Talk:Nurse.Fighter.Boy

Reviews
Please note that Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia, not an advertising platform. We do not only cherrypick the positive reviews, while pretending that mixed or negative reviews did not exist — if the film's critical response was mixed, our article's job is to reflect that its critical response was mixed, and not to highlight only the glowing reviews.

Also, ten Genie nominations didn't even make it the most-nominated film in 2010, let alone setting any kind of all-time record as was claimed by the editor who tried to bury the less glowing reviews. Polytechnique was the top nomination-getter in 2010, and the all-time record is still held by Night Zoo. Bearcat (talk) 02:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The current full-protection clearly goes against PREFER. I'm saying this because this is not the first time I see you go from 0 to 60 in 1 second in pages you commonly edit and that are minor/non-controversial edits that would normally not require indefinite protections. © Tb hotch ™ (en-3). 20:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If the person whose edits are causing problems can already edit through the "autoconfirmed" level, then that level does absolutely nothing to control the problem at all — and "extended confirmed" is a level that can only be used as an absolute last resort if and when all other options to control the problem have failed, not as Step 2. And no, erasing real published reviews of a film from the article just because they aren't all unconditionally glowing is not "minor/non-controversial" — it represents a deliberate attempt to violate WP:NOTADVERT by turning the article into PR. So exactly what else is an administrator supposed to do, short of temporary full protection, in the face of unconditionally improper edits that can't be controlled with the lowest level of protection? Bearcat (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "Administrators who have made substantive content changes to an article are considered involved and must not use their advanced permissions to further their own positions". As I said, this is not the first time, and I know how the protection levels work—I am the one that constantly adds pps to pages—so, I've seen several times where protection is extreme, most of them are BLPs, so I can't complain. But non-BLPs are a different topic. The last time this happened was Talk:Kiki (2016 film), where you were having another edit-war with minor/non-controversial changes. But there's also Canada's Drag Race—where you even revdel alleged spoilers, which is not a valid reason to revdel. You ask me "So exactly what else is an administrator supposed to do", well, this talk page is red because there was no attempt to discuss the changes (is Sahil aware of this discussion?), you just assumed Sahil works for the production and went to fully-protect an article that has been edited by 14 people in 10 years. I'm only telling you this because at some point in the future someone will consider you are abusing the protection tools to win discussions rather than to avoid disruption, like in Gwen Benaway, which again, it wouldn't justify to indefinitely fully-protect a page solely because someone is removing some content. There are alternatives, use them before jumping to the admin action. © Tb hotch ™ (en-3). 22:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstly, if either what was happening at Kiki or what was happening at Gwen Benaway somehow fall under your definition of "non-controversial", then your definition is far outside the standard definition that most people are working with. Unsourced claims that a person is misrepresenting her identity are not "uncontroversial", and most certainly do count as extreme BLP violations, especially if they come back multiple times after being reverted; they are not just "an uncontroversial removal of content", but are entirely disruptive and inappropriate in the absence of proper reliable sources to support them (just as the other Canadian person, who I won't name here, who has also had to be pageprotected due to a persistent campaign of unsourced edits calling them a sexual abuser — that's also not just a legitimate content dispute, but disruptive editing that violates WP:BLP in the absence of any reliable sourcing to support it.) And loaded attempts to impose a tendentious political agenda overtop of properly sourced neutral content about a film are not "uncontroversial", especially if they come back multiple times after being reverted — and for added bonus, the problematic editor at Kiki wasn't even just altering content, but was actively breaking the article's formatting, and then intentionally rebreaking it again even after it was repaired. And posting four full weeks of completely unverifiable advance claims about future placements in a competition series whose first episode hasn't even premiered yet is not okay, either — especially in the context of a series whose articles have routinely been subject to extreme campaigns of editwarring by anonymous IPs to actively misrepresent even verifiable past rankings.
