Misplaced Pages

I recognize that this user page belongs to the Misplaced Pages project and not to me personally. As such, I recognize that I am expected to respectfully abide by community standards as to the presentation and content of this page, and that if I do not like these guidelines, I am welcome either to engage in reasonable discussion about it, to publish my material elsewhere, or to leave the project.

Please read the two blue boxes :).

What to Semi?

Frankly, I wouldn't mind if you semi-protected every NBA bio. They accumulate more vandalism and generally incompetent edits than any other class of articles I watch. But the two above would be a good place to start. Zagalejo^^^ 08:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a thought... but I would want to see evidence of vandalism that wasn't instantly reverted before I liberally semi. Bringing them here seems good. I may not get to these right away so some other TPW should feel free. I go 1 year and give "per liberal use of semiprotection policy. Do not unprotect without contacting me" as the reason.++Lar: t/c 14:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Formalizing the process

I think I need to formalize this so I can do it faster... move it to a subpage and put some guidelines down, or something... I would appreciate it if people give the diffs (2 vandalisms that last longer than 5 min each or one that lasts more than an hour, from IPs or newly registered users that semi would have stopped) so I don't have to trawl through the article history... I didn't spot either of those situations but may have missed them. As for the OR and etc... ya, it's a crap article, but SP doesn't address that. Flagged revisions does a better job. ++Lar: t/c 00:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to move it to a subpage. I'll perform the move and write the guidelines later this week if you don't get to it. nearly 7 hours, if that counts. Hell, half the article was uncited borderline BLP violations until I gutted it. Enigma 05:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Give me a couple days to work on the page first, I have a couple of ideas. (I think a table format with the diffs in a separate column is a good way to go) ++Lar: t/c 05:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This (and the page with it with the list) is that formalization. ++Lar: t/c 03:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Criteria questions

Time period

Over what time period can these diffs be from? I've just given an example where two IP vandalisms were from the last fortnight, but would we indef semi a BLP which was vandalised every couple of years? ϢereSpielChequers 11:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This one seems clear... the time period can go as far back as you like, but not beyond the last time the article was semi (or full) protected, if any. However if an article is only getting vandalised once every two years, it's probably not a very good candidate. ++Lar: t/c 00:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Non Bios

Some articles that are definitely not bios can wind up with biographical information, can I suggest that we make bio related vandalism the threshold? So two diffs showing people being named at wanker for more than five minutes would get that article semiprotected. But a footballers bio would not be protected simply because his team was maligned (though I appreciate it isn't often that you could describe vandalism to somebodies bio as not being biographic vandalism). ϢereSpielChequers 12:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Seriousness

I would like to suggest that we factor the level of malice and harm into this policy. Taking the two examples I gave re Richard Dawkins, clearly some vandalism is more distasteful than others. At the other end of the scale I doubt if a certain TV personality would be greatly offended to discover that our article on Beaver once contained a warning that they were creating an army of 8 foot tall beavers to take over the world. ϢereSpielChequers 12:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

comments

The above are all good considerations but these take this out of the realm of "easy". I want easy to evaluate criteria because I think the volume may increase. ++Lar: t/c 17:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

maybe if one is not in the easy pile, who ever posts it could address some of the above concerns (at least the ones that take an article out of the easy category)? i.e., if we make it easy for you (or other tpw-admins) to decide, we've done the right thing. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the seriousness aspect should be doable, we already have a CSD category for attacks, so why not for this? ϢereSpielChequers 12:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Not opposed to the idea, just not sure how it would work. I'd like to see more people bringing stuff here before we try to get too elaborate, though. ++Lar: t/c 02:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Admins participating here are free to use their own discretion. There are a few that may or may not still be pending that I haven't protected because it's petty vandalism. I assume Kevin skipped them for the same reason, as he protected one lower on the list and left the rest. لennavecia 20:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty much the reason. There will always be a level of discretion involved. Kevin (talk) 04:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Archiving strategy

