Open main menu

Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection

Contents

Reduce size of instructionsEdit

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

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

SurveyEdit

  • Strong support until I had twinkle these instructions have always flummoxed me. Thanks for trying to improve it. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC) (moved to "Survey" when converting the discussion to an RfC; feel free to undo ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC))
  • Support - the pros set out are all correct. I noted that something about length might be beneficial, but Nom was correct in the sense that "beginners need a stripped down simple version" - and ToBeFree is correct that experienced editors use Twinkle anyway! Nosebagbear (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. MER-C 02:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Anything to make instructions more straight-forward has to be good. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I just looked at the page and it's awful. For example, instead of a nutshell at the start, it has a link farm listing every other noticeboard. I looked at the source to see if I could clean it up myself but it's a morass of nested templates. KISS. Andrew D. (talk) 13:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. This page is one we expect relatively new users to handle quickly, it needs to be kept simple. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I am a new user, And if I ever have to use this feature, I would like the process to be as quick and simple as possible.Billster156234781 (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. My first idea of a place with a good pre-loaded option is WP:GL/P; I don't see why RFPP couldn't use the same thing. It helps to have the instructions up there, I'd say, since you ought to be able to look up the details if you need them, but by all means give us link(s) to preloaded request(s) like ToBeFree has proposed, and put them in a prominent place above the details, or collapse the details so they're only seen if you un-hide them. Nyttend (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good but please no "click here to edit" links. Edit links already exist for each section. Also, mystery meat navigation :) MusikAnimal talk 02:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
    Also, probably goes without saying that you'll need to give time for Cyberbot and Twinkle to be updated. MusikAnimal talk 02:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
    (moved my reply to the discussion below) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong support: less is more. The buttons are speedier and more obvious than expecting the user to edit the appropriate section. The text is still a bit lengthy and the "Skip to" bar gets naturally glazed over by the eye but it's definitely a big improvement. Bilorv(c)(talk) 02:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support better.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. A clear improvement for inexperienced users. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. This proposal significantly eliminates the necessity to scroll through a ton of text in order to make a request and looses little/no information that's actually useful. I see no reason not to do this.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 15:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

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

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

Just install WP:TW. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll keep that in mind as response to new and unregistered editors.   ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

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

It will make it easier. In the User:ToBeFree/Rfpp proposal/Decrease is there anyway to make the person adding it give the original protecting admins name and if they already aked them? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi CambridgeBayWeather, thanks! The corresponding "preload" text can be edited at User:ToBeFree/Rfpp_proposal/Decrease/Preload; it might be useful to add a line such as "I have asked the protecting admin, {{u|Example Administrator Name}}, but they seem to be inactive.". The editnotice at User:ToBeFree/Rfpp_proposal/Decrease/Edit-notice also contains advice, which will be displayed above the editing box when creating a new request.
Ideally, I believe that users should not be asked to look up this information before coming here. I believe that the clerking bot should automatically ping and message the protecting administrator, informing them of the discussion on the central board. The protecting administrator may then add a comment, accept or decline the request. If the protecting administrator does not respond, other administrators or experienced users can probably better decide how and when to continue. If the request is about full→template protection, other administrators can also see this and implement the request directly.
Note: If I understand correctly, the current instructions at WP:RFPP do not require the user to specify the protecting administrator's name. The proposal does not change that. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what is the best way. I know there are quite a few requests where someone asks for unprotection but doesn't say who did it. Then you have to look up the page to see which admin it was, check to see if they are still active. Finally either unprotect it if the admin isn't active or, more often, leave a message at WP:RFPP asking them if they asked the protecting admin first. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @ToBeFree: - in most ways I prefer your version, however there are two key decisions that have to be made when requesting an article's protection: Severity & Duration. 2 lines explaining when permanent and when temporary would seem beneficial (potentially something in the auto-create as well, but that's marginal). Nosebagbear (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
    Hey Nosebagbear, thanks for the ping. Hmm. If you insist, I will probably add more text to the instruction proposal, but I hope to be able to convince you against this:
    The original text in the current WP:RFPP header says: "Please do not add arbitrary requests for a protection expiry time to your request". Twinkle offers a choice between "indefinite" and "temporary", but in the end, it's not really the requester's choice to make. I believe that the protecting administrator needs to decide themselves which protection settings are appropriate, if any. The administrator must make an own decision. If semi-protection is useful, semi-protection will be used. This does not require an explicit request for "semi-protection". Maybe pending changes protection is more appropriate and will be implemented instead, or vice versa.
    Users don't ask for specific block durations or block settings at WP:AIV either, because it's the blocking administrator's choice how long the block will be, and which settings will be used.
    That all said, experienced users can (and will, I guess) still request specific protection levels and durations; the proposal does not forbid nor prevent this. It just doesn't instruct new users to make administrative choices before being able to request administrator attention. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
    @ToBeFree: - hmm, a good response. I'm not sure I completely agree, but you're right in the sense it won't impact experienced users and shouldn't cause major negative effects in other cases. Consider me a neutral on this specific facet then. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

