had not been subject to conflict. When I look at recently protected 2017 Temple Mount shooting, the only evidence of conflict I see is an edit summary that says, "[user] doesn't have authority to edit Palestine/Israel pages so these edits should be reverted". This seems to refer to the disavowed interpretation of ARBPIA3.

Relevant discussion and links:

• Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_page_protection/Archive_9#Mass_request_on_pages_related_to_Arab-Israeli_conflict.28s.29
• User_talk:Samsara#2013.E2.80.9314_Israeli.E2.80.93Palestinian_peace_talks

Should we unarchive and "pin" the relevant discussion? Has consensus changed?

Malinaccier?

Samsara 01:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me--I was unaware of that consensus and fully support it. Feel free to unprotect them now, or I can do it when I am next available. Malinaccier P. (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we unprotected any last time this came up, so it should be fine. The concern back then was that mass requests could unnecessarily bog us down, and we therefore wouldn't want to encourage them. Best, Samsara 01:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, either way works for me. My read of the ArbCom case is that they are calling for preemptive protection, but if several of the arbs advised against it....In any case, thanks for the notice! :) Malinaccier (talk) 06:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

The current situation is far from ideal. As far as I can tell, consensus is that these pages shouldn't be edited by newer users, but we are only going to enforce this if such users start editing pages. Such an approach will be very confusing and off-putting to new users. I certainly wouldn't rollback a constructive edit to one of these pages. But even if the edit was left, if the page is protected, just at the point that someone has become interested, they are not going to feel encouraged to contribute more.

I would prefer it if we said that we would only apply ECP if we saw disruptive editing by newer users. This would still be much harsher than for off-topic pages because we would go straight to ECP and not time-limit it. We also would probably react sooner too.

The problem is that such an approach is clearly not within the letter of the arb-comm ruling (as opposed to the current approach, which is *only* *arguably* not within the letter of the arb-comm ruling).

So I would be interested to know what others thought. If there is a consensus for the "only following disruption" approach? If there is, we'll also need to decide if we are happy that this is just the normal evolution of Wikipedia or if we should take it to Arb Comm for clarification.

Yaris678 (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, @Yaris678:. You wrote, I would prefer it if we said that we would only apply ECP if we saw disruptive editing by newer users. That's how I've handled it so far, and what I understood the consensus to be. It seems to me to conform to a philosophy of "let sleeping [potentially malevolent entities] lie", which, while probably not applicable to all situations, is probably a good idea for some. To be more specific, for me, the criterion for "disruption" would be if an established editor disagreed with a new user and reverted their edit. I suspect part of the intention of ArbCom is that individual admins should not be put in a position of having to decide whether a particular edit is or isn't disruptive on a PIA page. Regards, Samsara 13:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I suspect most admins would agree with that approach to ECP. But we have a problem when a page is not ECPed but then other users revert constructive edits by newer users, purely because they haven't reached the magic 500/30. I think we need something somewhere to point out to people that this isn't the right approach. Maybe an essay that can be linked to, setting out the approach that has a rough consensus.

Yaris678 (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I usually treat edits to those pages like I would pending changes; approve if it fits the facts and isn't suspicious, revert if otherwise. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 18:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Yaris678, however, it is the Arbcom who decides. I also stopped ec-protect pages since the Arbcom required logging the protection of every page separately, I find this unnecessary waste of my time.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

It *may* be necessary to get Arb Comm involved, but I think you may have misunderstood their involvement to date. It was community consensus in an RfC that established the need to post something on AN. This was later clarified in a separate RfC to state that we are OK with an automatic posting by a bot, which is what is currently happening. So there is no extra effort required by the admin to ECP a page. Yaris678 (talk) 09:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Yaris678:, concerning the logging, I was specifically referring to this discussion which happened later than everything you refer to. Concerning the main topic of the thread, you yourself say that the approach you propose explicitly contradicts the arbcom decision, and in this case I do not see ho it could be applied without explicit motion of the Arbcom.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Wow. I missed that one. Thanks for pointing it out. Looks like Arb Comm like giving admins more work. The horse has already left the stable, given that there will be a lot of ARBPIA3-related ECPs that haven't been logged.

So it looks like we are at a bit of a deadlock. There is a consensus among admins not to spend their time protecting so many pages... but Arb Comm wants them to do more than just protect them, it wants them to spend time on logging too. So the net results is either that constructive newer users will be able to continue editing some on-scope pages, which is against the Arb Comm resolution, or they will be reverted and/or the pages only then subject to protection, which is against WP:BITE.

What next? Go back to Arb Comm and say their idea isn't working?

Ignore it, given that the high-traffic pages and many others are all ECP now anyway? That is the most likely outcome, but it is going to put off some new users.

Yaris678 (talk) 12:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

At the very least, they should be pointed out to this discussion (which is equivalent to saying to ArbCom that their idea is not working).--Ymblanter (talk) 12:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Can someone please provide a working link to the actual ArbCom decision on protection logging. The link here is broken and I can't find it anywhere. Zero^talk 12:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Zero, The link I gave should work. Yaris678 (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes it does, thanks. As pointed out, only a fraction of ECP pages in the ARBPIA area are logged, so the logging idea is not working. Personally I edit in the ARBPIA area so I am involved and don't protect pages except temp-semi against vandals, but I can give you an idea of how it works there. Non-50/300 folk who make edits on non-ECP ARBPIA pages are generally reverted if their edit is politically contentious but if they just want to fix the spelling or format citations better nobody bothers them. So I think that newbies are usually bitten only in accordance with the spirit of the sanctions. Zero^talk 13:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

That has generally been my experience too, which is good. It *might* be in the spirit of the sanctions, but it goes against the word. So I think we need a clear statement on the subject. Ideally, that would be a clear statement by the Arbitration Committee, hence the below pinging of 2 members and mention of ARCA. If the committee declines to comment then some statement from the community would be useful, such a mention in a policy or guideline.... i.e. in WP space, not WT space. Yaris678 (talk) 14:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ymblanter and Yaris678: Wow... very interesting since I had started logging ARBPIA prots not so many months ago and was told not to do so. Samsara 23:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Samsara:, the ArbCom motion was published two months after you got this comment.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Picking on two members of the committee: @Newyorkbrad: @GorillaWarfare: Any opinion on the above? In summary, there is an apparent conflict between the following:

• Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection/Archive 9#Mass request on pages related to Arab-Israeli conflict(s)
• WP:ARBPIA3
• WP:BITE

Any ideas on a remedy? Is it worth taking to WP:ARCA?

Yaris678 (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I think we can safely assume the response is not coming, at least not here.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I think our options are:

• Take this to ARCA anyway.
• Write a WP:Rough guide to extended-confirmed protection like the WP:Rough guide to semi-protection. WRT arbitration enforcement, this rough guide would include consensus to not mass roll-out, avoidance on unnecessary reversion and need for logging. The rough guide would be a place to summarise current practice and would be a useful thing to point people towards next time this topic comes up.