Question was raised about archiving. I agree that monthly archiveing, if we get to that point, is a good approach. Probably the standard naming convention (names such as User:Lar/Liberal Semi/archive/2009-03 for the first one) is the way to go, rather than strict numerical as is done at ANI or my main talk page... Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 15:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. archive by month would be good, and easily trackable if we wanted to go back and look at why we did something. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we should have them be User:Lar/Liberal Semi/Archives/Archive 1 and pipe them to the date. As it is, the problem with noticeboard archiving, and that of DYK, for example, isn't that the archives themselves are numeric, but that there is nothing in the archive listing that makes them easily to search through. As long as the archives are piped in the list, it shouldn't be a problem. Naming them as Lar has them will prevent use of any templates to connect one archive to the next. لennavecia 15:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to handle the manual archiving, if you want. Set it up the way you want it, and I'll follow the format. I don't know how long this user project will last, but I would assume a few months at least? I hope it goes on in perpetuity, but obviously it isn't up to me. Enigma 17:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the goal is to see a change in standards, or use this until real improvements are made project wide. So, the hope would be that it doesn't last too long, at least not in user space. لennavecia 18:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Naturally I'd rather see something done project-wide and I've voted in the related polls, but I am not optimistic. Too many people are dead set against BLPs getting deleted or protected. Lar is a good bit more optimistic on the subject than I. I just hope that if changes aren't made, that there are admins willing to protect BLPs. Enigma 18:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's use numbers then, because if we use numbers we can set up a nav template easily enough (I'll just copy the nav template I did for my talk pages User:Lar/TalkArchiveNav which has back/forth scrolling that's numerically driven). It is my sincere hope that we will not be archiving this for long, though. Please spread the word though... the more articles get semiprotected this way, the harder it is to argue that they should not be semiprotected. And be rigorous on rejecting possibly good faith edits as a justification. If it's not CLEARLY vandalism, reject it... ++Lar: t/c 16:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Although, technically, a template that takes names of the form 2009-04 or whatever is easy enough to set up, it just takes more parameters (three) than just one and use of the {{#expr}} magic word construct...) ++Lar: t/c 16:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably time to start archiving. Can you set up the first archive page? I'll take it from there. Thanks! Enigma 15:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll do the pure numeric we were talking about and do the template. Tonite hopefully. However I am not averse to waiting till partway into next month before archiving this month's items (ala how I do my talk page archives)... ++Lar: t/c 15:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Use of hidings

see ... strikes me as a good idea... that currently hidden stuff is the first thing to get archived, I think. Also I hadn't seen {{hidden begin}} and {{hidden end}} before, neat! ++Lar: t/c 05:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Glad you like - it's an easy way to compact and sectionalise whilst still maintaining fairly recent history on the page in question. Of course older sections after a few months can be archived in the usual fashion.--VS 05:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions about the process and the criteria, other ways to achieve the goal

(Refactored from User_talk:Lar#questions_about_User:Lar.2FLiberal_Semi to keep this discussion in the right place.)

Has User:Lar/Liberal Semi been approved (per se) by the community? I'm pretty uneasy with articles like Elijah Dukes going from no protection to a year semi-protection because someone didn't fix a couple bad edits within a few minutes. If that's the criteria, I can see much of the wiki being shut down to anonymous users in short order. Wknight94 14:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hasn't been disapproved that I'm aware of, and a year feels about right when doing cost/benefit analysis of time wasted. Articles that get their vandalism reverted instantly and that don't see a lot of it aren't eligible under the criteria I'm using... all we have to do as a community is prevent vandalism, or get it cleaned up instantly, and we won't need to impose semiprotection, will we? ++Lar: t/c 16:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me share a few thoughts, and you can do with it as you wish. First of all, I'm with you on the underlying issue. The volume and persistence of BLP violations here is appalling. I'm a fan of semiprotection and I've long considered IP editing to be more trouble than it's worth, personally. I do think that it might be worth considering the means to the end, though.

