This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
How does one access the archives of Fulfilled/denied requests? 69.72.27.73 ( talk) 10:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I was trying to request protection of Lunar eclipse and I got an error. nymets2000 ( t/ c/ l) 22:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
States that it cannot find a relevant heading and will not request protection for any page. Calabe1992 ( talk) 05:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
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:
Could someone who knows what's going on please fix this page?
Thanks!
173.206.132.10 (
talk)
15:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
It has been frequently modified and deleted leading to the edit warring.Please consider in protecting TRZ page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiruchirappalli_Airport Naanmahan ( talk) 11:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 (
|
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)
==== 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. λόγος πράξις 04:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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...)
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)
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)
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)
How was this article vandalized after it was locked? Were the vandals both autoconfirmed users? Bms4880 ( talk) 13:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
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). Cyan Gardevoir (used EDIT!) 00:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
How to put the correct edit summary into the page history? -- 84.61.181.19 ( talk) 07:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
... 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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:
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)
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)
{{ltt|TEMPLATE}}
, as it says in the top section on the page.
Callanecc (
talk •
contribs •
logs)
03:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)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 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
If we did that, the links to the section headers would work Ryan Vesey 14:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
To summarise previous discussions ( 1, 2, 3) on the topic of archives:
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)
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:
Questions:
‑Scottywong | confer _ 23:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
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) |
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 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.
But frankly I'll take anything! Ged UK 11:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Some replies and views, won't be helpful to most but input is input. tutterMouse ( talk) 20:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
{{
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)The bot probably should be reporting its clerking duties like the script did. tutterMouse ( talk) 23:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
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)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)
{{TOC|limit=2}}
{{TOC limit|2}}
myself so I'll get on that.
tutterMouse (
talk)
10:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
How does one access the archives of Fulfilled/denied requests? 69.72.27.73 ( talk) 10:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I was trying to request protection of Lunar eclipse and I got an error. nymets2000 ( t/ c/ l) 22:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
States that it cannot find a relevant heading and will not request protection for any page. Calabe1992 ( talk) 05:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
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:
Could someone who knows what's going on please fix this page?
Thanks!
173.206.132.10 (
talk)
15:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
It has been frequently modified and deleted leading to the edit warring.Please consider in protecting TRZ page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiruchirappalli_Airport Naanmahan ( talk) 11:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 (
|
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)
==== 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. λόγος πράξις 04:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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...)
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)
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)
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)
How was this article vandalized after it was locked? Were the vandals both autoconfirmed users? Bms4880 ( talk) 13:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
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). Cyan Gardevoir (used EDIT!) 00:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
How to put the correct edit summary into the page history? -- 84.61.181.19 ( talk) 07:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
... 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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:
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)
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)
{{ltt|TEMPLATE}}
, as it says in the top section on the page.
Callanecc (
talk •
contribs •
logs)
03:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)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 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
If we did that, the links to the section headers would work Ryan Vesey 14:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
To summarise previous discussions ( 1, 2, 3) on the topic of archives:
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)
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:
Questions:
‑Scottywong | confer _ 23:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
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) |
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 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.
But frankly I'll take anything! Ged UK 11:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Some replies and views, won't be helpful to most but input is input. tutterMouse ( talk) 20:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
{{
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)The bot probably should be reporting its clerking duties like the script did. tutterMouse ( talk) 23:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
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)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)
{{TOC|limit=2}}
{{TOC limit|2}}
myself so I'll get on that.
tutterMouse (
talk)
10:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)