Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ToBeFree (talk | contribs) at 18:53, 28 January 2019 (→‎Edit requests: Improving message: Edit request will not be made unless agreement is reached, of course. Template editors have no additional authority to decide without consensus either). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Page Protection needed

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

@Dey subrata: I have added this request to the project page (here)

Reduce size of instructions

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

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

Survey

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Click here to edit" links

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

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


Technical roadmap

Phase 1: Ensure backwards compatibility.

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

Phase 2: Server-side fixes.

Phase 3: Client-side fixes.

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

Pages transcluded next to the heading; Cyberbot I didn't complain yet. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moved template edit request to phase 3 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit requests

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

@ToBeFree:  Done. Sorry for the delay! Note the script intentionally only works when editing sections (individual requests), so if you edit Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase right now for instance responseHelper provides no response links.
I am a little worried about the technical roadmap. It sounds like "At WP:RFPP/Header, replace content entirely by the proposal" is the change that instructs people to use the new system, right? That probably should at the same time as the Twinkle updates are deployed.
Thanks for your work on this, — MusikAnimal talk 17:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MusikAnimal, thank you very much! About the roadmap, good point, that should probably better happen after the bot overhaul. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ToBeFree, just a thought. Since Cyberbot is currently blocked, can we skip phase 2 and clerk manually temporarily for now? Hhkohh (talk) 02:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Hhkohh, thank you very much for the offer.
Because this suggestion comes from a user who actually regularly dedicates time to clerking, and because I will be happy to help with this, this may be a reasonable request. It's not about a specific bot, it is about having something or someone who does the necessary clerking. The archiver's workload will be minimally increased by copying the text from a different page than before, but there is no real additional work necessarily involved in this when Twinkle and Huggle have been reconfigured. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MusikAnimal, do I understand correctly that your concern was the delay between header and tool changes combined with the lack of a bot to ensure consistency until all tools use the same page? As Huggle and the header are easiest to change, I guess updating Twinkle should be the first step anyway. Should I wait before making a GitHub feature request until Cyberbot I works again? To me, there seems to be neither a deadline nor a problem with Hhkohh's suggestion; the only downside I notice is the introduction of human error sources to a previously automated process. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberbot just got blocked

So this is going to be a mess unless someone wants to manually archive each report. Enigmamsg 06:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enigmaman, I am glad to help, but other editors are welcomed to help Hhkohh (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
thanks. Enigmamsg 17:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=880669383"