Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:40, 29 March 2009

Archives
March 2004 – December 2005 January 2006 - November 2006 December 2006 - June 2007 July 2007 - February 2008 March 2008 - August 2008

• WT:RFPP

Criticism of Misplaced Pages

Request for semi-protection was denied by an admin who did not seem to be aware of the guidelines this essay, which is prominently linked from WP:RPP. A significant percentage of the unregistered edits being vandalism is good grounds for asking for semi-protection — a lot of valueable editor's time gets wasted on daily reverts to that article. That article is now experiencing (uncited, of course) references to the Nazis added by unregistered users , and hardly any constructive edits are made there by unregistered users. Please reconsider the decision. VG ☎ 10:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection reason

Hey guys, with the new improvements to Misplaced Pages's protection page, I have been playing around with the new common reasons drop-down box (found at MediaWiki:Protect-dropdown). I think it is looking pretty good, but I wanted to solicit wider input. Does everyone like how its laid out, should there be other reasons, are the links good, etc.? Any input would be greatly appreciated, and any boldness would be even more appreciated ;) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Section anchors

Can the mechanism that creates RPP sections add {{anchor}} templates that match the names that appear in the URLs on other pages so that the links function correctly instead of leaving us at the top of the page?—Largo Plazo (talk) 00:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Pibo Canada

A vandal comes in here, creates a series of disruptive pages with titles of the form "Pibo Canadian-province-or-territory-name" for every Canadian province and territory. They're all deleted. Some of them have been deleted before. Some haven't. None of them has a title that will ever be the title of a legitimate article. I put in RPP requests for each of them. Instead of reasoning, "Gee, we have a problem with this guy recreating these Pibo articles for this finite set of Canadian provinces and territories, and none of them will ever be created by anyone else—let's just get them all out of the way now", the admin evidently looked at each request in isolation, and declined protection for the ones that have only been deleted once. I don't see how anyone will benefit from this, and it means another possible round of vandalism which will bring us right back here to protect them anyway. As a non-admin who's trying to help out around here and doesn't like dealing with preventable recurrences, I find this frustrating.—Largo Plazo (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

To record the discussion that transpired on the project page:

Because the protection policy says "Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure". Simply because he created the page once does not mean he will be back to create it again. Until there is a pattern of recreation on the specific page there is nothing to justify protecting it. If he re-creates simply re-request protection. Tiptoety 01:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

There's obviously a pattern. Patterns don't begin and end with each single page. If they did, we'd have to start vandalism warnings over at Level 1 each time a vandal switched to a different page to attack; we'd never be able to block someone who vandalized a hundred pages a day but only touched each page once. By the way, rereading the sentence you quoted, I see it doesn't make sense: no matter how many times a page has been recreated before, creation-protecting it is inherently pre-emptive. It isn't retroactive; it isn't punitive. It prevents something from happening in the future: it's pre-emptive. Also, we aren't dealing with semi-protection here. This is full protection.—Largo Plazo (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Then allow me to quote a section of the protection policy dealing specifically with creation protection: "Administrators should not use creation protection as a pre-emptive measure, but only in response to actual events." Tiptoety 01:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that doesn't address my comments! 1. A single abusive creation is as much an actual event as is a pair of abusive creations or a whole sequence of them. 2. As I already pointed out, the word "pre-emptive" doesn't explain your approach because creation-protection is as pre-emptive after five creations and deletions as it is after one. 3. The sentence you quoted doesn't in any way indicate that the determination must be made for each page in isolation, so it doesn't address my earlier comments related to that.—Largo Plazo (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Protected page isn't protected

Daredevil (Marvel Comics) has the lock symbol indicating, I believe, that the article is protected or semi-protected. Yet a new-user anon-IP was just able to make a vandal edit at . Is there a glitch, or am I misunderstanding? Thanks -- Tenebrae (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The lock indicates that it is protected against move vandalism. The article is not protected against edits at all, just against moves. Metros (talk) 00:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

talk page notices

Is there a talk page template as a banner notice for a protected article page? 76.66.195.63 (talk) 10:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, two actually. {{Permprot}} and {{Temprot}}. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 22:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The Sims 3

Vandalism?! What the... Perhaps you should verify what Hereford (the one who requested the semi-protection) is really doing before blindly protecting the page. It's not the first time he imposes his ideas on the article instead of discussing them in the talk page as requested, which obviously creates revert wars. He does not understand that not everyone agree with his solutions. To solve HIS problem, he requests the page to be semi-protected to prevent users from participating in the revert war.