 * There is a difference between a "content dispute" and clearcut disruption — and literally all of the examples you've named fall very clearly on the disruption side of the dividing line. If they had been supported by sources, and I was disputing the addition for personal reasons outside of their verifiability, then it would fall under "simple content dispute" — but if they're not supported by sources, and instead people are trying to use Wikipedia as the originating publisher of unverified content, then they very clearly cross the line into disruption. Bearcat (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it is truly non-controvertial, it becomes controversial at the moment a dispute arises. That link was your preferred version, you, again, did not discuss the changes with the other user, and you went to indefinitely semi-protect a page solely because of 1 person. If I go to RPP and request any page with that context every single admin would decline it as unjustified. Kiki and Nurse are practically the same cases, you contesting removals and enforcing protection to prevent 1 person from returning their version with no parties attempting to resolve the dispute like non-sysops would have to do; merely leaving a message at the article's talk page after the protection was added is not a dispute resolution. A "persistent campaign of unsourced edits calling" a person a sexual abuser is justified for protecting a page; 1 user doing changes that you consider incorrect to an article is not. Back to Drag's Race, you went to revdel an IP name and their edit summary, and I'm quite sure the summary was just a section name and not a disruptive one. If the spoilers are right, well someone on the production breached their contract, but if they are wrong, deletion is unjustified. © Tb hotch ™ (en-3). 15:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I had, and still have, no "preferred version" of Kiki at all. If you peruse the article's edit history, you will notice that although I was the original creator of a very brief stub when it first won the Teddy Award that made it notable, I literally never even touched the article again after that until the dispute started — I was not the author of any of the content that was actually in the article by that point, and had no vested interest whatsoever in "defending" any particular version of it. The problem with the IP edits wasn't that I had any personal agenda — it was that the edits themselves did not conform to Wikipedia's rules around neutral point of view, and were highly tendentious in nature. The edits were clearly disruptive at best, and not simply a legitimate difference of opinion between two equally valid positions.
 * And again, what's happening here is not that I have any particular agenda about this film either. It's that because of WP:NPOV, it is not our job or our responsibility to quote only the positive reviews of a film while burying any reviews that were mixed or negative — but not only did the editor in question try to do exactly that, they also introduced the clear falsehood that the film had set an all-time record for Genie nominations. And then when I reverted their edits as unproductive, they came back and reimposed them again. Again, clearly disruptive, which is not the same thing as a content dispute around legitimate differences of opinion.
 * And by the same token, it's not our responsibility to wait four weeks before we can retroactively decide whether four weeks of advance placement claims count as a "spoiler" or not. Our job is to shut that kind of shit down immediately, not to let it stand for four weeks just because it might turn out to maybe have been fake T in the end.
 * Administrators do not lose the right to drop a hammer on disruptive vandalism just because they happened to be one of the reverters of it. There is a very clear difference between a content dispute in which two opposing parties may have legitimate points to consider and outright disruption — and I have very solid judgement of what falls on which side of the line, as witness the fact that I regularly approach WikiProject noticeboards and/or WP:ANI in cases that are less unequivocally disruptive. Bearcat (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know when you became an admin, but I think it was when indefinitely protecting pages to later unprotect them a few weeks later was like the norm (pre-2010 example). The problem is that, like Spin Me, there's no way to determine if disruption has ended. Thankfully now we have PC, so we don't need to have pages protected for 12 years. Like, I randomly picked a protected article (KHMP-LD), it was edited by solely one IP disruptor in 2011, and it has been protected since. A simple warning would have been better than having that article in the outdated condition it is now. But as you can see, that exemplifies that this is not a recent issue and what problems indefinite protections to non-popular pages create. The only difference is that, at that time, you were not involved in any way, but the indefinite protection still extreme.
 * I firmly oppose indefinite protections of any kind (excepting PC) to non-popular pages, especially as their very first protection. Semi-protecting this page (and I'm not endorsing it either) would have worked instead. Sahil is not an autoconfirmed account, and even if they were, extended-confirmed also works. You said that it should be reserved for extreme cases, but isn't an indefinite full-protection extreme as well, especially to prevent one single user removing some content. I find the nature of the removal quasi-irrelevant for this discussion because it is not the main topic here. Of course, it is bad to remove things solely because they say negative things, but it doesn't justify fully-protecting almost immediately, with no real evidence of future disruption, without discussions and without a proper dispute resolution.
