Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fences and windows (talk | contribs) at 12:07, 3 February 2010 (→oppose (move petitions to userspace): Nope). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

• WP:VPR
• WP:VP/PR
• WP:PROPS

• Check if your proposal is already described at Perennial proposals.
• Proposed software changes that have gained consensus should be filed at Bugzilla.
• Proposed policy changes belong at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy).
• Proposed WikiProjects or task forces may be submitted at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Proposals.
• Proposed new wikis belong at meta:Proposals for new projects.

Centralized discussion Village pumps policy tech proposals idea lab WMF misc Refining the administrator elections process Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard. view edit history watch archive talk purge

Removing warnings from one's talk page

(This general category is listed as a perennial, I must disclose first. But activity on this front seems to have stopped two years ago. See Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings, and its talk page.)

My proposal is that users's right to remove warnings from their talk pages be limited to warnings older than a set age, such as 1 or 2 or 3 months. That way there should be no concern that warnings would stay permanently on user talk pages.

Simultaneously finding warning users as helpful to Misplaced Pages and its users, and on the other hand allowing warned users to remove warnings at will is self-defeating. Though it doesn't redound to a 'no warning' policy, it burdens the conscientious warners too much. That's because it requires that the latter scour users' talk pages for the history of warnings users have received in order to be sure what warning levels to use, without that exercise's revealing much about each previous warning: did the warned users even object to warnings which they removed, or did they remove warnings simply as attempts to cover their tracks?

Therefore, for the warnings that they shouldn't be allowed to remove, warned users should be encouraged to provide their retorts, if they have any, right there, below the warnings—which they're free to do now. Users who are about to issue warnings should in turn be instructed to read those rebuttals, if any, before issuing their warnings.

Is this a good middle ground? SamEV (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Strongest possible oppose due to the fact that this would require editors (even admins) to submit to dumb, troll-ish, WP:DTTR etc. drivel staying on their talkpages. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 22:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

  But your objection would logically apply to any such messages that are non-templated, doesn't it? SamEV (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

  What does that even mean? All I'm saying is, if Troll553 comes along to my talkpage during a content-dispute and, solely for the larks of giving a false warning, posts {{uw-npov1}}. I'd have to keep it there for months (and what about archiving, anyway, by the way?). Ridiculous notion. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 22:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I was going to re-write my reply, but an edit conflict prevented me.

Your tone is very hostile. Would you dial it down, please?

I'll think about your objection before addressing it again. SamEV (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

As I wrote, if you contest a warning, you can write so. Bad faith warnings would be just as removable and punishable as they currently are, and just as any message that anyone can write on a talk page: including those that are not templated. But warned users would be required to make the case why any warning that falls within the protected period is bad faith or misaddressed or whatever, and thus removable. I think of the editor who committed clear and obvious vandalism, but who currently has the right to remove a warning just as much as does the good faith editor who's falsely accused of something. I don't think they deserve equal benefit of the doubt. SamEV (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I will not "dial down" my tone, which is not hostile, it merely reflects my feelings towards your absurd and unworkable proposal. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 08:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I lived through the era when we required people to retain warning messages. It led to some of the dumbest edit wars I can ever remember (e.g. edit wars about removing warnings about removing warnings). Requiring people to retain warnings they disagree with inflames too many tempers to offset the small gain of making it easier to keep track of vandals. No thanks, let's not try that again. Dragons flight (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm very surprised to learn that a 'no remove' rule existed before. Your answer is helpful. SamEV (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's interesting, Dragon's flight. I'll also mention, SamEV, that at least as far as anon IP editors (with whom I largely deal), that hiding warning messages doesn't work very well, because it's easy for an established editor to guess they're doing it, and simple to check whether they have. Also, when evaluating a new anon IP, this activity is an early hint that they aren't willing to play by the rules. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

But it would be far more useful if you could look at those (unexpired) warnings on the talk pages, along with whatever objections were expressed by the warned users. SamEV (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• no, no... The purpose of a warning is to warn a user of something. If the user removes the warning, that only means that they are sufficiently warned (whatever that means to them). Forcing them to keep the warning on their page is punitive rather than productive - might as well just create a set of Scarlet Letter templates so we can brand them as undesirables for all the world to see. Not a good idea. --Ludwigs2 23:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Ludwigs2. But the point is to make things easier for the editors who do the right thing by issuing warnings (and I'm not claiming that issuing warnings is mandatory). And why should we be so preoccupied with not 'punishing' misbehaving users a little? We shouldn't be blasé about it, but it should not be fatal to measures aiming at improving how Misplaced Pages works. SamEV (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Sam, and the road to Hell really is paved with good intentions. We punish people where people do harm to the encyclopedia (and usually that 'punishment' merely consists of preventing them from doing further harm, temporarily or permanently). removing material from a user talk page does not in any way harm the encyclopedia, therefore it's not a punishable offense. QED. --Ludwigs2 05:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The removal of warnings, especially when done by vandals, do harm the encyclopedia, because as a result too many vandals get weaker warnings than they would otherwise, especially from warners who are not very experienced; which means that too many vandals are free to roam around Misplaced Pages longer than they should. SamEV (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

If a user repeatedly removes warnings in order to avoid receiving higher level warnings, it's unlikely that this would go unnoticed for very long. I check the talk page of users I've recently warned to see if they've gotten any further warnings, and I'm probably not the only one. If they've been repeatedly removing warnings in the hopes that no one would notice that they haven't stopped their disruptive behavior, someone watching their talk page would notice. Reach Out to the Truth 16:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That's the truth (mild pun intended). But that's no help to any warner who's new to the talk page. SamEV (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• This isn't even worth thinking about, to me. Sorry.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 23:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. Anyone can comment, just as anyone can put forth proposals (I think). SamEV (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

What was the purpose of that message, and the tone behind it, SamEV? ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 08:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Request for information: Is there presently any convenient way to check for a user's warning history other than his or her talk page and its history? If so, the proposal seems almost moot; if not, I can see why such an external data source would be desirable and might be preferable to immutable warnings on the talk page -- assuming a high level of transparency, right of appeal, etc. etc. - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Under the current understanding, standard warnings are supposed to expire and be forgotten after roughly a month. Editors who have talk pages which are active enough to make checking back a month difficult are unlikely to be getting standard template warnings. persistent vandals (who stay under the 4 warnings per month limit) are a minor annoyance who will eventually get bored if they don't get noticed and blocked. petty vandalism from months or years ago shouldn't count against an editor who is (maybe) trying to edit productively now. I don't even see a reason for an external resource. --Ludwigs2 05:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
    • If the persistent vandal keeps deleting warnings, then doesn't that put a burden on the person issuing the warning to reconstruct history to see if they've been issued 4 warnings per month? Isn't that the argument made in the paragraph beginning "Simultaneously finding warning users as helpful..." in the proposal above, or am I misunderstanding it? - PhilipR (talk) 05:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
      • The thing is, "warnings" themselves are effectively meaningless in reality. Their designed more as a courtesy/civility tool in order to prevent people from honestly being taken by surprise when it comes to administrative action. In the case of purposeful vandalism, they normally do more harm then good in that they provide the vandal with the attention and feedback that they crave by vandalizing, but in the end I think that we've (correctly) chosen to live with that drawback in order to prevent "damage" to the (optimistically) 1-2 out of 1000 editors who are mistakenly labled as vandals due to some mistake/misunderstanding (normally, in my experience, caused by language issues). It's generally better to err on the side of caution with things like this, after all. Personally, I'd think that some sort of proposal to "police the policeman", a process to review the use of warning templates and "vandal fighting", would receive more support and possibly even be worth doing, but then I'm somewhat predisposed to think that way....
        — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 06:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
      • When I patrol, my usual routine is to revert, then go to the Users talk page to leave a warning. When I get there, if the 'discussion' tab is redlinked I leave a level 1 warning and move on. if the 'discussion' tab is blue (meaning that the the page was created but is currently blank) I click the history tab and glance at recent activity, leaving a warning at a level that seems appropriate or sending the user straight to the admins if there's a lot of recently deleted templates. I leave any worrying about correctness to admins (vandal patrollers are traffic cops; admins are the judges). it really doesn't take much time or thought. --Ludwigs2 07:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what benefit there would be in this change, and I can see several new areas of contention that it would open up:

1. It would muck up a lot of people's archiving
2. Incorrect warnings would become a lot more contentious. For example I frequently move new articles to correct their capitalisation and as a result I sometimes get the "warning" when the article is tagged for speedy deletion.
3. Sometimes the boundary between warning someone and informing them that you don't think their article meets our notability criteria can get a tad grey. {{G3}} and {{G10}} will almost always result in warnings, but several of the other speedy criteria currently cover a range of good and bad faith articles, if we start differentiating between notifications that one can remove and warnings that we can't then New Page Patrol suddenly gets even more overcomplex.
4. We have a philosophy that anyone can start editing here without learning our ways, if we want to make warnings "sticky" then that is another thing that we have to communicate to newbies.
5. Some IPs are dynamic, others may be shared. The person who deletes a warning from a fortnight ago may be doing so because they have taken over that IP, and if so they might baulk at being told to reinstate a warning that they consider was given to someone else.
6. For the last four reasons I predict that were we to do this, the result would be a troll feeding frenzy.

PS For what its worth, when I block editors I don't just look at their current talkpage and I suspect most if not all admins have a similar MO. ϢereSpielChequers 18:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• • PhilipR, you understood well: I propose that we make warnings more effective and cease burdening warners so much. SamEV (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • ϢereSpielChequers, most of those seem like good arguments to me, for now at least. Not the first one, though. That potential problem can be avoided (i.e. other than by not adopting this proposal — and it might indeed be rejected...) by doing as WP:UWT recommends: "Warnings should be grouped by date under the heading "Warnings"." So my proposal would pose no trouble for archiving, either by humans or bots, as warnings would be found in one section, with the older warnings at the top of it. SamEV (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

  Firstly, I haven't ever heard of that rule, and am a vastly experienced editor (Twinkle doesn't follow it either). Secondly, it's not a rule. It's not a policy. It's not even a guideline. I don't know where it came from, but it has no standing whatsoever! ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 16:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

  Heya TT, I'm not sure what the history is here with you, or between you and SamEV, or whatever. I just though that I should mention that your own tone in this discussion has been fairly strident right from the get-go. It'd be nice if you could back off a bit here, as I don't see how continuing with this open animosity here in front of everyone is really helpful. You could always take it to his talk page, if you think that it's really important.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 16:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks, Ohms law.

  I can't recall having ever interacted with user Treasury Tag, or to have even seen his name anywhere. SamEV (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

  • • That assumes warnings are issued in accordance with that guideline and I doubt they are - most are simply added to the end of a talkpage. But some active users have to archive on quite a frequent basis simply to keep their talkpages editable. Not all of them would be able to increase their archiving interval to the number of months that you want these warnings to stick for, and a bot that had different archiving intervals for warnings and other threads would be overly complex and risk hiding warnings away from other relevant contemporary threads. ϢereSpielChequers 16:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Warners should be made more aware of that guideline, despite the fate of this proposal. When I used to warn more, I did use that "Warnings" header. And btw, I don't see why bots that currently do cleanup or other tasks couldn't be programmed to create that heading and gather the warnings under it. For example, SineBot could be programmed to gather them when it leaves a message on a user page. (I name SineBot just as a blind example.)
        