Caknuck, you can't just blindly semi-protect a page with "Excessive vadalism". Look carefully at the history logs of "Sims 3" article and you'll see that the vadalism level of this article is low. I suggest that the semi-protection be verified and removed as it does not apply. -- Lyverbe (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you post that at User talk:Caknuck instead, I doubt he will read this. SoWhy 12:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Project page says "Further discussion should take place on the Talk page of the article". I expect any admin to read this and not specifically Caknuck, but I'll give it a try. -- Lyverbe (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

In the two days prior to semi-protection, IPs were vandalizing the article (diffs: 1, 2, 3), adding unsourced info (diffs: 1, 2) and edit warring over the release date. This is not a "low" level of vandalism/disruptive editing. Furthermore, I find your allegation that I "blindly" protected the article somewhat upsetting and certainly lacking in good faith. At this time, I fail to see a valid argument to remove the semi-protection. caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 19:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

First, you have to make a difference between good faith edits and vandalism (ie. your first link as an example of vandalism). Second, "unsourced info" is NOT vandalism. Yes, I still stand on the word "low" when I define the level of vandalism on this article as I've had it on my watchlist for more than 6 months and find the level of vandalism so incredibly far from being "excessive". I speak for those who can no longer edit because of an act that I feel was made with poor judgement. On top of that, I would have found silly to protect the article for 7 days; you protected it for 7 weeks. Like, 2 months! -- Lyverbe (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If you had made this argument earlier instead of accusing me of using the admin tools wantonly and insinuating that Hereford requested protection to push an agenda, then my original response would have been much different. It's a lot easier to be heard if you remain civil. As far as the protection length goes, Hereford requested protection until the release date, and I slightly overshot. And no, unsourced info typically is not vandalism (but may be considered so if editors who know better continually reintroduce such info into articles), but it is against policy and it is considered disruptive. All of that being said, I'll unprotect the article and watchlist it. If IP vandalism spikes up again, I'll re-protect the article. Does this sound reasonable? caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 01:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Lets do what all Misplaced Pages users have to do: Work together as a team. As always, I'll also keep an eye on the article and we'll keep in touch in case it does get out of hand. Thanks for your understanding and accept my apologies for my "blindly" remark.

Ps. Happy Caknuck day tomorrow :) -- Lyverbe (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm sorry things got off on the wrong foot. Let me know if vandalism spikes on the article (I've asked Hereford to do the same, but I'm not sure how long he/she will be gone) so I can step in. Cheers, caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 05:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Help please

I made this inquiry but got no response. Can an admin please answer so I can at least know for future reference. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Snow Leopard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Tombstone (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Ruslik (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but 14 IP vandalisms in past 11 days, which was 100% of edits in that time span. Misplaced Pages:ROUGH states "higher quality articles are more complete, there is less likelihood that the article will need to be edited in the first place." This is a former FA. Sorry to pester. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello? Can someone please clarify this so I can move on? What is the interpretation of "recent"? Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, this was about to be archived on the project page, so I thought I'd ask here. --Tombstone (talk) 06:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