 * And I said "If I go to RPP and request any page with that context every single admin would decline it as unjustified" for one reason: because I have had hundreds of requests rejected for more serious violations than a single user not adhering to NPOV twice. You can pick any declined request at Requests for page protection/Rolling archive and you will see more disruption than in Nurse. And I think this is the problem here and with the indefinitely protected non-BLP pages, you are too involved to see the whole picture. In the hypothetical case you were not an admin and had requested semi-protection at RPP, you would have received a nea or dr response. It would be better that you use PC first (when it is possible) and to set expires because there's no point in having articles protected for years for temporary situations. If things get worse, there will always be more users aware of those problems, and those users can request for help to non-involved parties. © Tb hotch ™ (en-3). 05:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Autoconfirmed status is automatically granted at just 10 edits. So if a registered user already has seven edits to more than just one page, and thus needs only three more edits to get past the autoconfirmed level of protection, then autoconfirmed is not a viable way to stop them. In reality, the autoconfirmed level of protection is only useful if the offending edits are coming from IPs, and is virtually useless when attempting to stop a registered username — it takes a registered username less than one minute to perform the number of edits needed to defeat autoconfirmed protection even if they're starting from zero, so autoconfirmed simply isn't effective in actual practice if you're actually dealing with a named account.
 * As for KHMP-LD, thanks for pointing that out. I've removed the protection already — but that's not a me problem, that's actually a "there's a flaw in the system" problem. Specifically, because the system does not have any very convenient or easy way for administrators to keep any special track of pages they've placed any level of protection on, pages can very easily slip through the cracks and get forgotten about. I don't have a responsibility to work my way through 15 years worth of protection logs to see whether every page I've ever protected is still in a state of protection or not — thank you for bringing it to my attention, but I didn't have any responsibility to even remember that the page even existed, let alone that I had ever page protected it, until somebody actively brought it up. That's why you see a lot of pages that have stayed in longer term states of protection than necessary, and not just pages that were protected by me — it's not that administrators are being negligent, it's that the Wikipedia system doesn't have a particularly effective way of notifying us that there's even an issue with such a long-forgotten page until somebody actively brings it up for discussion. You are correct that protection practices have changed a lot since 2011 — a lot of stuff happened back then that would be handled very differently now, it's true. Even Pending Changes was still only a beta-testing project at that point, and not yet a standard tool that administrators were allowed to actually use. Bearcat (talk) 06:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The standard, if it can be named like that, is to protect an article for 1 day -> 3 days -> 1 week -> 1 fortnight -> 1 month -> 3 months -> 6 months -> 1 year. Of course it is not a rule, sometimes some can be skipped if disruption has lasted for too long, and if disruption is persistent then indef is appropriate. I don't know how the protection menu works, but if you don't want to revisit protections, I would recommend you to simply put an arbitrarily mid-length expiry date. In my experience disruption occurs by a) multiple editors due to the topic is a hot one, or b) a sole editor is disrupting. The latter are infrequent but are easier to handle, and in both situations disruption will only last a few days or weeks—people get bored easily. For example I Love You in All the Languages in the World, Who Are You (The Who song), Coincidence counting (physics) and Human Garbage (among others) are unrelated, but it seems that tiktokers are exposing those pages. But I doubt that the disruption will last until, let's say, September. So it would be better to first protect the pages for short periods (weeks and months), later to protect them for longer ones (years), and only after that indef would be appropriate. © Tb hotch ™ (en-3). 16:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm rather concerned by this as well. I'm not disputing that the edits in question were problematic, but there was only a single problematic user, who could have been blocked rather than using protection. PC or SP would also have sufficed, certainly not needing Full Protect needed. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)