I've seen a bunch of protections coming across with an edit summary citing your page, and basically ordering other admins not to unprotect the page without "consultation". I think if you just semiprotected these pages with the explanation that BLP was in play, you wouldn't get much argument. Experience teaches me, though, that excellent ideas can be undermined on Misplaced Pages if their implementation is perceived as high-handed. Reading these edit summaries, I feel like they're a bit peremptory, and I agree with what you're doing and have administrative rights. I think that the average non-admin editor, or an admin who doesn't necessarily agree with your approach, is going to be significantly put off.

Again, I agree with what you're doing. I've used semiprotection similarly where BLP has been an issue, and while I think a year is overkill, that's a relatively minor technical quibble. I guess what I'm saying is that it might be best to either a) evaluate each of these articles on a case-by-case basis and tailor semiprotection to the level and persistence of BLP violations in each, or b) if you're going to cite an organized effort & quasi-policy, and command other admins not to unprotect the page, it really would be best to put this forward at the Village Pump or other venue.

I realize that no one has disapproved yet - or I should say a few people have in a scattered fashion as Wknight94 does here. But at some point this will become an issue, and I think it might be pennywise but pound-foolish to have a bunch of admins semiprotecting articles and citing a personal policy which has not received formal community scrutiny. It'll just trigger the usual, predictable arguments and resentment. Anyhow, just a thought - do with it as you will.

By the way, if you have handy a list of ten or so BLP's that have been problematic, I can add them to my watchlist and keep an eye on them. If other interested parties are willing to do this too, we can probably alleviate some, but not all, of the violations that trigger the need for semiprotection - do you think that would be useful? MastCell  16:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You can look at that page and find BLPs that have been problematic, and watch whatever ones you like... more eyes is goodness, after all. Perhaps mark with a comment that you're committing to personally watch them. As to why they're protected, each item on the list has links to why it's problematic, which the admin who protected it is committing that they've validated as BEING problematic. Tailor the length to the severity? Sure... come on over to the talk page and suggest suggest some guidelines. As for the wording, I'd welcome a better one, you're right, reading quickly might leave one with the notion that it's peremptory... Improvement welcomed.

I don't like BLP violations either but a year?! Like MastCell says (or implies anyway), let's start a coordinated effort of watchlisting troublesome BLPs, or some other solution. Blindly sprotecting them for a year is essentially shutting down the wiki. I don't think Elijah Dukes himself would care so much about his WP article to want a year of sprotection. How about starting with a year of sprotection and inviting that any admin that adds the article to their watchlist can decrease the length? Something other than the slightly WP:POINTy process going on at User:Lar/Liberal Semi now. Wknight94 18:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Come on over to the talk (User_talk:Lar/Liberal Semi) and let's talk about it. Thats why there's a talk page after all. ++Lar: t/c 18:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

← Well, I guess my suggestions (and they are only suggestions) would be:

• Alter the edit summary. Instead of linking to a quasi-policy, just state "Persistent and significant violations of policy on biographical articles by multiple IPs." I don't think anyone in their right mind would dispute that as a rationale for semiprotection, and it leverages existing policy. You can still keep going with this project, which I think is a Good Thing, but it may be most effective to base it explicitly on existing, accepted policy.
• Alter the duration. I understand you're being "liberal", but I took that to mean liberal with applying semiprotection where living people are concerned. A one-year first-time semiprotection for a single instance of recent vandalism isn't liberal - I think most admins would consider it excessive. Why not make the first semiprotection more in line with current standard durations, and watchlist the article so that it can be reapplied if the problem recurs? It will quickly become apparent when you go to semi an article that it's already been semi'd once or twice for the same problem, and the admin will be able to take this into account in imposing a longer duration.
• Alter the "please consult before reversing" bit. Hopefully, the admins we're promoting understand that they should discuss any potentially controversial reversal of an administrative action. If they don't get that, then an edit-summary demand isn't going to help. Also, you're semi'ing articles for 1 year. If I get a request to unprotect an article that's been semi'd for months, it's really not necessary to track down the protecting admin for a discussion. These sorts of requests are handled, and well-handled, at WP:RFPP all the time, usually down to the judgment of the admin reviewing the request rather than a discussion about a 4-month-old semiprotection. If people are reversing these protections right off the bat, that would be another matter - but that doesn't seem to be happening, so this wording is just going to put peoples' backs up to no good end.