I don't understand what you mean by "hiding warnings away", though. I take your word for it re: complexity, since I'm not versed in programming. :(

SamEV (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose most of the reasons are listed above. As to the concern about looking for removed warnings, this is one reason that warnings should include an edit summary. If the edit summary includes "Level 3", "Level 4" or "Final warning" it's easy to get an idea of what's gone on before with a quick scan of the talk history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cube lurker (talk • contribs) 18:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Many, maybe most, warners don't leave those edit summaries. Besides, what do you learn just by looking at the edit summaries? What if the warnings were undeserved? You wouldn't know it just from the edit summaries. You'd have to look at diffs, one by one, to see what was said about each warning, if anything. Per my proposal, you'd get a much better idea of which warnings were merited and which not, and you'd know it faster, because warned users would explain themselves on their talk pages and those comments would remain visible as long as the warnings themselves. The reason warners would usually explain themselves is because simply removing the warnings would no longer be an option.
  • Maybe one day a technical way can be found to add warnings which cannot be removed by users, but by admins and/or automatically, once they've expired, by the software/bots. SamEV (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

    If the warnings were undeserved, then they most certainly should not be forced to stay on the talk page. A lot of people uses automated tools like Twinkle for warning users, which indicates the warning level in the edit summary. Looking at the page history gives a pretty good indication of what sort of warnings the user has received in the past. Reach Out to the Truth 16:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose There are some wizards who are not good, Harry ... oops. Some folks have been known to give out toally unwarranted warnings. Frinstance, folks who give out 3RR warnings and final warnings after a single edit on a page. Absent a real need to alter current policy, let's keep what ain't broke. Collect (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Reach Out to the Truth, and Collect: I concede on the autosummary point. But with respect to undeserved warnings: As I said above, bad faith warnings would continue to be punishable, and admins could remove them. In any case, I think it would be preferable for an undeserved warning to stay, with the warnee's objections, instead of a deserved warning's being removed with no justification even attempted. SamEV (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

  "I think it would be preferable for an undeserved warning to stay" – *groan* ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 14:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Hand up* May I ask a question? When the proposer was a hall monitor in junior high a couple years ago, did he ask the principal to make those who had been admonished for not having a pass wear a piece of paper recording how many times the person had been previously admonished so the hall monitor could calibrate his degree of sternness when he caught them again? alteripse (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • All the time. SamEV (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Ha. I am disarmed by your charm (seriously), perhaps enough to support the keeping of block notices by administrators, but have been here enough years to have run into people whose "warnings" on my talk page didn't merit reading, let alone prolonged residence. alteripse (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I'll take it! That's the closest to a "Support" vote I've got so far. :) SamEV (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. I'm as tired as the next guy of IPs getting away with murder by blanking their userpages month after month, but the cons of this proposal (trolls having one more policy to point to, people putting up with garbage, and the historical record pointed to above) simply outweighs the possible good. If no one is watching these IPs blank their pages now and keeping track of them, no one will notice if this goes through. --King Öomie 20:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose We've got better things to piss our time away on (such as an encyclopedia) than in trying to gauge whether a warning template can or cannot be removed. We don't need another level of bureaucracy. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Propose to amend our FlaggedRevs proposal

In lieu of the BLP deletions, I consider our current FlaggedRevs proposal outdated and passed by by reality. Instead I propose we immediately adopt the german model. Reasons

1. It requires no developer work to make the specifics from our original request possible. This is much kinder on Aaron who is doing a lot of work to make some rare situations possible in the FlaggedRevs extension, that will likely only be used for what was gonna be our test period. A wast of development effort if you ask me.
2. It is in the interest of our BLP articles
3. Why do we need a test if if it's already clear that BLP will trump everything ? Statements by arbcom members and Jimmy Wales clearly indicate a full endorsement of the BLP deletions. Some of those deletions might have been prevented if we had adopted the german model 2 years ago. To protect people against slander and to keep the Misplaced Pages growing, we clearly also need FlaggedRevs going into the future.
4. Why should we want to limit the test/usage of FlaggedRevs to biographies, if the rules and concerns of BLP are not limited to biographies ?
5. Why do we need metrics on the test phase of FlaggedRevs, if this is clearly the way we are going ? What are we gonna do? Reverse position on BLP issues if it affects our readership too much? Seems unlikely.
6. Why do we need to wait for interface improvements ? The usability team is always working in parallel, why should this part of the software be any different ?

I think that counters all of the reasons that have caused our earlier calls for immediate deployment of flagged revisions to be ignored does it not ? Focus on making sure it is stable enough for en.wp and let's just run that code. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Oppose. This is impractical, because we have too many articles. Ruslik_Zero 19:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Oppose for the same reason Ruslik0 does - between the number of articles we have and the level of editing, we would either have an enormous backlog of unapproved edits, draining our volunteer editors' time and in practice often denying anonymous users the right to edit, or else we would have an enormous number of edits approved without scrutiny, causing potential harm to the encyclopedia and (again) denying anonymous editors the right to actually fix the problems caused by approving harmful edits. Most likely we would have the worst case scenario - both at once. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Strong oppose. First, political reasons: it took a lot of argument to reach the current plan, and I'd prefer to not have to repeat that. Second, the English Misplaced Pages is by far the largest wiki. Even if the rate of backlog is acceptable on dewiki or Wikinews, there's no guarantee it wouldn't be a problem here. Third, now that we've committed to the current plan, it makes little sense to abandon the development work that's been done to further it. I share the concern and frustration at the delay, but I'm sure that a more usable, more open version of FlaggedRevs is in the interest of long-term use and adoption. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 17:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC) (iPod edit)

   Thanks for the background. I take it this and this is what people are currently working towards, based on this March 2009 poll. Correct? --JN466 21:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

   Yes, that is the current general plan, and that poll is the one that confirmed the current plan. There was an earlier poll on using a more German-like implementation of FlaggedRevs, but at around 60% support it was deemed that there was insufficient consensus. The flagged protection and proposed revisions (FPPR) poll was closer to 80%, which is generally taken as enough of a supermajority to be a rough consensus. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 17:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Support. I don't see what the number of articles has to do with it – while the Germans may have fewer articles, they also have far fewer editors.
   • Note that people who approve harmful edits would very quickly lose their user rights enabling them to approve such edits (it is not enough to have a registered user account, you need to be registered as a "trusted" user, and that privilege can quickly be withdrawn if it is undeserved).
   • Approving a new article version after edits by IPs or novice editors takes just as long as looking at the diff when the article pops up in your watchlist -- it just adds a mouse click to the process to confirm that you have seen it ("sighted" it). Really not a problem.
   • Articles that have had edits by IPs and novice users and need sighting show up with a red exclamation mark in Recent changes, and in your watchlist. You click on "Sight", get a diff, and click OK if it's okay, or on revert if it's vandalism. Having the red exclamation mark immediately helps you tell apart edits by recently registered accounts and trusted users.
   • The Wikis that have the system (Wikinews; German WP and 3 or 4 other WPs) do not experience backlogs. --JN466 11:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Words...

First off, before anyone blows a gasket, this is a fairly tongue-in-cheek suggestion (I say "fairly" because I do sort of wish that something like this would happen). But, I'm quite aware of the perennial proposal which sort of addresses this.

Anyway, first I have a bit of an admission to make: I'm a horrible speller (realistically, if I'm not being self-deprecating, I'm probably slightly above average, mostly because I've become a decent typist over the years). It really makes little, if any, difference to me if the word describing "The spectral composition of visible light" is spelled "color" or "colour". To me, I personally learned "color", those who I have the most day-to-day exposure to use "color", and most importantly my (en-us) spellchecker doesn't flag "color"! Realistically, while it may bug me for a short period of time to start seeing "colour" all over the place, it would be easy enough to get used to if it weren't flagged as a damned misspelling.

So, with the above established, I'd like to humbly suggest that we develop a "en-wp" dictionary, distribute it to anyone and everyone who will take it, and use that here. The hell with ENGVAR, we'll write our own variation and stick to it! While we're at it, we may as well lobby for the banning of Webster's Dictionary and the Oxford English Dictionary as well. I think we've all had enough of their divisive shenanigans! Who's with me?
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 22:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Good idea /in theory/, but of course, who will decide if it's color or colour, and how much bitching will there be that 'their' way is the better way? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh, there's an easy solution to that, we simply develop our own spelling convention, just like our buddy Noah Webster did! For example, instead of "color" or "colour", we spell it "colur"!

In all seriousness, something along these lines is likely to happen "in the real world" eventually you know, if it's not already underway. The web being a written medium, which brings those of us in various disparate parts of the world together, simply has to have a profound impact on the development of the language and writing in particular. Of course, thre's quite a bit of "dwell time" to things which are put online, and that put together with the fact that we as people are naturally somewhat averse to change means that there certainly won't be a change overnight, and there likely will never be too drastic a change (for example: old English to modern English). A change will surely develop though, and likely as not to Webster's more "Americanized" spellings. I don't say that out of any sort of national pride or anything like that, it's just that "our" words our shorter (nevermind the fact that the 'net and media are flooded with American writing...). I can hear people howling about that through my computer, putting down "txt spk" and the like, but the fact is that groups of people will always seek the path of least resistance, and fewer characters to type is that path. Anyway, I'm not sure what prompted this interest in the subject, but I figured that I may as well talk about it. *shrug*
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 07:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If the object is to create a dictionary which could be used in spellcheckers so that valid variants would not be flagged, the answer is simple, include both (or all valid) variants. Both "color" and "colour" would be included. Indeed, simply taking a good US English and a good UK English dictionary and merging them (and removing dupes) would be a good start. We might want to add Misplaced Pages-specific terms like "ArbCom" and "copyvio" that come up on talk pages a lot. DES 16:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Extension of "recent event" tag to cover programmes about to start a new series

For contemporary events in the news, there is often a tag at the head of the article, stating that the article covers a contemporary event and that information may change with the passage of time. In the same way,does any one think it may be worth having a similar tag at the start of articles on radio or television series about to begin a new series? In my home country of the United Kingdom, on BBC Radio Four, a new series of The Write Stuff is going to begin this week (i.e. the week beginning January 25 2010) and it would be nice if there were a tag at the head of the article stating something like: "This article is on a programme about to begin a new series. Information may change as the series progresses". ACEOREVIVED (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. I also think that it's a great idea to add an optional link to Wikinews so that relevant stories could be linked to from the mbox as well. Both of those ideas seem to meet with resistance though, just so you're aware of it. I'd go ahead and create the template, just don't be surprised when someone sends it to TFD is all.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 07:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

{{future television}} used to do this, and it was deleted: Misplaced Pages:Centralized_discussion/Deprecating_"Future"_templates. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Theoretically, the current event templates are for use on articles where information is changing rapidly. I can't see a situation where the progression of a television show's season would necessitate this. What I could see though, is if there is a main article for the show, and a child article for the season, using something along the lines of {{Current sport-related}} to point to the child article for updated information. Resolute 15:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that any series that is still running is in that sense a current event. Mangoe (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why this would be necessary would be most programmes. The only purpose I can see for it is if the TV programme's plot summary is in lengthy prose as oppose to an episode by episode table. This would mean that the prose is subject to change, whereas an episode table means the information can be edited for each episode, meaning the template is unnecessary. TomBeasley (talk) 12:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

WebCite for New York Times

The New York Times is one of the more widely cited sources on Misplaced Pages, partly because it's freely accessible. Recently it was announced that this will change from 2011, so efforts should be made to use WebCite to preserve access to key sources for ongoing content verification and expansion. This will be particularly necessary, perhaps, for old NYT sources (pre-1990, let's say), where there are less likely to be good alternatives online.