After the 15:10 UTC query went unanswered I'd have gone to the admin's talk page rather than post again to the project page, since WP:RFPP gets a lot of traffic and things that aren't new requests can easily be missed. But now we're here and because I think there's a reasonable case for protecting the page, I've given it 3 weeks. – Steel 17:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Steel. --Tombstone (talk) 12:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the protection and agree with Ruslik's decision. Protection is not necessary when other methods of reacting (like reverting and/or blocking) are still easily possible and in that case it was nowhere near the "heavy and continued vandalism" WP:ROUGH speaks of. I don't want to wheel-war the decision, but I really think Ruslik should have been asked first before undoing his decision. You should at least inform him of it... SoWhy 12:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ehhh. I'm a stickler for people asking the relevant admin about a decision before contesting it to someone else, but on this occasion given that this was the third time Tombstone had asked for clarification I felt it kind of rude just to tell him to go elsewhere. I assumed Ruslik wouldn't mind since I wouldn't mind if our roles were reversed.
As for the protection, I think daily or twice-daily vandalism stretching back at least a month (I didn't check further) to a mature article with few, if any, constructive edits in the last fortnight is borderline but probably enough. Though if you or Ruslik disagree strongly enough then I won't fight over it... – Steel 14:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I declined because 1 or 2 reverts per day is not a very high level of vandalism, it does not impedes normal editing and is easily reversible. Other admins can disagree, of course. I do not mind, because it is not so a big deal, and I was busy yesterday and forgot to answer (I noticed this thread). Ruslik (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I was not shopping for a semi-protection. I was only looking for some clarification for future reference because I thought it qualified. Ah, I should have handled this better, sorry. WP:ROUGH was not quite clear enough for me to be satisfied, so I balked at the response. I should have listed the reasons in the first place instead of waiting to reply to the decline with the reasons. I understand the responses now, but IMO WP:ROUGH could be more specific about "heavy" or "recent" or whatnot. Are these concerns reasonable or am I being overly procedural? If this is a worthwhile request, please advise if it would be reasonable for me to initiate discussion at WP:ROUGH to elaborate on its qualifications. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Cliff Bleszinski

Can someone take the necessary steps to protect the Cliff Bleszinski page? It has been defaced by IP addresses, which have inserted false, non-neutral, and defaming statements ("Douche Bag", "ruined Gears of War") for a couple of weeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.36.57.185 (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

VoAbot missing

Our trusty bot has gone AWOL. I've left a note for VoiceofAll, but we may need to archive/delete completed request manually for a while. caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 02:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, it's back. caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 04:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection criteria need to be defined.

" Declined – There is not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection at this time." Define "enough". Define "recent". Define "justify". The word justify doesn't even occur in the page justify is a link to, WP:Protection_policy. I know because I followed the link to try to find the criteria. They are not there. The criteria need to be stated in numbers or percentages and written somewhere so non-administrators can read them and become aware of the criteria and not waste our time asking for what we won't get. For instance, what length of time is recent--a day, a week, a month? How much vandalism is enough? Is "enough" measured as a percentage of edits or by an actual number? -- Another Stickler (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I found what could be a definition of "enough", but in an article not linked to in the standard declined response template. Quoting Misplaced Pages:Rough_guide_to_semi-protection, "More than usual levels of vandalism occur when anything over 5% of edits constitute vandalism." Reverts of vandalism are included when counting in the total number of edits per, "If each vandal edit was followed by a revert, without any further edits to the page, then 50% of edits would be vandalism." This definition needs to be linked to in the response template. Administrators also need to become aware of this and base their decisions on the 5%-of-edits threshold. Being consistent will make it easier for all involved. What remains to be defined is "recent". -- Another Stickler (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Enough means is it better to protect than block (since blocking is preferred)? Recent is current or ongoing, immediate. Justify meaning is there more vandalism that good faith edits (and is it worth it if its not?)? I honestly can't think of a reason to write all this down. Its more of a judgment based thing. And 5% isn't written in stone, remember its just a guideline; a base point to get you thinking for yourself. Synergy 01:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:ROUGH isn't even a guideline; it's an essay. When I consider whether or not to semi-protect a page, I look at:

1. The number of disruptive edits over the last several (~3-7) days.
2. The protection history of the article/page (which is a good indicator of whether or not it is a common vandalism target).
3. Whether or not the article is in the midst of a content dispute and whether the requestor is involved in said dispute.
4. How many different editors are causing the disruption and whether or not they are IP-hopping or socking.
5. When applicable, the nature of the disruption, ie. BLP violations and rascist nonsense get slightly more consideration than juvenile "i can haz penises?" silliness.