Those are my thoughts. MastCell  19:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I am open to altering the edit summary, and mentioning WP:BLP seems valid, as it is what this is all about. As for the length, if an article has been vandalised by different IPs for months or years how does a short protection address the problem? I have protected articles for 1 or 2 weeks, only to see the vandalism return immediately the protection expires. Then we gradually increase the length until we are protecting for 6 months or a year anyway. I see no benefit in going through that process, and no evidence that escalating protection has any impact on IP vandalism during the periods when the protection has expired. Kevin (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with MastCell partially. The duration is fine to me, but the edit summary should be changed. Get rid of the "consult with me" part, because that sounds wrong and it's understood that admins are not supposed to overturn each other's actions without at least communicating. Reference the BLP policy, what the WMF has said, what ArbCom has said, etc. In fact, maybe there should be a page referencing those things, and the edit summary can point to that. As for the duration, one week and escalate from there is fine for Biomechanics and the like. It's not fine for BLPs. If multiple instances of vandalism (in many cases here, we're dealing with out and out defamation) can be shown, a year is appropriate, or at least 3 months. Enigma 23:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not opposed to altering the edit summary as well, as long as it's clear that the admin that placed the protection has staked their reputation on the protection being necessary and should be consulted. On the appropriate length, I agree with Kevin. These articles are here, nominated, because watchlists, bots, short protections, assumptions of good faith, best intentions, and so forth have failed them. I think a year is appropriate as a starting point.

Now, if someone turns up and says "I guarantee this article will not get vandalism that survives for more than a few seconds, ever" that would be a suitable substitute to semiprotection. Or reason to remove it. (note, that guarantor won't be me, I have decided not to fight vandalism until and unless flagged revisions are properly implemented). But not short of that. ++Lar: t/c 21:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

@Kevin: I think there's probably confirmation bias at work there. I also remember the cases where I've had to go back and reapply semiprotection. I tend to forget the ones I semiprotect for a week and never have trouble with again. In some cases, it's just a kid bored in his school library, and a week (or even a day) of semiprotection does the trick. On the other hand some biographies will always, always be a tempting target for anonymous vandalism and should be semiprotected for the long term or indefinitely. I'm sure your judgment, or that of the average admin, is sufficient to differentiate these - I'm just saying we should trust that judgment rather than "mandating" a 1-year semiprotection off the bat.

@Lar: I dunno, I guess I feel like admins stake their reputation on pretty much every action they take. Most active admins have a target of varying sizes on their backs and people waiting for them to slip up, and this site's quasijudicial processes are about as consistent and predictable as lightning strikes. So it's wise to behave as if your rep is always on the line. I'm not sure I agree with your point about this being a last resort - in the case of Elijah Dukes, it looks like a first resort. I see some sporadic vandalism and BLP violations - none of which appear to have lasted more than an hour or two at most - and no previous failures of semiprotection. Maybe that article isn't typical of where this is being applied. Again, I'm not agitated to unprotect it - I believe in the liberal use of semiprotection - but I think this is probably going beyond where the community (even the BLP-concerned community) is at present.