Is there (or should there be) some wikiproject or taskforce to take this on? Just spreading knowledge of WebCite would be a start, eg making a WP:Misplaced Pages Ad and spreading that around. Rd232 16:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

see also User_talk:WebCiteBOT#URGENT:_NY_Times_and_WebCiteBOT. Rd232 16:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Somebody ought to negotiate free link access to NYT from WP.--Jarhed (talk) 07:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Give New Editors A List OF Easy Tasks

When a new user signs up and

1. edits their user page (unlike drive-by vandals), or
2. goes to their "my contributions" page

a set of links should be temporarily added to the bottom of that page. Those links would include simple, easy maintenance tasks and HowTos that can help them get up to speed as a contributing editor.

I've had a login here for years. It's been like pulling teeth to find anything worth editing - I don't go wandering through random stuff that I'm not interested in without someone saying "Hey, this needs spelling or grammar checking, source verification, bit rot checking," etc. So my login has sat unused.

It's not that I'm incapable, but I'm not going to drill down into a bunch of trivia to try and find a single page to edit. I have yet to find even a list of pages that need checking, if there is one! The only reason I found the "Village Pump" is that a friend told me that was what the suggestion board was called here. Otherwise I would have spent even more years not knowing it was even there!

The presence of simple yet neglected task lists for new editors to do, along with HowTo guides, would help people to feel useful and contribute more.

RavanAsteris (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Not quite what you're asking for, but there is User:SuggestBot. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply To Cybercobra - While User:SuggestBot may eventually be fairly useful to me, it presumes that I have already done enough edits to have a statistical pattern of past contributions. I guess I would consider that to be a good intermediate tool, for those with an already established passion who were looking to expand their horizons. Also, it is not easily available to the new editor.

Another general neo nitpick: I consider "users" to be people who come and look things up and read them - they "use" the encyclopedia. Editors are people who write or "edit" pages. I realize that the terms aren't used that way here, but it's screwy from a functional descriptive POV.

--RavanAsteris (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a good idea, I think - to provide suggestions automatically to new users. It links with a suggestion I made to allow users to request random task suggestions: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject community rehabilitation/Idea/RandomTaskCompetition. It's perfectly doable, but someone has to do it... Rd232 21:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, in the mean time, there's Misplaced Pages:Maintenance. Rd232 21:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Community portal and {{opentasks}} are more appropriate. Fences&Windows 01:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm always partial to Misplaced Pages:Admin coaching/Other options. MBisanz 01:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You know what'd be easy for beginning editors? Reviewing pages created by non-native english speakers. I found a few on some obscure battles between Russia and Japan, or about Cuba that had many small errors throughout. Pages like that can greatly benefit from the ear of a native english speaker. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Now this sounds cool! It's low hanging fruit, and it doesn't require a lot of jargon to do. The drawback is what happens if the new editor is also not a native English speaker? --RavanAsteris (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

*shrug* Have other options? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, give the person several choices. Hence, a list. --RavanAsteris (talk) 08:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, but it does require tailoring to the individual. I believe that many editors come here because of a particular interest and putting them in touch with the most relevant project is a good start; Perhaps the list could have a tailored search box to make it easy to find projects that they are interested in? Other easy entry areas are Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Red Link Recovery, and one I'd like to see started - a project to add pictures to articles where the English language article lacks pictures but there is an article in another language version that has a picture. For some new editors who come with a more academic but less technical background perhaps reviewing articles at wp:FAC would be a good start. For others installing wp:Hotcat and starting at Category:Uncategorized pages might be possible - though I suspect that for most this would require quite a familiarity with our categorisation logic first. ϢereSpielChequers 13:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The editor above me is onto something with the search function. I know for a fact that I hardly ever edit any articles other than those related to comedy and comedians as that is what I have an interest in. If I happen to be browsing and find something in another category that needs editing, I will of course do it, but I don't really actively seek editing outside of my field. For this reason, I think it would be ideal to add a function into which a new contributor could add one of their interests and be directed to the appropriate category page or project. TomBeasley (talk) 12:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The ability to find tasks or a list of tasks suitable to interest and skill/comfort is part of the problem that I had. Misplaced Pages is a HUGE place, and just trying to pick an interest, much less what to do within it, is like looking for a particular shaped needle in a large haystack full of oddly shaped needles. Hence, a list of stuff like the suggestions above, and the cool search box concept. Maybe make it part of the welcome page thingy. --RavanAsteris (talk) 09:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Time to remove placeholders?

Nearly 2 years ago it was agreed not to use place-holders (File:Replace this image female.svg and File:Replace this image male.svg). CON was split over how to proceed as some wanted to wait till a replacement could be devised this has not happened. These should be removed from wiki post haste Gnevin (talk) 09:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

From:Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders

Use of placeholders in a nutshell: Use of these placeholders in neither encouraged nor deprecated. Although many editors object to their appearance they work for the intended purpose.

— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 17:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The text on the images themselves says different

There was significant opposition to the use of images such as Replace this image male and this one. 35 editors (66%) agreed with the question, "placeholder images should not be used at all on the main page of articles", however, only 14 editors (45%) agreed with any particular recommendation.

Gnevin (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Gnevin is correct. The 'nutshell' above was added recently and it doesn't accurately represent the (very long) discussion in which I took part.--Kleinzach 06:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you want to fight that fight, go ahead. If you're right then you shouldn't have any real issues with WP:FFD... I don't really care one way or another, personally. Although, thinking about it, the placeholders are not only nice to have, but their "ugliness" actually serves a purpose in that it ought to prompt some people to upload (appropriately licensed!) images to take their place.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 23:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a major issue with a FFD. As the image is on commons and as far as I know the only legitimate reason for deletion from common is copyright issues. Gnevin (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

So what can we do here? Add them to the blocked images list? --Golbez (talk) 02:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Humm... I hadn't realized that they're on Commons. We should probably have a discussion about that in particular; with a wider focus though (not limited to only those images). You're correct of course that they shouldn't be deleted from Commons simply because we may not like their use here. I'm not really sure how to accurately express this point, but while these particular images, and similar ones, can live on Commons because they have a compatible license, their content is distinct in that they're... more functional? They're not really content on their own, in the sense that an image which could potentially become a "Featured image" is "real content". As long as that sort of distinction is clearly made, somehow, then I wouldn't have any real issue with a policy stating that those images should be avoided in most articles here in en.wikipedia. (on the other hand, I'm somewhat hesitant to sanction the creation of yet another item of busywork for some editors to immerse themselves in...)
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 10:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Also commons doesn't care about the likes of WP:OI. If its free its ok Gnevin (talk) 11:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, and they shouldn't either, which I touched on above. I think that my main point here is that, as far as I'm aware of, we don't have any formal policy on dealing with the use of Commons content here, and we probably should. We simply need to be cognizant of the widespread nature of such potential policy. We can't create policy stating that these specific images aren't allowed to be used any longer (well, we could of course, but that would be a mistake because it would be overly specific, and people will take that as a wider policy statement regardless of any intent).
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 11:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Didn't FFD use to mean File for Discussion? Can't we modify FFD and block unsuitable commons images, basically extend the current FFD process rather than create an entire policy for commons images ? Gnevin (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The end effect that a new policy would cause would naturally be a change in the FFD process, I'm sure. From an organizational point of view, I'm personally leery of "backdooring" new policy by changing the manner in which certain processes operate. The manner in which a potential policy would affect Misplaced Pages is clearly demonstrated by this very discussion, which demonstrates to me that we're talking about new policy here rather then some relatively minor process wonkery.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 12:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

How do you suggest we proceed? Gnevin (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I just posted a note on the talk page at WP:FFD. Hopefully someone there will come and comment. You're free to create Misplaced Pages:Use of Commons content if you'd like, of course (with the appropriate {{Proposed policy}} tag at the top, obviously).
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 14:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Is blocking of commons images possible for a technicial point of view? Gnevin (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

From a technical standpoint, we could upload a 1x1 transparent pixel under the same name, but I don't think the elimination of these images is as cut-and-dry as the original post states. The consensus seemed to be to deprecate the use but not to eliminate them where they exist. See also: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive552#Massive AWB use to remove image placeholders. –xeno 15:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Lets put the original suggestion on the back-burner for now and pretend we've a commons image that we've 100% agreement to remove but it isn't copyvio how do we deal with it Gnevin (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow. We could bot remove it or as I said put in a single transparent pixel on the Misplaced Pages page with the same name as the commons image. –xeno 18:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

←I'd say that it should simply be removed from any use in the article namespace (other namespaces shouldn't be a concern at all, here). I don't think that we should pick out specific images/files which shouldn't be used, although that's one possible approach, but we ought to develop a category with clear inclusion criteria. Adding a hidden maintenance cat to the File namespace page which holds the image would facilitate tracking. I think that the English Misplaced Pages page for a commons file can hold our own categories for the file, but if not I'm fairly certain that we could coordinate with Commons in order to create an appropriate category there.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 16:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Any category system would be open to massive abuse,unless the page was fully protected after and bot knew only to remove files from the category and the page was fully protected Gnevin (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

humm... this seems to be coming out of left field, can you explain better? Correct me if I'm mistaken, but it sounds like you're saying that if people were to disagree with you adding the category to an image and they removed it, you feel that it's your right to judge them as abusing the system somehow. Protection doesn't exist to resolve content issues, after all.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 19:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No I'm not saying I'd judge them . I though you where suggesting that after a FFD like discussion ,we'd place a Category:Barred commons image on the wiki image page. We would a bot which would maintain to ensure the image wasn't used after the FFB (File for Barring) discussion had been completed. Now for the system above to work we'd have to page protect the image page Gnevin (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly right - if there's solid consensus to remove an image but the image itself isn't intrinsically bad, then just go around and remove all instances of it in article space. Deleting files (or templates, etc) in order to remove editorially disputed content is a bit inefficient, and not really what FFD is designed for. Shimgray | talk | 19:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Removing the back links is fine until the file starts to pop up again and again and again. Why have WP:OI and other policies and guidelines if we can't remove original images which by there very nature would be copyright free Gnevin (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly object to any systematic removal of these images both on procedural and substantial grounds. Procedurally, any wide-ranging change to thousands of articles needs consensus first, and it is clear that there is no current consensus to remove these placeholders in all instances. Substantially, I am a frequent reviewer of the photo submissions queue at WP:OTRS, and a majority of the submissions there are about articles that have the placeholders. Moreover, the submissions for such articles are of higher quality, usually giving more or less useful info about copyright status and licensing, while other submissions tend to be more like: "hi this is an image of joe please use it!". This has convinced me that the placeholders are very useful for their intended purpose of encouraging freely licenced illustrations, and I support their continued and more widespread use.  Sandstein  09:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• I too oppose per Sandstein. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• I strongly support the systematic removal of these image. Really, this issue has been running for far too long. Misplaced Pages is becoming more and more schlerotic, we need to fix problems and move on. --Kleinzach 03:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• I oppose removal on the grounds that those involved with images seem to think they work, but am equally opposed to adding these images for addition's sake. In other words, I endorse the wording of the template above. WFCforLife (talk) 06:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Tangential issue: election templates

