Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

To all admins

Before you apply protection on a certain page, make sure the one who makes a request bothered to talk to the ones defacing that particular article. Protecting something should only be a last resort wherein editors stubbornly refuse to cease despite being told. 202.69.188.102 (talk) 23:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism from dynamic or multiple ips is reason enough to protect a page whether the vandals have been warned or not. Vandals know what they are doing is wrong, that's why it's called vandalism. If you see a specific case where protection does not seem warranted, file a request for unprotection. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Challenge process.

What is the process for challenging page protection or protections done in error? SunCreator (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Generally, chat with the admin who performed the protection. If that doesn't work or you don't get a response, bring it to the unprotection section of WP:RFPP (indicating you tried chatting with the admin). If it's a gross violation, bring it up at WP:ANI. tedder (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've made requests of two admins. Will see the response. By the way, it's a minor issue but one that seems to be re-occuring and could be effecting many admin decisions. SunCreator (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Where's the archive?

That, basically. Actually, if there IS an archive, also why isn't it linked on the project page? (assuming I haven't gone blind) Jaymax (talk) 12:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

An archive for requests, I presume you mean? There isn't one. It comes up as a question here from time to time. There probably should be one, but for reasons I can't remember, there isn't one. GedUK  14:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Because the bot in question (VoABot (talk · contribs)) has never been modified to create an archive, despite requests to Voice of All (talk · contribs). Regards SoWhy 14:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Would it not be simpler to ask at BAG for a bot that does what we actually want then? GedUK  14:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there any reason we need to archive? We have been doing fine for several years without one. NW (Talk) 17:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd be nice to have archives. For instance, it'd help show that a certain page has been requested for page protection and declined many times. tedder (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

That request would need to be made at WP:BOTREQ. BAG just approves them, they don't provision them. –xeno^talk 16:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

BOTREQ is for getting a bot writer- I'm working on one, but it's interesting/important to get consensus on "features". tedder (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This page gets some serious traffic and the vast, vast majority of requests are never going to be of any interest to anyone once they've been actioned (or no-actioned). I think someone needs to bring up a reason why an archive is important or necessary, rather than just "nice"... – Steel 18:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Such an archive would be massive, and of limited use. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

There might be a use to keeping a month's worth, to see if articles are coming up regularly, but that would require someone/a bot to check over them regularly. GedUK  16:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Would tend to agree that "archiving to the history" is sufficient here. –xeno^talk 16:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

archivebot?

What's the issue with the RFPP archivebot not running consistently? tedder (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. I've been purguing the page manually in the mean time, but having a bot do it regularly and at more frequent intervals would be nice. NW (Talk) 17:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It's veriable. I'm guessing the computer that it sits on isn't turned on. If I knew how to run a bot, I'd have one as a duplicate/back-up. GedUK  22:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Since there is some consensus here, I might do some coding to create one. tedder (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

So is there anything the old archivebot didn't handle that the new one should? The only thing I can think of is that it shouldn't archive all {{rfpp}} subtypes- for instance, "question" and perhaps "note" should be left in the active section. It might be better to have this discussion elsewhere.. tedder (talk) 04:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal at village pump

Okay, how about this - Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Possible_way_forward_on_BLP_semiprotection_-_proposal as something which is using tools we have and might be acceptable overall. Hopefully the more strident supporters of flagged revisions will then watch and help out here instead. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for initiation of an article/page protection request/response archive

There IS a need for an archive. Example: I requested semi-protection for Posttraumatic stress disorder - yesterday, I think. A week's protection was granted. There was a rationale provided. It was on this page for about 24 hours or less then just vanished. That's silly. Why explain anything if the explanation has no duration? I think it obvious that not only does there need to be a record of responses and thought about protection of pages, but also tracking of number and frequency of requests. All this provides context for the appropriate handling of the NEXT request.

This is about simply having a database of such things. Wikipedia tracks a lot of stuff. Why not track this, too? Isn't page vandalism and its management something of an issue here? It is for me, for the article I've been working on for months. I don't think I'm alone in my concern for this issue.

This database could easily be developed incrementally. Initially, smply have an archive page(s), alphabetically organized by article title. Under that simply develop a top down (i.e., most recent first) list of protection requests/responses. When a request is removed from the main page, it is placed, manually, on the appropriate archive page. Anyone wanting to see the history of requests for an article can quickly look it up. This doesn't seem like a poor solution to the problem at all. Easy to implement (no programming needed), easy to manage, easy to use. And...USEFUL. Once a year, all pages which haven't seen activity for a year might be deleted from the list.

TomCloyd (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you limit the list to successful requests? Because in that case, the Protection log provides sufficient overview imho. A request archive might make for a good reference point in a few negotiations about an early protection lift, however I'd argue that most, esp. short-term protections can and should be judged on their own merits in the context of the article history. Also, if necessary, there's always RFPP's page history; with the help of the protection edit on the article it's rather easy to find the respective request, provided one was filed, via the date. --78.34.104.131 (talk) 12:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Requests regarding page protection

Wouldn't this page be more accurately titled Wikipedia:Requests regarding page protection? Not important, just noticing. --78.34.104.131 (talk) 12:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Minor Error

Under the Economy section of this page, it says towards the middle "In any event, the typical immigrant and his children will pay a net $80,000 more in their lifetimes than they collect in government services, according to the NAS."

Just thought it should either say "the typical immigrant and his/her children" or "the typical immigrant and their children". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swebber soccer (talk • contribs) 14:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Disappeared?!

Hi, yesterday I added Scouting for Girls for Semi-Protection. (see this diff report) Today it's gone. It is not in Current requests for protection or in Fulfilled/denied requests. Can anybody help me with this? Thank you in advance. Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook) 10:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Your request was declined. --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Although this is not the page to discuss it, Scouting for Girls is already vandalised heavily. Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook) 13:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

wikis are bad then wik

wikis outer then wikipedia have to requests for protection —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remember this pass (talk • contribs) 19:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That's usually because they're very small or the need is abrogated by being a niche-community wiki. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 19:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Chuck Dempsey

Chuck Dempsey is a motorsports professional whose racing career spans motorcycles as well as trucks, cars and buggies. Dempsey began riding dirt bikes in Southern California's San Fernando Valley, a hub for the motocross lifestyle and many of its legends. Growing up in an off-road racing family of legendary acclaim, Dempsey was inspired unto a life of speed by his father, Gene Dempsey, and uncle, Sam Dempsey, known simply as the Dempsey Brothers. His dad Gene, who died September 17th, 2009 after a bout with cancer, competed in over 40 Baja 1000 races with his brother Sam and often times with legendary motocross gear and apparel manufacturer Jim Oneal.

