Misplaced Pages

From Misplaced Pages:Protection_policy#Semi-protection :

"Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred,"

So why is this page already protected when there has been no vandalism? kenj0418 (talk) 04:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

There was vandalism, you just can't see it. It's been deleted. Q 04:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw vandalism before the lock was applied. Check the page history. 8bit (talk) 04:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

An accurate but unsourced description of his wardrobe, a good faith typo that causes a problem with the citation displaying, and a the addition of a trivia section. Boy, is it just me or has the quality of "vandalism" really declined in Misplaced Pages recently?RevelationDirect (talk) 05:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't reverted. It was deleted. You won't find it in the history. --Onorem♠Dil 05:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Onorem.RevelationDirect (talk) 05:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Why were the vandalism edits deleted instead of reverting the page and leaving them in history? Although I do agree with the need to prevent additional vandalism to this page, the fact remains that the host of the show asked his viewers to vandalise this page which, considering the viewership levels, is a fairly major media stunt and the resulting edit activity may have had some interesting historical value. By deleting those edits so they can't even be viewed in the page history it prevents any kind of analysis of that activity or info it contains. One reason I have always appreciated Misplaced Pages is the fact that I can view previous edits and/or vandalism that may contain politically/racially/etc charged options that can provide insight into various issues. Why delete these out of the history, they seem harmless considering the fact you can revert, protect, and control the content of the current revision? This is the same reason why we timestamp talk page edits and such, so we can look back and see the history, activity, mood, opinions, etc, of various pages and issues. (Pranakhan) (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

In addition the fact that he asked for the action to take place on the show is relevent deserves mention in the article and outright deletion of the results instead of rollback or revert prevents any sort of interesting or detailed entry on the event. Nefariousski (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

He asked us to vandalize it. I swear! user:waterygrave

While that is true, he does not own this page. If there were facts/information on this page that he wanted removed, then he could do ask for them to be removed. But he is not allowed to ask people to vandalize "his" page. The Placebo Effect (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You don't understand. He asked people to edit the page humorously, like saying the name of the show should be pronounced "smeg-mah" and that he gave Jay Leno a blow-job. He says he's going to put the funniest ones on next week's show, though I think the fun got shut down too quick to make it worth his while. And, I gotta tell ya, he's not on wiki. He can do whatever he wants to do (as could we all actually.) And I'm sure that part of what he wants to do is lambaste us, Misplaced Pages, for removing even the history of what happened. Comes off kinda... wimpy... --Leodmacleod (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course he's allowed to ask people to vandalize his page. What are you going to do call the wikicops? I'm definately against vandalism and even as a big fan of his show would have never vandalized even in humor but the pre-emptive lockdown against policy is like the president declaring martial law because a talk show host in Saudi Arabia told his viewers to spraypaint the White House. Nefariousski (talk) 01:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

That's nearly Godwins Law, Nefariousski. And it wasn't pre-emptive, the edits were deleted (AGF, probably because they were well over the WP:BLP line). This conversation, again, should be dealt with at WP:VPP. Improvements to the article, however, are encouraged! tedder (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

My problem is not over the need to prevent vandalism through protection of this page, nor with the need to remove vandalism that isn't relevant accurate information. My problem is with deleting all history of those edits from the page history therefore preventing interested readers from seeing them, reviewing them to determine if they REALLY were vandalism or related, preventing peer-review of those edits which is an effective method of preventing editors with "agendas" from censoring possibly legitimate information they don't happen to personally agree with, etc. What is the point of maintaining the history of wikipedia pages if it can be ERASED, literally, from history? This seems to create a worrying precedent, doesn't it? Revert all you want, but how can anyone know what was actually put on the page? We just have to take the word of the deleter that it was actually "vandalism." In *this* case, it may have been harmless and even funny edits, but what about other pages convering controversial, political, religious, and racial issues? Is Misplaced Pages governed by the Chinese government? Reverting pages? Fine. Protecting pages? Fine. Completely erasing all record of prior edits? It just feels like something is very wrong about this. Pranakhan (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Common sense is the key factor here. We are (mostly) all adults here and can use it. Every page is evaluated on a case by case basis, and so this situation is unique, and the appropriate response was used. You need not worry that what happened here set precedent for else where. Beach drifter (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You've instantly earned respect in my book for the Godwin reference +1 internet for you. When it comes down to it I look at this like I look at WP:3RR. Suppose you are trying to reach consensus on a controversial topic and some random IP editor keeps coming in and making changes against consensus. Do we A. continually revert the edits in order to keep the article intact while we are discussing? or B. Cringe and let the edits take place, warn user and if they don't stop request they be blocked, roll back disruptive changes and get page protected for a period of time until consensus is reached? While A seems oh so tempting and far less complicated than B it is still not the correct way to go. We have tools at our disposal like Rollback, ANI etc... to deal with issues like this in the proper way. Unilateral decisions that make editing more difficult should be eschewed in favor of the normal mode for dealing with this issue. What happens if Tosh thinks this is all fun and games and continually encourages his viewers to edit? Do we have an eternally protected stub? The page Creation Myth and at least 3 others on my watchlist received Tosh.0 joke /vandal edits yesterday. Should we protect those too now that the precedent exists? What if Tosh tells his viewers to vandalize every page they can? I say this half jokingly but to the point. Standard operating procedures exist for a reason, I'm not advocating that there be a free for all or that we "let them have their fun" I'm just advocating that we treat the vandalism of this page like we treat any other page and go through the motions first. Nefariousski (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Godwin works for Wikimedia. I'd have a really hard time not yelling out Godwin references every few hours to get his attention. Anyhow, yes, it should be treated like other pages. Honestly, I'd prefer it only be semi-protected and immediately block autoconfirmed users who decide following Tosh is more important than respecting Misplaced Pages's roles. But, Tosh recommended BLP violations, and in the end, what does it matter? tedder (talk) 05:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The only reason that the edits were deleted was because it was in fact vandalism that was asked for by Tosh. The pages still exist, but they can only be seen by admins. Any other admin who reads those pages can confirm that it was just vandalism. By deleting the edits with the vandalism, we are trying to make a point that you can not ask people to vandalize Misplaced Pages for "fun" for a TV show, because it attempts to undermine what Misplaced Pages is about. The Placebo Effect (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)