A master summary template (which I don't particularly like) has been created to take up a huge piece of real estate on every page that covers a specific political election (e.g. New York City mayoral election, 2009 or United Kingdom general election, 2005). On many of these templates, there are one or more rather unattractive "No free image: do you know of one?" placeholders (see for example, Syracuse mayoral election, 2009). I didn't follow the original discussions referred to above, so I'm not completely clear on the issues involved, but would they have any bearing on placeholders for pictures that may not even yet be in Wikimedia Commons, as opposed to pictures that have been removed for copyright or usage reasons? —— Shakescene (talk) 07:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I assume that you're talking about {{Infobox Election}}? This started by essentially advocating for the removal of all instances where File:Replace this image female.svg or File:Replace this image male.svg are being used here on en.wikipedia. However, since those images are located on Commons, this discussion has morphed into a discussion on handling the use of images from Commons in general, which is a wider issue which I think is worth discussing regardless. So, in the case of Syracuse mayoral election, 2009, those placeholders would likely be removed from the infobox.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 12:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested articles template pages for watching individual subjects

Would it make sense to convert the lowest level sections of the Misplaced Pages:Requested articles tree into included templates (much as the way the Peer Review section is now set up). That way those of us with a particular interest in certain subjects can just keep a watch on just those templates, rather than having to watch the entire page? Thanks.—RJH (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello?—RJH (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to test this out at "Misplaced Pages:Requested articles/Natural sciences/Astronomy and cosmology" (included at Misplaced Pages:Requested articles/Natural sciences#Astronomy and cosmology) and see how well it works.—RJH (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Creation of a new category of established editors called RS-Reviewers

The proposal: Allow trusted and established users who have a keen understanding of what are and what are not Reliable Sources (their past involvement would be evidence) an additional user right (akin to 'autoreviewer', or 'rollbacker'...) called rs-reviewer. RS-Reviewers would be responsible to involve themselves in discussions on issues raised on the reliable sources noticeboard. They would have the additional responsibility to ensure that RS issues on the noticeboard, in general, are resolved within a week, and at the maximum within a fortnight. They would also have the additional power to enforce the changes that are so discussed, on the specific article in question.

The genesis of the proposal: Currently, the reliable sources noticeboard - presumably the most important forum for discussing RS issues - sees issues being raised and previously involved editors debating in the same manner as they would have done on the specific article's page. Many a time, due to an overload of discussions from involved editors, independent commentators - who would have left their comments initially - veer off the discussions. As a result, discussions do not reach a conclusive end. And in some cases, discussions just keep languishing on the noticeboard with extensive commentary. RS-Reviewers would work towards ensuring discussions are undertaken in a concise manner and would be able to mediate the discussions towards the appropriate conclusion within a given time frame.

Benefits:

• The moment editors to an article - who would have brought an issue to the reliable sources noticeboard - note that there is an RS-Reviewer amongst them, their discussions would (in general) be more specific, logical and rationally civic.
• If the RS-Reviewer sees that discussions are not being allowed to reach a conclusive end - due to (perhaps) tendentious discussions - he/she would be able to report the situation to an administrator who, knowing that the report has been raised by an RS-Reviewer, would be in a better position to understand the stance to take.
• Administrators would be subsequently able to give more time for administrative tasks (similar to what happened after introducing the 'rollbacker' system).
• Edit warring on specific articles would also reduce, due to such a formal mediation by designated RS-Reviewers, on the noticeboard, and due to another reason given right below.
• Over time, RS-Reviewers will also involve themselves on talk pages of specific articles as neutral mediating entities working towards a consensus solution.
• Additionally, it would allow established users more involvement with the project (again, similar to what having the 'rollbacker' or 'autoreviewer' status gives) and further trust within the community.

How would RS-Reviewers be selected

• A centralised forum (similar to 'rollback' granting) would be set up, where established users would have to show administrators at least three instances of past involvement on the reliable sources noticeboard forum or on specific article's talk forums, where their comments worked towards consensus with respect to issues related to reliable sources. Once an RS-Reviewer power is granted, a tag would appear alongside the username in the link on user rights. RS-Reviewers thus selected would also be allowed to upload a standard template that announces they have RS-Reviewer rights.

Past similar perennial proposals: Misplaced Pages:Perennial proposals#Hierarchical structures talked about creating different kinds of administrators. Although the suggestion here is not that, it might be seen as some to be that, therefore have listed the link. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ 08:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It sounds to me like basically you're saying, give certain people a "hey, this person is officially sanctioned as knowledgeable about RSes, so listen to them!" indication, which really rubs me the wrong way. Seems pretty against WP spirit to me. It also doesn't seem to grant any actual powers. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Solution in search of a problem. If discussion is veering off-topic then mention it and try to get discussion back on topic, you don't need a special title to do this. If dispute resolution is needed, we have a dispute resolution process already in place. ^demon 18:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't see the point. We have admins as they use tools, not to make them special wise rulers. Why do we need to say that certain editors know everything on RSs? Fences&Windows 20:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

So basically its a new user right with no actual technical tools or abilities attached to it, but with the power to essentially override a consensus and enforce their own view. And the proposal is to give this out for making 3 useful comments on a board that gets that many new threads every day? I'm not quite sure which part of the proposal I like least. Mr.Z-man 22:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This proposal strikes me as well-intentioned but misguided; it is contrary to the core values of Misplaced Pages to endow any user with "more say" than the next. Shereth 22:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It strikes me as, so to say, unconstitutional, in the sense: inconsistent with our core principles. Like the 'established editors' and so on. The lack of uninvolved editors to help in dispute resolution is indeed a real and persistent problem, but this is not a way to solve it. Cenarium (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This reminds of point two in the Misplaced Pages:Wikiness essay.. regarding "You're not smarter than everyone else".. Good reading.. the entire essay is.. -- œ 23:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess the issue is not about giving another group of established editors any additional tools but with respect to giving them powers to (in?)formally mediate into the reliable sources noticeboard as many a time, discussions continue to be as obfuscated on the RS noticeboard as they generally are on the article's talk page. There is, however, a third-party opinion forum available that editors can use currently. This third-party opinion, I expect, is more or less used for the same purposes that I am mentioning. So is the reliable sources noticeboard. However, I have no issues with not giving the additional tag of an RS-Reviewer to the editor, in case it is seen as not adding to the solution. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ 03:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary community division; solution in search of a problem. We're not Citizendium and have never had a problem with not having official Experts, I don't see why we should start now. Vive liberté, égalité, fraternité! --Cybercobra (talk) 06:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Lol :-) ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ 03:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for movie articles re:Rotten Tomatoes.

Quite a few if not most articles use Rotten Tomatoes to show readers how well (or badly) a movie has done. The thing of it is, movie ratings often fluctuate so quite often someone has to edit the ratings (yesterday it was 25% now its 27%). My suggestion is this: instead of constantly editing the percentage number, why not link directly to the Rotten Tomatoes page for the movie and just use a term like 'poorly rated' or 'moderatly well rated' As an example: 28 Days Later:

Reception

The film was a considerable success at the box office and became highly profitable on a budget of about £5 million ($9.8 million). In the UK, it took in £6.1 million ($11.89 million), while in the U.S. it became a surprise hit, taking over $45 million despite a limited release at fewer than 1,500 screens across the country. The film garnered around $82.7 million worldwide. Critical views of the film were very positive; the review site Rotten Tomatoes rates it 88%. On Metacritic it received a 73 (out of 100) based on 39 reviews.

Doing it my way it would look like this:

Reception

The film was a considerable success at the box office and became highly profitable on a budget of about £5 million ($9.8 million). In the UK, it took in £6.1 million ($11.89 million), while in the U.S. it became a surprise hit, taking over $45 million despite a limited release at fewer than 1,500 screens across the country. The film garnered around $82.7 million worldwide. Critical views of the film were very positive; the review site Rotten Tomatoes rates it high. On Metacritic it also recieved a very positive view.

...or something like that. Then we wouldn't have to constantly 'fix' the numbers, in effect they'd be self-repairing. HalfShadow 01:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't include inline links to external sites in article text. The way to solve this problem is for movie editors to use "as of" dates when writing the text; the difference between 25% and 27% isn't worth changing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Inline external links should be avoided at all costs regardless, but especially in this sort of usage pattern. This makes Misplaced Pages inappropriately reliant on external web sites, of which we have absolutely no control. I don't knock the underlying sentiment, but this is not the way to go.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 01:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Fluctuating success rates are an issue across many article types. A more pressing need for something like this would be stating how profitable a business is, for example, as that's a more frequent and wide-ranging fluctuation; and we don't throw up our hands in that case and say the information changes too frequently for us to keep up. Directing readers off to an external site for frequently-changing information seems like the beginning of turning Misplaced Pages into a link farm, rather than an information source in itself. Equazcion 06:38, 30 Jan 2010 (UTC)

I'm in consensus with what others have said here. I feel that using "as of" is an appropriate enough indication to either prompt someone to update it or to inform the reader to check for themselves whether this has changed. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia, not simply a portal by which to find information from elsewhere. TomBeasley (talk) 12:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Change of format for MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist

As it currently stands, it is unclear as to where new additions to MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist should be placed. At the bottom of the page the EDIT link gives you? Or above the next level 2 heading. I propose creating a standard template similar to that used on the page used for reporting vandals for admin attention, which will be something like the following:

{{{1}}}
*Page it will be used on: ]
*Reason for request: {{{3}}} ~~~~

This will result in a format something like

Address to whitelist

• Page it will be used on Page to be used
• Reason for request: <reason here> Rich_{(Talk to me!)} 21:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It will create a standardized, easy to read format that will still allow admins to comment on it, by using second level bullets, etc, and will also avoid the problem of the additional level 3 headings. The actual talk page will need examples of usage, but this should be trivial, as it can be based on the previously mentioned vandalism reporting page. I'd go ahead and start implementing this myself, but I'm not sure how appropriate that is on a page intended mainly for admin use. Rich_{(Talk to me!)} 21:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've created an example of what I mean at User:RoadieRich/whitelist request, and a testing page at User:RoadieRich/Test Whitelist. Other testers and comments are appreciated. Rich_{(Talk to me!)} 21:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Most of the requests we get on the whitelist are from newbies and spammers who quickly screw up the page due to lack of knowledge on wiki markup. I guess this is a good idea as it may reduce the amount of screwing up that occurs (and hopefully reduce the number of bad faith requests as it forces the spammers to come up with a reason why we need the link). MER-C 02:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, comments made on template talk page about formatting. DES 16:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Posted on the whitelist talk and WT:WPSPAM. MER-C 11:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I like this idea a lot. I often scan through the whitelist requests and it is often quite fiddly to see what the actual reason for whitelisting the page is. This uniform system would make it so much easier for the admins and for the people requesting. TomBeasley (talk) 12:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reached what I consider to be a final prototype of the template at User:RoadieRich/whitelist request. I'm not sure if the {{error}} is appropriate for the missing argument, and also, whether it should test the two arguments (page and reason) or just the reason argument (as it does at the moment), and it's considerably less than perfect, but I'm now opening it up to the floor for improvement. Should I just go ahead and move it to the template space? Rich/_{(Talk to me!)} 00:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• To be honest, I was looking at moving the whole thing out of MediaWiki talk namespace to Misplaced Pages:Blocked external links, but haven't had time to process it. Stifle (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Image Resize Bot

Hey Guys,

I wrote a bot to resize images in Category:Non-free Misplaced Pages file size reduction request. There has been some controversy on how the bot should opperate. Right now the bot works as such:

• If the image's longest side is greater then 400px and the aspect ratio is greater then 1/3:

• Resize image so that the longest side is 350px using the Mediawiki resize algorithm (I.E. ])

The bot is in trial, but I would like some more community consensus before I proceed. The discussion is at the bot's request for approval

Thanks, Tim1357 (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sitenotice for Britain Loves Misplaced Pages?

Hello. What would you think to having a site notice up for Britain Loves Misplaced Pages? Something like:

Britain Loves Misplaced Pages - a free photography competition - is running in 20 museums across the UK throughout February. Join in, take photos, win prizes!

One concern, I guess, would be that this would only directly apply to 10% of the people that see it - but that's a fairly large percentage. It would of course be nice if it could be geolocated so that only British users could see it, but that isn't currently possible. I know that Misplaced Pages:Geonotice exists, but that appeals to a different audience than this (regular users cf. occasional visitors), and this is an event that would appeal to both really.

I know that this is a bit unusual, but I figure it's worth discussing. Mike Peel (talk) 12:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I say go ahead and do it, with one caveat: I'd ensure that the message was geolocated, somehow. While it's interesting to me that the Brits are doing this, as you essentially pointed out yourself there's no easy way for those outside of Western Europe to actually participate. I thought you guys used some sort of geolocation targeting for the fundraiser?
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 14:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, someone at the launch event today was from the US. ;-)

The fundraiser was a bit different - it was displayed to everyone, and when you clicked on it it was geolocated to determine the next page that would be visited. To do geolocation here would mean doing it on every single pageload, which would probably take the site down unless the WMF put some money into preparing it. I have filed a bug report requesting this, though.

So, the question here is: can we run a UK-specific sitenotice with no geolocation? Mike Peel (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, if it's really impossible to geolocate site notices, then that's that... I still think that it should be run, as long as the notice doesn't last for more then, say, a couple of weeks. Also, be sure to use the same CSS Class as the fundraiser ads did so that those of us who have bothered to disable those with the gadget still receive that benefit.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 19:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll assume that no objections == consensus, and request this again later this evening... Mike Peel (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This ought be done through the WP:Geonotice. –xeno 20:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Geonotice is seen by a different group of people, though. It is only displayed on watchlists, which requires people to actually have a watchlist - hence long-term users. BLW is something that will be of interest to less-active users or passers-by. A geonotice is already running, but it would be much better to have it as a sitenotice. Mike Peel (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Dealing with Petitions

There's recently been an outburst (I'd say epidemic, but I'm trying to be neutral here) of "petitions" started in order to address a few controversial issues from one perspective or another. I think that we ought to... well, I don't want to say "outlaw" them, but I can't think of a better term. I imagine that if we could get some wide support for such a stance that we could develop a policy and then MFD the dozen or so existent petitions.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 14:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking along the same lines. I'm not a big fan of petitions (at least on Misplaced Pages). It doesn't seem constructive to me, to have a place where only support (or opposition) to a proposal can be stated. In fact it seems contrary to the general Misplaced Pages spirit. Proposals should be decided based on discussions where all sides can participate, rather than being open to influence by "political pressure", so to speak, of a bunch of one-sided petitions. Equazcion 15:20, 31 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages: Petition to Outlaw Petitions ? :) Tim1357 (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps all the "petitions" could be renamed "discussion" or "think tank" or similar, and a section for opposition added? Those who created the pages don't own them, and I agree with Equazcion that a list of only those supporting something is useful. ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 15:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is when a page is created that does not allow for opposing views then it ceases to seek consensus and instead become a campaign to one point of view. I say if you want to do a petition print it out and go stand on the corner, Misplaced Pages is run by consensus not popular opinion. Any admin worth their salt will give zero credibility to any process that ignores consensus, so these petitions have meaningless results. Chillum 15:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Most of the petitions that I've seen here recently were not trying to create a new policy or do anything that required a consensus, so getting a consensus on the page would be rather pointless. I don't see how a petition where opposers need to create their own page is significantly different from the standard RFC view/endorse model where opposers need to create their own view. Mr.Z-man 17:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well then at least people looking at one page can see all the views. With a one-sided petition, you just see one side of the argument and one list of supporters. This is quite foreign to the wiki way of seeking consensus based on all the relevant views and considerations.--Kotniski (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

So if a discussion isn't trying to get a consensus at all, should that discussion be banned as well for being confusing? A petition is not at all foreign to the wiki way of seeking consensus, because a petition is not seeking consensus. Mr.Z-man 17:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's basically the problem -- that a petition is not seeking consensus, yet it is an attempt at getting something to change anyway. Change happens through consensus, so if you try to do it another way, that's... bad? I think, anyway. Equazcion 18:03, 31 Jan 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the target of most petitions (so far) has been the WFM, so I guess that the first question is, "is it appropriate for us to be demanding things from the WMF?" I think that the answer there is "sometimes". So then, the follow up to that is "should those demands be made on a Misplaced Pages?", to which I would answer "No, their probably more appropriate at Meta, or completely off site". I've noticed at least one petition which is clearly targeted at fellow Misplaced Pages editors though, which is something that I've foreseen occurring for weeks, and is the main reason that I think allowing any of them to exist here on en.wikipedia ends up being inappropriate.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 19:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as requesting things from the WMF goes, the general rule of thumb is that global requests (something for all projects) go on meta and local requests (something for one site only) go on the site that's requesting it. Putting it on a 3rd-party site just seems odd. I don't see why it would be so much different if its more of a "demand" than a "request."

@Equazcion: "Official" changes, like changes to policies or articles happens through consensus, but that's not what these petitions (at least the ones that I've seen) are seeking. Misplaced Pages:Petition against IAR abuse is not asking for a physical change to policy, its making a statement. Putting that in the form of a threaded discussion would completely defeat the purpose. Misplaced Pages:Flagged revisions petition is not asking for a FR policy, we already have that, its asking the foundation to deliver on what they've already promised. Mr.Z-man 20:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree that those examples seem fine. Let's confine this proposal, then, to those petitions that are attempting to influence a "physical" change. What sparked this proposal, I think, was this: Misplaced Pages:BLP semiprotection petition. Can we agree that this is the inappropriate use of a petition? Equazcion 20:29, 31 Jan 2010 (UTC)

←I like the three petitions mentioned so far as examples. The way that I see it, Misplaced Pages:Flagged revisions petition is a request/demand directed to the WMF, and Misplaced Pages:Petition against IAR abuse as well as Misplaced Pages:BLP semiprotection petition are directed more at en.wikipedia itself (and it's good to mention both here I think, because they sort of take opposite "ideological" sides of the issues surrounding BLP). I'll readily admit that the FR petition is specifically targeted towards en.wikipedia, but it is directed at the WMF. I understand the point made that Meta is normally about WMF projects as a whole, but I think that it would make sense to take discussion/requests/demands which directly addresses, or (as in this case) are only actionable by, the WMF and push them towards Meta; even if a specific proposal/demand may be confined to a single project at the time it is created. Making statements or demands of the WMF should inherently bring an awareness that the WMF is larger then any single project after all, and advocates should try to be aware that their proposals may have impact beyond their normal view. One thing that has bothered me for a long time is that distinctions between (mostly the English) Misplaced Pages and the Foundation have been "fuzzy" since Misplaced Pages's inception, and this seems like an opportune issue to try and correct that.

Petitions such as Misplaced Pages:Petition against IAR abuse as well as Misplaced Pages:BLP semiprotection petition are what really bother me, for the most part. Their existence is what several of us were worried about when the FR petition cropped up, but I think that we were shouted down for ideological reasons. For petitions such as this, there does seem to be quite a bit of general support that they are unwanted, which Chillum talked about above. I can see the need to handle this in two different ways, depending on whom is being addressed, which is why I wanted to make a distinction in the first place and offer a proposal to move some to Meta. I may be missing some problem because I'm the one making the proposal here, but this approach seems logical and helpful to me.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 21:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• I just found this: Misplaced Pages:Petitions are harmful, which seems directly applicable here. I've added a link from the talk page there to this section, as well as adding a link from a few petition talk pages.
  — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 22:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If they're not asking for a specific action, then they're not petitions, by definition. We could Rename this type to "Open letter", perhaps? People often add signatures to "open letters", and don't usually include "opposition" sections. This would seem to work for the IAR "petition"/"open letter", at least. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how such distinctions matter that much. Classifying documents with essentially the same structure as either "Petitions" or "Open Letters" strikes me as being a bit pedantic in terms of this discussion (Incidentally, this is part of the reason why I avoided naming specific pages at first. I don't think we should allow ourselves to be bogged down in the issues around specific "petitions", here).
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 23:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

So check this out, look what I did on this petition: I added my OWN "oppose" section. This is a wiki, after all. . PeterbrownDancin (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've moved said section to the talk page; please see the resultant discussion here. --Ckatz_spy 06:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit, "Moving "Oppose" section to talk page; this is a petition, not a vote" Why wasn't a RFC opened about this yet? I am all for wp:equality myself. Everyone should have these support only petitions, (started by User:Scott MacDonald) or no one. Ikip 06:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

And, now, we have the perfect illustration of why this proposal needs to be discussed.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 11:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The nature of petitions in general, and the BLP problem in particular

When Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell together signed one of the first petitions (open letters) to the world calling for nuclear arms treaty talks (the Russell-Einstein Manifesto), they were doing it in full knowledge that they were trying to use their own reputations as thinkers (10 of 11 signatories were Nobel prize winners) to advance their opinions over what they would obtain if they merely went to the polls and voted along with millions of other people who knew less about the issues. That is the nature of petitions. They are NOT “mini-polls” where one side is left out. They carry more information than numbers—they carry the weight of the reputations and social status of the people who sign them.