Yaris678 (talk) 07:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Both options are fine with me, but someone needs fo find time to either create a page or to write an ARCA entry.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Yaris678 and Ymblanter: Drafted at User:Samsara/Rough guide to extended-confirmed protection per suggestions. Feel free to edit away, and move the page if satisfied that this is a good idea. Samsara 23:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I will have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Made some changes. I'm happy for it to go to WP space but haven't moved it yet, in case anyone else wants to change it first. Yaris678 (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Yaris678: It's starting to look ready. I would recommend turning WP:ROUGH into a disambiguation page. There are now two rough guides and a page about rough consensus. Samsara 17:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree... although I might seek a wider opinion before implementing that because ROUGH will be linked from quite a few places.

I've made a few more changes to the page. I would appreciate it if some could look at the last section, on "Discussion of an administrator's decision to ECP", because that is new.... after that... maybe it is ready...

Yaris678 (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I have made a couple of changes; as far as I am concerned it can be moved out of the draft.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I've moved the page to WP space. Yaris678 (talk) 10:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Ever since the ArbCom ruling, it's been a game amongst editors to find as many articles as possible tangentially related to the conflict so they can say it's arbitration enforcement. I do not think this is a positive step and if the editors are not going to make a case for protection, these requests should be summarily denied. Enigma^msg 20:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Senate

Ongoing vandalism from reddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/PrequelMemes/comments/71p79m/i_have_done_it/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.153.18 (talk) 11:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I've given it a couple of days of semi. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Repeat nominations in spite of being declined

Lebanon has just been nominated for protection for the third time in two weeks - that is, it has been declined twice but was nonetheless re-nominated by the same user. I wonder if it is time to make diffs mandatory on this board just as they already are on others, and perhaps update the bot so that the "has been nominated within the last seven days" advisory shows up for bulk nominations as well. Samsara 11:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

In addition, one of the recent nominations on which I granted EC protection based on a single recent edit that fit the criteria, has been contested by an extended confirmed user (see my talk page). Samsara 19:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes - aside my view that the edit in question wasn't actually obviously disruptive - I think there is a risk that half of Wikipedia ends up on EC protection because of some tangential connection to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. In this case, I am concerned that it was not the intention of WP:ARBPIA sanctions to impact on people discussing unrelated political disputes in Western Sahara or Taiwan, and yet that is currently the position that we are in on that article. Kahastok talk 18:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify for anybody else reading this - Taiwan and Western Sahara are not currently under ECP. The article with questioned ARBPIA3 protection is List of states with limited recognition, where Palestine and Israel are two of approximately 15 states listed. Samsara 10:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Positions for some "already protected"/ping protecting admin clerks?

I don't think admins are needed to do these tasks - I see two solutions, either (1) appoint some clerks (some like JD are helping with this already, so it's more like acknowledging that contribution and attracting a few more to the task), or (2) give these tasks to a bot. Thoughts? Samsara 13:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The bot already sends out notifications saying "yadda yadda is already protected. Please confirm." Why not change it so it says "yadda yadda has already been protected by [admin]"? @Cyberpower678:. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Samsara 13:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I would prefer to have a human looking at least once for every nomination. Sometimes bot makes mistakes, for example, the article is pc-protected but semi is requested. It does not happen too often, generally it does an excellent job, but ideally we do not want false negatives at all. Clerks are fine with me.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, since there seems to be tentative support for the idea of a clerk position, let's put the question to jd22292 if this sort of role and recognition is something he could see himself being interested in - JD, how does it sound to you? Samsara 08:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I like the idea, though I think one restriction for a role could be that a clerk can't have a block placed on them recently (i.e. the past 6 months). Since I've had a recent block, this is not a role that would fit me at this time. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Can we avoid making this a bureaucracy and having a formal clerking system? It just doesn't work and it attracts hat collectors whose comments are unlikely to be more useful than a bot's. It takes seconds to review a page history, see that protection has been applied, and paste the correct template on the request so the bot knows what to do with it, so this looks like a solution in search of a problem to me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jd22292: It seems to me we all trust you to fill this role very responsibly; as far as I can see, whatever rules others have drawn up need not apply here, and if that means coming up with a different way to acknowledge your contribution, I'm sure we can figure out what that should be. Samsara 11:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

King Edward VI High School Stafford

Please can I get page protection as we keep getting constant vandalism.? I am a member of staff Fiona Gillian and have authorisation from the Headteacher. Fiona Gillian (talk) 14:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Fiona Gillian: There has been insufficient recent activity to warrant protection. The last edit was a week ago. If it starts again, please request it on this page, rather than here. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Protected templates.

Could I , at least get the name of Headteacher = Mr J Christey = and the school motto = Be the best you can be = protected? These are the main targets of the vandalism. Fiona Gillian (talk) 14:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

12 hours

Just wanted to point out that this site has 1,239 admins and there's protection requests on this page that have gone unanswered for over 12 hours. Lizard (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Shit happens.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Germany

Hi, i've a question about the Germany-Article. It´s unpossible for me, to edit the source-code. Whats the Reason? Best Regards, --Tonialsa (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Tonialsa. It is semi-protected indefinitely due to a high level of vandalism. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, but how can i edit the page? --Tonialsa (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Suddenly i see a notification at my side, where you telled me to use the Discussion-Site. Thats OK for me, i dont know that before. In deWP, things would handlet in some different way. Regards, --Tonialsa (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Tonialsa. Each Wikipedia has their own way of doing things. If I remember correctly the de Wikipedia requires edits to be confirmed before going live. You should use {{Edit semi-protected}} on Talk:Germany and explain what you want. Some one will come and answer it. Eventually you will be autoconfirmed (4 days and 10 edits) and you can then edit semi-protected pages. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for this advice! Best Regards, --Tonialsa (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

My recent post

My recent post [6] was pushed to the top. What did I do wrong? --Woogie10w (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Woogie10w: You haven’t signed and timestamped it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

"Please see the top of this page for instructions on how to post requests"

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for edits to a protected page says,

• If the discussion page and the article are both protected preventing you from making an edit request, this page is the right place to make that request. Please see the top of this page for instructions on how to post requests.

I searched the top of that page for many minutes and I could not find instructions on how to post a request to edit protected pages. If those instructions are there, but not obvious in some way, could they please be made more obvious? And if those instructions are not there, then either they need to be put there, or at least the bullet point I just quoted shouldn't say that the instructions are there when they aren't there. —Anomalocaris (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I submitted the request at User talk:Daniel#Edit request: User talk:Daniel/Archive/54, with {{Edit fully-protected|User talk:Daniel/Archive/54}}. I removed the request from Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.

This all happened because it says

• If the discussion page and the article are both protected preventing you from making an edit request, this page is the right place to make that request.

As the page in question already is a discussion page, it doesn't have a discussion page of its own, so I concluded that this page (Wikipedia:Requests for page protection) is the right place to make that request. However, I now conclude that the discussion page for User talk:Daniel/Archive/54 is User talk:Daniel. Anomalocaris (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Do we need to change the protection policy w.r.t. ECP?