Maybe I'm wrong. I think flagged revisions are a great idea, and I personally would be very happy if IP editing disappeared tomorrow. But it's unrealistic to expect anyone, or even any group, to be able to guarantee that vandalism will be reverted in seconds. I assume that's just a way of saying that you don't see any alternative to liberal semiprotection. MastCell  22:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

But I do see an alternative to liberal semiprotection: Flagged revisions. ++Lar: t/c 22:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think we agree that flagged revisions would be a good solution, particularly where BLPs are concerned. MastCell  00:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I am uneasy with several aspects of this. The appearance of cabalism may be foremost. Why is this sitting off in the corner like this? Why not bring it up at a noticeboard somewhere? Why is there basically nothing at this link? Fear of backlash? Making a WP:POINT about flagged revisions? I'd love flagged revisions too but I'm not going to shut down the wiki to see it. Is someone going to undo all these extreme protections when flagged revisions goes into effect?

Another bothersome aspect about this - and overprotection in general - is people forgetting how many good edits are made by IPs and the autoconfirmed-challenged. As MastCell said, I am hearing a lot of confirmation bias. If all you're looking for is IP vandalism, that's all you'll see. In the case of Elijah Dukes, semi-protection would have killed several good edits. The vandalism gets reverted - the lost good edits are unrecoverable. And let's not forget that semi-protection doesn't just stop IPs, it also stops new registered editors. In a few minutes, I found some notable edits that would not have happened if your BLP sprotection strategy were in effect:

I'm scared to pull up Recent Changes and count how many legit IP edits are being made to BLP articles every minute. This is becoming a slippery-slope situation. Wknight94 01:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

"Why is there basically nothing at this link? Fear of backlash?" Really? This project started about two weeks ago. It takes time for links to build up. I never created a project, but I did create a userpage describing how to non-admin close an RfA. Whatlinkshere was empty for months, IIRC. True, it didn't involve taking administrator actions, but what exactly are you saying here? That Lar is afraid because he didn't spam a whole bunch of talk and policy pages with the link? Enigma 03:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is much different than it was in 2005, or even 2007. We have many more articles than we did before, and maintenance is becoming more difficult (especially with so many talented editors spending hours at RFA, or working on less-than-essential articles like Featured Lists just so they can collect awards.) Logging in a few minutes ago, I found this, this, this, this, and this, and I'm sure I'll find more acts of vandalism soon. (Not all are edits to BLP, and none are libelous or anything, but they're all examples of vandalism that lasted too long. And these aren't obscure Tongan politicians or Cambodian villages. They're all articles that should be on someone's watchlist.)

I agree that many IPs make positive contributions, but ten positive contributions don't make up for a nasty piece of libel. Until we get flagged revisions or the overall culture of the site changes, I see no other choice but to make new editors jump through a few hoops. Zagalejo^^^ 05:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

@WK - You ask a number of good questions. I'll try to address them as best I can. Cabalism? Hardly. This is just something that got started because one editor, Enigmaman, was asking Sarcasticidealist, now retired, to protect articles he was watching... when SI retired, he asked if I would as well. I started, but I realised that it is important to track these... for several reasons. Most importantly so that if Flagged Revisions gets implemented, that they aren't forgotten about, and can be unprotected after a good flagged revision is found (unless, by then, the community as a whole has decided that all BLP's should be indefinitely semiprotected). (answering your "Is someone going to ..." question, with a "yes"). So the page came into existance in stages to enable tracking, and a few people have helped out, among them one of our sitting arbitrators, Risker. No cabal. No secret. No desire to hide. Just not a big deal yet because it's not necessarily all worked out.

To your second major point, which is essentially "some edits are being lost". Granted. I'm absolutely sure some good edits that otherwise would have been made, aren't. But... there is no deadline. We have plenty of time for good edits to be made, and if they truly are good, eventually they WILL be made. On the other hand, every second that a bad edit persists is a second when the project is being actively damaged. The cost to the project in damaged reputation, and FAR more importantly, the cost to the BLP victim, far far outweighs the benefit of the good edits foregone. We are not here to damage the lives and reputations of BLP victims. I'm willing to lose 1000 good edits, temporarily, in exchange for preventing one bad one, indefinitely.