Chuck Dempsey has raced for Team Honda on the Honda XR650R motorcycle. In 2003, when teaming with Andy Grider, who continues his career as Dakar Rally navigator for Robby Gordon and Chris Blais aboard a Honda XR650R, Dempsey and the team earn a spot on the off-road racing cult documentary film Dust To Glory. As a privateer team manager and rider, Dempsey joined rider of record Mikey Childress and Mike "Mouse" McCoy, a Hollywood stuntman, in 2005 to win the overall Baja 500, beating Team Honda on the privateer Al Baker's XR's Only XR650R.

The following year, Dempsey teamed with John Harrah, of the famed Harrah's Casinos, to form Speed Technologies, a multi-disciplined motorsports endeavor that engaged in motocross and desert racing in trucks and buggies and on dirt bikes. Harrah's keen eye for developing savvy business models led to the launch of the SuperLite Championship Series in 2009 beneath the Speed Technologies umbrella. The off-road truck racing short course series secured a highly visible media slot within the Lucas Oil Off Road Racing Series, where Dempsey competed in the class as well as three other classes under the Speed Technologies name.

Dempsey ended his 2009 season in victory at the granddaddy of all desert races, the Baja 1000, clinching victory in his Speed Technologies Class 1 Unlimited Buggy. The effort was branded and directly benefited the City Of Hope charity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FidelGonzales (talk • contribs) 11:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Kinuyo Yamashita

This entry is constantly removed from the page or moved to the fulfilled/denied requests section by a bot ([1], [2], [3]), even though there is no result in the matter. I'm curious if this is normal, or if it's an error. The Prince (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd have said it was an error. It shouldn't tidy things away until they've been resolved properly. GedUK  09:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

No activity

Why has there been no activity on any requests for about two hours. SMP0328. (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a deliberate work slowdown. Admin paychecks were late this week and our union representative organized some direct action. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You mean a wiki-strike? SMP0328. (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, and we're going to burn a cop car outside Jimbo's house tonight. Until I get a new mop with a flamethrower attached I ain't protecting nuthin'. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Image Uploading Blocked

Hiya Admin, i cannot upload anymore images, it says you have blocked it, this is quite distressing for me as i have not finished my article yet and need to finish uploading the pictures. I don't understand what has happend, the images i have used are mostly my own from my own camera, you will 100% not find these images anywhere else, they are my own personal images from my own camera at home so i do not know what i am expected to write under 'information/url' as there is no source for the image because it is from my own camera!!! Am i supposed to write the date, time, location, how many times i cropped it and what camera i used???? i just think its ridiculous!! The ones which are not mine i have definatly cited refercences for those pictures, please let me know what is going on so i am able to finish my article, thanks xx

(replied on user's talk page) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Bishop Family Articles

Bridget Bishop, Thomas Oliver (husband of Bridget Bishop), Edward Bishop III, Edward Bishop (Salem) have all had anonymous edits some of which are clearly vandalism. Today I tried to fix the Bridget Bishop article but finally got timed out, and given the scope of the changes and the level at which some of them have been O.K.ed I really feel that I need a little help here. John5Russell3Finley (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

HeartBug

Kristjan Sokolovski (January 01, 1994 ) a.k.a Dec00de, was an Macedonian Hacker who was the first juvenile inrascerated for cybercrime in the Macedonia.[1] On the 2008 he join in the top list of the best root hackers... On 2010 he own the group called HeartBug Corporation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dec00de (talk • contribs) 05:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Big vandalism notice

Its not exactly a scientific poll but I've noticed that adding a big vandalism notice to articles like Apple Inc (compare this when it was unprotected before to this when it was just unprotected and had the big notice for a couple of weeks) which have been regularly protected has kept vandalism at bay a surprisingly large amount. Maybe this is worth trying when protection is applied to articles that are regularly vandalised? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Well there have been a couple of bits of vandalism since I posted that, so maybe I'm wrong :o. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's vandalism one-per-day, you must watch the page. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 19:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I am watching the page, and until today the vandalism had been fairly limited since unprotection. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but you can't have a notice stating an article is protected when it isn't - that is misleading. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

tweaking policy...

Wikipedia_talk:Protection_policy#Proposal_redux_-_addition_of_preemptive_protection_in_BLPs_at_risk_to_semiprotection_rationale - here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Requesting page protection on the article talk page

I have made a suggestion on village pump that, in some cases, it could be beneficial if requests for page protection/unprotection were made on the article's talk page, and a template used to gain an admin's attention. Please post your comments at WP:VPR#Discuss page protection/unprotection on the article talk page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle

When attemptimg to RPP in Twinkle, I get this error:

Requesting protection of page: The marker that identifies where the protection request is supposed to be added on WP:RFPP could not be found. Aborting ...

??? -  A p3rson ‽ 22:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably has to do with this. I restored a hidden comment that looks like it was there beforehand. Dunno if Twinkle runs on that particular line, but maybe try it again now? JamieS93^❤ 23:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting the same error message. Also when I try to request page protection using Huggle, it crashes Huggle? Looks like a problem with the page to me --5 albert square (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to add to my comment, when I did a diff just now, I've noticed that there is an extra hidden comment now? Check out this. --5 albert square (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've just taken out the comment that was in my diff below and I managed to put through a request ok for Neighbours on Twinkle. I've re-inserted the comment as I think there was some problems with the bots the other night, the comment might have been inserted for this reason. Hopefully we will get this resolved soon :) --5 albert square (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

New clerking script

A new script for semi-automated clerking is available: User:Rami R/rfppClerk. This script essentially duplicates VoABot's operations. Rami R 14:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Scarlett (G.I. Joe)

• I’m sorry to be a bother here, but I thought I should let someone know, user Doctorfacts[4]

He/she keeps adding wrong info on the G.I. Joe Scarlett page [5]

