Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 01:07, 1 May 2017

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Requests for page protection page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcuts

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10: 30 days

Archives

FYI on arb enforcement page protections

Per this motion, WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 protections should now be logged. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this means I will not be imposing ARBPIA 500/30 sanctions any longer, at least not until a bot is written which automatically logs these protections. I think my time can be best used elsewhere.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Such a bot is probably not possible, Ymblanter, as it's context-specific to determine whether a protection is made as an arbitration enforcement action, what case it's specific to, etc. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ARBPIA is a standard protection reason in the drop-down menu, so the bot would just need to collect those.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that WP:ECP is allowed for general use, and that ECP is already automatically logged at WP:AN#Pages_recently_put_under_extended-confirmed_protection, manual logging of ECP does seem a bit silly. Rami R 08:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling archive

Anyone know why the rolling archive has been messed up, keeping only a fraction of the days its supposed to, for the last little while? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyberpower678:, do you know smth about this?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping there would be some one off element in there and that it would fix itself, but alas, it didn't. :(—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended Confirmed protection

I'm getting confused on this, with the changes to it. And what I am confused about, I tend to avoid touching. I get that it can be applied to any article "reasonably construed as belonging to the Arab-Israeli conflict". What I am confused about is how long that should be, how old should the article be? Do we preemptively protect such an article on an indefinite basis from the moment it's created? Right now, Celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the Liberation of Jerusalem has been on the requests for "Extended confirmed" for more than 10 hours with nobody touching it, so I'm probably not the only one confused by this issue. The editor is not specific about how long they want. The article was created on April 28, and really has had no disruptive edits. Do we just preemptively put Extended confirmed as Indefinite on something like this? We need clarification of the guidelines, because one size does not fit all. It would really help if we just had a bullet-point list of possible scenarios on how to handle these. Please advise. — Maile (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66: Arbcom has mandated indefinite preemptive protection for any article in the topic area. An admin who agrees with that stance just has to come along and fill the request and log the protection. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 : {{ping|cyberpower678}}, do you know smth about this?--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 18:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 ::I was hoping there would be some one off element in there and that it would fix itself, but alas, it didn't. :(—[[User:Cyberpower678|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">CYBERPOWER</span>''']] <span style="font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:Cyberpower678|<span style="color:olive">Chat</span>]])</span> 15:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
+== Extended Confirmed protection ==
+I'm getting confused on this, with the changes to it.  And what I am confused about, I tend to avoid touching. I get that it can be applied to any article "reasonably construed as belonging to the Arab-Israeli conflict".  What I am confused about is how long that should be, how old should the article be?  Do we preemptively protect such an article on an indefinite basis from the moment it's created?  Right now, [[Celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the Liberation of Jerusalem]] has been on the requests for "Extended confirmed" for more than 10 hours with nobody touching it, so I'm probably not the only one confused by this issue.  The editor is not specific about how long they want.  The article was created on April 28, and really has had no disruptive edits.  Do we just preemptively put Extended confirmed as Indefinite on something like this?  We need clarification of the guidelines, because one size does not fit all. It would really help if we just had a bullet-point list of possible scenarios on how to handle these. Please advise. [[User:Maile66|— Maile ]] ([[User talk:Maile66|talk]]) 00:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
+:{{ping|Maile66}} Arbcom has mandated indefinite preemptive protection for any article in the topic area. An admin who agrees with that stance just has to come along and fill the request and log the protection. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 01:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)