User:TreasuryTag/Fan-cr!p

"Fan-cr*p" on Doctor Who articles

After an episode of Britain’s greatest sci-fi show is broadcast, I rush to my laptop to email my friend about it, and then I typically spend 45-60 minutes "policing" the article.

Huge numbers of editors – mainly anons, but also a few accounts such as MrClaxson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Dwrules (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and occasionally Shokuwarrior (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), among others, post what I call fan-cr*p. This is badly-spelt, ungrammatical, unsourced, fancrufty material such as (I quote from here): The Professor (The Master) Takes the Doctor Tardis, The Professor is really... The Master! Dun dun duuuh! and this one speaks for itself. The talkpages are also inundated with unsigned general discussion; I pointed out WP:NOT and was rebuffed for, surprise, biting newbies.

There are some "unilateral" changes, such as changing the caption on the image to a quote from the episode (despite a decision being reached to have more "descriptive" captions). There is also a large volume of vandalism (eg. removing the synopsis or the article leader). My problem is how to address all of this without being hassled over the 3RR and not biting newbies. I tried inserting a polite header, which was unilaterally removed by Matthew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [1], so I have come here to make a list of suggestions (each bullet point is a different alternative).

• A new exception to the 3RR is created, enabling reversion of fan-cr*p (a definition would have to be invented, first). A new user-warning template should be created for this purpose (warning those who post fan-cr*p, that is). This may also require changes to WP:AGF, since user-script reverts will label some reverts as vandalism, even if this is not specifically the case.
• Articles are fully-protected between the start of the episode and fifteen minutes after the end, with a bright notice placed on them explaining the minimum verifiability, original research, spelling and grammar guidelines, and the 15-minute timelag will enable them to read it, and various members of the WikiProject to get ready to start reverting fan-cr*p on the episode page and related articles (for example, "Utopia" related to List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens, as do most episodes, and also the Master).
• The page is semi-protected for 15 hours after broadcasting ends, and unsigned/irrelevant talkpage comments are reverted on sight. Any fan-cr*p edits that get through the semi-protection to be reverted on sight as per above.

Also, those who often "police" Doctor Who articles need to come to an agreement to not edit-war with each other about the sorts of things that the anons will edit-war over, to present a united front against the tide of irrelevant prattle that beats against the pages of this encyclopedia.

Comments

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

First of all, I don't think it's necessary to "name names". Based on what I can see, these are younger editors eager to contribute to the encyclopedia, but perhaps unaware of the correct way to do so. In other words, these are the kinds of people that can often be coached into becoming great editors.

Secondly, I'm not a huge fan of preemptive protection. It should be a last resort in extreme situations, not the norm. By the time I ever read these articles (12-24 hours later), they typically in pretty good shape. Which indicates to me that the current system works. -- MisterHand 16:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, if you look at the edit-history of "Utopia" straight after broadcast, almost every edit is being reverted. I spend too much time with a poopa-scoop in my hand to make constructive edits. Twelve hours later is OK-ish, I agree, but it's a constant battle before then, and an un-necessary one.

As for naming names, they may not understand how to contribute, but they're all quite confrontational, seem to ignore warnings and messages, and persist despite being told that spelling and grammar matter - which they shouldn't need to be anyway. I don't see why they should have the right to waste people's time. I'm not a fan of pre-emptive protection either, but proposals one or two don't involve it (not for more than an hour).--Rambutan (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

And Doctor Who is the only offender of this? No. You're right, this is a problem, but my knowledge of the policy is that you'll just need to watch the page; protecting it isn't really an option. Also, Wikipedia is not censored. write it out as Fan-crap. Reywas92^{TalkReview me} 16:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you suggest I avoid 3RRing, then? That's the problem. If nobody objected to the removal of material clearly in violation of policy, then we'd be laughing.--Rambutan (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

All it requires is the cascading semi-protection of {{future television episode}}, and a change to WP:3RR excepting the removal of unsourced information (and other policy violations) as a violation. Other than that, we can only watch. Will ^(talk) 16:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't cascading semi-protection the opposite (any pages transcluded onto a cascading page will share the protection)? And, once the episode's broadcast, it won't be future any more. I'd be happy for a new template about "new" episode, though.--Rambutan (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be negative, but at first look, this appears overly ambitious, at least as far as trying to modify Wikipedia-wide policies specifically for these articles. Yes, we are vulnerable to difficulties caused by enthusiasts with little grasp of policies and guidelines (as are a number of other areas with a strong fan base), particularly around broadcast night; but as being watchful and requesting protection when necessary should (in theory) be sufficient, I have difficulty seeing this'll get very far.