To explain what is going on the page as best as I can... he/she keeps stating on the page that there was it implied that Scarlett was romantically involved with the character Duke and then goes on to say that they were together... now that doesn’t make any sense since implied is not an answer and yet in the Relationships section, it says that they were together. There's no source or episode from that cartoon to prove that. I’m trying to be as accurate as I can and I have listed which episode and have written the scenes that explain that. But that user goes on to remove info that says otherwise no matter what and gives no reasons to any of this or that he/she will listen or stop and it seems that very little control goes on over there. Again sorry to be a bother, but I thought someone should know of this. 76.192.143.142 (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The best thing to do is to make your case on the talk page. Hopefully, doctorfacts will make his/her case as well and that will help in figuring out what is correct. If doctorfacts does not make his/her case, and continues to revert your edits, you can take it to WP:AN3. At this point, there is really not much that is actionable. Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you need help. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Protection conflicts

There seem to be quite a few admins responding to RfPP, and it's leading to problems. A few times recently admins have changed protection levels a few minutes after another admin has already protected. Is this a bug (a protection conflict of some kind), or are admins not first checking to see whether a page has already been protected? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 04:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a bug. There's no 'edit conflict' style warning, so if they have the protection page open, it'll wipe the previous status. tedder (talk) 04:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, especially when using Twinkle (as I do). Someone ought to file a bugzilla to see if we can get an edit conflict-type notice and I might raise it at WT:TW. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The other PITA when using Twinkle, is that if a page is fully-move protected, and you want to add semi-edit protection, Twinkle will remove the move protection. Caught myself doing that more than once. Courcelles (talk) 05:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Definitely worth raising with the Twinkle people- if Twinkle can tell you there's already a warning on a talk page or an AIV report already present, it shouldn't be too difficult to make it tell you the page is already protected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't use Twinkle for this, so I didn't realize that was going on. I wonder if it's worth creating a template for use on the RfPP page. Something like "got it" to signal that an admin is looking at a particular request. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 08:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at the Twinkle protection function, and it seem it doesn't show the protection history of the page, if I'm using it properly. That means you don't see whether the page is already protected, and how often it's been protected in the past, is that right? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 10:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

That's about right. I check the logs before I start whacking buttons, but if you protected it while I was in the process of doing so with Twinkle, it would override yours and I'd have no idea. Likewise, if we both had the regular protection screen open at the same time and you hit "confirm" before me, I'd have no idea until I got back to RfPP. I suppose we could annotate the request before we actually go and protect it (as opposed to adding the protection, then coming back to RfPP). If there were a note to that effect on RfPP or in the editnotice, perhaps we might see a few less of these protection conflicts? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

When I try to protect a page that's already protected, it tells me, even if it has just been done. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Annotating adds an extra step that, IMO, is not particularly useful. I often 'check' and then not take any action because the need for protection is 'gray'. That would lead to a process of 'annotate-check-deannotate' that is cumbersome. I'm actually ok with the current system. I don't mind if someone overrides my protection, always revert a protection if someone got there before me (and if I see that they did), and assume they won't be overly upset if I've inadvertently walked over their protection. Best to just leave well alone. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I meant adding, say {{RFPP|S|1 minute}} before adding the protection, as opposed to protecting it, then coming back and adding the template. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Why not just use {{RFPP|ch}}? That's what it's meant for. But yes, it doesn't seem terribly useful, it creates as much overhead as it solves. Generally admins who protect much will agree on length- one might choose 3 days, the other might choose 1 week. That's perfectly fine. tedder (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, that kind of thing isn't an issue. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC

It's happened to me a few times in the last week or so, and it does waste time (protecting, coming to RfPP to post that it's protected, getting an edit conflict, refreshing, finding that someone else has overturned the protection), so it'd be good to get it fixed. I wouldn't mind trying the annotating idea that HJ mentioned. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I think with me, it is not the TWINKLE, just the fact of perhaps two admins responding to something at once. I will say this, if another admin feels different about a protection action I make, feel free to change it! :) -- Cirt (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Where two admins try to protect at exactly the same time, you're right that there can be a clash, but I've had protection overridden that's been in place for a couple of minutes, so I think there's also a separate problem of Twinkle not alerting people to that. I've left a note for the developers about it. It's not the length of protection or having it undone per se that bothers me, just the waste of time aspect. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Contents

• Someone seriously messed up the sectioning of this page. Check out the contents area. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I was the last who edited it, what do you mean? Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 06:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh i saw it, I'd fixed it, sorry. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 06:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

Crossposted to WT:PP

In light of rollout of the pending changes tool in 3 days now (June 14), I'm updating WP:RFPP and WP:PP to note some basics that will be needed by then. Otherwise it'll probably be a horrible mess of chaos on the day.

Usage and requests have no good (non-BURO) reason to be in a different place from semi-protection. The reviewing aspect is different but the scope, usage and requests (ie WP:RFPP aspects) are likely to be nearly identical to semi-protection and can usefully go on the same page. Keeps it simple to have all forms of page protection and their requests in one place, and describe it as "pending changes protection" (which is intuitive and fits existing wordings), even if they are in fact 2 tools.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Header edits to date for RFPP: [6]. This is the main place new users will find out about pending changes, when they request help in relation to some protection issue. The edit adds an "alert" (caution) box to explain there's a new tool in trial and give core details, and adds mentions of pending changes to 3-4 other places it's relevant.