The importance of such petitions was so evident to the founding fathers of the US, that they included in the first amendment the right of the people “to petition the Government for redress of grievances.” Why was this important? Why couldn’t “the people” just vote the government out of office, if they didn’t like the way they were doing the job? The founders knew that there were times when a government could be deadlocked, but continue to move if small committees could decide on ideas put before them by virtue of their being supported by well-known and well-respected members of the community. Such things are a type of impromptu lobbying, but done by thinkers, not money interests, and not simply by weight of numbers on a plebiscite/referendum.

As I have commented on the TALK page of the BLP sprotection petition, I think that the governance structure of Misplaced Pages has long been broken. This is not surprising, as it is built on a model of decision making (small-group “consensus”) which never scales well. And no, it doesn’t scale well on WP, either. If we define “consensus” as a supermajority of 70%, it can sometimes be garnered on questions that essentially have only binary answers (an RfA, for example, with carefully self-chosen voters) but they don’t work well for complex problems in which there are as many ideas as voters, and the entire community is invited to vote. This is why all democratic countries are republics, also called representative democracies. None work either by direct democracy, or else by what WP calls “consensus.” Nor does WP make important decisions by this method—rather it runs on a vote of the Board of Directors of WMF, which is a very small group. And one which does not vote uniformly, either.

The US does not elect its leaders by consensus or yes/no supermajority (although Cuba supposedly does—a fact I recommend to those who think Misplaced Pages has stumbled upon the next advance in political theory). Even the second term victories of presidents Nixon and Reagan (49 states to 1 in both cases) had less than 61% of the popular vote. On more complex issues, such as health care for the last 20 years in the US (to take an example), the system can be effectively paralyzed by the numbers of people with ideas for solutions, none of which can garner consensus or even a supermajority. Thus, even with broad agreement that something must be done about the problem, nothing has been done about the problem (which continues to grow).

If the US republic system can be nearly busted for complex problems, WP is even more busted. The present BLP fiasco, in which 175 new BLPs on mostly-unknown people are created each day with nobody to read them, is an example. The public knows this is a problem, but WP cannot even begin to agree about what to do about the problem. This proves that the system does not work, for BLP is a very serious moral and ethical problem—perhaps the most pressing that WP faces.

The present petition to semi-protect BLPs so that only name users (4 days, 10 edits) can change them, is very modest. And yet, it has not been able to be acted upon by the WP community. The present petition aims to use the reputations of its signers to get this problem before the WMF board, which is small enough that it may be able to reach some type of consensus to take at least this much action (I hope some kind of opt-out clause can also be eventually added). So far, the petition has been signed by a steward, a former arbitrator, and one member of the WMF board. I hope to gather more influential signatures.

Does this bypass the “community”? Who is the community? I believe where BLP is concerned, the stakeholders extend far beyond WP’s active editors, to the entire population of people who stand to find themselves one-day subjects (or victims) of BLPs.

These people are bypassed already. Nothing WP editors can do will change that. The WMF board, however, can change it. And should.SBHarris 08:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You're basically saying you don't believe in Misplaced Pages's longstanding rule that discussion and consensus are the sole route to making changes. Debates about the practicality of consensus aside, it's nevertheless how we do things here. I don't see why your having become disillusioned with it should mean you get to do things your own way now, and in project space no less. Equazcion 08:38, 1 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Speak for yourself, please. Unlike you (so it appears from the above) I never had any illusions that “the sole route” to WP making changes was “consensus,” so I’ve never had any chance to be “disillusioned.” I have been here long enough to see what happens when discussion gets embarassing, as for example in the great pedophile userbox wheelwar. That lasted 4 days before Jimbo summarily desysopped 5 admins and closed it all down, effectively making the policy. The arbcom ended up voting Jimbo unquestioned “ultimate authority” on doing things on WP. Do you really believe that Jimbo’s decisions, forced on others at the point of a block, represent “community consensus?” No, I’m not interested in pedophilia, I’m only interested in the example, which I was around to see (you weren’t, not having arrived yet). Please don’t tell me how “we do things here.”

I know very well how things are done. The actual process, whether you choose to acknowlege it or not, is rather like a rope tug-of-war game over a mud-pit. When groups are small, sometimes one whole side loses. With larger groups, or when the rope has many directions to pull, usually the game goes on interminably without anything getting done. Or else Jimbo and rest of the WMF board decide to act, and do so.

BLP, by the way, is another example. Things are not happening by “consensus.” On Jan 21, MZMcBride opened an RfC about BLPs. The RfC tag for that appeared on every WP editor’s userpage. Who decided to do that? Who has the power to do that and who did that? Where was the discussion/consensus (d/c) to do that, please? A week later, the RfC was shut down, and now some single “uninvolved administrator” is going to digest it. Where was d/c for that? Somebody’s going to talk for me? To who? Who is this “Task Force” and who are they making recommendations TO? Did I miss the d/c in setting that up? If there’s anything worse than “no consensus,” it’s fake consensus. At the end of this, somebody will act on BLP policy, but you can be sure they’ll consult the WMF board and Jimbo for approval, since anything else would get them desysopped as quickly as the case above. So why pretend? Simply petition them directly. SBHarris 09:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

So run the petition on their website (or in your userspace), and don't "pretend" that it represents the consensus of the English Misplaced Pages community (as a page in Project space should).--Kotniski (talk) 10:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• If you want to contend that the rest of us are only fooling ourselves, so be it. I'm not here to debate the effectiveness of discussion and consensus seeking on Misplaced Pages, or whether the effort is eventually thrown out in certain circumstances. To make an effort that doesn't even attempt discussion, just because you don't think it ever actually works, is not your prerogative here. If you want to start a discussion about how things work here and try to get Misplaced Pages to move away from the whole consensus "farce", as you seem to see it, you're welcome to try. You've already made the decision though, and have chosen to act on it. That can't be allowed. If users could simply act against any established practice they disagreed with, this place would work even worse than you claim it is now, I think. Equazcion 10:39, 1 Feb 2010 (UTC)

• The WMF has its own wiki site (as well as Meta, plus various special-purpose sites - I don't know why they like to spawn these things). It seems to me that any petitions addressed to the WMF board could be placed there, not here. If you want to do something here, then you play by our rules - namely that no-one owns a page (so it's not appropriate for a page to state only one side of an argument, unless the community has adopted that side of the argument through consensus), and we arrive at decisions through discussion (or at worst, polling between at least two options). --Kotniski (talk) 09:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

  I'm already on record at the petition page that opposers can voice their opposition on the main or talk page or anyplace they like, so long as it's orderly. Some moving of "opposes" to TALK was done there, but not by me, and nobody asked me. SBHarris 09:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: move petitions to user space

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

I propose that petitions (in view of their one-sided and un-wiki-like nature - see above discussions) not be allowed anywhere on Misplaced Pages except in user space. Any existing petitions to be moved to the user space of their originator. Please support/oppose/otherwise react.--Kotniski (talk) 09:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

support (move petitions to userspace)

oppose (move petitions to userspace)

1. OPPOSE. The purpose and function of petitions is given above and I'll not repeat it. Opposition on my own petition is allowed, so far as I'm concerned, and I've said that there on the TALK page. In that, it's little different from an RfC, while it's being constructed. At the point of delivery to WMF, the petition with supportive "signers" won't be in project space. A record of its supports and opposes will remain. Finally, petitions regarding en.wiki projects are appropriate to the en.wiki project space. The German Misplaced Pages, for example, long ago instituted flagged revisions for every article (including BLPs) which makes most of the discussion here pointless and irrelevant (and certainly make sprotection pointless). Why klutter up META with stuff that has no application to any non-English Misplaced Pages project? SBHarris 10:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

   Have you read the proposal? It says user space, not meta (though meta's another possibility). Since you refer to "my own" petition, doesn't that imply that it should be in your own space?--Kotniski (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

   No, it means only that I originally wrote it. If you mean to imply that I think I WP:OWN the thing by deciding unilaterally what goes on there and what doesn't, what remains and what doesn't, that's not the case (as you can see by the diffs). As I understand WP policy, I can't even do that for my own TALK pages or even sub/userpages. About the only thing we agree to give editors some degree of "control" over, is their own main userpage. Correct me if I'm wrong. . By the way, if you want to see any actual specimen of ownership of an article (although I cannot figure out by who) you should see the RfC page set up by the "Strategy Task Force" on BLPs. Apparently, the "Strategy Task Force" OWNs that entire discussion, and also how it's now to be digested and summarized for who-knows-who. Go figure. Perhaps that should be done in somebody's userspace also? SBHarris 10:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

2. Don't see the need. Deliberately misrepresenting or attempting to hide alternative points of view is already against policy. That applies to petitions, proposed policy, lists, the main page, The Moon etc. WFCforLife (talk) 10:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
3. Oppose Not only rule creep, it clearly fills no need at all. Collect (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
4. Oppose - Unnecessary new rules; I don't see a serious problem that needs solving here. I don't buy the argument they have got to stay out of the project space because they are one sided or don't revolve around the consensus model. Essays are also one sided and don't themselves either directly build a consensus and often don't reflect project wide consensus, but quite rightly many are in the project space. I also don't accept the rather simplistic argument that they are polls with the only option being support. Most of the time when editors object to an essay they simply write another with an alternative viewpoint, and that idea will likely be soon carried out with Misplaced Pages:Petitions considered harmful. Exactly the same process can occur in response to petitions. So at worse petitions are polls with the support and oppose sections on separate pages! As already pointed out however, many petitions are statements which aren't appropriate for a simple support/oppose polls. For example, with the anti-IAR abuse petition I doubt anyone is in favour of IAR abuse. A response petition could be something along the line of "Petition for liberal use of IAR to protect BLPs". Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
5. No real argument set forth for carrying out this proposal. What's the intention? Moving petitions to userspace won't make them go away. –Juliancolton |  22:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
6. Oppose Whose userspace would you be adding it to? A petition, by its very nature, is signed by many people. Before you say the nominator, what happens if you get a joint nomination by several editors? I don't think this has been thought through too carefully. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 02:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
7. Oppose Totally unnecessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
8. Oppose. What's the point? If you don't like petitions, why does it make any difference where they are kept? This seems pretty petty. Fences&Windows 12:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

neutral (move petitions to userspace)

1. I can't support moving all "petitions" to userspace, because of Z-Man's point further up. Some pages that only state one point of view are rather harmless, IMO, like a page of "Wikipedians devoted to being polite to one another" (such things exist but I'm too lazy to find an actual example right now). In my mind the only problematic petitions are the ones that seek to apply pressure in a contentious debate. I'd support a proposal like that. Equazcion 10:44, 1 Feb 2010 (UTC)
2. Agreed with Equazcion.
   — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 12:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

otherwise react (move petitions to userspace)

1. I wrote WP:Petitions considered harmful as a response to the recent spurt of petitions. In short, petitions (as they appear on WP) act like polls where you can only vote "yes". They are end up working against fundamental WP principles (WP:CONSENSUS, WP:DEMO, etc.). My proposed remedy is that petitions be discouraged, and any petition started be immediately converted into a poll or (preferably) discussion. Userification just moves the problem around; not helpful. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 15:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Scientific dependencies

I think it would be very useful if maths and science articles listed their dependencies. e.g. Understanding of multiplication depends on understanding of addition. And in turn multiplication is a dependency of understanding exponentials.