So I stand behind this tiny step, this drop in the fire bucket that will do a tiny bit to quench the raging fire of damage that vandalism and malicious edits to BLPs are doing... I stand behind every protection I placed as being justified, unless I'm presented with evidence that it wasn't, in which case I'll pull it. (and that's another reason for this page, to keep all this info about protections I placed in one place where it's easy to work with) I've chosen not to spend time on fighting vandalism directly (although if others want to, they're welcome to it), but I'm willing to spend time fighting vandalism at a more effective level. Hope that clarifies matters. ++Lar: t/c 11:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand and I can see the merits. But we already have WP:RFPP. You think admins there are doing a poor job? Why else would you need to create this WP:RFPP where every request is guaranteed a year-long block? There are proper ways to do things and starting a quasi-secret alternate process is not one of them. Should I start a secret anti-project where we undo all of the protections done here? Of course I wouldn't but you see the point - having small groups of admins quietly coordinating to do things differently than everyone else is ----- well, cabalish. I can't think of a better word for it. Bring this process to light... Combine this into the regular WP:RFPP... Get buy-in from the community... and I'll follow you to the promise land. Wknight94 12:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You need to drop the attempt to apply "cabal" badging, it won't get you anywhere with me. If this was "secret", you wouldn't see this page here at all... All you would see would be protections, and they wouldn't have consistently worded tagging making them easy to spot. Because surely you recognise that if I wanted to organize this secretly, I would have. Once you drop that, I'm happy to address your other concerns. ++Lar: t/c 12:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Then I assume you wouldn't mind me raising the issue in a place with a wider audience. I would also bring up that the veil of Righteous BLP Libel and Defamation Protection looks quite thin when I see protections like José Reyes (shortstop). The justification there is three edits that are clearly silly little childish vandal edits, and not libellous or defaming in any way to any rational person. When that happens, it looks less like BLP Protection and more like good ole fashioned anti-anonymous editing wrapped with a BLP Protection label. I think few would believe that this would cause so much distress to the actual Mr. Reyes that he would run to his lawyer and bring down the Foundation. I could be convinced to buy your product here if the implementation matched the pitch. If the real issue is that more care needs to be applied, then I'm happy to work with you to ensure that happens. Wknight94 14:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I find it quite troubling that that edit lasted nearly an hour, childish vandalism or not. As for your overall point, if you take issue with specific protections, I'm sure Lar or one of the other admins here would be willing to take a second look and see if your concerns have merit. Enigma 03:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