The protection policy currently states:

In cases where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective, administrators may use extended confirmed protection

Furthermore, specifically:

Extended confirmed protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against disruption that has not yet occurred

In my mind, this means ECP can only be applied to pages that are already under semi, and where more blocks had to be additionally issued than could be considered reasonable. This is the interpretation that we followed when a few of us recently wrote the rough guide to extended confirmed protection. Going with a popular theme around the number 3, I might suggest as a rule of thumb like the one we have for create protection, that ECP can be enabled after as soon as the third autoconfirmed user has been blocked with respect to the article within a reasonably short time. (amendments made 11:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC))

Recently, some of us have started applying ECP more liberally to any case where there was autoconfirmed disruption, or where such disruption might be likely. Such use is, in my opinion, not currently covered by the policy, i.e. admins are acting in violation of the policy and have only IAR to cover their asses. I don't think this is a desirable situation.

So the question arises whether it is necessary and reasonable to ask the community to relax the conditions under which ECP can be used, or whether we have to reign it in and stick more closely to what the policy says. There is, in my opinion, no point to having a policy that nobody actually adheres to.

Looking forward to your opinions.

Samsara 11:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• None of my business, of course, and I'm probably nitpicking in any case; but I don't really read that as saying that the page actually has to be under a semi at that point in time. Rather that it has been at some (presumably recent) point in the past, which has proven itself ineffective- thus allowing an upgrade to a more serious level of sanction. Whether this orthographic hair-splitting makes one jot of effective or material difference, I have no idea. SerialNumber54129 11:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

In principle, your point is sound, but it complicates things by requiring that we have a shared sense of "recent". The cleanest way I can see of dealing with this is to put it under semi, wait for the three blocks to happen, then elevate to ECP. Samsara 15:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I think semi-protection is for preverting IP editor and extended-confirmed protection is for preventing new editor. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

That is not quite correct and clarified in the linked documents. Samsara 12:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Great point, and I will put my hands up to being one of the "us" referred to above. I come from the days when bureaucracy was frowned on and process was there as a guide not a constraint, but this clearly does need thinking through. I suspect the best solution is to have a periodic review of ECP articles via WP:AN to see if there is still consensus that protection is still needed. Wikipedia is not good at periodic reviews, and I think we should become better at this - it is a great way of allowing busy people to take rapid, decisive action while minimising the potential for long term unintended consequences. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• I quite like Samsara's rule of thumb. I wouldn't call it policy, because there are exceptions, as described above. I think the best place to note a rule of thumb for ECP is WP:ROUGHECP. Yaris678 (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Changes to WP:Rough guide to extended confirmed protection

Watchers of this page may be interested at the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Rough guide to extended confirmed protection#Arbitration Enforcement. It relates to how to describe opinion on how to implement WP:ARBPIA3#500/30.Yaris678 (talk) 10:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

So far no one (apart from me and the original poster) has commented there, so it looks like there is no consensus on the enforcement of WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. If this is the case then we are still going to get lots of requests for making such protections. I also notice that there was a recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 19#Should Arab-Israeli conflict pages be protected pre-emptively?. Someone there again suggested going to WP:ARCA. If there genuinely is no consensus on this then I think that is the way to go. Yaris678 (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Or leave it to admin discretion, which is the ideal in my mind. We don't need a firm answer for everything, and getting one can sometimes be worse than leaving it ambigious. I think an ARCA here would do more harm than good and would likely limit the ability of administrators to either decline or protect when needed. It is not disruptive for some admins to grant this as a matter of course, but for others to not grant it until they see issues. Handling things on a case-by-case basis is how most administrative actions should work, and the fact that there is diversity of opinion in the admin corps on this is not a bad thing. I'll also note here like I did there that there is a big difference between granting good faith requests when they come around (which I think is the most common sense thing to do), and going out of our way seeking to ECP every page in the area. I don't think anyone thinks the latter should be done. I fail to see how the former is harmful, and see benefits to it.

tl;dr: can we try to avoid instruction creep on this? Documenting that policy allows protection on sight but that admins should use discretion in judging whether protection would be beneficial seems to be much more flexible and beneficial to the encyclopedia than saying either extreme is the norm. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

NOTE: I fixed the placement of a ton of requests

I don't have the patience to figure out who or what messed them up, but most of the RF increase in PP were in the Requests to reduce protection, so I moved them back. I also didn't have the patience to ensure that every single one is in chronological order, but I think most are. Softlavender (talk) 07:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: Chronology = all correct now. Softlavender (talk) 07:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• By the way, the problem was Walter Görlitz's malformed ping here: [7], which caused The Bushranger's userpage to be reproduced on RFPP, and then the bots and the IP went crazy after that. Softlavender (talk) 08:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Malfunction again, looks like the problem exists from an IP adding in a request which messed it up, (10:04, 20 January 2018‎ 42.111.197.72 (talk)‎) Maybe you want to revert back to that? Govvy (talk) 12:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Please include the section on how to unlock the protected article

I am trying to unlock some protected articles that I have never edited before. They have been protected without discussion on their talkpage why those have been protected. I do not know who and where to ask to unprotect those, though I left a request on their talk page. I request the following: 1. Please include a separate and very clear section in simple language without jargon where and who to request to unlock the protected pages. 2. Please unlock these pages Romila Thapar (Please read this) and unlock Template:Haryana (may want to read this). Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 06:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

G'day, you can make such requests here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for reduction in protection level so long as you have attempted to contact the protecting admin. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Position of TOC

I was just pinged by Fish and karate for not using the RFPP templates. I did look for the admin instructions, having never done this sort of thing before, but couldn't find them. It turns out that's because they're between the TOC and the first section in the wiki-markup, which is a very bad position for screen reader users like me because we'll never notice text that's been placed there. I notice that there ar two invocations of __TOC__, one at the Wikipedia:Requests for page protection page and the other at Requests for page protection/Header, which contradict each other. I realise this is an unusual set of circumstances, but it'd be better to set a good example of accessibility here. Graham87 11:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@Graham87: I use responseHelper to make everything better. When you open an edit box, you see a list of choices on the left. it even fills in the edit summary.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

ResponseHelper doesn’t add the duration of the protection when it adds the rfpp template. @Graham87: I didn’t know there was an issue here for those using a screen reader. Please can you advise on what would be better practice here? Fish+Karate 20:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim and Fish and karate: The TOC just needes to be moved below the admin instructions link (and preferably the admin backlog template) in the wiki-markup. I generally prefer to use tempates directly rather than scripts. Graham87 03:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Graham87: I've removed the duplicate invocation of the TOC (the one that was in the header subpage). The TOC link in the main Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is below the instructions. Does that resolve the issue? Fish+Karate 09:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Fish and karate: Yep, all good now. Thanks very much! Graham87 14:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Request page protection for Leslie Grantham

Hello,

Could an admin please look into adding PP for the page: Leslie Grantham.