If you do plan to take this further, then I will add that I agree the above comment about naming names -- bringing up specific page edits would be better. And the last paragraph looks as if we're discussing forming some kind of cooperative to "rule" the articles -- yes, it's good when regular editors can build consensus or discuss things properly, but people are inevitably going to have disagreements that don't just result in "we'll agree to differ". Mark H Wilkinson 17:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you just not police it? Let the article develop naturally, and, more importantly, save yourself the needless stress. The article is bound not to be a good finished article until at least a few weeks after each episode, trying to force it to be otherwise is like going against a strong ocean current, The Tribe of Gum 19:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why you addressed this comment to my response; my level of involvement in Wikipedia is relatively light, so stress doesn't really come into it. Mark H Wilkinson 19:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It's meant to be addressed to Rambutan, not to Mark. Apologies for the confusion, The Tribe of Gum 19:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Because it's highly read. Over 7,000 times in 48 hours, actually. We should aim for quality content. Will ^(talk) 20:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to Will's comment, it is precisely because it is so often read that there is no need for one individual to take it upon himself to police an article so closely. If he doesn't correct a grammatical error, or a spelling mistake, say, then there are plenty of others who will do it. And I'm sure the articles would benefit from having more people contribute to it if they knew their contributions wouldn't always be immediately deleted, The Tribe of Gum 20:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a problem that's existed on all sorts of pages right across Wikipedia, since its very inception, I would imagine. Believe it or not, Doctor Who likely isn't the clearest example of the problem. However, this being a Wiki, such problems have sorted themselves (or rather, have been sorted by helpful hands) before you, Rambutan, started patrolling them, and I'm sure would continue to do so should you disappear inexplicably. The problem, then, is more your self-appointed role as guardian than the Wiki itself. Certainly I can't see why this situation is dire enough to be changed; it's simply a fundamental example of how a Wiki works. May I suggest refraining from editing the next episode's article for, say, a day or so after it airs, just to give yourself a taste of this? You may be surprised how well it works without you. That's not to say, of course, that your efforts aren't welcome, but have some more faith in those ravenous anons, perhaps. --77.99.30.226 20:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Too much bad faith in this, plus the obvious fact that it would never be accepted under current policies. Deal with fan crap like you would any other addition: assess it on its merits then remove it if necessary. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about me: you're right, if I don't do anything then someone else will, but the time is still being spent on reverting drivel when it could be spent on improving articles.--Rambutan (talk) 07:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Time will always be spent on reverting drivel. It's a fact of Wikipedia. Short of blocking everyone on their first offense, you'll never beat it, and that particular option will never be available. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, what's wrong with the options I suggested, then? Also, is the notice reverted by Matthew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reasonable?--Rambutan (talk) 09:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I would have removed that notice myself if I'd seen it. It's overly confrontational and unfreindly to people with dyslexia, people for whom English is not a first language and a host of other people who might not be confident in their writing ability.

If the edits by these anons are really that bad and the article so important that enough people are watching it, then you personally should never need to go over 3RR to have to undo perceived damage to an article. I think the whole plan is flawed. GDallimore (Talk) 10:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If such articles are hit by undesirable edits, I suggest you request page protection. If users are repeatedly making undesirable edits, I suggest you tell them to stop. >Radiant< 10:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't at all helpful. It's an issue of time. If I am asking users (unnecessarily) not to post drivel on pages, then by definition I am not editing pages. Thus, it's a waste of my time. Please don't say, "Why don't you take a break", because even if it's not my time being wasted, it's someone else's, and why should the IPs be allowed and encouraged to waste people's time?