After weighing all of that, I make a gut decision. caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 03:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

But "i can haz penises?" has never appeared in a print encyclopedia, and World Book Encylopedia articles haven't been affected by the lame jokes of a TV show. Vandalism brings harm, not only because it takes time and resources to spot and eliminate the problem, but because useful edits get lost in the process. So by what guiding principle can useful information be disallowed because it's not encyclopedic, and yet a certain level of vandalism has to be tolerated because it's not enough to justify taking active measures to eliminate it? MMetro (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If the vandalism isn't strong enough (6 vandalism edits in the last 50 edits going back to November, for example) then no. Remember that most IPs/new users actually do a lot of good for the project. Locking them out unnecessarily would be frustrating for them and unhelpful for us. In answer to your question, no, vandalism is not "tolerated", but in the case of protection, it's a resort we only explore when the vandalism is corrupting the page on a frequent basis. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Caknuck:Oops. I meant guide, not guideline. Force of habit really. Synergy 21:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-Admin Declines?

Should folk without time enough to make an RfA attempt make obvious decline calls, ala non-admin AfD snowball closures, or just leave rather silly requests like this be until an admin swings by? MrZaius 14:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd be very cautious about doing any such non-admin action. If it is absolutely obviously the right thing to do, then you're unlikely to cause trouble. My understanding of WP:IAR is that it applies to all cases where no reasonable editor would dispute what's best for Misplaced Pages. I note that you didn't actually decline, just added a comment. That's perfectly helpful and non-contentious, so thank you. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 15:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments are of course very helpful, but I wouldn't go so far as declining as a non-admin. Majorly talk 15:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough - I'm certainly not in the business of trying to make precedents. MrZaius 16:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

How do I resolve the dispute?

My original request/response received:

Laszlo Kovacs (cinematographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

create protection, page vandalisim, unverifiable citations, turning into an edit war - Nadia (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC) nadia kovacs

Declined This is more of a content and formatting dispute than outright vandalism. Frustrating, yes, but not a cause for page protection.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

How do I resolve this dispute then? I believe it is more than formatting dispute since the user is putting in unverifiable citations. Nadia (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC) nadia

Both of the new editors have been warned by another editor and have not re-added unreferenced material since. I've added the page to my watchlist, and can escalate the warnings and block as needed. I might note that you have some WP:COI issues on this article, and should be bending over backwards to make sure your additions are completely sourced.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! As far as my "additions" I haven't added any new ones, just reverted the page back (by undoing) to what it was before the edit. Nadia (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC) nadia

Solving the randomness problem

I recently requested semi-protection for a BLP, and showed that it had been vandalized more frequently than other articles for which protection had recently been granted. When protection was inexplicably refused, I appealed the issue to WP:AN (). There, I pointed to yet other examples of page protection being granted on fewer incidents of vandalism, but was rebuffed; eight incidents in a week was enough to protect "a fictional character in the anime and manga franchise Bleach,"and six incidents of anonymous vandalism in a week was good enough for reality TV show: eight in a week after eleven in a fortnight and a long history of persistent IP vandalism was not thought sufficient to protect a BLP. Neither at RFP nor AN were admins willing to lift a finger to rectify the mockery made of WP:BLP by this situation.

The problem is not simply that this admin got this RFP wrong; it is that there is an unacceptable lack of consistency in the present RFP system between how different admins handle indistinguishable requests.

I had long thought - and this latest incident has made crystal clear - that we urgently need some kind of meaningful standard - if only a guideline - for where the applicable RFP threshold lies, and a working process to appeal decisions by a single admin. The general tenor of those defending the decision at AN was that administrators have little guidance and a great deal of discretion. That is appropriate, to an extent: admins should have a wide range of discretion, because the kind of behavior that triggers attention at RFP comes in an endless variety of shapes and forms. Nevertheless, an editor should have a ballpark outside of which she knows ex ante that an RFP will not be granted, and vice versa. It also seems beyond serious dispute that there should be rough consistency between how two identical requests will fare with different reviewing admins.

These concerns suggest the need for some kind of guidance, or at least a yardstick against which an admin's decision can be measured. In two functionally identical requests on the same day, the same result should ordinarily obtain without clearly stated reasons why by the reviewing admin. The less guidance there is for reviewing admins, the more variance there will be between how requests are handled, and, thus, the more important that there be a clear process for appealing to a second admin to review the decision. Some admins are relatively sensible; others are relatively unwilling to grant semi-protection. I will not name names. At any rate, it is ludicrous and unacceptable that the fate of an RFP is so largely a "luck of the draw" situation, standing or falling almost entirely on the idiosyncrasies of whichever admin happens upon it first, a fortiori in the BLP context. To be sure, some requests are meritless (for example, a request for semi-protection when all vandalism is from registered users), but that is beside the point.