There is persistent vandalism by anonymous users.

Thank you. L1amw90 (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@L1amw90: Please request on WP:RPP not this page, thank you. Hhkohh (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, my bad, sorry. L1amw90 (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Protect vandalism

Anbumani Ramadoss page most of the wrong news are included , pls Protect vandalism of Anbumani Ramadoss page .. . Thank you .. . .. Gowtham Sampath (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

It stopped after the most recent protection. Let me know if it resumes. Enigma^msg 21:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection to Trump-Kim summit

To bypass the vandalism of this high traffic page;Trump-Kim summit, Would you please add Semi(or higher level)-protection to the Trump-Kim summit? It would help a lot of Wikipedia readers.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Goodtiming8871: Please report this at the main project page. I took a look at the article history and don't see that much recent IP reversion on the history page. I say this as a non-admin. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind response Let me monitor the activities more on the topic above, and request it to the main project page. 23:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Updates

Dear Colleagues,

as you may know, I returned my bit in January and got it back today. At some point I may start using it, but I did not follow any protection-specific issues over the last half a year. Are there any recent changes in policies/practices or any other issues I need to know about before I can even start? Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: While not directly a protection policy/practice, if you're not already aware, WP:ACPERM passed in April and was implemented soon after. The trial was already underway when you turned it in, so nothing should be too different for you, but just an FYI. Theoretically this affects salting, but in practice the effects are mostly felt at CSD and the like. More recently, there were a few discussions about applying ECP in the context of Arab-Israeli articles. It was felt that some pages (like Jordan or Lebanon) could not be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict and thus would not justify Extended-Confirmed protection. Basically, a reminder that it's worth taking an extra moment to consider the conflict in the broader context of the subject. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I was indeed aware of ACPERM but not of this second point, will consider it.--Ymblanter (talk) 02:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Still issues with Cyberbot

Takes a long time to archive, makes null edits for no apparent reason, and thus tags the page as backlogged when it isn't. Enigma^msg 22:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

That wasn't a null edit, it was putting the requests in chronological order. I don't know why it does that though, it's not really necessary. Have you tried discussing this with the bot's owner? Fish+Karate 09:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I did go to the owner in the past about some of these issues but never received a reply. I don't know why it changes the order of the requests, yet doesn't archive. More important to regularly archive settled requests so as not to erroneously report a backlog, which often happens. Enigma^msg 14:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Good example here. It was protected for a short period. If the bot worked properly, it would have archived the request. Instead, it failed to archive it, waited for protection to run out, and then responded that the article isn't protected. Really? Enigma^msg 20:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Another example: [8] Bot editing to say there's a backlog (there isn't), all the while refusing to archive cases. Enigma^msg 02:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Archiving issues with Current requests for edits to a protected page Section.

There is an archiving issue. The solved issue has not been archived in the past 2 days. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 00:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I've just gone ahead and cleared the section (so as not to mess up anything with the automated archiving system). The bot seems to be working fine, but it's possible it just doesn't accommodate for edit requests made on this page, probably due to the fact that they're not supposed to be made on this page and thus virtually never are. Swarm ♠ 22:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Review Process

I have made Wikipedia article of Author Jasbir Singh. Can you tell how much time Wikipedia team take for review? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajveer90 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. You haven't submitted it for review. There is now a button on your draft to do that. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Section added on technical limitations added to WP:Pending changes

This might be of interest to those regularly attending this page. Regards, Samsara 10:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Glitch in Wikipedia's log page for the Page "Yo"

Theoretically if there is no glitch, then the page "Yo" should be in a unprotected state. However that is not the case. "Yo" is protected, and there is no sign of any protection being added to the page after the last page protection entry. The last page protection entry on the log shows that it should already be in an expired state. The problem with the page "Yo" being protected is not a problem, as there are mostly vandal edits after the page protection expiration date, which have been reverted, due to the glitch. But I am just tring to inform the guys that handle page protection that there is a glitch in the page log or in page protection, where the protection never got expired when it should have.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yo

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Yo

Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I just tried to edit the page and I'm not getting any notice that the page has any sort of protection (other than pending changes). Maybe it's a glitch in your browser's cache? Sakura Cartelet^Talk 22:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

According to the logs and looking at the actual protection the article is protected using pending changes level 1. That protection was applied about 3 years ago with no expiration date. The last semi protection expired in February 2018 so any one can edit the edits from non auto confirmed editors don't automatically go live. There is nothing wrong with the logs. ~ GB fan 22:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Did not see the protection or log from 3 years back. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Page Protection Request

India national under-20 football team and India national under-17 football team are continuously vandalised by some un registered user and some miscreants. These pages need to be protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dey subrata (talk • contribs) 11:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I protected both for a week.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter This is a season for Indian football, many tournaments going on, many such vandalism is going, people come and update anythig and everything, please extend it for 1 month atleast. and also requesting to do for the India national under-23 football team, you can see recent vandalism in the page.--Dey subrata —Preceding undated comment added 19:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry but I do not feel there is enough vandalism to justify a month-long protection, and we do not protect pages pre-emptively. If they get vandalized after the protection has expired, please ask for protection at WP:RFPP--Ymblanter (talk) 09:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Page Protection needed

2018 SAFF U-18 Women's Championship article is being continuously edited and vandalised again and again, even after correcting certain section its being reverted by some unregistered users. Please protect with page.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dey subrata (talk • contribs) 23:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dey subrata: I have added this request to the project page (here) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DannyS712 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion

I have a suggestion that, at times near political elections, pages about political viewpoints be protected, as it becomes more likely that these pages will be vandalized around elections Jebcubed (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Page Protection Request

One or more anonimous users are continuously adding a genre in the page Folklore (Nelly Furtado album) using a source that doesn't confirm it, and everytime I revert the edit they accuse me of being a sockpuppet. It's been suggested I might be dealing with a sockpuppet of MariaJaydHicky, who's edited that page a bit before. Ikcir (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

That has been protected by RegentsPark--Ymblanter (talk) 07:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Nair article is locked. The talk page is also locked preventing any kind of participation.

What would be a genuine reason to block the talk page of an article ? The image used to depict nair women itself is very misleading and inappropriate. We had had a consensus years ago to put up a better image which stayed for a few months buy recently that image has been replaced with a misleading image that does not depict the traditional attire of nair women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:53A0:D338:0:0:1F38:48AD (talk) 06:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• This page has been protected as the result of arbitration discretionary sanctions, as a result of which you need to have a registered account with at least 500 edits to edit it. This is only done because of very extensive problems with editor behaviour on an article in the past. Hut 8.5 07:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Archive bot, where is it?