(unindent)If you look at my protection log, you'll find that pretty well every protection I've made in the last several months, regardless of duration, has been made in relation to some aspect of the BLP policy. This doesn't count the hundreds of oversights and hidden revisions I've done since January, at least half of which are in relation to BLP issues, often in addition to the privacy policy. Lar and I don't agree on a lot of things, but one thing that we do agree about is that problems in BLP-related articles need to be addressed when they're identified. In a perfect world, a lot of these issues would be caught on flagged revisions. There are also plenty of articles where autoconfirmed editors are adding inappropriate information. Protection and semi-protection are tools in the arsenal. Due to RL pressures, I don't have a lot of time to work on this issue right now; what I *can* do is try to take care of the articles whose problems come to my attention, and support other admins in their efforts to try and take care of other articles. The idea that there is a difference between silly childish vandalism and malicious vandalism disturbs me. It doesn't make much difference to the person whose name is associated with that content. Risker (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That difference is related to whether this is truly a BLP protection issue or whether it's a more general vandalism issue. Vandalism happens everywhere and it makes us looks foolish. It's always made us look foolish. In BLPs and everywhere else. I.e., there doesn't need to be special accommodations made for childish vandalism in BLP articles vs. others. Do you really think José Reyes is going to be personally offended if he sees that his Misplaced Pages page says he hit 1000000000000000 home runs? Or if his page says that "Lyle is gay"? He's going to think we're idiots just like if he saw that the Earth is "full of poop" or that Thomas Jefferson is "really really cool". Those are not what I consider BLP issues and can be dealt with just as well at WP:RFPP as they are here. And if the Jose Reyes vandalism is deemed to warrant almost permanent semi-protection, then the same standard should be applied to Earth and Thomas Jefferson and Dog and any other article that gets ridiculous graffiti on it from time to time. Shut down the wiki. Wknight94 15:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this is going exactly, but I read some of what you are saying as somewhat strident. Let's start over perhaps... what are you advocating here? This page is a little pilot program, with certain parameters, designed to see if applying long term protection to certain articles, when they meet certain criteria, is an effective and manageable approach. It's not necessarily ready for wider review. It may or may not scale. It may or may not be the right approach. But BLPs are chosen because they are more important than other kinds of articles, they affect living people (not dead ones or corporations or trees or whatever). Simple vandalism (as opposed to slander, edit warring, unsourced statements or whatever) was chosen because it's easy to yea/nay, it's possible to determine quickly if an article has had this done to it or not. Can you drop the polemic tone and state what you think should be changed in this? ++Lar: t/c 16:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it would just be easier if we just list off the issues we have with the page. Please excuse me if this seems to come off as a laundry list, I just think it would be better to get to the heart of the problem. I'll just speak for myself so these may not be the views of others in the discussion.

• I don't think the blanket one year duration is the best of ideas. I've seen some articles go directly from never having protection to straight to one year. Sure in some cases protection itself is necessary, but one year seems too excessive. How about protecting it in context of the protection log? If it's a reoccuring problem, then longer protection would be warranted. But for the first time that an article has a valid BLP concern why not try a couple of weeks? If it starts back up you can always reprotect it.
• I think it would be best to change the reasoning for the protection. (First, the "please consult me before unprotecting" part) It's generally expected for an admin to discuss with the admin who took action before undoing anything, so the request is a bit redundant. Also, users who aren't familiar with the situation might mistake that the protecting admin is the one who ultimately decides whether it is protected or not. Another issue is that the protection reasoning never makes any mention of BLP concerns. Just a vague statement about liberal use of semi-protection.
• A (small, but important) thing that is important is to make sure that you are certain the article is a BLP issue. I recently had a discussion with Kevin about an article he protected. It turns out that the reference was just deleted and all that was needed was a simple revert.
• One of the big issues I have with this system is how it's being done. (This goes along with Wknight's point about Cabalism/not being mainstream, however you want to word it.) If you want things to change in terms of BLP and protection, I have no problem with that, but there are proper venues for these things. Why not try the village pump, or AN, or something of that sort? We need community consensus on this, not just a handful of editors who want to try something new. When the community wanted to have a trial for flagged protection, we had to seek consensus. Shouldn't this trial program get the same concensus as well?
• The final point I'll make is that if this does gain community consensus and is to continue it needs to be made so there is more public awareness of it. One, so if there is an article with a justifiable concern it can easily be brought to our attention. Also, it allows the community to be aware of decisions that are made and provides them with a place to express concerns if they disagree with an admin's decisions.

Hopefully this helps express some of the issues with this page in a more direct manner. Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk 18:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

I haven't read the above discussion in full, as I'm about to head out and just noticed this, but I'll just say the following as one of the admins participating in the liberal protection. I don't particularly care how we word the summary, so whatever is placed as the example on the page, I'll be happy to use. As far as duration, the project has spent far too many years being reckless with its handling of BLPs, and continues to this day to fail completely in regards to making any meaningful changes to protect the living people who have "biographies" forced upon them on one of the world's largest websites, editable by anyone, and ranking them at the top of Google. For that reason, I'll protect for a year until I'm mandated not to. That said, accusations of cabalism are laughable and inappropriate. Back it up with something or keep that to yourself. We're no more of a cabal than any WikiProject. لennavecia 20:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the telltale sign of a cabal: overreaction to being called a cabal.