Treating it as "another form of protection" means we don't need to copypaste 2/3 of all PP and RFPP pages, guides and processes, we can just update those pages to include mention and coverage of this new method, and it's a lot less change and disruption, and much more likely to fit into "what people already know". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:RFPP will need to be updated, a distinctive icon would be nice. Cenarium (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a heads up

The big convention for video games, E3, happens this week from June 14 to 16th or more. A *lot* of stuff breaks during these, and impacts WP in the creation of new pages and new articles. But that also leads to a lot of vandalism about speculation on release dates, features, prices, and so forth. So requests for VG article protection may be high during this time. --MASEM (t) 01:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Something new has been added

Someone has added a description of the tags, visible here. It's messing up the visibility of the tags in the toolbox when responding to particular requests, but I can't see how to get rid of it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I got rid of it with this edit, which is odd because no one had edited that page since December, yet the change appeared today. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That code has been there for a long time it looks like. Which section does it mess up on? Gary King (talk) 02:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Slim may be talking about the floating template that's supposed to appear as a collapsed table when editing a section.[7] Sounds like it wasn't collapsing properly. I can't see anything wrong with it now, anyone else having problems with the floating template obscuring visibility? If so, try purging your cache per this information. Dreadstar ☥ 03:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I asked which section it messes up on, because it looks like when she was "responding to particular requests" i.e. editing certain sections, it would mess up. She was probably editing the same time that Common.js was being updated. Gary King (talk) 03:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I reverted an edit on Meta, and the page now looks the way it did in edit mode again; discussion here. It's beyond me to know what the connection was, I'm afraid. :)

Gary, what was happening in edit mode was this: when I click on a particular request to reply to it, normally a toolbox becomes visible on the left side. I click on the appropriate response tag, and the reply is then automated. With the expanded template, which I saw for the first time today, that toolbox was no longer visible, and I was having to scroll up and down the page. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

So that means you are using this script. Most people are not using that. The script just needs to be updated to work with the updated Common.js. Gary King (talk) 04:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

What are the benefits of updating the Commons.js? Sorry if that's a stupid question. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The changes were made to resolve this bug. Personally I am not involved in the solution that has been introduced, so I cannot say if it is better to have it or not when weighing the pros and cons. Gary King (talk) 05:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

So, only people using that script will have the problem with the expanded collapsable box? Or might there be other, unintended collateral damage caused by the changes to Commons.js? Dreadstar ☥ 05:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

There are probably other scripts that will have the same problem, including my own, which I have now disabled and made it only work in IE because of the change to Common.js. I can't think of any of the popular scripts that have collapsible tables and would therefore be affected, however. Gary King (talk) 05:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there another RfPP script we can use that does the same things without this incompatibility? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Now that I look further, actually, it appears as though the script that I linked to isn't the problem. You do have that script installed, but it seems to only add a link called "RFPP clerk" to your toolbox, and that's all. What script adds those extra buttons for you? Gary King (talk) 05:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Right, the script doesn't have the collapsable table, the template does. The script only comes into play when the collapsable box is expanded at initial opening and extends the page down to where Slim has to scroll back up the page to access the links added to the toolbox by her script. You can see the collapsed template whenever you edit the page or any section of WP:RFPP: right at the top. Dreadstar ☥ 05:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I can understand it the way you explain it; I was confused by "that was hiding the toolbox on the left side of the page with the different protection tags in it". So we're sure this is the same thing? If so, then I don't think that the change made to Common.js should have affected that. One side effect to the change was that for some scripts, clicking on "show" for collapsed tables would no longer do anything (such as in my script), but the code shouldn't automatically expand any templates by default. In addition, from what I can see, the code was tested in IE, which is the browser that made the change necessary in the first place because the old code did not work in IE. I can't test it myself in IE as I don't have a Windows computer. Gary King (talk) 05:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this is the script. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I installed that script on Firefox, reverted the change to Commons.js, and the table doesn't expand on edit. Can you check again, Slim? Dreadstar ☥ 05:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It's still okay for me i.e. the expanded template is not visible in edit mode. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

So then the problem seems to be fixed. And, I assume you mean that the template is still there but it's now collapsed by default? Gary King (talk) 05:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, it's now collapsed. Before today I hadn't even noticed it was there. I saw it for the first time today when it suddenly became uncollapsed, which is why I wasn't thinking in terms of collapsed/uncollapsed. My problem, Gary, is that I have no technical knowledge, so when a problem arises I don't even know how to describe it. All I can do is shout help and point. I'm sorry, I realize that makes things awkward for people like yourself who respond. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Review requested...

...at Cigna. I've been watchlisting this since an earlier RFPP request (which I declined). Recently the same issue has worsened, with several IPs changing "company" to "death panel". I've just given one a short block; I then tried to use Twinkle to request protection. Apparently Twinkle is smart enough to know I haz the mop. Twinkle has protected the page for me...

I'm blaming Twinkle. However, could someone review the protection (and, possibly, my block of the IP)? There's some background at Talk:Cigna/Archives/2012#"Death panel".

TFOWR 16:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Both the protection and block look fine to me. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, SlimVirgin. I'm concerned that I reacted impulsively to trolling, but in the cold light of day - and with your comment in mind - my concern is gone. Like the "death panel" vandalism... TFOWR 10:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Reacting impulsively to trolling is often the right thing to do. :) The death panel vandalism is very odd. It's been going on for some time on various articles, or at least I think I remember seeing it here and there. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes on RFPP

There has been consensus that, we don't feel that pending changes queue is necessary anymore. So just to let everyone know that we have directed everybody to this page to make any PCP requests. Unless there's a necessity to create another page for this process (which I don't really think it needs one), I think the this is the most appropriate place to request pending changes as well as traditional forms of page protection. 山本一郎 (会話) 22:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh another note, I have also updated the RFPP templates to reflect this as well, {{RFPP|pd}}, which produces the message Pending-change protected. 山本一郎 (会話) 22:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to add a request here that admins not choose high-profile or high-vandalism targets to test PC on, especially not BLPs, as it's leading to inadvertent wheel-warring, when the vandalism means the PC protection has to be overridden. Best to test it on articles where the outcome isn't predictable, because we can learn more that way. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are requesting unprotection, it is almost always a good idea to ask the protecting admin first before listing a page here?