Cases done are not being archived. Is bot bugged??? Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Pinging cyberpower678, as it is his bot (Cyberbot I) that does the archiving. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 02:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Niceguyedc: It seems that cyberpower678 did try to do something about the situation. However (Cyberbot I), is only archving only recently closed cases. The older ones located at the top of the page, that have been closed for a much longer time than the ones that have just been archived, are still there and not being archived. So theoretically the problem still exists. It also means that the recent archive is now not in order and is dissorgqnized state. The older ones are theoretically going to be placed into a more recent archive after the just recently archived cases, as recently closed when they are not. Same with the newer ones which were just recently archived which when the older closed classes get archived, the newer ones will be in an older archive section, while the older classes in a newer archive section.

I could be wrong about this and this being not a problem. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

It just archived the older ones. Didn't check if the archives are now out of order. How does one check that? Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 04:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold: Usually bot archive ECP approved request after 12 hours and other approved request or just marked Done after 1 hour and denied for 4 hours. If you want to archive immediately, you can add {{rfpp}} Hhkohh (talk) 05:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Requesting protection for E.164

E.164 is seeing frequent vandalism/garbage edits, usually IPs inserting phone numbers in random spots (e.g. this edit). It would probably be helpful to make it editable only by logged-in users. 178.27.73.151 (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Archiving RfPP requests

A user has requested that we convert the rolling archive into a WP:PERM-style permanent archive. See WP:VPR#Complete auto-archiving of RFPP. Sounds uncontroversial to me, but if anyone can think of a reason we shouldn't do this, feel free to comment there.  Swarm  talk  21:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. +1 support. PrussianOwl (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

+1 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I do not see any benefits, and the current mechanism of archivation (normally only bot archives, and only closed topics, open topics never get archived) must be preserved, but I also do not object keeping archives forever if others think it is beneficial.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I'll play the opposition: Successful page protections are easy to see and get a feel for, however declined page protections mean crawling through the diff history of the page if you're trying to establish a pattern of disruptive behavior to try and convince an admin or the community at large that more strict restrictions are needed to prevent disruption. I personally think "closed" discussions are worthy of being archived to reduce clutter of "active" requests and see nothing wrong with the current archiving method, but a rolling backlog is a shame to the term archiving. Hasteur (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I see the benefit of being able to search declined requests, and would not mind having month-by-month permanent archives. Courcelles (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

A permanent, more easily-searchable archive like the one suggested sounds like an improvement to me! Airplaneman ✈ 23:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, per Airplaneman - FlightTime (open channel) 16:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

It is better to use User:MusikBot instead of Cyberbot Hhkohh (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Link to VPR discussion fixed in Swarm's comment ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Do not require users to look up the protecting administrator

When requesting unprotection, as CambridgeBayWeather has pointed out above, users sometimes do not specify the username of the protecting administrator. Even if they do, the administrator who handles the request needs to manually verify that this information is true, and that there has been an attempt to contact the administrator, and that the administrator is indeed inactive. This is unnecessarily complicated and adds no value whatsoever. I propose to remove this requirement entirely.

The clerking bot should automatically determine, 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.~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• This would seem to effectively abolish the requirement to talk to the protecting admin first if they are active. Is this your actual intent? Courcelles (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

  @Courcelles: Yes and no. My intent is to make a bot do the technical work, not to ignore the protecting admin. Only if the protecting administrator does not respond timely to the request, others should be able to decide on their behalf. I'd like to move the initial "talking" to the central venue. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• That is very time-consuming and cumbersome. Could this requirement be removed completely? (Eg. for pages that have only been protected once, where protection is there fore more than 6 months, where it hasn't been used recently?) Not sure why, unlike other decisions, admins have to own this decision and be pinged every time. A bot could notify the involved admin as a courtesy. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
• Isn't this something that should be a natural side effect of the workflow - if you want a page unprotected go ask the protecting admin or ping them to the talk page first... — xaosflux ^Talk 15:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

  For experienced users, it may be. Unexperienced users may be confused both by the non-central process and the instructions needed before being able to ask for unprotection. If a bot can do it, I see no need to add bureaucracy by forcing legitimate requests to be only made after learning about MediaWiki protection logs. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Request for Guatemala City Airport to be Semi-protected

There has been a lot of IP editors messing up the article and not putting in an edit summary can you please protect it Breakroute (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I already protected the article via a request at my talk page--Ymblanter (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Request for Chera dynasty to be Semi-protected

Users - mobile edits with no references - vandalism - etc. Please protect the article Rajesh of Raigad (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Rajesh of Raigad (talk) 06:12, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Reduce the protection

Edit semi-protected page on Ashi Singh please I want to add some references in this article Dotgirlfine (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dotgirlfine: The page was protected because it was repeatedly created after being deleted. Looks like there is a draft at Draft:Ashi Singh that you've been working on. If you think you have references that prove the subject passes the notability guidelines for biographies, add them to the draft first. Best, Airplaneman ✈ 20:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Temporary Protection Requested

Wayne Ellington article is continuously being edited by unregistered users. An official update to this players status has not been made. I have had to rollback the edits 2 or 3 times already. BlueRaider615 —Preceding undated comment added 22:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

BlueRaider615 I've protected it for 4 days. For the next time you will get a faster response if you post on the project page rather than here. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:United States energy independence

• United States energy independence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Semi-protection: As there is wide range of IP Users making semi-coherent statements, not a discussion; and the possibility of socks, I request an "extended-protected" lock. If I am not doing this request correctly, my apologies, it is my first time. X1\ (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@X1\: For future reference, make requests here. The editing history of both IP addresses looks like they may very well be the same person (as you said) and have a political axe to grind. However, I'm going to decline this request. As per the protection policy, Talk pages are not usually protected, and are only semi-protected for a limited duration in the most severe cases of vandalism. The idea here is that talk pages should remain open unless the level abuse becomes unwieldy. This does not include two instances of IP editors making poorly argued claims. It'd be more effective to take action against the accounts directly if their disruption continues. Airplaneman ✈ 23:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Airplaneman: thank you for the pointer. At least this has been documented, if historical reference is needed. X1\ (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Cyberbot just got blocked

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

So this is going to be a mess unless someone wants to manually archive each report. Enigma^msg 06:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Enigmaman, I am glad to help, but other editors are welcomed to help Hhkohh (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

thanks. Enigma^msg 17:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Hhkohh and Enigmaman: Bot is down again. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Pppery:, bot not down. Just Samsara turn off the bot RFPP task because Samsara do not want bot to archive a request, see diff. See also User talk:Cyberpower678#RfPPbot disabled again Hhkohh (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Re-enabled and seems to be behaving okay after substituting the template on a nom where discussion arose after a completion tag was added. So that seems to be the solution while we wait for some kind of "not so fast" tag to be available that lets the bot skip the affected nom until removal of that tag. That is, for now just substitute the original tag using the "subst:" pragma if there's something that still needs to be discussed. Samsara 20:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:INDIAPAKISTAN30500

Although I am aware that it is a community decision supported by a strong consensus, I am somewhat unhappy with the requests made citing this, be it labeled erroneously as an arbitration enforcement request, or for articles which see little to no disruption. Mind, I am still unhappy with WP:ARBPIA, too. And a disclaimer: I did not vote!/take part in both of these decisions. Any thoughts, besides following common sense? Lectonar (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

This is a community-authorised general sanction, documented at WP:GS/IPAK. Enforcing administrators should not log the relevant protection as arbitration enforcement, but should link to the general sanctions page. RGloucester — ☎ 17:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

How can we better handle full protections?