Also, I have requested protection on several occasions, and I've been told off for biting newbies, or trying to exclude people from disputes. Basically, this is yet another area in which Wikipedia policy sucks.--Rambutan (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're getting too invested in these pages, and bordering on violating WP:OWN. May I suggest that when "The Sound of Drums" airs, you e-mail your friend and then go do something else? I bet you'll find that many of the other editors of Wikipedia will be working hard to remove the same material you would be, and that the whole thing really isn't a big deal and isn't something you need to get worked up over. Phil Sandifer 13:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You've clearly not read the comments. My complaint is that if people contribute crap to articles, it must be reverted. Reverting takes time, whether it's mine or yours or someone else's. These IPs shouldn't be encouraged to waste people's time. If you think I'm bordering on WP:OWN, then I shall of course resign at your request, but it's not ownership of articles to remove text saying "The master takes the doctros Tardis and travells in it!!", in my personal opinion.--Rambutan (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's not. And it needs to be done. But it doesn't need to be done by you, and it's clearly stressing you out and making you a less charitable and less happy editor. To this end, don't do it. Seriously - the articles aren't going to turn into festering piles of crap if you walk away from them. I promise. Look, I'll even make a bet with you. You don't edit Sound of Drums until the Monday morning after it airs. Edit elsewhere, watch some DVDs, do whatever you want, but don't even look at the article until Monday. If the article has turned into a festering piece of crap in that time, I'll personally unblock you if you violate the 3RR fixing it. Phil Sandifer 17:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, you've spectacularly missed the point. The articles will turn into festering crap if they're not reverted by someone somewhere. If someone somewhere reverts them, that takes time. If someone somewhere is spending time reverting them, then someone somewhere is not spending that time editing the article constructively. So, they are wasting people's time. I honestly can't understand your problem with this logical concept.--Rambutan (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, they require time. Vandalism reversion has always required time, and articles that become heavy vandalism targets have always required more time. That's just the nature of the game. Thankfully, we've also generally had a good supply of people who don't get too worked up about it. Phil Sandifer 17:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I am missing Rambutan's point here. How many people refer to the article in the week after it is shown? (Other than the people who edit it?). I'd guess the answer is not many. On the other hand there are probably a fair few people who refer to it in the weeks / months / years that follow. So why not wait a week, let most of the edits you object to get posted - and then clean the article up when the fuss has died down and the fans that you object to have moved on to the next episode. Kelpin 17:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with the previous poster. Some of your edits have turned quite bad text into quite good text. However some of your edits are quite petty bordering on the obsessive. For example you changed http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utopia_%28Doctor_Who%29&oldid=138746000 to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utopia_%28Doctor_Who%29&oldid=138746176

In my view that achieved nothing - in fact the original text was more accurate! Kelpin 14:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Rambutan - obviously you do not want a serious debate on this issue or you would leave Claxson's comments on. This is a debate who are you to say what is relevant. Leave the comment on and let the wider readership decide if it is relevant or not. Kelpin 17:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Kelpin, MrClaxson's comment was not about this proposal. This section is for comments about the proposal, so if it wasn't about the proposal, then how can it possibly be relevant? Just because I remove irrelevant drivel doesn't mean I don't want a serious debate: I mean, why would I go to the trouble of writing the proposal and all these replies if I hoped everyone would ignore me? Do be sensible.--Rambutan (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It is relevant because the article by saying the drivel comes from MrClaxson. He on the other hand contends that you revert all his edits because you have a personal problem with him. You opened the stable door, the horse has bolted, its too late to close it now. Kelpin 18:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Try not wittering. It might persuade people to pay attention to you. If you want examples of his drivel, then you just have to ask.--Rambutan (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not the first person on this page to suggest you remove the names at the start and cite examples instead. You would do well to listen to some of them. Kelpin 18:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but I'm not going to. MrClaxson makes a lot of crap edits, and if you don't believe me then ask for evidence. If you do believe me then don't complain that I've pointed it out. And I assume from your lack of reply to the question of the relevance of his comment that you now consider it relevant.--Rambutan (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I asked for evidence in my previous post. If you don't want to give it that's fine. I've given you my opinions and you have belittled them with no reasoning whatsoever. This page is starting to strike me as a personal campaign against those listed. Chill out, ignore them and revert the episode guides a week after the episode airs. You'll enjoy life a lot more if you do.Kelpin 18:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

To quickly step in here, this is a userpage, and Rambutan is generally allowed a lot of leeway in what he leaves on his userpages.