There's no indication of who "the protecting admin" is or how to contact said admin. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If you attempt to edit a semi-protected article it says who last changed a pages protection (who you can assume is the protecting admin) in a big red box at the top of the editing page. You then contact them on their talk page (which should be linked from the red box). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Page Semi-Protection for Hallaur {{editsemiprotected}} I want this page to be semi protected because of repeated vandalism from IP address, I am working on its references along with other contributors but every time article gets vandalized. I want only auto-confirmed users to be able to edit this article. Thanking in anticipation.Humaliwalay (talk) 05:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Please, ask for unprotection here. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 10:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

New Section

Has anyone else noticed that the RFPP page has no button to add a new section while it's talk page does? Wouldn't it be better if the page had one rather than adding on top of other requests which may have cause trouble with formatting. Personally, i'm surprised the page has gone this long without a "new section" button at the top. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Could be a good idea. It'd take a fiddly bit of markup to make it work properly, though and many people use Twinkle for requests, which saves the need to add a new section manually (when it works!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't do Twinkle but that's just me. I guess It's really a qustion of whether it would help those who come to this page and report for the first time. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Although it would bring to attention any new requests as some people forget to mention they've included a new request (me included, I admit). The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hello. What do you think of implementing a new guideline stating administrators to mention the user who requested the protection in the edit summary while protecting the page? It would provide a little bit more transparency on the process. And also probably to provide a link (diff?) to the request. Just a suggestion. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 08:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Would be a bit tedious, but it is a good idea. Airplaneman ✈ 04:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Well ultimately the responsibility for the action lies with the admin who made it, and this might appear to be "passing the buck". I'm also not sure what purpose it would serve other than vanity. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't see the point really. Like HJ says, when I protect the page, it's my decision. Additionally it will slow down the process, and there's already frequent queues here. I don't mind if someone does it, I guess, though it could equally antagonise other editors (especially during an editwar). GedUK  08:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Protection escalation/deescalation

Could the page be modified to instruct how to request escalation or deescalation of protection, please? As the page is presently, it's unclear whether these requests should be categorized as requests for protection or requests for unprotection, or something else. --Bsherr (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It should be self-explanatory. To escalate it's a new request for protection, and to de-escalate, it's a request for unprotection. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Carl Johnson)} 20:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I respect that to you it is, but it wasn't to me, and I assume it would be a simple matter to clarify that. Better to be specific than vague, I would think. Would that be agreeable to you? --Bsherr (talk) 04:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea - as long as it doesn't make the titles too long. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I still think it is self-explanatory. All requests for protection of any kind go under the "Current requests for protection" header, and unprotection requests go under the "Current requests for unprotection" header. Nevertheless, it couldn't hurt to add a mention in the instructions clearing this up. Any specific wording in mind? Airplaneman ✈ 00:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

{{Endorse protection}}

For non-admins who hang around WP:RPP, I've created the above template. If an editor agrees with the requestor, they could place {{Endorse protection}} with a comment, which would help patrolling admins. For example:

Example (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Support: Requestor's claims regarding POV problems are valid, article is also the target of small scale vandalism from two IP's. Maybe Pending Changes would be useful? Acather96 (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, hope it's useful :) Acather96 (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Replaced with {{RFPP2}} with more options. --Bsherr (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually I prefer the endorse protection. RfPP isn't a vote (or a democracy) so, in theory, a dozen "supports" for protection could be overruled by an admin. I prefer the blue image as well, as green and red tend to imply finality. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the label is endorse or support, a dozen supports or opposes can be overruled by an admin. Indeed, RfPP isn't a vote.

My understanding of the usage of the terms on Wikipedia is that one supports an action to be taken, and endorses an action already taken. That explains my change of the terms.

And it's still blue. I completely agree about the red and green. There's no alternative to the red oppose image right now, but it's the bar instead of the ex used by admins currently, and a darker red. My intention is to design an alternative. I was thinking either the same blue, or orange for contrast. Any opinion? --Bsherr (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't get what the point of this is; if an editor wants to make a comment, then they just can. GedUK  20:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No argument with that. Up to you all. --Bsherr (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really sure why this would be needed at all actually. Jmlk17 23:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Tend to agree with GedUK and Jmlk on this one; backlog here is usually pretty clear, plus introducing something like this might lead to editors involved in edit wars or such abusing it. · Andonic ^Contact 23:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, having an editor endorse protection really isn't going to change the way we should approach it. We should still go about checking history, previous protections, etc. and go from there. Having endorsement just really doesn't seem like it would do much except add to clutter. Jmlk17 23:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, doesn't even take too much time, it's a fairly easy backlog with only a few exceptions. · Andonic ^Contact 23:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ice Age: Continental Drift

I was just wondering, why was this article fully protected anyway? It wasn't a autoconfirmed user that vandalizing (according to the history, and I only know what that is thanks to Wikia). So shouldn't it really be semi-proteced, not fully? Plus if anyone's wondering, I do have a suggestion for how the article can be started, it is something I started at Ice Age wiki. You can add or remove what's ever necisarry. I'll give a link to the poster if you want it uploaded to.

This is the link to the article at Ice Age wiki, but its semi-protected, so you can't edit it if you don't have an account, sorry! link

Review the article, and tell me if it looks alright for an article here.--71.97.190.192 (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Ice Age (film series) might be the better place to discuss this, or you can submit the proposed article via WP:AfC. You're not likely to find expertise on the subject here. --Bsherr (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Threatened vandalism enough to upgrade protection?

So far there have only been two vandals in the past 30 minutes, but this edit summary threatens an increase in vandalism. [8]. Should the level of protection for Perry_v._Schwarzenegger be increased?Active Banana (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Might be better to block any potential socks at this article as opposed to having them wander to a related but less watched article and carry on there. Unless it actually does get too heavy to deal with.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Given they've been blocked and haven't come back semi-protection seems unneeded. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.234.46.160 (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible to range-protect articles?

I'm wondering if it's possible to issue range-specific semi-protections. The reason I'm wondering is because the article The Political Cesspool (along with its talk page) has, in the past few weeks, been targeted by myriad anonymous users who all geolocate to the Memphis, Tennessee area. Several of these have been blocked for edit-warring and/or 3RR violation. I have reason to believe that some (if not all) of these IPs may belong to the same person editing from different computers. The IPs in question are all "single-purpose IPs" (only making edits directly relating to The Political Cesspool), all geo-locate to Memphis, have similar tendentious editing styles and edit summaries, etc. If possible, I think it might be a good idea to permanently semi-protect The Political Cesspool from being edited by all IPs or newly-created accounts geolocating to Memphis, TN, in order to stop the IP-farming. However, I'm not sure if this is technically possible or not. The article has been temporarily (3-day) semi-protected twice before, and the IP disruption started up almost immediately after each protection expired. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

Can we have a reconsideration of articles presently under Pending Changes in general?

Less than 2/3 want to continue with the trial; the feature may be turned off. If I understand Tim Starling correctly, if it is turned off without being removed, and ever turned on again, all intervening edits to PC'd articles will become pending changes and wait for review.