What I've observed through the years of occasionally applying full protection in response to disputes as may be requested through this page, is that in most cases, this will be followed by aggression from one or both of the combatants, directed privately at the protecting admin. I would like to propose that in order to better defend against allegations that the protecting admin has acted in error and/or ineptitude, those of us reading this adopt a principle of seeking consensus before enacting such protections, or, in urgent cases, seconding the action if it has already been performed and we find ourselves in agreement with it.

This is not meant to be compulsory. Please feel free, however, to voice support or disagreement with this whole suggestion or any part thereof.

Regards,

Samsara 21:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I like the idea, generally full protection should be seen as a last ditch effort to prevent disruption and/or editwarring. Does mean a new process similar to XFD but yeah, it should be treated with an importance similar to that we treat deletions. tutterMouse (talk) 09:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Whereas the idea is good, full protection requests usually need to be acted upon quickly (typically there is edit-warring going on), and waiting for a second opinion can make the situation worse. May be a good idea would be indeed that a protecting admin leaves here a non-templated message about protection (to prevent the topic being archived), possibly even explicitly asking for a second opinion, and then the second admin closing the thread if protection has been supported.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I think if full protection has to be implemented, it has to be implemented quickly; having a pow-wow before protecting therefore might be counter-productive. I don't mind taking the flak, and even full-protections can easily be overturned. The one thing to keep in mind is not to delve too deep into the topic, and avoid becoming involved. Lectonar (talk) 09:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The full protections typically applied are by their nature temporary, and usually need to be applied quite quickly. I wouldn't want to see that be obstructed by bureaucracy, particularly because these full protections are almost always very temporary and short-lived. They are placed in order to force discussion rather than conflict. Because these protections are ephemeral there shouldn't be an issue in their being lifted as soon as the risk of disruption is averted, i.e. if discussion has arrived at a consensus, and there really shouldn't be aggression directed towards the protection admin as a result of implementing a full protection. Note that there's a difference between civil questioning, which is fine, and angry abuse, which is not fine. If that happens, then that's what warnings and/or the block button are for. I don't see an issue with seconding an action after it has been performed, and if that would make admins feel more empowered to act then I'm all for it. Fish+Karate 10:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll just echo much of what's been said here thus far. Part of being an admin is making time-sensitive calls in tough situations. It's therefore healthy to be able to seek second opinions on admin actions (especially tough ones) and I know that I benefit from this. I like Ymblanter's idea of leaving a non-templated protection message so that others can comment on the decision or make modifications. Of course, this would be optional. Something many admins clerking RFPP are already doing is leaving comments without taking action on less time-sensitive protection requests. I also think this is a healthy option. Another thing that might be helpful is compiling a list similar to the recent ECP list on WP:AN if we wanted an easy way to see articles that have been recently full-protected. Airplaneman ✈ 20:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Statistics of protections?

Do we have statistics of time evolution of the number of protected pages? I am specifically interested in percentage of all articles (or pages if this is easier) being protected at any given time - does it go up or down with time?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Ping JamesR ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Just to state the obvious, it should be possible to compute this based on the protection log and the number of articles which I know we track minutely. I'm also interested in protection statistics, which is why I tag my protections with a keyword describing the topic of the page (you've probably seen this and wondered; could also be done, more laboriously, based on page cats). Samsara 10:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2019

Just notice the there's a minor typo with the Century Plant Guy request. Able you please able to slightly change this from "signs has be removed from their respective userpages and have no be reinstated since." to "signs has be removed from their respective userpages and have not been reinstated since."? 101.180.141.206 (talk) 12:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

pp-pc protection

Hi:

Since an article I follow was protected by {{pp-pc}} on March 19, a pletora of more than 20 vandalism was commited on it, each time reverted by an administrator or some long time user. I wonder what is the use of putting this kind of weak protection when ALL the edits were reverted. Is there a better protection level? I am a user in the French Wiki and when I get a semi-protection, no IP or new user can make an edition for the length of protection.

Pierre cb (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Asked and answered at WP:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Protection of article. Avoid asking the same question on two different pages because it splits discussion. – Teratix ₵ 06:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2019

I want cergy protected. 2600:1:9288:9827:3848:F1F1:F469:4F2A (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC) 2600:1:9288:9827:3848:F1F1:F469:4F2A (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Not done – This is not the place to request protection of pages. You need to post your request on the correct page (which can be found here) when the protection on that page has expired. MadGuy7023 (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Well I can’t you guys locked it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.203.14.21 (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:92c2:8bfc:f134:c2a6:29b0:73f5 (talk)

ANYBODY THERE???!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:92c2:8bfc:f134:c2a6:29b0:73f5 (talk)

The protection on the main page will expire shortly... once that happens, you can post your request for protection. No need to shout, OK? MadGuy7023 (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

2600:1:9288:9827:3848:F1F1:F469:4F2A, MadGuy7023, the requested protection has been  done by an administrator (Special:Diff/897098803). It would probably not have hurt to implement the edit request by adding the request to the main list. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

New option for pending changes?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T225776

I just noticed that a third field has been added to the dropout menu for pending changes. Does anybody know what it means and whether community reached consensus to use this field? If this is being discussed elsewhere, I will appreciate a pointer.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean the ‘flaggedrevs’ one? If so, there no consensus to use it and only PC1 is used. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I mean this one. Does it really mean flagged revisions and how did it make to the dropdown menu if it can not be used?--Ymblanter (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The FlaggedRevs configuration was recently broken on multiple projects. I've requested that the sysop level be disabled as it was before. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Great, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Strange addition

This looked odd, if anyone wants to check it out. Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not. The page is semi-indeffed. The user was just adding the template. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, It’s quite difficult to edit the page with Mobile site

I gave up the other day after trying for quite some time. I switched to Desktop mode just now which worked well enough. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Protect Actor Diganth page

i hereby request to protect actor Diganth page from Vandalism DevaVRAM (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection against vandalism

Portuguese people

• Portuguese people

Semi-protection: High level of IP and VandalUser vandalism. Melroross (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Privacy Request for James MacDonald (pastor)

James MacDonald (pastor)

• James MacDonald (pastor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism sockpuppetry –Sammi Matt The user is continuously editing the content and removing controversy section. The user is paid and should be blocked as well. The page has been extensively edit and is about a pastor who has certain allegations so it should be protected to prevent any further destructive edits. (HinaBB (talk) 08:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC))

@HinaBB: This page is for discussion RfPP. Requests go on theRfPP page. I'll try to move it there. No certainty I won't make a mess.-- Deepfriedokra 10:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh. Never mind then.-- Deepfriedokra 10:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

That's rather peculiar...the first request was written into the rolling archive on January 1st. I'll move the request over to the main-page. Lectonar (talk) 11:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, has been done already, but because of the January 1st time-tag, I didn't see it at first glance. Facepalming myself. Lectonar (talk) 11:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

That was peculiar. That request gets around. A lot.-- Deepfriedokra 11:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

do we need an edit notice?