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

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

"Click here to edit" linksEdit

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

Update: I think this may solve the ambiguity: Special:Diff/878489986
There are no misleading "edit section" buttons anymore, only the correct links that actually edit the {{/Increase}} page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Update 2: Because the magic word "NOEDITSECTION" also made the "edit section" buttons next to specific requests disappear, I had a look at meta:Help:Editing sections of included templates and implemented this at Special:PermanentLink/878491055. If you like to, we can still remove the "click here to edit" text completely, or make it less bold and less visible. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@ToBeFree: There are still edit links for the individual requests, is what I meant. Do we need an edit link for the outer section? I kind of like it not being there :) It will help ensure a consistent format since they'll have to use the "Add request" button. MusikAnimal talk 05:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: ah, I see. I have now commented out the "click here to edit" link. If a malformed request is added without a heading, it may be necessary for administrators to edit the "/Increase" page as a whole. In this case, however, they can manually navigate to "/Increase". An interesting shortcut is clicking the "request protection" button, then clicking "Project page" at the top left.
We could replace the HTML comment by a "sysop-show" span. This would avoid confusing new users while allowing administrators to do clerking easily. Using the link will only ever be necessary for malformed requests; normally, there will be a convenient "edit" link next to each section. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
PS: Now that I think about it, the usage scenario for the "click here to edit" link is unrealistic: Good-faith malformed requests won't appear at the top. Bad-faith edits could simply remove the link. So there is indeed no need to keep it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


Technical roadmapEdit

Phase 1: Ensure backwards compatibility.

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

Phase 2: Server-side fixes.

Phase 3: Client-side fixes.

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

Pages transcluded next to the heading; Cyberbot I didn't complain yet.   ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Moved template edit request to phase 3 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Template substitution added to roadmap per discussion at #Archiving bot below. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit requestsEdit

Request 1Edit

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

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

@ToBeFree:   Done. Sorry for the delay! Note the script intentionally only works when editing sections (individual requests), so if you edit Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase right now for instance responseHelper provides no response links.
I am a little worried about the technical roadmap. It sounds like "At WP:RFPP/Header, replace content entirely by the proposal" is the change that instructs people to use the new system, right? That probably should at the same time as the Twinkle updates are deployed.
Thanks for your work on this, MusikAnimal talk 17:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi MusikAnimal, thank you very much! About the roadmap, good point, that should probably better happen after the bot overhaul. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Request 2Edit

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

Cyberbot is now available, this request is now moot. Hhkohh (talk) 08:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

ToBeFree, just a thought. Since Cyberbot is currently blocked, can we skip phase 2 and clerk manually temporarily for now? Hhkohh (talk) 02:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Archiving botEdit