A proposal to do this systematically is now under discussion, but it would help if we could simply deal with those articles where unprotection or semi-protection is better than PC. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC) :Indeed, people are still requesting PC changes here, and they are being actioned, so that list is increasing (or at least having new articles added to it). Should we remove the section of the page header referring to PC? GedUK  08:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Scratch that, it's been done! GedUK  12:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for discussion

About 30 administrative templates showed up on my watchlist yesterday, because HJ Mitchell decided that they need to be protected as being highly visible. I would like to receive some opinions about this move.

I think that on Wikipedia we are very reluctant to apply preemptive protection. Rather we should seek to unprotect as much as possible. I have not seen in the history of these templates reason for protection, especially not for full protection.

Please understand that I am not complaining. I am a little surprised, and would like some input.Debresser (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a current discussion at ANI. TFOWR 14:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Didn't know about that. Sorry. Perhaps this thread should be removed then. Debresser (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If anything I would say move it to the talk page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes protections left over

I've noticed that on the main RFPP page it says that Pending Changes Protection trial is over. While I understand that there are to be no more PCP requests it does make me wonder because almost every page that was under PCP has reverted to Semi-protection which suggests that the tool is not to be used however I have found there is still PCP left on here at Night of Champions (2010). Is this intentional or an oversight? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a whole mess of confusion, as these trials often tend to be. Jimbo's waded in as well. Have a read of this week's Signpost, but basically there's a lot of debate about what happens next. I think Jimbo's view is use them if it protects the encylopedia, and remove them if it protects the encyclopedia, ie case by case. There are others still on (George Michael i came across the other day after he was jailed for example). GedUK  08:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Well it's kind of hard to explain but we're using a Semi Protection with Pending Changes. It expires Monday as far as I know.--Nascar king 23:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I am confused. John Hunyadi is in the pending changes list. I would like to have someone who knows the subject and the choices (PC, semi-protection or full-protection, or even no protection) to review what should be the status of this particular article. Should I do that here?--DThomsen8 (talk) 12:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Well, the main RfPP page rather than the talkpage. Use the 'requests for unprotection' section. GedUK  13:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I understood that we weren't supposed to keep adding pending changes, is that right? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Rajesh Khanna

i have provided 68 references for the article rajesh khanna in the wikipedia. i need ur help to make it semi protected so that unregistered users do noit edit it at first place. also to my knowledge all sources are mostly from newspapers,magazines,big box office dotcoms, movie websites,interviews by stars. but some registered users are indulging in vandalism...simply editing the artcile. if at all by mistake some blog reference is there i request that these registered users be made to understand that they are facts and if at all references need to be added freshly in place of that(blog reference ) then that reference be given and not that the para /sentence e be deleted.Shrik88music (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFPP is the place for this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change on which version of a page to protect in a content dispute

This is a heads up for a proposed change on which version of a page to protect in a content dispute See: Wikipedia talk:Protection policy#RFC: Proposed change on which version of a page to protect in a content dispute -- PBS (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Declined protection requests?

I find it very curious that BLPs and articles on prominent current events (like an election) are being declined protection. The point of temporary protection should be to eliminate all vandalism on pages which are regularly visited. If a BLP has been vandalized several times over the course of a day or two, why not protect it for a couple days? We need to protect BLPs and I don't see how declining protection is helpful in this respect.--TM 20:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No, the point of protection is to stop vandalism when it reaches a level that is hard to keep on top of. Maine gubernatorial election, 2010, which you requested, had only been edited by an IP once that day, and not at all the day before. Indeed, since, an IP has made two constructive edits that they wouldn't have been able to do had the article been protected.

Rick Scott has had two pieces of vandalism all day (and one good faith edit). That's just not at protection levels, particularly when the bot cleared up one within a moment.

Compare those to Liam McKenna which I have just protected, and that shows you some of the more extreme hits BLPs get. GedUK  22:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

TFA notice

I've been bold and removed the TFA notice from Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/PRheading. I'm just mentioning it here in case anyone cares as that page is unlikely to be on people's watchlists.

As I said in my edit summary its been six months since the RFC, so it seems reasonable to expect people to just protect it as any other article without the notice. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Why not indefinite?

Jens Stoltenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was semi-protected for a period of three months subsequent to my request yesterday. I had requested that it be permanently protected due to the history of vandalism and the absence of any prognosis for any abatement of this activity. I asked the question why only three months, but got no answer, so I'm asking the same question here. __meco (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

We have to take into account the article's history in the protection log. Usually, the length of protection increases with each time the article needs to be protected. Indefinate protection is usually reserved for cases where there is evidence of consistent recurring vandalism. I've now increased the semi-protection to 6 months, I think that's more than adequate here. -- œ^™ 01:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. __meco (talk) 10:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Tracking down a Twinkle bug

I'm going to have a look at a tracking down a Twinkle bug with Safari, to do so I'll be posting some spurious protection/unprotection requests for my talk page, as there is no other way I can think of to track down the bug. Apologies in advance, but it should mean Safari users don't get their requests going above the header. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Question about protection possibility

Is it possible to protect a page against a specific IP address? I have a case where there is a school article that is identifiably vandalized regularly from an IP address which can be identified as belonging to the school. Mangoe (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No, protection either hits all IPs or none. A block of the IP might be most appropriate in your case, assuming this vandalism is frequent enough. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

rfppClerk new feature: adminbacklog

rfppClerk will now add and remove {{adminbacklog}} when needed. The default thresholds are ten and four pending requests, respectively. While I've done my best to test the new feature, experience proves that lab conditions cannot perfectly replicate live conditions. So if anything goes wrong, you know where to contact me. Rami R 21:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic, thanks! GedUK  08:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Protect Today Show, Natalie Morales Page

Can you please Protect or a least Semi-Protect Today Show and Natalie Morales Page in order to prevent Editing war and disruptive behavior? Pack11nike (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for socking. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Protection of bot templates/userboxes