Everyone's said their piece and now words like "strident" are being hurled so I'm done here. FWIW, I will be looking for edit (s)protected requests and unprotection requests on pages protected here. When encountered, I will make my own determination on whether or not the protection was justified. If not, I will be unprotecting - stern protection instructions notwithstanding. If the practices here become officially sanctioned, let me know. Wknight94 21:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Policy on WP is descriptive... it describes what actually is done. As I said above I'm open to modifying this as long as it stays simple to administer. If you unprotect, do the courtesy of updating the item on the list to note that, if you would be so kind so folk know, thanks. ++Lar: t/c 22:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Wk, check out WP:WHEELWAR, then explain, if you don't mind, why you don't believe Misplaced Pages has a moral obligation to take any steps necessary to protect living individuals, much less all steps necessary. Thanks. لennavecia 06:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I absolutely agree with the second part. WP, the project, has a huge moral obligation, as does every WP participant, to every single BLP victim. We are all volunteers and we do what we wish to get involved in, but we should not EVER make things worse, (that's rank irresponsibility) even if we choose not to actively help make things better. But the first part, about WP:WHEEL? I have no reason to believe WK isn't acting in good faith raising these issues, and no reason to believe that taking something to WP:RFPP, or handling something that was brought there by someone else would be wheel warring. This page is not an official process. RFPP is. It is a courtesy request to WK or whoever that if they know an article was brought here that it be mentioned that the protection was lifted. But it's not wheel warring to lift it any more than it is to lift any other protection imposed any other way.

NOTE, however, that it's also not wheel warring to reimpose protection, if, after it was lifted, vandalism reoccurs. If WK or whoever lifts protection, and vandalism reoccurs, even a single instance of it, then clearly the lifting was premature, and I'll reimpose protection as soon as it is brought to my attention. That's not wheel warring, that's the normal ebb and flow of things. IMHO anyway. ++Lar: t/c 15:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess we disagree, then. It is my view that one admin reversing the admin action of another without discussion (and I don't consider this general discussion to qualify for individual incidents) to be wheelwarring. However, like you, I don't believe reprotecting following additional vandalism to be wheelwarring. Rather, I see it as further justification for the original protection. لennavecia 17:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess we do. For reference: User talk:NoSeptember/admin policy, which is up at the top of my user page (along with an increasingly large amount of other stuff) although I do think discussion before reversal is very good. Without in any way diminishing the enormous amount of respect I have for you and for your contributions. ++Lar: t/c 19:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Modifying the straight "one year"

Tackling the issues raised (by Icestorm815 at 18:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC) )... the first one seems to be with the time. I chose 1 year because it's easy (like many other things about this... easy to request (easier than RFPP), easy to administer). But when you hit "protect" you get to see the protection log. (and I always check to make sure that the vandalism reported is AFTER the last protection, if any... if not, the protection worked and the vandalism isn't "qualifying"). So what if a shorter length were the choice if there have been no previous protections? 3 months instead of a year? Better? Note that if this transmutes into exactly what RFPP is, it's missing the point, but maybe this is a compromise? ++Lar: t/c 22:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with that (and agree with everything Risker says in the thread above). – iridescent 22:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's a real danger of duplicating RFPP - you're providing a tracking mechanism specifically for BLPs, and a rapid-response team to prioritize protection issues involving biographies. Those are the value added over RFPP. I think tailoring the length of protection to the article log is a better idea than mandating a year, so your suggested tweak is a good one. MastCell  23:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Changing it. ++Lar: t/c 23:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Adjustment to criteria for listing an article

Per comments here and opening here for discussion. Would it assist in our attempt to protect BLP's if the criteria for listing was adjusted to state: