Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archives of Fulfilled/denied requests?

How does one access the archives of Fulfilled/denied requests? 69.72.27.73 (talk) 10:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

There are no archives. After a period of time, the requests are simply deleted and the only record of them can be found in the history of WP:RFPP. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, the answer is "view history"; didn't realize that was applicable on this kind of page69.72.27.16 (talk) 07:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

m:The Wrong Version

Recently I requested page protection and really screwed the pooch. Almost immediately prior the edits in question were completely changed to a state I felt was inappropriate. Therefore I felt the need to ask the admin if it would possible to change it back first the protect the page. I now know how bad this is to do.

Yes it dose say "admins do not revert back to specific versions of the page, except to get rid of obvious vandalism.", but I didn't notice it and I don't think this statement makes it clear how "taboo" this is. As someone who don't request page protection often, I honestly didn't know it and it came back to bit me almost immediately.

So I was thinking, since this changes to this page should probably be discusses first, that this could be made a little clear to smucks like me. Perhaps instead saying something in bold along the lines of, but not exactly, "Requests for admins to revert back to specific versions of the page, except to get rid of obvious vandalism, and will not be filled. Protection is not an endorsement of the current page revision therefore these requests are inappropriate. See The Wrong Version"

I only ask this because I don't want some other person like me to get bit the the butt by asking for such a taboo request.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 23:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't overstate the impropriety of asking to have another revision restored. It tips your hand a bit that you're new here, but that's pretty much how everyone learns. m:The Wrong Version is a page by and for experienced editors to have a laugh about how often this happens, and if you take a look at how old it is, you might realize that you're far from the first person to make that mistake. causa sui (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about the "overstate the impropriety" of it. I got really called out on it, but perhaps my own experience is just a unique one, but it seems like it is really improper. For example on the request to protect "Earth Day" the admin said "Declined – Consider dispute resolution. I also strongly dislike that you reported the page here and reverted the other person so that the page would be protected on the right version. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)" so it can't be all that "unique". However, if nothing is changed then it doesn't matter to me, since I know better. However, I think it only fair to make it clear to editor who don't know how taboo it is before they get called out on it, like happened to me.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 17:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Section names

It's not that big of a deal, but can we please change the practice of using a template in the section titles? The page history links to specific sections is completely broken, the table of contents doesn't work, and... well, it just sucks. The same function would seem to be served by simply using the page name in the section title with a pagelinks template used in the body.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm content to change this and I'll update the Javascript to tidy it up if needed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes please! They annoy me too. Vadmium (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC).

Attilas Empire map is wrong

We need to reopen the Article of Atilla, the map showing The Huns empire is wrong, it shows Denmark and Saxony in Germany as part of the empire, this is so wrong. we need to use the map in the discussion forum of Atilla, this is the same map used in the Hun empire article. Showing Denmark and Saxony as part of the Hun empire, is like showing a map of Malaysia as a part of Japan today, its wrong, and needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.77.31 (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this at the talk page of the article, you will find a better audience there. --Jayron32 19:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a disaster!

I was trying to request protection of Lunar eclipse and I got an error. nymets2000 (t/c/l) 22:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Requests via Twinkle and Huggle not working

States that it cannot find a relevant heading and will not request protection for any page. Calabe1992 (talk) 05:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle looks for a level 2 heading "Current requests for protection", followed by a template on the next line. So if this is missing things blow up. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Please fix the section on how to edit protected pages.

The section on how to edit protected pages has a few problems that I cannot fix, because I simply don't know what the right answers are.

Problems:

1. There is no documentation that I could find anywhere (and certainly not on this page), that explicitly explains how to request an edit to a protected or semi-protected page, when both the article and the discussion page are locked. (Double-locked page). Specific article example: [September_11_attacks] (In this case, double-semi-locked.). My apologies if I have guessed wrong, but it appears from the look of the rest of the article, that requests to edit protected pages should be put into this main article, which I've done.
2. The templates suggested under the Current Requests section, are a bit bunged.

• • "Request edit" or "edit request" tosses up a banner saying that a user wants an edit they can't make due to a conflict of interest. No doubt a useful template under those circumstances, but not for users trying to request edits for double-locked pages.
  • "Editprotected" or "Edit protected" toss up errors saying that such requests should be made on the article's discussion page only. (Which I'd love to be able to do. Except it's locked too. )
  • "Editsemiprotected" and "edit semi-protected" (appear to) do nothing.
  • "Edit semiprotected" gives a template error.

Could someone who knows what's going on please fix this page?

Thanks!
173.206.132.10 (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

What more needs doing here? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Did the OP miss the notice: "This talk page is semi-protected. If you want to request an edit on the page, click here instead." Jezhotwells (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)?

Help with FIFA U-20 World Cups articles

There's been a continuous vandalism over these articles in the last months, so I've finally decided to look for some help here. The edits are hard to track down because they're done through different IP's, but they're all clearly coming from the same guy since the m.o. is always the same: changes in the names of the countries, usually in the last-16 phase of the tournaments. I've been trying really hard to revert the vandalism each time I detected it, but I'm quite tired of running behind this guy. He also does several edits, and sometimes there are someone else's changes in between, so I can't revert them always without effort. I've been checking out all 18 tournaments, and at least the articles from 1997 on have at once been vandalized, as I said, in the last months. The 1989 has also been vandalized a few times, but I'm not sure its the same guy (different m.o.). At any case, it's quite possible this guy moves on to the oldest editions of the U-20 WC's, so I'd ask for full protection from 1997 on and semi-protection for the rest. I know I'm talking of 18 articles here, but I don't know how to solve this in a more effective manner. Please let me know your opinions on this problem. Thanks in advance. Ipsumesse (talk) 02:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

What the...

I don't get why viewing the header in edit mode shows "No matching items in log." LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 19:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: Moved from /Header for convienence. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 19:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Brian Camelio

I have semi-protected the article Brian Camelio in view of the recent, repeated violations of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (insertion of unreferenced, biased material by contributors having apparent conflicts of interest). If this is excessive or inappropriate, please let me know and please feel free to change the protection level. Thanks. (I am sure this is the right place to post this note. If there is a better place, please let me know as well... thanks!) --Edcolins (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

See also: User talk:Jamesrand#Understanding sysop guidelines and abuse. --Edcolins (talk) 08:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Semi-auto clerking, not paying attention, and the problem with automated tools

Before you use your robot to archive parts of pages such as this, please use your human eyes to examine what you are removing, and not remove requests that have not been fulfilled or denied. If this cannot be done, then this automated tool needs to be changed or disabled. Thanks. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I USED MY HUMAN EYES. happy? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Try and continue to use them while you clerk so that active discussions aren't archived after an hour of inactivity. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Tell me which was the problem. The only request that was removed without a protected/declined was "Origin of the Albanians", and it has the note "Marking request as answered". I'm pretty sure that you are arguing about "File:Downtown_Waterloo.png" which was ignored. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah there didn't seem to be an issue. If the complaint was about Origin of the Albanians it had already been moved down to the completed section - and thus was fair game for removal. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It was about File:Downtown Waterloo. I mistakingly saw the edit difference as it removing that section, and for that I apologize. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Extra break tag causing problems for Twinkle

I recently saw some reports that Twinkle users were unable to submit requests for unprotection; the pattern match Twinkle executes to find the relevant request section was being befuddled by a line break tag, which I have removed. If there's a reason for that tag to be present, we'll need to update Twinkle, but otherwise I think this fix should be fine. There are brief threads at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#Current pages for un-protection and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Current pages for un-protection/ Conflict of interest notice board., for reference. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

FIFA U-20 World Cups

Whatever happened to these petitions I made: temporary semi-protection for 2007 FIFA U-20 World Cup, 2009 FIFA U-20 World Cup and 2005 FIFA World Youth Championship? I didn't see them fulfilled, nor denied, nor anything... They just dissappeared... Ipsumesse (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Protect the Tiruchirapalli Airport Page

It has been frequently modified and deleted leading to the edit warring.Please consider in protecting TRZ page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiruchirappalli_AirportNaanmahan (talk) 11:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Justin_Bieber

The page for Justin_Bieber is semi protected and does not allow corrections. The section "Life & Career" incorrectly cites that his great-grandfather emmigrated from Germany to Canada. It was in fact his great-great-great grandfather Philip Bieber who migrated in 1873 to Canada from zilling, moselle, france.

as reference i am his uncle Rob Bieber, and have an extensive family history recorded.

Titanius (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rob what you say may be true, but until it is published somewhere else in a reliable source our Wikipedia guidelines would stop us from using this fact. I am very sure that if you put more of a story about this ancestor together that some other publisher would be keen to include this. Otherwise we are going to need detailed genealogical sources to show who was born where and when to put a whole picture together. This then becomes a synthesis which is not for Wikipedia either. I could not confirm your statement in an internet search. So I suggest that you find a reliable newspaper or magazine and sell your story, then we can use it here! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk page

Should talk pages be protected? If talk pages can be protected there is no where to place the edit template to propose to edit the talk page. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You can still make an edit request at WP:RFPP. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Questions, comments, complaints?) 20:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Section links in edit summaries

LikeLakers2 (talk · contribs) has noticed that the links to sections on edit summaries do not work on this page because of the template transclusion in the section heading. He/she thought of a complicated but ingenious way of fixing this by adding some code to Template:Lx. (See discussion.) I suggest that there is a much simpler way to fix this problem. In the section heading we simply include the name of the page. Then in the line below this we put the template with all the links in it. For example, one of the current requests would change to the following format:

Eritrea

Eritrea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Indefinite protection: Continuous deletion of sourced content by multiple accounts. 99.12.242.170 (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this would make everything work properly. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, we could do that. However, while I have no problem with your solution, it would probably be better to use mine, as this allows the editors of WP:RFPP to use their usual format of protection, while still "linking to the right section" in the edit summary. Again, I see what you are proposing, MSGJ. :) LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 20:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

If I understand things correctly, the proposed change at {{Lx}} wouldn't work universally -- for example, a section heading of ==== Stuff going on at {{la|foo}} ==== would still be a problem, no? I'm generally inclined to discourage the use of templates in section headings, as they lead to problems with failed section links and frequently clutter up the TOC, but I'm also thinking that we should keep the submission process as simple and painless as possible. I'm tentatively thinking we can stick with the status quo, or go with Martin's solution (minor quibble: if we're going to make users enter the page's name twice, can we at least simplify it a little by dropping the link brackets from the section heading?). – Luna Santin (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, it seems to me that it would be very simple if we had a single template that could replace the entire {{Lx}} suite, but I realize that's not possible with our current software setup. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not here hardly at all, but every time I come here I think that it would sure be nice if the subheadings worked. I don't really care what solution is ultimately implemented (although I think that simpler is better, generally speaking), as long as something is finally implemented. This has been a problem for forever.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Semi Protection for N Chandrababu Naidu page

Need Semi protection for N Chandrababu Naidu page. Frequent section blanking by unknown ip users without giving reasons for edit. Deleted material has proper references. SRSXT (talk) 09:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

This needs asking at the main page, not on the talkpage. Rcsprinter (warn) 16:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Neonopolis is outdated not correct in several respects, but it is protected so I cannot update the info at the top of the page. I don't know how to release protection so I can submit the new informations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgriesgraber1 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding at the top instead of the bottom

Admittedly, I know it'll temporarily break some of the popular tools (e.g., Twinkle), but after years of being on Wikipedia, I've never understood why we ask people to add reports at the top as opposed to the bottom—especially considering it's a high-traffic page. It totally throws off section editing when you use a stale version of the page and go to edit a section and someone adding a new report at the top has turned section 8 into section 9, so you end up adding an {{RFPP}} close to the wrong section if you're not paying close attention. Long story short, was there a reason we're doing it this way, or is it one of those things that's just been left the way it is because of the difficulty of coordinating the change to add-at-the-bottom? If it's the latter, does it make sense to anyone other than me to switch it around? Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 02:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

3DS system software

I don't know how to request semi protection for the page. I need to do this because people have speculated which confuses major video gaming news groups. An edit war is also going on very often. Could someone request the protection for me? Thanks.71.207.23.87 (talk) 00:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Urgent request for article protection

Until there is resolution in the noticeboard can admin protect the Tammet article from further blanking by disruptive user Oughtprice99. This user has been warned by admin several times recently for deleting reliably sourced and verifiable material. I have posted my concerns about user Oughtprice99 in the noticeboard. To guard against obsessive reverting and serial blanking, I trust you will agree somewhat that it would be beneficial to protect the article asap.XNQlo (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be mostly a content dispute, and as such I have fully protected the article for 10 days. For the future please also note that requests go on the main RFPP page, not here on the talk page. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Korean pop group articles

Starting with Girls' Generation and continuing all across the spectrum of all kinds of Korean pop-groups there is incessant edit-warring going on, centred on adding uncited information about the position of the group members. In one such article, Double A (band) there was a column featuring the blood-type of the group members, uncited of course. I propose a mass nomination for semi protection. I welcome any comments. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

As an avid K-pop fan, I'd support liberally applying protection to articles about South Korean idols. Fan girls make these articles difficult to maintain and just drive good article writers away from them. It's saddening to see copyright violations and just utter trivial crap being put in these articles. Don't even get me started on the "sources" they provide... — ξ^xplicit 06:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you ξ^xplicit. I agree. The sources, rare as they are, don't look too good and trivialities abound such as columns about the height of the group members etc. And I haven't checked for copyvios, still being busy to maintain the unsourced positions out of the articles. Let's see how the semi-protection phase goes. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess things didn't transpire as I had hoped after our earlier discussion. No protection for two articles, with edit-warring continuing as we speak on My Name (band) which was declined only yesterday. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Unprotection

Unproctect Nyanpire so we can edit her back to a girl again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookietheoshawott (talk • contribs) 15:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding another section of upgrading and downgrading protection requests?

I have added a downgrading request in "Protection" section instead of an "Unprotection" section because it may still count as Protection. Shall we have another section that carries these such requests and upgrading requests? Otherwise, shall we have another section that carries only downgrading requests? --George Ho (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Unlock Dumbo page

Excuse me but can you unlock the Dumbo page please because it hasn't been edited in a while and i want to correct somthing on this page.--98.196.40.126 (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Requests for unprotection should be lodged on the actual page, not this talk page. Alternatively, you can place an {{Edit semi-protected}} template on the talk page of the article you want to edit with the details of your corrections to have someone submit them on your behalf. Or you can just lemme know and it'll be my pleasure to help you! :) Salvidrim! 03:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

archive protection

Hi, I'd like to ask a question:

Is it possible to seek full protection for a talk page archive? I've been checking the archives at our user group and detected anons discreetly deleting certain words. I've tagged them as IP socks of a certain editor who dropped out of sight three years ago because a vanity article he made got AFD'd and now wants no mention of his name anywhere in Wikipedia. I've been on alert for this editor because of his desperation to keep names expunged because they appear on Google hits. Thanks. --Eaglestorm (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Did I overstep the mark?

I'd appreciate it if a regular admin from this page could review my edit here - I removed another user's request because it stood no chance whatsoever of being granted (a request for indefinite protection in response to a single, non-vandal IP edit) and the board was backlogged enough already. I thought that by doing this I would be making things easier for RPP patrollers, but now I have the niggling feeling that this may have been a bad call and that I should have left it to be denied in the usual way. There doesn't seem to be a policy anywhere I can find that suggests what route to take in these circumstances: should a non-admin deny protection or remove clearly spurious requests, or should the entire process be left up to those with the tools? Yunshui 雲‍水 13:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC) (I also realise the irony of taking up more time and bandwidth discussing the issue than would have been used by simply leaving it untouched...)

You should not have removed the request, however as you point out it was never going to be done anyway so it's not really a big deal that you did. You should leave the patrolling of this page to administrators, though. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, won't do it again. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

No worries. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sōka Gakkai

I wonder if there are any chances to get any sort of protection/attention to the above mentioned article. I hab trouble fighting some editors to edit in ways that are not really acceptable. Please find details in the history and talk section. Thanks for your help and attention in advance.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Falling in Reverse 2

Semi-protection: Moderate level of IP vandalism.

I would like any type of lock for the page Falling in Reverse to stop people with out accounts editing it, there has been numerous amounts of vandalism, e.g A lot of people keep removing alot of the former members, they keep messing with the genres, and they also keep writing things like "this band is gay" "does anyone on actually like this band" "Falling in Reverse are a gay hardcore mainstream band" , this vandalism occurs mostly in the sidebox, in the template, in the first chapter titled "The Drug in Me is You and Record Deal" but the thing is, its only people without accounts that do it

Ericdeaththe2nd (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. First, I don't see any comments like you're talking about in the last 50 edits (last few weeks), though it's possible I missed some. Second, I actually see more productive than unproductive editing by IPs. Please try to discuss the issues on the talk page; if problems get worse, you can bring it back here. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I've pasted now, right firstly the productive IP's are me when I forget to log into my account by the vandalism happens by the following IP's User:98.234.119.219 and User:66.169.169.62 if the can be blocked then having semi-protection wouldn't be necessary Ericdeaththe2nd (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

John Roberts

How was this article vandalized after it was locked? Were the vandals both autoconfirmed users? Bms4880 (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, for them to have vandalized a semi-protected article they need to have autoconfirmed status. Acalamari 13:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Are editors experienced with WP:ROUGH allowed to decline requests

Similar to WP:NAC it seems reasonable to allow experienced editors with the process and WP:ROUGH to help out (I'm not included...but its probable that some others are and this seems reasonable). CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 00:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I would argue not (disclosure: I am one of the editors you decribe and an ex-admin) because it implies one has the authority to do so. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 04:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I think Cyan is asking if such editors do indeed have the authority to do so, like they do in NAC situations. NTox · talk 05:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries

How to put the correct edit summary into the page history? --84.61.181.19 (talk) 07:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

not possible, be more careful next time. ;-) Oh by the way: you can request an oversight of any if it violates our policies. mabdul 10:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

You are all invited to a discussion ...

... at WT:PC2012. We're especially looking for the input of people experienced in page protection. - Dank (push to talk) 19:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Some requests have gone unanswered too long

Hello. I want to bring attention to the fact that there have been some requests for page protection which have been pending for an unusually long time; some have been pending for almost two days. I'm sure that at least some of the pages here are still worthy of protection after this amount of wait. I know that the page I requested for protection, Sylosis, is still an edit warring mess. I've stopped editing that page for now because of an ugly disagreement I was involved in, which heavily involved this page; I'm ashamed it ended up that way, and I'll want to avoid such fallouts in the future. Anyways, speaking for myself, waiting for the protection request to be acknowledged is testing my patience, and I'm sure the other folks who have sent requests of their own want theirs to be acknowledged as well. I'm posting here with all due respect, but some of these requests might have been sent here with urgency in mind. I've sent requests here in the past, but I have never had to wait this long for them to be answered. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 20:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right; the backlog has got far too long. I'll take a look at it. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you and the other admins for helping out. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 05:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Non-admin declines

I think this discussion needs to be restarted, how would admins feel about non-admins commenting on or closing (and whether or not to use Template:nac when doing so - to make it clear it isn't an admin) requests for page protection (both semi, full and move)? There is a similar discussion happening at WT:PERM at the moment. Feel free to format responses however you want I'll leave it up to admins to do so (perhaps support, oppose and discussion section headers?). Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 11:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

RPP faces severe backlogs on a daily basis. To run it smoothly, I think NAC's should be encouraged - we all know admins can't be everyhwere, so having non-ads doing this would really take some of the pressure of their shoulders. Editors in good standing i.e perhaps has an extra right could make non ad declines, already done's and user block templates. If admins feel that these RPP 'clerks' don't make a good decision, change it, everybody makes mistakes. I strongly support non-ads making closures.--Chip123456 (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Absent a clear consensus to the contrary, non-admins have the authority to undertake any action that does not require the admin toolset. The only two places that come to mind where there are additional restrictions are the stricter rules that apply to NAC XFD closes and the restriction on formal NAC action on unblock requests. Even more clear is that anyone can offer a comment on a protection request. There is no need for any extra permission to do it. That said, I would encourage non-admins to exercise caution in rejecting protection requests. It may be almost as helpful to just offer your observations on the request, leaving it to a reviewing admin to decide, but with the benefit of your advice to make the decision easier/quicker. Monty₈₄₅ 13:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

To enforce Monty's comments, observations help out a lot. Of course, admins will check over, but NAO's are always welcomed.--Chip ¹²³⁴⁵⁶_Contribs 13:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Would it be best to always use Template:nao &/or Template:nac, also to make the admin's job easier? Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 13:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the {{nao}} should be required, a comment that does not clearly action the request doesn't matter if it is from an admin or not. As for {{nac}}, I think the goal should to avoid confusion that the closer is an admin, the template is certainly one way to do that, but as long as its clear template use should not be required. For instance, when I reject CSD nominations as a non-admin, I try to describe it as challenging the CSD, rather then declining, as declining suggests I would be able to accept it, which I of course can't. Monty₈₄₅ 13:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Although sometimes I forget to do it, the letters NAC should appear somewhere.--Chip123456 ^Talk_Contribs 13:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

What about if we all do something like this so it's easy to read and understand (and for the sake of consistency):

(non-admin closure) Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 00:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the appearance of a large indent from {{nac}} doesn't look good.... what about:

• Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. (non-admin closure) - Monty₈₄₅ 01:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

That links to an essay which says "In most instances, deletion discussions are closed by administrators. However, there are several situations in which an editor who is not an administrator can close a deletion discussion. This essay offers guidance to editors considering doing such a closure." (my emphasis) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm really not comfortable with a non-admin declining the vast majority of RPP reports (note: not talking about clerky things like shuffling old requests); we make people go through RfA so we can determine if they have the good judgment to deal with reports on UAA, AIV, RPP, PERM, etc. And I know potential admin candidates are starting to do non-admin declines/closes/whatevers on these boards; I as an RfA voter would rather see 1 solid report to one of the boards than 100 non-admin declines/closures/whatevers. Just my thoughts. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The community at RFA entrusts admins with the toolset, which necessarily means that they we have entrusted admins to have good judgement to deal with reports calling for the use of the tools. It does not follow that editors without the tools are untrusted. The starting point is that all editors have the same authority, which we diverge from only in cases of necessity. If there are certain editors inappropriately declining WP:RFPP requests, they should be dealt with on an individual basis. Only if bad declines become a reoccurring problem should we consider any type of restriction. It is just as easy for an admin to review a non-admin decline as it would be to decline in the first place, so either they are saving time, or being well scrutinized. Monty₈₄₅ 03:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Oy, RfA... That thing is a gauntlet of character assassination and more harrowing and deeply probing than a job interview but that isn't for here. Anyway, I don't disagree that NADs aren't any good because any admin can overturn their decline. It carries no weight for them to decline anything if they don't have the ability to also un/protect if required and can be overturned at any point (like a few examples with Chip123456 recently) so what good is a decision by an editor if they can't protect as well as decline a request? Non-admins shouldn't decline unless for the script, even clearcut declines shouldn't be done. Comment yes but you have no power to enforce any decision you made so it's meaningless to hand down declines. tutterMouse (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, given that the only admin (from my count) has said no, lets move away from closing AND using the template to just commenting (using Template:nao to make it clear that we are not admins). And only commenting with advice to decline/protect requests for protection (lets leave unprotection alone as there is nothing overly helpful we can contribute) and the reason and let the admins use the templates. And I am only after the opinion of admins here, because they are who this will or will not help. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 07:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

So should commenting non-admins simply use the {{comment}} or {{RFPP|note}} templates, which would display as  Comment: or Note:  ? ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

What about using using (Non-administrator comment) and leaving all of the templates for admins to use? Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 18:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I would agree but I don't see an issue with using the comment or note templates seeing as they're not decisions/actions but representative of input, who made it shouldn't matter and adding {{nac}} makes it seem like that editor's opinion is worth less than that of an admin when it's completely not the case and shouldn't have to flag it as such. In addition, sometimes the non-admin clerks do need to use the other templates to indicate protection has been enacted already which I think is reasonable and part of the whole clerking duties. tutterMouse (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been using {{nao}} and leaving the {{RFPP}} for admins. Though when there is a non-contentious (that is, I'm not making any decisions) need for one of the templates (eg user blocked by, declined by, and protected by) I have been doing so. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 19:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

extension of proctection and downgrading from full to semi

Hi all,

How do i request a extension of full page protection due to content war if no consensus is not reach near the time the deadline is up, as it is 99.99% guaranteed as soon as the protection is removed/expired the page will go back to edit warring because there is no consensus yet.

Also how to a i request if a consensus is reached that the page get downgraded back to it indefinite semi protection so non register users can not vandalise the page like they do ever attempt there been to remove it.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I think for either of those, a normal request for protection would be fine; just make sure that you are clear in exactly what you are requesting. If there's anything you'd like me to look at now, though, I'm happy if you just post the details here. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

the two articles in question are Rangers F.C. and Newco Rangers both are fully protected and i think expire on 27th july, it clear from the talk pages some user are determined to push there pov when it expires because they feel the page is hugely disreputable even though there is still no consensus i have made request for comment but i am awaiting on some decisions by the authorities before putting it live as those decision could help get a consensus easier. the request for comment that is waiting to go live is here here

Time before removal

How long are fulfilled/denied requests left on the page before they are removed...24 hours? Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 20:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Depends on the length of time before someone runs the script but usually it's anyplace between 6 hours upto 24 hours but given the rate of new requests, it can be less just to stop the page from getting excessively long. tutterMouse (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

How does someone run the script? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, figured it out. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 11:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Backlog

So, I was going to remove the backlog template, except I see that it is part of some automated script thing. Will it go away on its own? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 13:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It will once it reaches a threshold, 10 standing requests to put on the backlog notice and 4 for when it gets removed. Given how things are recently it might be worth considering if we should raise the limits. tutterMouse (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't go away on its own, the script removes it when someone runs it. I've been away for a while, but the 10 for it to show seems reasonable to me. I don't understand what you mean by 4 for removal, that makes no sense; the backlog is at 10, if it's 9 then there's no backlog, to me. Anyway, I hope to be on a bit more now, and I'm happy to plough through the backlogs when I'm around. GedUK  14:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Current requests section header

Does anyone mind if I change the text from "list of denied requests if you cannot find your request" to "list of fulfilled and denied requests or, failing that, the page history if you cannot find your request"? It's a small change, and might only make a difference once or twice, but we don't lose anything by making it. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 13:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. David1217 ^{What I've done} 17:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done Given that there have been no negative opinions I've boldly made the change. Feel free to change/revert/discuss if required. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 06:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks fine! Deryck C. 20:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Result

What do people think about adding (Result: ) to each section header (request), similar to WP:ANEW? In that way, anyone could glance at the TOC and know what needs a decision.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Might be useful, if people remember to do it (I often forget at AN3). But worth a try. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the templates do a good enough job. They stand out pretty well. Also, there's often a lot of discussion at AN3, unlike here. David1217 ^{What I've done} 15:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

David, the amount of discussion is largely irrelevant to the objective of adding the result so that it's visible on the TOC. ItsZippy, forgetting to add the result at AN3 is a blockable offense. :-) Obviously, if we did this, we would have to change the instructions so the requester creates it properly (perhaps change the templates to automate it). Even if other forgetful admins neglect to put in the result, nit-picky people like me could always stick it in to the header after.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a bit too much bother, but if you'd like to start doing it, then go ahead. David1217 ^{What I've done} 16:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty neutral although leaning toward suggesting not doing it. Just because it is more work (although not much) and that since the sections are generally quite small, it doesn't take long to check whether your request has been answered and to check if there are any which haven't been answered. But as I said I don't mind either way. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 17:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems like un-needed clutter to me, the current response templates do the job just fine. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Beeblebrox. Protecting the pages is what matters; noting the action here is necessary bureaucracy, and should be kept as simple as possible. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Concurring with Harry and Beeb: not strictly necessary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Page protection clerks

Hello all, I've been reading a few of the recent discussions about non-administrator closures of page protection requests, and I have an idea that I'd like you to consider. From what I have read, it seems that opinions are basically split between two groups. One group is of the opinion that non-admins shouldn't close protection requests. This may be because they don't have the technical ability to do so, or because they haven't been vetted by the community in an RfA. The other group are of the opinion that non-admin closures of protection requests would be useful to bring down backlogs and that there would be no problem with a non-admin closing protection requests if they are an experienced user and are trusted by the community.

I have a solution that I think may be able to satisfy both groups. I propose creating a group of non-admin page protection clerks, who would be authorized to decline page protection requests. These clerks would be vetted by the admins who patrol page protection requests, perhaps by a consensus-based process similar to that currently used for selecting SPI clerks. The idea is that these users would be trusted to make the final call about protection requests, so they would be able to decline requests without the further intervention of an admin. They would also be able to endorse requests, but because they would not technically be able to fulfil them, the protecting admin would have the final say about whether to protect or not. Unlike SPI clerks, all admins would automatically be considered page protection clerks.