On the other hand, policy discussion cannot be conducted in the way Rambutan is trying to conduct this one, and so if this is a serious attempt to change our policies on this matter, it should be moved elsewhere and not policed like this. Phil Sandifer 18:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

In all fairness, I've not policed this page at all, bar the removal of an irrelevant comment. But, as you say, it is my userspace.--Rambutan (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

To give you a bit of a reality check here, you won't accomplish anything with this page. You can't change policy in userspace, and all the comments are telling you that you couldn't change it even if you had conducted this officially. Removing comments isn't helping your case, either, and before you complain about it being irrelevant, it's not an irrelevant issue when other editors draw the same conclusion. As for the issue at hand, what every editor has told you I'll repeat: what you suggest will not somehow magically destroy every editor who you think is wasting your time. In the unlikely event your suggestion ever became policy, it would not make a difference, because the people adding the "fan crap", as you put it, likely aren't reading the rules in the first place. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I see the problem to an extent. I don't think there's any need for an exception to 3RR, though - is it substantially the same edit that is being made three times? And 3RR doesn't say you can't revert three times ever, it just means you should do something else for 24 hours - hard to do for some perfectionists, perhaps. And you can trust other editors to see most of the problems and also revert very soon if necessary. However, there is a case for proactive semi-protection if you know an admin prepared also to protect several related articles. I'd also suggest devising some kind of special template at the top of the page directed at both readers (this page is based on an evolving news story etc. - accuracy would be asking too much at this stage, like Template:Current) and at potential authors (hey, we are after accuracy mainly, not speed, here are the relevant policies, here's a model article, why not suggest some text on the talk page?) We should also assume good faith. --Cedders^tk 15:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC) OK, I seem to have described the {{fandom}} template well. Strongly support it being added where appropriate, and maybe including a category to make it easier to administer protection. Cedders^tk 19:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. 1) It is inappropriate to name names at the top. 2) You repeatedly accuse those who have taken the time to contribute here of not taking on board your points whilst utterly ignoring theirs. 3) Your comments here sound a lot like you are taking ownership over the Doctor Who pages. 4) Despite saying otherwise your tone and many of your comments are very condesending to other editors and there is the suggestion that no one else can do this but you (your repeated mention of the 3R rule is a case in point). Sorry to start so negatively but I felt that this had to be said. 3R is not an issue. As others have said if you don't do it then others will. It takes time to do, that is correct but it takes time to do any reverts. Do we need to protect every page on Wikipedia? I am a supporter of all edits being done by members and not IPs but I wouldn't start a campaign on it on the Doctor Who page I'd do it on a policy page. Crap edits happen. After an episode of Doctor Who people want to contribute. Some very inexperienced folks want to put some stuff on to prove they were right etc but what also happens is that a lot of good editors also come on too. There is absolutely no need for any changes unless we are talking about a complete policy change for the whole of Wikipedia and that will not be achieved here. As others have said perhaps you should take a wikibreak (at least from the Doctor Who episode pages) for a little while and see if there are any problems in your absence. If someone visits a Wikipage and it is blanked, crap or whatever it is not ideal but it is also not the end of the world and, to be blunt, it has nothing to do with you or your life; it is no reflection on you. We have the talk pages to POLITELY (although this doesn't always seem to be the case on Doctor Who pages) discuss changes. There is a surplus of folks who can and do edit and revert (I know that every attempt I've made to revert or edit things post episode recently has led to an edit conflict when others did it just before me). Sorry if I appear rude. It is not my intention I felt the need to speak plainly due to the replies you've given in the past. AlanD 21:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The natural evolution of the Doctor Who pages eventually sort themselves, it then becomes a matter of fixing vandal comtributions. I think the user who started the discussion has lost sight of what is classed as a vandal's contribution and what is a contribution that requires a clean up.
The User:Rambutan has also engaged in what appears to be a personal crusade against these contributors which is not the correct way to proceed with these fan cr!p contributions. (strange phrase, fan-cr!p I would of thought would be wild theorys and pointless ideas put forward, not edits that are just badly written)--Brinstar 11:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.