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

Clever idea, I think. I have set up a sandbox at User:ToBeFree/Sandbox_archive. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Looks like this will end up needing a |key= parameter, because the archives are stored in a central location and not as subpages of the individual subpages. Alerting the bot owner to this disucssion. (ToBeFree, see the commented out ClueBot Template at WP:ANI for an example). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. Hi Cobi, we'd need keys to archive discussions from the following pages:...to the following archive pages:Thank you very much in advance! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
ToBeFree, we should archive completed requests after 1-hour response and denied requests for 4-hour response. So archiving is very complex Hhkohh (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Hhkohh, but anyone wondering why their request was declined can have a look at the archive? And any administrator interested in re-checking declined requests can do so as well. I see no reason to keep done entries in the list at all. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
ToBeFree, the requests in the archive is preserved for checking, but not for discussion. Some requests may be discussed by several editors (for example the admin who responsed requests but forget protecting or if admin makes a mistake/the response is controversial, the requester (or even some editors) may comment under the requests.) Also, few of admins/editors may be interested in checking. If admins want to archive the requests immediately, they should use {{RFPP|ar}} template in the requests. Also, in WP:PERM, they also do not archive requests in 72 hours after the last response/comment. Hhkohh (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Update: Pppery, Cobi, Hhkohh, ClueBot III just archived the sandbox. Without the key, it forcibly did so at User:ToBeFree/Sandbox_archive/subpage1/Archives/_1. The result is a mess. The "semi-protected" requests have not been archived despite appearing in the "archivenow" list. The automatic {{tl}} substitution does not preserve parameters. Let's just wait for Cyberbot I. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Given that it's now going to be used for historical posts in the archives, shouldn't {{RfPP}} be substituted (the analogous Template:Esp is). That would moot all of the concerns except the lack of a key. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Good point, discussion created at Template_talk:RFPP#Substitution. There's still one more concern left, however, presented above by Hhkohh. When using substitution, I do have a solution for this "complex" case, however. We can use {{Do not archive until}}, with varying duration, dependent on the type of closure. Successful requests can be marked as "do not archive until now + 1 hour", and declined requests can be marked as "do not archive until now + 4 hours". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Cobi, I am trying it on my talk page right now, but can you confirm (or fix, if not the case) that DNAU overrides ArchiveNow? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Looking at the source code of the bot, that does not seem to be the case. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't think using multiple bots, one to clerk and one to archive, is a good idea. Also, substituting {{RFPP}} will make is harder (if done correctly) or impossible for a bot to reliably parse RFPP and its archives. — JJMC89(T·C) 23:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@JJMC89:There won't be clerking work left once the other changes are done, I think. My roadmap above contains an entry about replacing newlines, and one about adding headings if needed, but both entries are entirely optional, possibly unnecessary and have just been a quick convenience idea.
About parsing, that won't be a problem either: The templates will substitute to HTML comments that can be parsed easily. Huggle and ClueBot NG do this kind of HTML comment parsing all the time, on user talk pages, where all templates are substituted. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't see any discussion about removing the clerking. — JJMC89(T·C) 00:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
JJMC89, which clerking exactly do you mean? The whole roadmap has only been created after consensus was gained for the general change. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
The posts that Cyberbot was making to RFPP: (un)protection was actually done, recently denied requests, already been handled, blocked requestors. — JJMC89(T·C) 00:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
@JJMC89: Ah, I see. Cyberbot will probably continue doing that once it has been overhauled and unblocked. If archival should be done by the same bot, it will be easy for Cyberbot to take over that task as well, as soon as the bot has been rewritten. I don't believe that this will happen soon, however. We can always comment out the ClueBot configuration template and let Cyberbot continue where ClueBot has started. For now, using ClueBot seems to be a good intermediate solution that does not prevent any future takeover by Cyberbot. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
ToBeFree, do not forget once phab:T213475 is resolved, cyberbot will be back. So our manual clerking and using Cluebot is just back up. Also, cyberpower678 promised to use new code in the future Hhkohh (talk) 02:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
ToBeFree, another question is do you know what is the maximum of the archiving rate if we use Cluebot? Hhkohh (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Looking at the recent history of WP:ANRFC, it usually takes a few hours for ClueBot III to notice it needs to archive something, which I guess moots the whole Do Not Archive Until buisness. There's no "maximum rate" per se, though, because there is no practical limit to the number of discussions the bot can archive in one edit. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
─────────────────Pppery, in Cluebot page, they said Edit rate maxlag = 2. I do not know what it means Hhkohh (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict)@Hhkohh: The "maxlag" limit means that the bot will not edit if the servers are currently very busy. It is not a fixed rate limit, and it will probably not happen too often. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
ToBeFree, Cyberbot is now live. Hhkohh (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Historical archivesEdit