I have attempted to look for information about this issue through searches and readings, but failed to find anything that would point me in the right direction. As the number of SuggestBot users increase (currently ~200, soon ~300) I keep wondering about asking for some kind of protection of its configuration template (User:SuggestBot/config) and userbox (User:SuggestBot/userbox). I haven't yet seen any vandalism, though, thus I am very unsure about the actual risk. Given that the userbox is transcluded on a couple of dozen pages I'd define it as low-risk and not in need of any protection, while the template is medium/high given that it's on about 200 pages or so now. Some help on figuring this out would be most welcome! Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Meh, they're essentially userpages, which are semi-protectable on request, so done for both. Courcelles 17:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks you so much for taking care of this! As probably evident by my question I had no idea how this usually works, so I appreciate the quick intro and for making the changes. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Marker for page protection (TW)

I'm trying to use Twinkle but it states that the marker to place page protection request could not be found here. Can someone help me here? Peaceworld111 (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Wish to appeal/clarify declined request for page protection on Mathematics in medieval Islam

Hi, re Mathematics in medieval Islam: Can someone direct me to the appeal procedure? The pp request was declined, based on a lack of recent disruptive edits. However the page was restored and restubbed twice last week, we have an RFC in progress, and some editors are beginning to add content to the stub - which could potentially change the facts on the ground. I am totally AGF with the protection process, and simply wish to point out the circumstances more clearly. Thank you in advance for your assistance. -Aquib (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry!

Sorry for my request. I don't know the rules to ask permission to protect a page. I think the administrator's pages have protected. Sorry for my mistake. Thank you for your advice team. --Surya Prakash.S.A. (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Choice of symbols

I'm really not a fan of File:Pictogram voting delete.svg as the decline symbol. To me, a big red X seems excessively hostile: in fact, it looks an awful lot like the block icon, File:Stop_x_nuvola.svg. Are there any thoughts on replacing it, possibly with something like File:Crystal Clear action edit remove.png? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I do agree with your sentiments. I'm all for changing it; why not? The only problem that this would present is that the "decline" symbol won't be in the same style as the other symbols (listed @ this place). Airplaneman ✈ 20:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Found a better one — check out {{RFPP/sandbox/doc}}. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'm going to switch the decline symbol to File:Pictogram_voting_oppose.svg as demonstrated in the sandbox. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 21:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering why it looked different. Baseball Watcher 00:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection for newly released films

<<split from WikiProject Film talk page>>
Hi I'm one of the coordinators for the WikiProject Film. I would like to get a consensus for temporary semi-protection for articles of newly released films, for at least a week before the film is released and a week after it's released. It is a struggle for editors to keep the pages updated and accurate when anonymous editors (IPs) swarm in adding unsourced statements, unsourced changes to the box office numbers, increasingly bloat the plot with thousands of words or sneakingly change the plot to make it untrue. A lot of work on [most] film articles is done when a film is released. For example, creating a reception section with reviews, box office numbers, a good concise plot, production details, etc.

For good faith editors we have to pretty much cease improving the article while checking through all the anonymous edits--undoing, reverting, warning users. It becomes time consuming and counterproductive. If this is granted perhaps a bot could be created to automatically protect pages a week before a release date that matches the {{Film date}} template (which is already on film articles) and then unprotect a week after the release date? Thanks. —Mike Allen 04:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Standards for quick semi-protection of big new releases is a good idea which I support, but connecting it to the film date template is taking it too far. This problem is severe for blockbusters, but the vast majority of film articles are about obscure indie (and Indian) movies for which this problem is very limited. In fact a lot of the info that ever gets added to these articles often comes from anonymous editors around their release. Smetanahue (talk) 06:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You are completely right. Being connected to Film date would in fact cause more damage to the project. Blockbusters are the prime example. For instance, take a look at the article history for Fast Five. [9] —Mike Allen 07:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If this is a big issue on a particular article nominate it for semi-protection when the vandalism starts up on a particular article. No additional policies are then required. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It happens even on some of the non-blockbuster American films. The recent kid's animated film, Rio, was a bit of a nightmare for a about a week. But it calmed down much more quickly than it does on the big action and sci fi flicks (this seems to be the pattern for kid's films). If we had requested protection the week of that film's release (I'd say we only really needed it for about a three days), would we have gotten it? The problems we had with that article were not nearly what I've seen on Sucker Punch, Fast Five, or what we can expect for the new Transformers flick (and assorted other sci fi films coming out soon). But it was pretty difficult keeping it under control between the handful of us that seemed to be working on the article. Would the admins who deal with page protection be responsive to a request on the new releases that have problems less severe than the obvious suspects? 08:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd have thought so, assuming there was a reasonable amount of vandalism. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Support: I don't know if I agree with a blanket protection, as some have said, certain films especially Indie stuff may get vandalised but are unlikely to attract the same frequency of vandalism that films like Fast Five has and Transformers 3 will. It is a shame because some IP's DO contribute but on Fast Five, as I've learnt over the last...4-5 days, is that for every one good contribution you have 20-25 edits which, as MikeAllen points out, are either deliberate vandalism (i.e. replacing a name with "Fag") or sneaky enough that you will not notice unless you check every single edit, IP or registered. I requested protection for Fast Five last night and got it for a week and since then there have been only TWO edits. TWO. Where there was about 30 edits every time I went away for 5 minutes, that shows how amazing the protection template can be when used efficiently. It means you can work on the article in the knowledge that you won't have to check in 30 seconds to see if someone has removed your work, edited it, vandalised, etc, etc.

Perhaps it would be possible to create a bot or a procedure where members of the Film project can vote on if a film is high-risk or not and a consensus in favour results in protection. On a personal level, we had people spoiling Scream 4 a day before it came out and as far as I've seen, the IP responsible never posted again, so they did it to ruin it for people. Now we don't censor spoilers and that's a fine policy but surely if such information isn't publicly available for 24 hours then a malicious IP shouldn't be able to do things like that to larger scale works. But it isn't just for the sake of spoilers, it really has been a HUGE amount of effort to maintain Fast Five without the protection it now has, so much that it puts positive contributors off contributing, at least to that article. It effectively reduces the chance of producing an article that is up to Wikipedia standards to Nil for a few weeks to months depending on the fanbase of the film. So I firmly believe that a protective period, perhaps two weeks, maybe starting a day or two before release would have positive benefits to high risk articles. As of May, I think Captain America, the new Pirates of the Caribbean, Green Lantern and Transformers would be considered high risk articles during their initial release for instance and were such a system in place, I would request protection for them. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If its 20-25 bad edits for every good edit it will be trivial to get protection on a case by case basis. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