This solution would have the advantage of allowing non-admins to help out with reducing the backlogs on the noticeboard, while still ensuring that only trusted users were eligible to decline page protection requests. What do people think about this? Can you think of reasons why this proposal may or may not work, or any way in which it can be improved? Let me know your thoughts. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 17:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been doing this very long ,so am unaware of previous discussions on these issues. That said, it looks like certain editors who consider themselves clerks (I'm assuming it's not official) already leave notes for the closing admin. Often very helpful, I might add. What you're suggesting would take things one step further and would allow a clerk to decline or endorse a request. The endorse part seems only marginally different from what we have now. The declines would, of course, dispose of the request. We'd also create this new structure of official clerks.

If I've got all that right, I have a couple of suggestions. First, we keep the number of official clerks low. I'd start perhaps with the ones who already are "clerking". I don't see why we need that many to keep the backlog tolerable. Second, we try it out on a test basis to see if we like it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea, particularly having a trial. Does anyone have an issue if I take part in the trial? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, sounds good. But maybe could we have requests declined by a clerk stay on the page for a bit longer then usual, for review? David1217 ^{What I've done} 15:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Currently (using the script) they will stay on there for 12 hours (with the script), so as long as admin look out for them we shouldn't have a problem. How does that sound? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a fantastic idea - it would certainly make our job here much easier. I'd want to see that any endorsements from clerks are supported with a good reason (a bare endorsement with no reason makes it no easier for an admin to check whether protection is necessary); this would also help with cases where protection is probably necessary, but the requests are too convoluted too understand. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A little caveat to my comment above: Plus my opinion is, that the clerks should leave anything controversial (at least until they have some experience) for admins (maybe leaving their opinion, but not declining). And I agree with Zippy on supporting comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callanecc (talk • contribs)

I would like to gain experience at WP:RPP, Also I don't want to create a PERM section here for clerking, so (per discussion above) if anyone has reservations of me monitoring RPP and making occasional {{nao}} just give me a poke. Mlpearc (powwow) 16:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

A few things to bring up:

• An admin might want to check my comment on User talk:Obtund.
• How long is the plan for the trial to go for?
• What will be the process to apply to be a clerk, and what will clerks (compared to non-clerks) be able to do. Is it just decline requests for leave comments in general on requests? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• I oppose formal "clerks". It's unnecessarily hierarchical, it provides yet another hat for less mature editors to seek, and it implicitly excludes people who haven't been "appointed". However, I'm very much in favour of (and have previously strongly advocated in favour of) non-admins making occasional, useful, clueful comments. There isn't that much for non admins to do—stating the obvious isn't helpful, but providing insight, a second opinion, or pointing out something an admin might (have) miss(ed) is. Just please don't use icons—they make it much more difficult to see which requests still need attention. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• I made the proposal below because up until HJ'd post, no other admin had objected to the idea. I still like the idea of a trial. However, I don't have a strong feeling in favor. My reasoning is that at SPI, for example, things are so complicated, clerks are very helpful. RFPP isn't as complicated and therefore doesn't need formal clerking as much. If the consensus is to have a trial, though, that doesn't preclude non-clerks from adding comments. It just prevents them from declining a request.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

• It looks to me like we have support for a trial from three admins (Mr. Stradivarius, ItsZippy, and me). I propose the following:

1. Clerks can decline with a reason.
2. Clerks can endorse with a reason.
3. The trial will last 2 weeks, but can be extended if necessary.

If we can get agreement on those three points, then we can move on to who will be the clerks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I do see HJ Mitchell's point about unnecessary hierarchy; however, when it is is doing a purpose, 'hierarchy' (this is more bureaucracy, but I won't split over semantics) is not a bad thing. I think that, in a measured way, clerking could be helpful. I don't know if being told that there really is vandalism would be helpful (admins should check for vandalism anyway), but giving insights into content disputes, or longer-term issues would be of assistance. If we do go with clerks, it should be a very low-key role (I'd like to avoid the term clerk, because of the stigma), without fancy graphics, and very easy to become one. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

ItsZippy, I'm not sure where we stand at this point. If you have an alternative proposal to mine, feel free to spell it out. I'm not wed to any particular course of action.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been making NAO's here and I don't think non-admins should decline. I'm also not a fan of "official clerks". Electric Catfish 14:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

However, I don't see any real issues with it. Electric Catfish 15:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like we don't yet have a consensus to give this a trial. Not that many people have commented so far, though. It might be a good idea to get more people to look at it. Perhaps we could list it at WP:VPP? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Page Protection is generally not a difficult decision for an admin to make. I wholly concur with the concerns expressed by HJ Mitchel, and in particular the one of hat collecting (see also Callanecc's perfectly reasonable action re Obtund). Over the past few weeks due to backlogs that need attention, and a spate of SPI cases I've uncovered, I've been involved in a few admin areas I don't usually bother with, including PERM. I must admit that while occasionally I find an NAO helpful, most are stating the obvious. Moreover, if 'clerks' were permitted to close RPP as 'not done', I would feel nevertheless compelled to check up. Adding to the bureaucracy would be the bureaucracy of appointing clerks, and handling what will almost certainly be a regular stream of applications for the job. Although Mr. Stradivarius' suggestion is thoughtful and valid, I don't see a need for it.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• I am not persuaded by the argument that the clerk idea should be rejected because it may be used for hat collection. Because people misuse a process is not an automatic reason to reject it - in this case, it would depend on whether or not that misuse would actually outweigh the benefits to the noticeboard itself. It is also helpful to remember that the avoidance of bureaucracy, while a noble goal, should not dismiss its admirable uses - sometimes, small doses of bureaucracy are helpful (e.g., SPI). I do however see the point that administrators, generally, as vetted contributors are more trustworthy, and usually, I trust an administrator's judgement over that of a non-administrator. For that reason, it is natural to question the idea of giving non-administrators 'official' clout here. It is however quite flawed to assume that non-administrators have poorer judgement always; I think there are quite a number of non-administrators who would make exactly the right calls on this noticeboard. If we allow them to actually make those calls, as the clerking process would, we have offered a benefit. But we would need to compare that to the cost, which would involve some discussion about how bad the backlogs actually are (I am not a regular here), and how much work the clerking process would require to maintain. NTox · talk 04:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Nobody has suggested that the clerk idea should be reject solely because of hat collecting. Harry's argument and mine are balanced and objective, and no one is suggesting either that non admins always have poorer judgement; it is however not in the least flawed to assume that admins may do a more thorough job of it than some of the self-appointed 'clerks' who occasionally patrol this and the PERM boards - fact, not bad faith. I'm actually more concerned with the additional bureaucracy. That said, Callanec has been posting some excellent NAOs in the last couple of hours. If clerks were to be appointed, I would expect them to do most of the donkey work rather than just paste 'Endorsed' or some such flag. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Right. My understanding of this proposal is that the clerk role would only be offered to editors with some kind of track record of good judgement - the strengths and weaknesses of present-day noticeboard 'clerks' is of course a related but different issue. And my point about hat collection and judgement is merely to say that they are nuanced issues that require a good look at cost v. benefit. In any case, I would preliminarily say that I would support a trial on this as long as there really are backlogs that could use the help of clueful non-administrators, and as long as the clerking structure is simple and inconspicuous. NTox · talk 09:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Kudpung. I will occasionally make NAO's here. Deciding if there is enough recent activity to justify protection is a judgement call, and I only make NAO's of that sort when there is very little vandalism. Often, I recommend for an IP to be blocked, which requires an admin. Endorsing protections are unnecessary, as the closing admin still needs to take a look at it for himself/herself. Electric Catfish 14:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been paying much attention to this talk page recently, so apologies for pitching in late. One issue that doesn't seem to have been discussed is simply that if a clerk declines something, is a user actually going to accept that?