A big stop sign that says, "stop!" and provides a link back to WP:RfPP?-- Deepfriedokra 11:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Naaa...those ocurrences are few and far between, about one per month. And I am not very sure that editnotices really work; they might be read by some, but most people don't care imho. Lectonar (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Overlapping messages

What do people see at the top, right-hand corner of WP:RFPP? Just under the green padlock, I see linked text "Administrator instructions" and "Skip to TOC • Skip to bottom". For me, the two blocks of text slightly overlap. My configuration is a little unusual so I'm not sure if others have the same problem. I mentioned the issue at Template talk:Skip to bottom#Recent edits with new force parameter. Johnuniq (talk) 10:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I do not see any overlap.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I (and my Chrome browser) have the same problem as John. If I narrow the window, the overlap increases. Favonian (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

In a completely standard Internet Explorer 11, while not logged in, the "You may also be looking for ..." line overlaps the "Skip to..." box. Johnuniq (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism of accurate edit by user

The User:Waleewedemi has been vandalising the page of his boss Segun Adebutu by removing the new column on a controversy about him.

Kindly protect the page with the controversial column. He has reversed the page four times already.

Below is the column he is trying to remove

Segun Adebutu was detained and quizzed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission on January 28, 2020 at the anti-graft Lagos office for economic sabotage and tax fraud associated with Premier Lotto, a company he is an Executive Director of.

Opelogbon (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The other editor involved has been indefinitely blocked from editing, but the section they were removing was - whatever their personal motive - improper under WP:PUBLICFIGURE and has been removed awaiting addition of multiple reliable sources. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Tourette syndrome on 3 March

See my query at WP:AN about how to handle likely coprolalia-related vandalism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Page Protection Request, Article: Sabai

Please help! Anonymous users have been trying to destruct this article by removing sourced information and replaced with provocative edition. Now he destructed the article again in less than a week , everything is messed up. Please intervene & protect the article! Maine Ferrick (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Hera topic subjectnon-neutral and original research, sexist vandalism and edit war.

The wiki for Hera has had this added to the section on matriarchy: "However, it remains a controversial claim that primitive matriarchy existed in Greece or elsewhere." Except there is no support for the claim it is controversial there is plenty of research for and against the topic. The claim it is "controversial" is an original claim and not neutral to the topic. To be included the page should show the research of both assertions and the links to them, written neutrally without the loading claims of being 'controversial', and let the reader decide as the claim one way or the other has not been proven without a doubt. I started a discussion first before editing it out, and it was clear that certain "editors" were going to stick to their bias. So I made the edit stating it needs to be removed until the neutrality and equal coverage is fixed. These changes have now been reverted 3 times in an edit war, and it is clear those reverting them don't want to abide by the sites neutrality and keep inserting the original research loaded claim. 96.31.190.97 (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Page protection request

Uzma_Khan

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism, same person from two IP address (Same ISP) is not only using racist words but using bad languages for my mother and sister, he did two times from two different IP, he has received final warning yesterday by Admin but today he is editing wikipedia article for misleading people and abusing me so please protect this page so only confirmed user can edit. Memon KutianaWala (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Request Admins to address backlog issues on Wikipedia for requests

Lately, there been lot of backlogs on some request on Wikipedia due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Its good idea to add note that the page protect may longer to protection due to "less people" working on Wikipedia.Regice2020 (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand your premise. Why would it follow that there are less people working on Wikipedia due to the COVID-19 pandemic? NedFausa (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Request to create Wikipedia page for Chanagun Arpornsutinan

Like many others who know his works, I also believe that Chanagun Arpornsutinan (an actor/singer in Thailand) deserves and needs his own Wikipedia page This can help fans from around the world understand him better and easier. R.Sreelekshmi (talk) 06:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

R.Sreelekshmi, This is the wrong venue, and is not the appropriate place to ask. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 06:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

That page is protected and I can't edit. Where should I ask?. R.Sreelekshmi (talk) 07:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

R.Sreelekshmi, New users cannot create in article space, they should create a draft instead. This is the wrong venue, please take this conversation to my talk page. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 07:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

(Semi-)protection for AfDs?

Pardon me for not knowing this after my 15+ years in the community, but do we have (semi-)protection for AfD discussions? It's a weird request, I know, so here's the background: a couple of Twitter personalities asked their followers to create Wikipedia articles about them, and now after the inevitable AfD nominations, they are sending their followers to flood the AfD discussions. See for yourself at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corina Newsome, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earyn McGee. Clearly this is not productive in any shape or form, so is semi-protection an option here? --bender235 (talk) 02:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

yes, if there is ongoing disruption, we semi-protect AfDs, the same way as other pages, if this was the question.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bender235: As Ymblanter said, we only protect ongoing AfDs and only if they've experienced disruption through sockpuppetry or otherwise. Otherwise, they stay unprotected to let everyone !vote. Anarchyte (talk • work) 07:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Good to know for future reference, thanks. The underlying issue in this specific case has been more or less solved. --bender235 (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Protection on the basis of fan fight and disruptive edit.

Page:Harikrishnans(Malayalam movie) Real cast line as per producer's bill

  Mammootty
  Mohanlal

Kindly take action. Keralacinelovers Media (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I do thank you for your help, in replying back so swiftly, I also thank the team as I have recieved many responses and help addressing to the topic.

Best Regards,

Thesingerjazz WWW.THESINGERJAZZ.COM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesingerjazz (talk • contribs) 23:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:RFP" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:RFP. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 7#Wikipedia:RFP until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 🐔 Chicdat ^ChickenDatabase 12:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Archives

Where are the archives of the RFPP page? I need to see whether my request to unprotect kung flu is accepted or not. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 09:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Check here.--RegentsPark (comment) 12:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment: Moving request

This page is for requests for adjustments for page protection, and therefore is better to be moved to WP:Requests for adjustments in page protection levels, with the shortcuts WP:RFP,WP:RPP and this page still left as a redirect. --ThesenatorO5-2^{argue with me} 01:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• You should use WP:RM, not RFC. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 01:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose While technically more accurate, this makes the title unnecessarily long when the current title can be understood just fine. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• This is not an RfC matter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This is where people come to request page protection. Seems pretty clear. That proposed language change would be awkward, unhelpful, unnecessary, and possibly confusing. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Protect Uddhav Thackeray

His page has been continuously vandalised Scainder (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Already protected--Ymblanter (talk) 12:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Protection policy

At the top, where it says, "You may also be looking for Wikipedia:Requests for permissions, Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, or Wikipedia:Random page patrol.", I think it should also include Wikipedia:Protection policy. (That's what I was looking for.) Benjamin (talk) 07:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Those three links are all pages with the initials RFP or RPP, they are mentioned at the top because WP:RFP and WP:RPP redirect here. I can't really see why somebody is likely to end up here while trying to get to the protection policy, and it is prominently linked. Hut 8.5 12:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I had searched for "page protection". Benjamin (talk) 12:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not a computer geek

However I do know when Information is correct or not and I am finding things that are not correct on New Zealand section of these web pages. I am not even very good at writting or spelling but I have a good mind for stuff I know and have lived through and as you record for the future it is on this sight to make sure the information going out to the world in correct. We out here in the world are losing resources like libraries and with that knowledge is being lost so if this is a depostory of knowledge then it need to be accurate.