But the point is that by the time you can request and get protection, the damage is already done. You have to effectively stand by and let vandalism happen and sit around reverting it until it gets to a point where it is worth taking to RfP. I don't think it really harms anyone to apply protection to certain articles, it happens for recent events where a lot of conflicting information and vandalism as it has with Osama today. Not comparing the two obviously but it can be done and the articles that are the likely targets for vandalism, unintentional or no are also likely to be the ones people will come to Wikipedia to view come release, effectively presenting them with a vandalised, poorly presented, incorrect, incomplete or just poorly written article that no regular contributor wants to get involved with at the moment in time. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The protection policy currently states that "Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred" but if experience has shown that time and again articles on big films receive lots of non-constructive IP edits around the time they are released then I think there may be a good case to cut out the painful waiting period and protect before it kicks off properly. Nev1 (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Honestly guys just make the requests reasonably early... I don't think it will be difficult to get the protections you guys want under the existing rules/status quo. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

As Nev said, you can't ask for it preemptively. I imagine it would be a chore in itself convincing an admin to protect a page for an extended period without vandalism to back it up. Having to convince them of this for every film that could conceivably require it would be an endless task. Pointing again to Fast Five, there's been like 3 edits to it all day, I think they were all constructive, I was even able to edit the Critical Reception and it's stayed untouched by the vandalism of recent days. Protection is a godsend for this article.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Not really, you just need to ask as soon as the vandalism has clearly started on a given film, which is pretty early. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Most likely it would be protected for 2-5 days or something. I swear as soon as the edit protection expires, another batch of IPs hit the article. —Mike Allen 00:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Then request protection again. I'm sure quite quickly you'll be able to persuade the protecting admins to go straight to 2 weeks or something. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

What about asking for pending changes protection instead. Though I am a reviewer, I haven't kept up with the talks surrounding the pending changes so I don't know if that project is at a place where requesting it is viable. Just throwing the idea out there. Millahnna (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a great idea, but unfortunately I think pending changes was a flop and is not being used anymore? So unfortunate though. —Mike Allen 02:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless something has changed dramatically in the last two or three days, it is definitely still being used but I don't know if they are in yet another trial or have moved on to some other stage (the conversations there can get a bit heated so I don't check in on the talk pages very often). After the first trial, Jimbo posted during the very heated discussion that resulted. He was very much in support of pending changes as a concept, even if the implementation needed fine tuning. So I don't think the program at large is going anywhere. Millahnna (talk) 03:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently it is being used on 1000 articles and you request it here. Though it's not in the Twinkle code, which would make it much easier to request (yes I'm dependent on these tools. lol). Would this be the best way to go though? At least IPs and new users would be able to edit, but we would still have to go through all the edits and approve or reject. —Mike Allen 00:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• - Hi, The currently closed RFC on pending is a request to end the trial and remove all articles at this time untill a new poll stating the conditions for use is presented and accepted by the community consensus - there looks to be a possibility from the poll comments that it may be removed from all article for a time although this has not yet occurred, closing is happening today or tomorrow so lets see. If it is removed your input and requests to have the protection added to a projects start up articles is something you would perhaps add for discussion on the talkpage for future usage, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If we go on to do a new trial, I think that basing it on films is a good idea. Each film could be randomly assigned to PC or not PC before the big marketing push starts. We could collect data such as number of edits that are undone and whether or not semi-protection is used. We could even do a "blind tasting" after the marketing hype has died down and protections have been removed - We could ask people to rate the quality of film articles, without knowing whether or not they were PC protected. Yaris678 (talk) 09:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

An update: Thor (film) has been granted pending protection for two weeks. —Mike Allen 03:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• The protection policy requires that the need for protecting an article be determined on a case by case basis, there can be no preemptive semi-protection for a class of articles, or special standards which differ from those set by the protection policy. This applies equally to PC. Cenarium (talk) 09:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well that's the point of the discussion, to evolve the policy.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Then that should be discussed at WT:PP, and if it gains enough traction, advertized heavily to ensure that there is community consensus for changing the protection policy. Though I'll point out that in the past there has been lots of attempts to make special standards for classes of articles regarding protection, and none gained consensus, even for BLPs. Cenarium (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It is/was being discussed there. Millahnna thanks for suggesting pending protection... not. :P It is a train wreck over there. You have a group of people for PP and then a group that is not. They talk about a trail that has ended and consensus was reached not to use the tool, but yet the tools are still be used across Wikipedia, even by Jimbo. You have an admin that granted my request of PP, then an admin that went through and removed all PP. Did all the admins not get the same memo? I'm done with that. Anyways, Thor has been semi protected. —Mike Allen 19:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

If they're that intransigent to policy changes then they will lose solid contributors. It's not like demanding round the clock protection, it's short term protection to compensate for the influx of negative that follows a film. It isn't just films but we're reasonable people and it is clear when certain articles will become the focus of mass editing; a film release, game release, album release, execution of a terrorist, etc, etc, little things like those. This is a volunteer outfit and I can tell you, while I want to help, it isn't fun having to surgically examine every article to find the one edit where some has removed a piece of grammar, changed a number or wrote "penis". It gets old fast and puts people off even trying and while it is an endless endeavor, it is particularly difficult at those peak times.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support: As per my previous comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. — Bill william compton^Talk 22:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Pending changes requests

I'm not sure there's any point in requesting unprotection of PC articles unless they're really high traffic and PC is a hindrance to efficient editing/vandal fighting. We're slowly making our way through the PC list unprotecting, and clogging up RPP seems unnecessary to me. GedUK  09:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, if someone ever would like to improve communications & procedures: this is my bad experience. Use it! It shows admin's mind! -DePiep (talk) 00:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

admin officers not yet kafka/a bug report you can improve with

It came together here. Not a single explanation about what went wrong, nor one admin not knowing the true protection state, another one not knowing they did a cascading protection, no reply on any of my researching questions, It ended up OK for the incident -- but not for the policy, since I prepared a well-described regular {{editrequest}}, third try. Still not through the WP:RFPP route (as if not read).

• Now this is a bug report you can improve with, can't you. -DePiep (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Struck, rm link. Way too cynical. -DePiep (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)