If this system was applied to maths and science, it could be an invaluable aid to self-learning, curriculum design, knowledge management and analysis.

For example, if someone wanted to teach themselves trigonometry, the list of dependencies would tell them where to start. And the list of topics that depend on trigonometry would tell them where to go next.

And I reckoned, what better place to do this than Misplaced Pages?! Not only is it publicly accessible, and probably the most-used reference work in existence, but it is also possible for a machine to read it, and this hierarchy of knowledge could be used by third-party applications as an analysis tool.

--Norman (talk) 10:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• WP:SOFIXIT. If it's worthwhile your edits will remain.
  — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 12:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

  I doubt that such a deviation from standard practice would remain even if it were worthwhile. I think this proposal could even be considered a disclaimer. It's best to discuss it here first, IMO. Equazcion 12:09, 1 Feb 2010 (UTC)

  humm... I guess you might be right, depending on how exactly it's implemented. When I read this this morning I imagined a series of links simply being added as either hatnotes and/or in the See also section. If the planned implementation deviates significantly from that then yea, we should probably discuss it.
  — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 23:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Misplaced Pages is not meant for "self-learning, curriculum design". That's why we have Wikibooks and Wikiversity. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree there -- wikipedia is "meant" for whatever you want to use it for, especially, I would say, self-learning. What's an encyclopedia for, if not learning things on your own? I'm still not sure about the proposal though, because we generally don't make self-references within articles. We just present the information, without any kind of notation about how to use it, which I still think could be considered a disclaimer. Equazcion 18:13, 2 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Misplaced Pages is "meant" for whatever you want to use it for, for sure. I've just re-read what Kaapstorm wrote above again though, and I'm just not seeing where the self-reference criticism is coming from. I mean, we do include internal wikilinks, hatnotes, and see also links to other articles, and from what you're saying those could easily be considered "self-referential"... I think. Unless I'm misunderstanding your point, which is totally a possibility!
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 20:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course, no one is prevented from using Misplaced Pages in any way. However, someone who wants to learn (to take the example provided by the author of this proposal) trigonometry and doesn't yet know anything about geometry (as opposed to someone who needs a short reminder about some theorem or someone who wants to learn the history of trigonometry) is going to need not just the articles of Misplaced Pages, but some exercises as well (and their solutions, the material given in some specific order etc.). In short, that "someone" is not unlikely to find a textbook (something from Wikibooks) more useful than encyclopedia. And it just so happens that Wikibooks includes a book b:Trigonometry and it includes a chapter b:Trigonometry/Prerequisites and Basics. Thus, the proposal has been implemented elsewhere already. That answers the original question (" what better place to do this than Misplaced Pages?!" - yes, I understand that it was meant to be rhetorical). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotection of BLP articles for Super Bowl players

Surfing Youtube, I noticed this video celebrating the "Nate Kaeding Misplaced Pages hack." Two weeks ago, on January 17, in the 2010 NFL playoffs game between Kaeding's San Diego Chargers and the New York Jets, Mr. Kaeding missed three field goal attempts, and his team lost by 3 points. (Each field goal is worth 3 points.) During the game, two anonymous editors routinely noted this fact at 00:31 UTC on January 18. . For the next 81 minutes and 200 edits, vandals raided this article with disgusting slurs and insults until NawlinWiki installed a 6-hour semiprotection and shortly afterward Zzyx11 " "Changed protection level of Nate Kaeding: Excessive vandalism: Increasing expiry time, since BLP vandalism due to fallout from an NFL playoff game has usually lasts longer than 6 hours" (emphasis added).

Probably thousands of readers visited the article during that hour and twenty minutes. They saw statements that make the Siegenthaler incident seem kind by comparison. For example (emphasis added):

• "like a fucking dumbass"
• "Good Job Loser!!!!"
• "ass faggot"
• "farts and entertainment"
• "Chokerville, Iowa native"
• "Nate Kaeding has been labled the biggest Pedophile, choke artist, catamite, penis licking pussy in the history of football."
• "Is a damn fool"
• "Nate Kaeding is a total fucking faggot bitch and I hope he dies in his sleep tonight."
• "Kaeding has also been known to wear womens lingerie before important games to help him focus on missing critical chip shots. Nate Kaeding is also Norv Turners lifemate."
• '"Big cock choking Nate" and "Mr. choke"' (was '"Big Game Nate" and "Mr. Automatic"')
• "ass raper"
• Samantha Keading filed for divorce on January 17, 2010 on grounds that he is a LOOOOOSER
• "He currently sucks penis in the back of the van."
• "He was consequently fired after the game in the post game conference." (Actually not true; he is still on the team.)
• "Battle against Shayne Graham" etc.
• "After seeing that their fathers life was crumbling like buildings in Haiti, they filed for emancipation."
• "He sucked off his first guy at Iowa. And subsiquently became the gigantic faggot he is today."
• "Currently Dog the Bounty Hunter and company have a bounty on his head by every Chargers fan in San Diego."
• Mr. Kaeding's sons Jack and Wyatt are renamed "Choke" and "Gag" , "Suck" and "Choke" , "Epic" and "Fail" , "Jackchoker" and "Wyattchoker"
• "In his free time he enjoys trying to have sex but missing his wife's vagina wide to the right and listening to gayass music like "Fireflies" by Owl City."
• "Nate and his wife are already on a plane to Haiti to try and see if he can find a job there, since he just got fired for sucking more than a hooker on sunset strip!"
• "He takes dildos up the ass"
• "HE ALSO RAPES BABIEZ AND EATS THUM"
• "After the Chargers' January 17th, 2010 postseason loss to the New York Jets, Kaeding attempted suicide in the locker room by hanging, but missed trying to kick the chair from under himself."

To summarize: Within one hour after the game, our editors broadcast to the world that Mr. Kaeding was fired from his job, attempted suicide, relocated to Haiti, was a "pedophile"; and his wife filed for divorce, and his children filed for emancipation—all false and defamatory statements.

This must not happen again. This will not happen again. We will not allow it to happen again.

I make no apology for copying foul language onto the administrators' noticeboard, which thousands of family-friendly Misplaced Pages users read. I need to shock you to get you all to understand that thousands of family-friendly readers discover such disgusting words on our high-traffic articles. If you are not shocked, you will not be motivated to prevent a recurrence.

What shall we do?

Super Bowl XLIV ends exactly one week from the moment I write these words. I reasonably predict that one player or coach will do something unfortunate in this game. More than 100 Biographies of Living Persons are in grave danger of a concerted, unrelenting vandalism attack during and immediately after the game. To prevent vandalism from unregistered users, I request that all biographies listed on Template:Indianapolis Colts roster and Template:New Orleans Saints roster shall be semiprotected immediately for the next two weeks, i.e. one week before and one week after the Super Bowl. Mass semiprotection requests are typically declined, but this is just for two weeks, and the articles are indisputably high-risk during this period. Any significant new information may be added by a registered editor, or may be added to the Super Bowl XLIV article.

Note: it took me an hour to put this request together. In that time I could have done many other things to help Misplaced Pages (or myself IRL). I believe that enforcing high BLP standards is more important than adding individual articles. I ask the community of administrators to support and act on this request. Don't wait until the vandals have already hacked an article for more than one hour before you take action. Chutznik (talk) 03:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: This discussion was originally at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Semiprotection_of_BLP_articles_for_Super_Bowl_players.  Skomorokh  12:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments on semiprotection proposal (support/oppose)

• Oppose overuse of large bold text. Prodego 03:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine, I'll tone it down. Chutznik (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