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

Hmm. The proposal was about future requests "to avoid technical issues". Storage-wise, Wikipedia can definitely handle this. A single video on Wikimedia Commons could use more space than all of these archives.
I think that creating historical archives from the huge revision history will be a task that requires a new one-time bot, and it can still be done in a few months or even years. One day, someone may take the time to do this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I seem to have lots of time on my hands;   Coding... a bot to create past archives. * Pppery * has returned 01:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
@ToBeFree: My coding has finally come to a conclusion. I've posted several sample archives in my userspace at User:Pppery/RfPP archive 1, User:Pppery/RfPP archive 2, User:Pppery/RfPP archive 3. A few notes:
  1. I've given up on bot archiving anything from before late October 2004 (RfPP dates back to October 2003), because the algorithm I use relies on section headings to distinguish individual requests.
  2. There are a few bugs that cause the same request to be added twice, caused by a request being removed and then re-added in the history.
  3. From 2004-July 2005 and September 2005->June 2006, there was no section for handled requests, and thus admins sometimes removed requests with the only explaination in the edit summary. I therefore chose to include a copy of the edit summary and the date the section was removed in the archive.
  4. The number of archives produced (if they are the same size as my samples) will be in the hundreds
I'm also going to give a courtesy ping to A2soup, who somehow wasn't notified when their proposal headed toward implementation. * Pppery * has returned 00:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Wow, this is wonderful!   Next step is a BRFA? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@ToBeFree: I'm going to wait until the rest of the proposal goes live before filing any BRFAs; Cyberpower678 said it would be ready within the next week. * Pppery * has returned 20:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Oh! This is delighting news. Thank you very much for doing this, Cyberpower678.   ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I changed my mind and decided to manually create an archive for the 2003-October 2004 period at User:Pppery/RfPP archive 0. * Pppery * has returned 21:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

/EditEdit

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

Pppery, Why shouldn't Cyberbot clerk this page. How will your changes eliminate the job Cyberbot does on there? —CYBERPOWER (Be my Valentine) 21:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Pppery, I did see any consensus that Cyberbot will not clerk that page Hhkohh (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Cyberpower678: What clerking does Cyberbot currently do for requests in the "current requests for edits to a protected page" section? {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Pppery, oh you meant for that particular section. I don’t think it does much there. Working on a new Cyberbot exclusive framework. —CYBERPOWER (Be my Valentine) 02:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
This proposal suggests splitting each section into a new subpage, so it would be "that page": Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I misunderstood that as well.  
At the source code of Special:PermanentLink/882661196, if a user enters the page name inside the HTML comment, the information is completely lost. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok, ToBeFree, I think I've resolved that concern. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid that converting the comments to plaintext is only technically resolving the concern.   Suddenly, we have the text appearing in the finished request. How about Special:Diff/882924080? The template automatically detects the type of protection. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@ToBeFree: The text only appears in the finished request if you modify it, as it is otherwise stripped out by my code at User:ToBeFree/Rfpp proposal/Edit/Request. I would strongly oppose your suggestion, because it is inconsistent with the way edit requests on talk pages are handled. It seems to me like there are less ways to break things if a /Request template is used than if we force the user to meddle with the preloaded template in more than one place. If the user does put their request in the instructions, then it's better to show them rather than inaccurately try to guess what they mean. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I see. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

@Nosebagbear: Cyberpower678 hasn't ever gotten around to recoding his bot, despite claiming he would do so "in the next week or so" almost two months ago. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Pppery: Thanks for the courtesy ping above! Just coming back from a wikibreak, and it's cool to see that my archiving proposal seems to have ended up as part of a larger technical roadmap for RfPP. However, it seems like the implementation of the roadmap is still stalled. Is that correct? Just checking. A2soup (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
@A2soup: Yes, that is correct. I've mostly given up on this, though I do still have the code for the one-time bot I proposed above and will run it if a full archive ever does get coded. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Requests for page protection".