Personally, I don't pay much attention to most NAOs, because they usually only flag up stuff I would hope I'd see when I review the history. Sometimes they're helpful when they mention that it's a repeat request when a previous one has been declined but gone off the page, or identifying sock issues or related articles, but not much beyond that. GedUK  13:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Protection template for talk pages

Is there a template that we can use here if we are requesting protection/unprotection of talk pages? (In my case, specifically in the "Template Talk" space?) Steel1943 (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, {{ltt|TEMPLATE}}, as it says in the top section on the page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Section headers

What would people think about not using templates in the section header. Instead a request for protection of Jimbo Wales could look like:

====[[Jimbo Wales]]====
{{la|Jimbo Wales}}
*'''Temporary semi-protection''': 4Chan raid.~~~~

Jimbo Wales

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

• Temporary semi-protection: 4Chan raid. Ryan Vesey 14:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If we did that, the links to the section headers would work Ryan Vesey 14:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a very good idea to me. As I side effect, it would also mean that requesting protection of multiple pages would be clearer to look at. Any views by admins, since you are the ones this will effect the most? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll expand on this and say that Twinkle will need to be modified. Are there other tools for requesting page protection? Should we leave a note for the Twinkle maintainers now or wait until something is decided. Ryan Vesey 15:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Huggle will need to be modified as well (not sure about others). I would strongly advocate waiting (until at least some admins have said what they think) before involving the tools. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It's been 2 months -- anyone else want to chime in? I'm in support. Theopolisme 00:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with it, but then again I never thought it was a problem in the first place. I've never clicked on the section headers in the TOC. GedUK  12:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

RFPP archiving

As everyone knows, this page is currently archived semi-automatically by Rami R's clerk script. Unless there are any objections I'm going to be tweaking the wait times so that completed requests are archived to fulfilled/denied a bit faster, and then left at fulfilled/denied a bit longer. The main reason for this is (a) to de-clutter the main protection/unprotection sections, because it has been quite bad lately and there's no reason to keep completed requests here for long when there's a whole section dedicated to completed requests, and (b) to hold requests in fulfilled/denied slightly longer for the benefit of users who request protection but might not be back online for a while, since once things have been archived away it's a right bastard trying to find anything in this page's history. The current values (see User:Rami R/rfppClerk) are 6 hours and 12 hours. I was thinking of changing these to 2 hours and 20 hours respectively. – Steel 19:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yes please - anything to declutter the request page. One comment: will this lead to many more edit conflicts, because they can get quite annoying? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Rschen7754 21:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I have 2 and 6 on mine. 20 sounds way too long to me, epecially as requests can sometimes sit there for 24 on occaision. I'd have thought 12 for fr is fine. I've oftened wondered why we don't have actual archive pages, but maybe they'd be a bit unnecessary. GedUK  13:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

My line of thinking was that the bottom fulfilled/denies half of the page is easy enough to ignore and completed requests could sit there for a while (20+ hours) without really hurting anything, and having them there might be helpful to someone. I don't necessarily think 12 hours is insufficient, mind you. Anyway I'm going ahead with changing pr_timeout to 2 hours since we've all agreed on that point and it seems like an obvious good idea. – Steel 21:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Unclutterig is a good idea, but because the closures often contain snippets of advice, they should be left visible long enough somewhere for the requestor to see them; I would suggest at least 24 hours. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a very fair point; I know I often write a rationale, usually a decline, so leaving it long might be helpful, but it could end up with a big long list. I guess if that happens it's easy enough to change. GedUK  13:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Is there any reason there isn't a bot task to do this, so that it is fully automated rather than semi-automated? And it could perhaps do other things, like auto-decline requests for pages that are already protected, etc.? If there's any interest, I could propose a bot task. -Scottywong| confess _ 06:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkpage archive seems to suggest around two years ago there was a bot run by VoA (now Aaron Schulz) but it stopped sometime in March last year and whilst it should have been set up again it never was and someone made the current clerking script we use now. Nobody stepped in to make a new bot or to get the code for the old bot running again but if you're willing to get a bot going again for RFPP it'd be very helpful. Also, it'd be very helpful if we actually started archiving requests once completed rather than asking people to get here before the script removes it or go looking through the history, it was requested several times when VoABot was running but it never got implemented. tutterMouse (talk) 08:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean by "archiving requests once completed rather than asking people to get here before the script removes it". Can you elaborate? -Scottywong| chatter _ 13:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Instead of "archiving" to history as it does now, there'll be actual archives like AN or a talkpage. Right now, people are asked to come back within a day or so if they have a request to find out if it was successful or if it's been removed to go check the history instead. It's not exactly good practice especially if a request is from someone who isn't as active as others. Sometimes the clerks do leave reasons for declining requests so it'd be good to have something a little more permanent to refer to once a bot takes over archiving duties. tutterMouse (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

To summarise previous discussions (1, 2, 3) on the topic of archives:

• A rolling archive of requests from the last 3-5 days would probably be a good idea if someone actually implemented it, but so far nobody has.
• Permanent archives of all requests would be ridiculously huge and of almost no value to anyone.

Regardless, I think everyone would like a new and improved bot on this page. Scottywong, if you're willing to take this on, go for it. – Steel 17:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to do it, I just want to make sure that it is implemented in a way that best serves everyone. These are all good ideas. Keeping a rolling archive or a permanent archive are both possible, and neither is significantly more difficult to implement than the other. Are there any reasons that it would be beneficial to keep a permanent archive over a rolling archive? ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 17:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a preference, if there was a community preference for a rolling archive though I'd argue for one that covers the last 7 days with daily sections. tutterMouse (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Bot archiving

Per the conversation in the section above, there is apparently a need for fully automated archiving of this page. I'm willing and able to create a bot that can perform this task, but I'd like to first make sure that there is consensus for the task, and nail down the details of exactly how the bot should operate. So, if you have any objections to the general concept of a bot archiving this page (as opposed to a semi-automated script used by a few users), please voice them here. Otherwise, after reading through some of the archives, here is what I believe is required:

• Fulfilled/denied requests get moved to the archive subpage after a minimum amount of time has passed with no further comments in the section. (Default time = 2 hours for fulfilled requests, 6 hours for denied requests)
• The archive subpage is organized by date, one section per day.
• The "Fulfilled/denied requests" section on the main RFPP page is permanently removed, and replaced with a short sentence directing users to the new archive subpage.
• Archived requests get removed from the archive subpage after a minimum amount of time has passed. (Default time = 7 days)
• No permanent archive of requests is kept.
• The {{adminbacklog}} template is added/removed when necessary. (Default # of unanswered requests = 10 to add the template, 4 to remove it)
• The semi-auto clerking script (User:Rami R/rfppClerk.js) would be deactivated.

Questions:

• Do the default times and values look ok or do they need to be tweaked?
• Does the bot need to do anything else, like auto-clerking tasks? (For instance, post a message if the requested article is already protected, or if the requester has been blocked, etc.)

‑Scottywong| confer _ 23:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no objections whatsoever. Although I enjoy the task, if you can find a fully automated way of doing this I will not stand in the way of progress. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with your idea, although I also enjoy the task. But If you can create this bot, I think it'll be great for everyone. (: -- Webclient101 (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good (including those additional clerking tasks). I can't speak for anyone else, but these are a few optional extras I would find really useful if they aren't too much work (and no big deal if they are):

• If the archiving values/times were stored in some on-wiki config page, just so they can be changed easily if consensus decides later that some value is too high or too low. Last time everything had to go through Voice of All, and he was never around.
• If the bot could group together multiple requests from the same person with the same rationale. So for example,

Before

==== {{la|History of Spain}} ==== '''Semi-protection:''' disruptive IP keeps changing dates. [[User:Scottywong|Scottywong]] 12:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC) ==== {{la|History of France}} ==== '''Semi-protection:''' disruptive IP keeps changing dates. [[User:Scottywong|Scottywong]] 12:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC) ==== {{la|History of Germany}} ==== '''Semi-protection:''' disruptive IP keeps changing dates. [[User:Scottywong|Scottywong]] 12:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC) ==== {{la|History of Italy}} ==== '''Semi-protection:''' disruptive IP keeps changing dates. [[User:Scottywong|Scottywong]] 12:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

After
==== {{la|History of Germany}} ==== :Also: {{la|History of France}} - {{la|History of Spain}} - {{la|History of Italy}} '''Semi-protection:''' disruptive IP keeps changing dates. [[User:Scottywong|Scottywong]] 12:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Or something. Might need to adjust the exact formatting. It won't catch everything, but this is a massive peeve of mine.

• If the bot could leave a note when protection is requested for a page that was previously declined by someone else recently.

Again, no biggie if one or more of these aren't included, but if you don't ask... – Steel 00:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It would be good, if the bot could check, whether protection really happened in case if the request is marked so. See for example this request. Armbrust ^{The Homonculus} 01:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I attempted to write a bot for this several months ago. The code is far from finished, but I think I have the time to complete my bot and take the task. →Σσς. (Sigma) 02:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It's up to you, let me know. I have a bunch of code that can be re-used from some of my other bot tasks, so it's just a matter of defining the rules for how RFPP works. I could probably have something up and running in a few days. ‑Scottywong| express _ 04:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• I like the idea of having a bot, and I agree with the settings that Scottywong proposed above. Here are my other thoughts/suggestions:
  • Agree with having the bot reopen requests that have been marked as protected but where the pages haven't actually been protected. Probably best to leave a delay of 5-10 minutes before reopening, just in case the protecting admin edits RFPP first for whatever reason.
  • Also agree with automatically marking requests that have been protected. We could also do with a delay here, although in this case it should be a little longer as it sometimes takes a little while to write comments after protecting a page. I'm thinking 30 minutes.
  • Although in theory I like Steel's suggestion of grouping requests by the same editor togeter, in practice I'm not sure it would work. I can think of two issues - the first is that it is not rare for prolific vandal fighters to have two or more open protection requests for two completely different pages. The second is that if the protecting admin comments on one of the multiple pages submitted by one editor, then it is not obvious how those pages should be grouped together in order to preserve the meaning of the comments. The second issue is not a problem if the bot is quick in grouping discussions, but that still leaves the first issue. If anyone has any good ideas, they would be most welcome.
  • The on-wiki config file sounds like a very good idea indeed.
  • I would like to see the bot leave a note if the requesting user has been blocked, but protection may still be necessary so I wouldn't like the bot to automatically decline such requests.
  • I would also like the bot to leave a note if the page in question is currently mentioned on WP:AN3, WP:AN, WP:ANI, or WP:AE. That might help reduce duplication of effort across noticeboards and give admins more context for their decisions.

That's all I've got for now, but I'll let you know if I have any more bright ideas. :) — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 06:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

re grouping - active vandal fighters requesting protection for multiple unrelated pages occurred to me too overnight. Webclient101 comes to mind. I thought we might want to add an exception not to group any requests with the default Twinkle vandalism rationale. That would probably deal with it. I don't know how the bot would cope with any comments on the requests, though it would be entirely reasonable of course for it to just do nothing if it was confused or unsure. – Steel 13:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• I thought of another - how about getting the bot to leave a note if there has been a protection request for the same page in the last 7 days? (i.e. the old request is still on the rolling archive page.) — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 11:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Everything you suggest is possible. I'm not sure how useful it would be to check the drama boards for mentions of the article, as it might be on those boards for a completely different reason, and there's no way for the bot to differentiate between a noticeboard discussion about protecting the article, or if someone happened to mention the article in passing. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 13:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The only problem I see with archiving requests which have been protected (obviously it would have to ignore requests for unprotection) is that there are times when a request is for upgrading from semi to full. This issue would be annulled if the bot could recognise which level of protection is requested and match that to the level of page protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It is possible for a bot to determine if an article is semi- or full-protected, so this shouldn't be a problem. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 13:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea; VOAbot was a very useful tool and when it went it was such a faff. A couple of ideas/comments/questions come to mind.

• I'm confused about the archive page. I've long thought we needed one, but why don't we create a permanent archive? Why just keep the last seven?
• Can the bot reorganise requests to that unfufilled ones are moved back to the top, sometimes they get lost.
• I wonder if we should group semi and full protection requests separately, though that would require some work on Twinkle, and might not be worth the effort.
• Yes, if the bot could mark where protection has been applied already that would save time.
• I don't think the link to ANI etc is helpful personally.
• Is there any possibility of the Bot adding that the board is very backlogged to AN when the backlog hits an even higher number, like 25 (doesn't happen often, but I've seen it at 40+ before now
• If it's a request for high visibility template protection, it adds underneath the number of transclusions?
• Yes, check if protection has been applied (thanks for linking to my recent fail :p )
• Can it delete or put together duplicate requests, which happens occaionally.
• Mark if there's been a request in the last x days (say it's in the temp archive if we stick with that)

But frankly I'll take anything! GedUK  11:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Lesse, let's take these one at a time to my best knowledge which isn't brilliant but might offer something.

• The idea seems to be that a permanent (or rather a indefinitely rolling) archive would be redundant because nobody really needs to refer to several requests and its mostly to the benefit of requesters who don't frequent the page. 7 days allows for those people to come back and see the result of their request without keeping all of them which as mentioned wouldn't have a great deal of use to most people if anyone especially when it comes to successful protection requests.

• Might be redundant if they're fulfilled and get moved to the completed section anyway but it sounds a sensible enough idea.

• Posting a notice to AN would be very helpful, seem to get some heavy periods at random and usually if someone posts a note to AN someone does a few to ease the backlog.

• Do we have a guideline on what qualifies as high visibility yet? Nobody seems to use a solid number and some requesters feel highly visible can also mean transclusions on highly visited articles. I'd like to see a transclusion number added as a bot note too but I'm unsure if it should be down to admin's discretion if it happens or not given it has the same confusion attached to it like cascading protection did/does.

• Marking if there's been a request seems good but usually if say a semi-prot was applied for a few days and the problem returns, the requester is usually the same and very vocal about it being short so it might be a solution to a problem which isn't that big a problem.

Some replies and views, won't be helpful to most but input is input. tutterMouse (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

You're right about the transclusions, it's all down to the admin. However, I think twinkle has a preset phrase it puts in when it's a high visibility request, so I was thinking the bot could just search for that phrase, so it's done on the request rather than just whenever it's a template protection request (though they're almost always for the same thing).

Yeah, fair point about the re-requesting. GedUK  22:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Going live soon

I've gotten approval for a trial of the archiving bot, and the code is nearly ready. A few changes will take place when the bot starts working (as detailed above). The biggest changes will be that the Fulfilled/Denied Requests section will go away, and the clerking script that many of you use will be deactivated. There will also inevitably be some bugs for the first few days. If you see a mistake, feel free to correct it, and let me know about it either here or on my user talk page. I'll get the bugs fixed as quickly as I can. There will eventually be a page where you can change the parameters of the bot (like how long it leaves threads before archiving, etc.), but I'd like to just get it working now before I expose that. I'm also listening to some of the other requests made above, and will consider them once the bot is relatively stable. I'll likely start some trial runs of the bot in an hour or two. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 18:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I've also added a parameter to the {{RFPP}} template. {{RFPP|ar}} or {{RFPP|arch}} will request immediate archiving, and can be used in strange cases where the bot may have gotten confused and decided not to archive something. It shouldn't be required often, but might come in handy every once in awhile. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 20:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Great, will be keeping an eye out for hiccups like others. tutterMouse (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to working with it! GedUK  22:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I meant to ask this earlier, but now that I can see it running it's probably redundant, but is the bot looking at the page all the time, or does it only check every so often? GedUK  22:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It currently checks once every 15 minutes. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 22:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The bot probably should be reporting its clerking duties like the script did. tutterMouse (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I never understood what the script's edit summaries meant. If you explain them to me, I might be able to make it happen. Also, all of the bot's editable parameters can now be seen (and edited by admins, although please don't change them without discussion) at User:Snotbot/RFPP. I also added a "minimum archive" parameter and set it to 3 by default, so that the bot won't archive until there's at least 3 requests to archive. This should cut down on how often the bot edits the page. ‑Scottywong| chat _ 23:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh the clerking summary was a simple thing once you got to know it, let me explain. As an example, here's what the script outputted: Semi-auto-clerking: [PR: 6 | UR: 1 | RfSE: 0 | FR: 9] (12 reports pending) The sections are PR = pending requests, UR = unprotection requests, RfSE = requests for edits to a protected page (something of a vestigial relic these days), FR = fulfilled/denied requests and finally how many requests are pending. The numbers for the first three sections are what was moved from the named section to the "fulfilled/denied requests" section and the number for the last one is what was removed by the script. It does seem a little complex but it conveyed what it was upto in a concise manner. tutterMouse (talk) 12:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm leaving my computer for a bit, and will be monitoring from time to time. Everything seems pretty stable, but if something strange happens, please edit User:Snotbot/RFPP and set BOT_RUN to "No" to pause the task. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 23:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems to be removing some entries but not adding them to the archive page. Not sure why. I'm about to go to sleep, so I'm going to turn the bot off for the night to be safe. Entries might pile up over the next 8 hours, feel free to manually archive if you want. Otherwise, I'll debug and restart the bot in about 8 hours. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 05:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Manual clerking it'll be, feel the script might have been taken off a bit too soon though. tutterMouse (talk) 06:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Small thing but the bot might not need to create years when its making the headers for the archive, if they're only a week old they can use the day and month alone. Also might want to simply call it Archive rather than Rolling Archive. Things to deal with down the line. tutterMouse (talk) 12:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, these are all easy things to deal with. I called it Rolling Archive to reinforce that it's not a permanent archive, since there are very few (if any) rolling archives used elsewhere on WP. If we decide that Archive works better, then it's just a change of the config at User:Snotbot/RFPP. And, the script had to be deactivated early because it works differently than the bot, and doesn't do the same things. I'll have the bot back up momentarily. ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 13:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you just explain what ARCHIVE_TIMEOUT = 2880 does? It looks like it'll archive the thread after 48 hours with no additions, regardless of whether it's been actioned? It is possible, though unusual, for a request to sit there for 48hours+ without being actioned. If I'm reading that right, it would be better if it never archived an unactioned thread. GedUK  15:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I should probably have described that better. ARCHIVE_TIMEOUT only comes into play if there is an {{RFPP}} template somewhere in the request (with a parameter that doesn't imply success or failure, like "ch", "b", "tb", "q", "n") , and there hasn't been any activity for 2880 minutes (48 hours). Otherwise, if there's a request that hasn't been responded to with a {{RFPP}} template of some kind, then the bot will leave it alone forever. I put it in there so that chances are minimized that the bot will leave a thread unarchived forever, even if it is confused by a protection request that was handled in an atypical way (i.e. if someone does something weird like: Note: This page has already been protected). ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 17:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the bot should treat b and tb as declined requests. – Steel 17:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

That can be done pretty easily, as long as no one disagrees. ‑Scottywong| express _ 20:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. GedUK  13:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done b and tb are now considered declined requests. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 20:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI - I just discovered and fixed a bug that was preventing the bot from posting any automated comments about requests (i.e. recently denied request, requester blocked, page already protected, etc). That was also the reason that it was not archiving some threads forever, for seemingly no reason. So, you should start seeing the bot make automated comments now. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 20:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• The bot's looking very good - thank you for your hard work on this Scottywong! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! FYI - I've paused the bot, as I've exceeded the number of edits allowed by the BRFA trial. Hopefully it will be addressed soon and the bot will be able to resume. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 15:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

BRFA approved. ‑Scottywong| express _ 21:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the handled requests are being archived too soon. I did a bunch of requests today to see what happens to them. If they get archived within a few hours, I'm pretty sure anyone checking back won't look foir the answers in the erchives, so there appears to be little point in leaving useful tips and info for the requestors. Taking times zones into account and the fact that some people may not check back for a full 24 hour cycle, I feel that the treated requests should stay up for at least 24 hours. Not sure if this would create too much clutter on the page. Could we try it out? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

They're being archived at the same rate as they were before the bot took up clerking duties. 24 hours is a long, long time for this page, only need to check the archives to see over any given 24 hour period there can be 20-40 requests so yes, a lot of clutter would occur even if it was limited to 12 hours. The archives are there for people to go check which is a lot better than asking they check the page history if it wasn't on the page anymore. Also, they have a week in which to go find their request result which wasn't something they could do before so if they can't click one link and have a look in the archive then I'm not sure why they requested in the first place, it's not a high demand. tutterMouse (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Currently, successful requests are archived after 2 hours, and declined requests are archived after 6 hours. If anyone posts in the thread, the timer starts over again from zero. The timings can easily be changed, but if they're set too high the page will become cluttered. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask people to look on the archive page. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 19:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (really)

Bot seems to be leaving the same messages for the same issue upon each cleanup cycle, in this case a non-protected article. Shouldn't it be checking for conflicts with itself like this one? Also, I really underestimated how long the archive can get across a week, any way we can collapse entries? Not sure what to do about the TOC either, that's pretty lengthy too and it defaults to open so I can see some being put off by a huge list of sections. tutterMouse (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. There is a mechanism so that it doesn't conflict with itself, but it doesn't seem to be working 100% of the time. I'll have a look. As for the archive page, we can investigate either collapsing sections, or collapsing the TOC, or limiting the TOC show it only shows the daily sections and not each request. If there's any preference, let me know. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 03:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm going towards collapsing sections oer request instead of say days simply because it's a lot easier to glean over. The TOC should be limited and was intending to go shorten it with {{TOC|limit=2}} {{TOC limit|2}} myself so I'll get on that. tutterMouse (talk) 10:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I did do it but Snotbot ain't having any of it. Ball's back in your court. tutterMouse (talk) 11:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Both issues should be fixed now. Next archive will add the TOC limit. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 17:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)