Cris Hopewell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.56.204.19 (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Requests to remove semi-protection page

Okay, if we have the requests for page protection, so how can I request to remove a page protection, or only a Wikipedian could handle it? ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 04:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

There is a section for that and there is currently one such request. See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for reduction in protection level. Johnuniq (talk) 05:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm really confused by the instructions on this page

Hi

I'm a pretty experienced Wikipedia editor and am trying to request a page is semi protected for the first time, I've read several pages to try and work out how to request a page is semi protected and have read this page and still don't understand. If anyone who understands the process well would be interested in working with me to make the process clearer please do ping me.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

1. Create a new subsection under the "Current requests for increase in protection level" section.
2. Use the page's title as the subsection title.
3. Add {{pagelinks}} to the page.
4. Type "Semi-protection" (in bold) and list the reason afterwards.
5. ????
6. Profit!

—Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 17:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Or you can install Twinkle. Makes the whole process super easy. --McSly (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

For Twinkile, tick the check box at Preferences → gadgets Dawnseeker2000 18:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Alternatively, since you're extended confirmed, you could enjoy all of WP:REDWARN's features, one of which includes making page protection through user-friendly icons. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 20:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if John Cummings saw this, but here's a courtesy ping. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the ping, the instructions above are much clearer, thanks. John Cummings (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Category-level protection

Would it be appropriate to suggest protection for an entire category of related pages (79 pages currently) at this venue? Thank you for any assistance with this question. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 04:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure you can. I'll certainly look at it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh thank you CambridgeBayWeather, Category:Medical colleges in Bangladesh is what I'm concerned with. There is an ongoing sock/meat group that keeps going around and inflating the pages in this category as a form of advertisement. Given this, I would ideally like the whole category group to have long-term pending-changing protection to prevent this. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 21:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

For now I've gone with autoconfirmed. If necessary it can be upped. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather, thank you for swift action. Hopefully it is effective! Darn socks treating the wiki like free advertising… ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 21:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Manual archiving needed

Cyberbot was blocked at 11ish this morning for not responding to the stop signal for one of its tasks, unrelated to RfPP. So we're currently reduced to manual archiving, which I've done once just now, but it may need doing again when I'm offline. I've left an "archiving needed" item at the top so we should notice more or less immediately when Cyberbot comes back online. Samsara 20:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Malcolmxl5 and Ymblanter, for doing the archiving during the night. Samsara 10:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:RFP" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:RFP. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 10#Wikipedia:RFP until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 14:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for Semi-Protection on the page of "Arshi Khan"

I would like to request a semi-protection or full protection on the page of "Arshi Khan". There has been quite number of changes and vandalism on the page due to the actor's controversial personality.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.72.19 (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Protect Shlomo Ben-Haim

Can this page be protected as someone tired to edit and put in false information which is not related to this person/page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shlomo_Ben-Haim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben-Haim21 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

For only one vandalism incident that has occurred in years? No, we cannot protect a page that is stable and experiencing nearly 100% constructive edits. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Archive??

Yes, we already have the rolling archive, but I think that there should be a permanent archive where the old requests are. The page has over a million revisions, so it would be close to impossible to find an old 2018 request without looking for hours. I'm proposing, like, Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive 1, etc. Chicdat (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

If you can find someone who is willing to wade through all those revisions, I would be all in favour of such a move. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I mean starting now. Either that, or I would fish through the revisions. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 15:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

First, the existing Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive 1 would have to be deleted to make way for the archiving. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 15:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@The C of E: I've started it at a subpage. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 13:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Moved

I've moved this proposal to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

permalink in twinkle

What's the easiest way to add the permalink number? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Deepfriedokra, while I personally don't see a point in linking to AIV or RFPP when dealing with 1-reporter-1-admin cases (if we need to justify our decision by pointing to the request, we're doing something wrong), I like User:Enterprisey/diff-permalink.js for easy linking to any diff or permalink. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Page protection

The purpose of page protection is to prevent vandalism, disruptive editing. Some editors, involved in some editing dispute, and wants to protect a page to prevent new editors and IP editors from editing the page. However, most editors request page protection, in good faith. --2402:3A80:111B:71A5:5DC4:6ECB:776F:2302 (talk) 07:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

October 2013

A permanent archive has been finally set up for all dates since 29 October 2012, except for October 2013 — Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2013/10 is still a redlink. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

cascading protection?

Do we even do that anymore? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's still used on the main page and some other related pages [9]. Cascading protection was only really developed for the main page. Hut 8.5 13:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Requests getting erroneously deleted by bot

See User_talk:Cyberpower678#RPP_clerking_bug_report or [10] +[11] / [12], indicating a malfunctioning of Cyberbot I. Could someone shut off this bot task until the issue is remedied? Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2021

There is an editing war happening at the Richard_Cheese page. Yappy2beHere is making destructive reversions and personal attacks on other editors. 2603:8001:9442:6D00:40D9:C028:A0E7:8185 (talk) 09:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me that Y2BH is being disruptive at that page. Looking more closely, but this request looks like an attempt to 'win' a content dispute. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Poster partial blocked. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the new changes made to RfPP, but...

...couldn't someone at least let people know such a huge and major change was going to be made on this very active board beforehand? SkyWarrior 23:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@SkyWarrior: I suppose some sort of notice on the main RfPP page wouldn't hurt (though it would add to the already-large wall of text that greats you when you load RfPP). I'm of the opinion that the changes simplified but didn't substantially change the page's workflow, so I don't think a big or comprehensive notice is necessary. Please refer to the above section for more discussion on the changes. It's been in the works for years! Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 23:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

"I'm of the opinion that the changes simplified but didn't substantially change the page's workflow, so I don't think a big or comprehensive notice is necessary." I disagree with this sentiment. Changing RfPP to transclusions is a substantial change to the page's workflow, especially considering changes need to be made to other areas of the site such as to Twinkle. And, judging by comments made at WP:AN and elsewhere, a notice of some kind really should have occurred so we could have been more prepared for such a large change. SkyWarrior 18:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Where is there discussion about issues with the new system? Is it at Village Pump or where? There are a few things I would like to call to someone's attention. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I was generally referring to comments a few editors have made here (the main AN discussion about this change), here, and here. Those places (as well as WP:VPT) might be a good place to share your concerns. SkyWarrior 02:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I'll go to VPT. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)