The "admin" who closed the AN discussion advised that this was the appopriate place for discussing criteria for page protection. What can be done to prevent such absurd situations arising in the future? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree that more guidance would be nice (and I say that as an admin who has recently started working more in this area.)

On the other hand, I'll also point out that the article in question has had no edits by anyone since February 17, so protection would have been a waste of time on this one.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Header Level inconsistency

I was about to make a PP request, but got conflicting info on the main page about the syntax to do it with. The verbal description specifies a Level 4 header which would be 5 equals: =====. But the example provided shows only 4 equals, which is a Level 3. Most requests come in on a Lev.3, and I figure I'll just follow suit, but I'm here to suggest it be looked into by someone with Authoritah. -:-  AlpinWolf   -:- 11:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, I guess whoever wrote that meant "four ="-header. I fixed and clarified it in the header. Regards SoWhy 12:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Anon vandal

Following the advice of User:Bettia, i report this situation for page protection, which has been on-going the past few months: An anonymous IP (and endless array of addresses, all starting with 92) has been operating in several AEK Athens FC (Greek soccer club) players, namely:

Arnaldo Edi Lopes da Silva, aka Edinho (here, they removed wikilink of PORTUGAL NATIONAL U21 TEAM and inserted just PORTUGAL (nation), and has been inserting lies about him being called up to the main national team), Juanfran (with all the links i provided to attest the truthful data, they still change his national stats, and now has merged the U21 and A teams' stats, just because), Geraldo Alves (also removed national team link, and changed to nation) and Gustavo Manduca (he inserted national team lies, which i removed; How could he have scored against Belgium in the Olympics when this nation did not even appear? Also, checking - it is available on Misplaced Pages - the match reports of that competition, we can clearly see that Manduca did not score, against Belgium or any other team).

This is seriously getting out of hand, blocking or using talkpage, as Bettia told me, won't do any good, with their endless array of IP, and this "user" does not write any edit summaries as well.

Attentively, VASCO AMARAL, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to confirm - NothingButAGoodNothing is requesting semi-protection for the following pages due to heavy and persistent vandalism:

• Arnaldo Edi Lopes da Silva
• Juan Francisco García
• Gustavo Manduca
• Geraldo Alves

Regards, GiantSnowman 01:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Done all four of them, for 1 week, respectively. Perhaps that will deter them... Lectonar (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

How Many?

How many vandalising edits constitute protection? Because I have made some IPs very angry because I keep rollbacking their edits and warning them, to repay me they keep vandalising my userpage.
Examples:

1 2 3

Limideen 15:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You can have your userpage protected on request, regardless of vandalism. Either let me know on my talk page or post a request here. Cheers. · AndonicO 02:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Anon vandalism

In this article, i think some minor protection is warranted. In external links, i thought/think there was/is too much elaboration: there is no need for the player's name, just the site and the words "profile" or "stats" suffice. I left that thought in edit summary, making the necessary adjustments in links' display.

This week, an anon IP reverted the links, i sent that person a message, explaining in detail what was needed and coherent. Their response? Pop up another IP and re-revert it, no words "added". I undid and also sent this new IP a message, although this will be clearly inefficient. Is it possible to protect for a couple of days? Would really appreciate it.

Attentively, Vasco Amaral, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry for the incovenience (it must have been such i did not receive one single word of feeback...), no worries, closed case on my own (not going to start an edit war over this, although links keep getting reverted by different anon IPs, without one word). A good weekend from Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

itinerantnecessity

I do hereby apologize if you would contend that this would be the incorrect place to place my comment; however, as I have searched f/ the otherwise correct place, this seems to be the best place, &, @ least a place connected to the place in which I had begun; so, sorry,....

Yesterday, I had learned that otheruse of 24 September 2006 had been deleted; yet, today, I've learned of the fact of:

* ] * ]

I do, hereby, request that it would thereby be recreated, in such status, immediately, today, including my historylog.

Thank You, ] 20:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)