Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Inputbox blank report for ordinary use for IPs

Template-protected edit request on 7 April 2023
The instructions following the edit request seem a bit unclear to me and contain incorrect information. The page isn't semi-protected, the issue is that IP's can't create new pages in wikipedia space, and I also think "request page" is confusing wording (does it relate to the SPI request or the edit request?).

Could you please swap this back to the previous wording, or a modified version of the previous wording? I think is much clearer. It might even be worth adding some further explanation to the request, to the effect of.

I've just run into this problem at Sockpuppet investigations/Manpreet dhir, where the editors who were responding to the edit request were getting confused about what the edit request was asking for, why the page was in the wrong namespace, who had added the edit request or why an edit request was being used to request a page move.

I've pinged you here incase you have any feedback about how this part of the message could be made clearer? 192.76.8.84 (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm aware, semi-protected edit requests (or really any edit request templates) are not the usual way of requesting technical page moves. You can do so at Requested_moves/Technical_requests, so I don't see an urgent need to take action here. If you're involved enough with the Wikipedia project to deal with SPIs, it may also be time to create an account :) However, I do agree that the wording could be improved, and I think your suggestions for that are fine. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The reason it uses an edit request here is that it isn't possible to edit other pages using a wikitext preload. To get the page creation workflow to automatically create an entry at WP:RM/T we would need to swap to a JavaScript based form, like WP:RFP, which would be a huge amount of work for a fairly uncommonly used process. I think sticking to requested edits and trying to explain why they're being used in a non-standard way is probably the best way forward. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Same thoughts as Actualcpscm. However, I would like to note that you don't get redirected automatically to "Wikipedia talk" namespace when you're trying to file for SPI report as an IP, I already verified that this behaviour doesn't exists by logging out and test it using this workflow: go to Sockpuppet investigations, expanding "How to open an investigation:", typing in some random username (like Example123), and clicking Submit button where you would end up in the "Wikipedia" namespace with the subject title of "View source for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/[Replaced with random username]" which doesn't allows IP to edit hence I'm not exactly sure how you end up creating it in "Wikipedia talk" namespace other than suspecting that you copied the code from "Wikipedia" namespace onto "Wikipedia talk" namespace and adding the incorrect Template:Edit semi-protected usage on top hence in turn bruteforce your way into creating the SPI report. If the mentioned workflow isn't how you create the SPI report then kindly explain in detailed on how you did it as I would like to understand more on such.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  15:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In the "How to open an investigation" there is a second box labelled "If you are not autoconfirmed, and the case page is protected or does not exist, please click "show" to the right and use the box below." which only displays if you are logged out. This second box directs you to the wikipedia talk namespace and uses the template I have requested an edit to here. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Now I see how you ended in "Wikipedia talk" namespace.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  16:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The proposed wording change seems useful, so I've implemented it (specifically the longer variant that provides additional context). As a sidenote, In light of  I also want to point out that 192.76.8.84's use of edit requests, both here and on the casepage, was appropriate and should not have been reverted.  --Blablubbs (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Blablubbs I had resolved this misunderstanding with IP, it was a stupid mistakes made by me. Glad to see the proposed changes implemented, would certainly be helpful. Thanks!  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  17:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)