And I'm sure we can protect such pages if needed, how about we take a look at what is going on first though. Prodego 03:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we already know what is likely to happen, we just don't know which player will get attacked. Best to protect all of them preemptively. Chutznik (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support the gist of the proposal, to semiprotect the BLPs of these persons. Oh, and the overuse of bolding too. :) Note I was notified of this thread on my talk. Thanks C. ++Lar: t/c 03:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support this proposal in principle. I saw this mentioned on Lar's talk page too. JBsupreme (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support this idea, and believe we need to be prepared to do the same with other high profile athletes as we come up on the Winter Olympics. Our RC patrollers work hard, and edit filters are helpful, but articles that have both a high viewing rate and are at abnormally high risk for vandalism would benefit from situation-specific semi-protection. Risker (talk) 04:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The policy is explicit: "Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred." We can easily and quickly apply semi-protection should vandalism occur. --ElKevbo (talk) 04:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Ya, because that works so well, see the vandalisms listed above... how many nastyisms got through before semi-protection was "easily and quickly applied" in that player's case??? Do you plan to watch each and every player's articles on the roster, then? I plan to watch the game, not the articles. ++Lar: t/c 04:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• (ec) Commment: This should be discussed at Misplaced Pages talk:Protection policy at the very least and probably at the Village Pump as the policy reads "Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users." --NeilN 04:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • why is this venue not a good one? ++Lar: t/c 04:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Because it's not solely up to admins to decide changes in policy. Discussions like these need a wider audience. --NeilN 04:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
      • This isn't a policy change. ++Lar: t/c 04:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Oh yeah? You must have a novel interpretation of, ""Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred." --NeilN 04:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
          • This is a fairly straightforward request to protect pages that are being vandalized. The only question for me really is will it be needed for those full 2 weeks, perhaps just the last few days, or maybe just during the game... Prodego 04:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
            • They're being vandalized right now? --NeilN 04:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
          • NeilN: How much you want to bet I can't find at least one preexisting vandalism against each player on either roster? One prior vandalism is sufficient, under my interpretation of policy. Anyone willing to so certify (that vandalism was found by them for each player) at my talk, and I'll protect the whole lot. Also, as a note: ++Lar: t/c 04:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
            • User space is not the same as article space as you very well know. If you protect the whole lot then I believe you will be misusing your tools to push your viewpoint that all BLPs should be semi-protected. --NeilN 04:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
              • If someone makes a good faith request to me at my talk I'll take it under consideration and act as I see fit. That's not pushing any viewpoints, it's using my judgment. You might not want to toss around "misuing your tools" so easily, were I you. However I agree, userspace isn't like articlespace. Users presumably know what they are getting into and if they don't want to have their userspace vandalised they can stop participating here and have the lot of it deleted. Users here can call on friendly admins to get their pages protected as soon as they start taking a bit of heat. BLP victims may not even know that they're being slandered or worse until they try to get on a plane, or get a job, or wonder why their reputation is sullied. And it's so EASY for them to do something about it too... if they take the natural first step of going in and fixing it, they likely get reverted and then blocked. OTRS is so easy to use too. Yep, you're right, userspace is nothing like articlespace. Why shouldn't we get all the advantages? ++Lar: t/c 04:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
                • Are you saying that two instances of vandalism would be enough for you to protect 40+ articles or each article must have a case of vandalism? Also, there's no reason why an IP should be editing my user page; there's plenty of reasons why an IP could be editing a BLP article. --NeilN 05:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Created a list of players this would affect at User:NuclearWarfare/Superbowl XLIV. Using Twinkle, it is possible to batch-protect all of these at once. You can also use this to see a recent changes feed for these particular articles. NW (Talk) 04:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • So far, it doesn't look like we need protection yet. Prodego 04:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I would agree. However, the moment that vandalism starts picking up on any of those articles, it is probably prudent to semi-protect them all. NW (Talk) 04:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support I'm suprised anyone would favor Misplaced Pages policy over what will almost certainly be gross violations against living persons. RxS (talk) 04:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • So propose a change to the protection policy exempting high-profile BLPs - you'll get my support. --NeilN 04:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Like I said, I'm surprised anyone would value Misplaced Pages policy over easily foreseeable public slander. Why do we need to change policy before protecting a small group of BLP's that are at high risk? That is not a rhetorical question. RxS (talk) 04:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Policy at Misplaced Pages is descriptive, not prescriptive. If people consistently do the right thing, it becomes policy. Written policy often lags. If you think it's a good idea to do something, do it. If it sticks, it was. If it doesn't, don't do it again unless circumstances have changed significantly. ++Lar: t/c 05:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
      • First, because it's not easily foreseeable that that majority of articles will be vandalized - there's a reason why PP is not pre-emptive. Does anyone have any stats on what happened during last year's game? Second, there's talk about extending this to the Olympics and probably other high-profile events. --NeilN 05:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Doesn't need to be the majority. All it takes is one edit identifying someone as a pedofile and real world damage can be done. Worst case, a Google spider comes along at the wrong time and millions of people see it. There's no way that Misplaced Pages policy is more important than trying to prevent that. RxS (talk) 05:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support: Policy states that pre-emptive protection should not be used. At no point does it state that it must not be used. The proposed timescale is reasonable. Mjroots (talk) 05:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support, we have good evidence that there's likely to be plenty of vandalism. Whether or not this is a proper use of the policy, I don't know, but we can forget about the policy temporarily in the interests of preventing significant damage to the encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Anyways, I've posted a pointer to this discussion at the Village Pump which I should have probably done in the first place. For what it's worth, I support this proposal and think there should be an explicit exemption for high-profile BLPs in the protection policy. --NeilN 05:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: I made a slight change to the semi-protection policy to reflect some of this discussion. RxS (talk) 05:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse (disclosure: I was alerted of this conversation on my talk). –Juliancolton |  05:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support. 1) Good idea, though probably not necessary to semi-protect until game day. Should protect the whole lot since we can't know prior to the game which players will be the most likely targets; 2) Risker makes a good point about the Winter Olympics, and we should probably apply some form of liberal semi-protection for those articles as needed; 3) The fact that this is being posted here is good as more admins will be attentive to these (possible) problems; 4) Approve of the change by RxS to the policy page on protection. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support Great idea. As someone who watches a lot of sports bios, I know that the damage IPs do to them far outweighs the occasional good edits they make. We need to apply semi-protection more liberally to sports articles. It's not like the IPs are turning them into featured articles. When they're not vandalizing, they're fixating on things like scandals, embarrassing incidents, nicknames, relationship rumors, and video game ratings. Zagalejo^^^ 09:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • E - X - A - C - T - L - Y JBsupreme (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Sorry, this makes no sense whatsoever. We have thousands of underwatched BLPs which are not semi-protected and where sneaky and harmful libels can be inserted and no-one will notice. Those should be semi-protected in preference to these. The examples of vandalism cited are certainly embarrassing to wikipedia, but they are not libelous, as they are obviously abuse or lies and the reader will know that. That these articles will be highly-viewed during the competition is not an arguement to protect them, qhite the contrary - many views means that problematic material will be spotted and removed quickly. We urgently need to do something about low-notability and underwatched BLPs where bad stuff (believable falehoods) remains often for months. I'm in favour of wide semi-protection but these articles are not the place to start. Frankly, this just looks like the same "OMG they are American celebrities!" reaction which had us lock Sarah Palin and George Bush while Joe Soap was left open to all sorts. Semi-protect all BLPs, or start with the underwatched and vulnerable, don't start here.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• If you'll allow me to make a comparison with which I'm sure you'll disagree (and perhaps take umbrage), your argument here strikes me as somewhat akin to the argument in the current BLP RfC (and elsewhere) that unsourced BLPs are not the real problem and therefore we should not bother doing anything with them. I disagree with both arguments. I do agree with you that "low-notability and underwatched BLPs" are the most problematic biographies of living persons and have said so repeatedly. But there are other problems, including people who suddenly make the news and are the target of smears for whatever reason, a problem because it comes at precisely the time when their bios are being most heavily read. Some times we can predict that (major sporting events are a good example), and it might be useful to alter protection practices and policy slightly to allow us to preemptively semi-protect in certain situations. Doing that does not preclude (or even remotely impinge upon) other efforts to deal with less high profile BLPs. Finally I don't think this has anything to do with Americans or non-Americans, or people who like (American) football or think it is not "special" (as one hockey fan suggests below!). I would support a similar approach for Olympic athletes as Risker suggested, or for players in the final rounds of the World Cup, and I'm sure for other events as well. It need not only apply to athletes either, it just so happens that the upcoming Superbowl is what led to the creation of this thread. -Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• I agree that other bios need semi-protection. I bet a lot of people supporting this proposal do. But it should only take a couple of minutes to protect the Super Bowl articles. It's not going to cause a huge drain on our resources. Zagalejo^^^ 22:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Overbroad, and will cause collateral damage as new editors see these articles and want to add content of value. If a single player fails so miserably and obviously as to cost his team the game, semi-protect that one article, and, while we're at it, where are flagged revisions? Hipocrite (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

PS - not from Lar's talk, though I have it watchlisted. Hipocrite (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Support The example above clearly shows that the vandalistic edits far, far outweigh any good faith edits by IPs, and these very edits put Misplaced Pages, BLP subjects, and editors at risk. We cannot take that risk just because a policy states that we shouldn't protect preemptively. I would say that common sense, and the need to protect high-profile BLP's overrules that part of the protection policy. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 15:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

  WP:Petition against IAR abuse. Resolute 15:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

  I also must note, as Mjroots has, that the policy states that preemptive protection should not be used. It does not say that it must not be used. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 16:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose 1. We don't pre-emptively protect articles. 2. Articles that do receive vandalism can be protected as needed. 3. Pre-emptive locking like this discourages new editors from participating. 4. To be perfectly blunt, football players playing in the Superbowl simply aren't that special. The current procedures will work fine. Resolute 15:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Seems like a knee-jerk reaction to an unfortunate situation. It has been pointed out that pre-emptive protection is just not something we do. Shereth 15:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Reluctant support There's a whole load of vandalism that gets dumped on prominent sportspeople during and following big matches, predictably and reliably, of a level where if it had been going on beforehand we'd semiprotect, especially considering the increased visibility of the articles. An alternative would be to semiprotect reactively - to have an admin with the pages on watchlist who is prepared to keep an eye on them and take action rapidly if a wave of bad edits begins. Pseudomonas_(talk) 16:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Resolute. By the reasoning of this proposal we should also semi-protect all articels on major politicians during election season, and indeed on anyone currently involved in a high-profile event. IAR does not overrule policy. IAR simply stands for the proposition that consensus can overrule policy or can agree on exceptions. DES 16:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support result: "This must not happen again. This will not happen again. We will not allow it to happen again." - Well, actually, it will happen again, and it will be allowed. Maybe not with super bowl players, but somewhere. Its petty vandalism. But I don't have a big problem with limiting BLPs to registered user edits. This proposal is more limited.--Milowent (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support if generalized: This shouldn't be only about the big game. The proposal is a good idea, having a pre-emptive semi-protection guideline in general could be a good idea. In fact, let me start a little discussion on WT:PP (edit, oh wait, there already IS, nm that but still). ViperSnake151  Talk  20:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Narrow and Target The proposed timeframe seems overlong for all articles. I'm not sure we need to protect all articles for a full week before and after. Also it seems shortly after the game we could get a pretty good idea as to who would be prime vandal targets, both as "heroes" and "goats" and unprotect the rest. I think it's workable idea, but could use a little more scalpel as opposed to hatchet.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose one article was subjected to a spate of vandalism, which seems to have been reverted in minutes, and temporary semi-protection was applied not long after. This is not a sufficiently drastic state of affairs to overturn our long-standing prohibitions on pre-emptive protection, especially over such a large range of articles. As BLP issues go, "he is a loser" is actually very minor, because any reader can see that it's just childish vandalism. The real problems are articles which contain plausible-sounding negative statements about the subject. This is supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Hut 8.5 22:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Weak support - The majority of this type of vandalism is not the real BLP problem and suggesting it is distracts from the real problems. I highly doubt that anyone is going to take seriously a statement that someone is a "total fucking faggot bitch." However, if it took more than an hour to notice and react to this level of vandalism, something is seriously wrong somewhere, and preemptively protecting likely targets until we can improve our detection and response for such incidents doesn't seem unreasonable. Mr.Z-man 22:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose doing anything special. The system worked perfectly here, so I don't see what the issue is. There was vandalism, it was reverted, the vandalism continued and so the article was protected. Proplem resolved, there's nothing left to see he, move along now, move along...
  — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 23:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, we don't preemptively protect over 50 pages on the sole possibility that sometime, somebody will vandalize them. Change the protection policy first. Woogee (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• I've just created Misplaced Pages:Most vandalized pages/Super Bowl XLIV, which lists all articles and templates linked from Super Bowl XLIV, Indianapolis Colts, or New Orleans Saints. Either in concurrence with this proposal or not, linked recent changes will allow interested users to more easily monitor changes to those pages -- please note, this is over 1000 pages. I'm curious if this sort of list might be helpful for elections or other major but scheduled media events. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as overbroad, per Woogee, but certainly any pages actually affected by vandalism should be speedily semiprotected by admins through the normal channels.  Sandstein  10:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Vandalism that is reverted within minutes is not a problem. Semi protection can be used where it is necessary and supported by policy. Rettetast (talk) 11:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Notice: This change is actually "live" now. User:RxS added a sentence to Misplaced Pages:Protection policy#Semi-protection at 1 February 2010, 05:29 (UTC). I added a sentence to the end of that as a rider at 1 February 2010, 23:42 (UTC). There is some further discussion on this at Misplaced Pages talk:Protection policy#pre-emptive measures, but based on the response here (and at least one there), I'd say that it's probably time to revert the change.
  — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 13:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages proposals
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment