| Revision as of 22:51, 29 July 2023 editLambiam (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers63,479 edits →Why can't registered users edit using blocked IP addresses?: fundamental differenceTag: Reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:21, 9 September 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,502 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Village pump (policy)/Archive 2) (bot | ||
| (43 intermediate revisions by 25 users not shown) | |||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| }}__TOC__ | }}__TOC__ | ||
| == Page size == | |||
| == Threats to Independence of Misplaced Pages call for a fundraiser? == | |||
| Please see ]. ] (]) 16:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Who is it that has made, "threats," to the 💕's independence? Who or what might that threat be? Misplaced Pages has gone to an open, blind fundraiser to defend against threats mentioned, but no threat is known and no threat is named. As with political donations, readers should know all the facts which can be learned before offering donations blindly, is that not right? Knowledge is power, a wise man once said. This is a truth. Please make plain the threats so we might give, knowingly. Thank you in advance. ] (]) 05:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == Trying to figure out of this is the appropriate venue for a discussion == | |||
| :This should be in the WMF section, it is not an en.wp policy matter. ] (]) 08:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :We here at Misplaced Pages are unaware of any such threats. The fundraiser is for the ], not for Misplaced Pages. You'll have to ask them, not us. —] (]) 08:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
| : Some say the WMF is threatening Misplaced Pages's independence, but that's probably not what the banners (posted by the WMF) are referring to. ;) ]] 11:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
| So I'm here trying to figure out where to hold s discussion that spun off from an ] on how information about active tropical cyclones (Hurricanes, typhoons etc) should be handled per ] and ]. Between my own comments and those from others, there have been at least four different suggestions on where to hold the discussion, with the latest suggestion being this page. This page seems to be more about changes to policy but some discussions here do seem to be about application. Where ever it is held, this discussion would involve changes to long-standing practices within a WikiProject. ] (]) 02:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Timeline articles verb tense == | |||
| == Proposal to change the header == | |||
| Timeline articles (millennium, century, decade, year, and month) are written in different verb tenses. Most if not all millennium, century, decade and year articles are in the present tense, but some month articles are in the past tense. Please discuss at ], '''not here'''. —] (]) 09:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC) | |||
| The header for this Village pump begins with these words: | |||
| == Request for Assistance with Conflict of Interest and Reverted Edits on My Article == | |||
| {{xt|The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss already proposed policies and guidelines and to discuss changes to existing policies and guidelines.}} | |||
| Hello experienced editors, | |||
| A few editors seem to think that this means editors should not discuss changes to existing policies and guidelines on the talk pages of those same policies and guidelines (the talk pages that say, at their tops, things like "This is the ] for discussing improvements to the ] page"). | |||
| I am reaching out for your guidance and assistance regarding a situation I am facing while trying to update the article about myself, ]. I have disclosed my conflict of interest on the talk page and have been careful to only add well-sourced and accurate information to the article. | |||
| '''If you are interested in this, please see ]'''. ] (]) 00:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| However, a politically engaged editor, @], has been reverting all my edits, despite my efforts to follow Misplaced Pages guidelines and work collaboratively. I would greatly appreciate it if someone could review the situation and provide guidance on how to proceed or offer a neutral perspective on the edits I have made. | |||
| == Adding Official Sources as references == | |||
| Here is the link to the diff of the reverted changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Peter_Levashov&diff=prev&oldid=1151099906 | |||
| Please advise on why official sources such as Airlines and Airport websites cant be used when adding information to Misplaced Pages. | |||
| Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to receiving your valuable insights and advice. | |||
| Using Indepandant sources provides incorrect information. For example using a outdated article from clare fm saying Shannon- Paris is ending in October. Which is wrong because the official Airline and airport site state its NOT. | |||
| Best regards,] (]) 12:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Misplaced Pages is supposed to be reliable source providing old links like that is wrong and unrelibale. | |||
| :I see it has been proposed that the biography be deleted. The rationale for deletion seems valid, and I suspect this may be the best way to deal with the situation. If, however, we are going to keep the biography, there are clearly issues with it that need remedying, but I think it unlikely we are going to include links to your website or other material concerning your recent activities: we base articles content on what third parties have to say about a subject. ] (]) 15:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Please allow official sites be used ] (]) 09:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Hello ], | |||
| ::: Thank you for your guidance on the proper way to suggest changes to my Misplaced Pages article. I have followed your advice and submitted several edit requests in the "Talk" section of my page, ensuring that they are based on reliable, unconnected sources and maintain neutrality. | |||
| ::: I kindly ask you to review these suggestions and consider implementing them in the article. Your attention and assistance in maintaining the integrity of the content are greatly appreciated. | |||
| ::: Best regards, | |||
| ::: ] (]) 22:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :They can? An airport's website would be a ], which can be used for {{tq|straightforward, descriptive statements of facts}} like whether that airport has certain flights. – ] <small>(])</small> 10:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Clarification of Policy vs. Other == | |||
| ::Ok @] is convinced that only indepandant sources are allowed and not official sites. He is removing peoples updates that have been gotten from official sites and replacing them with old outdated links. ] (]) 10:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well if that is the case then he's incorrect. – ] <small>(])</small> 10:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| This close in AfD was interesting: ]. There are many, including myself, who quote WP's without knowing which are policy and which are guidelines (or essays etc.). Why not have a different naming system to differentiate between then, such as WPP: (for policy), WPG: (for guidance), and WPE (for essays)? ] (]) 09:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Are you a moderator on Misplaced Pages? You can confirm so we can use airport websites and airline websites as sources ] (]) 10:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :That would require creating new namespaces. In principle I'm not against it, but I don't think it will change anything; we'll just have a redirect from ] to ], and most would continue using ] because that is what they are used to. ] (]) 09:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :: |
:::::That's not how it works I'm afraid. We don't have moderators. If you have a disagreement with {{u|The Banner}} (courtesy ping) about a specific source, you should discuss it with him and other editors on the article's talk page and ] based on policies like ] and ]. – ] <small>(])</small> 10:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::Ok thanks for your clarifications anyway ] (]) 10:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm not sure anyone really knows the difference; the best we have is ]. The difference between the manual of style vs. guidelines is even worse defined. | |||
| ::::In fact, it was a case where an independent source was just removed. No replacement, just removal. And an unsubstantiated claim that the source used was incorrect. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 15:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::What do you mean by changing the color? ] (]) 14:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If a source is removed, usually the information the source supports should also be removed. The removal constitutes a challenge to the source and the information. If someone wants to restore it, the person adding it should include a different reliable source. Or, discuss on the talk page why the removed source is reliable after all. ] (]) 15:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Eh, the MoS {{em|is}} a guideline; it's why it has a guideline template at the top of it. :-) <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 08:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And I do think that knowing the difference is of value. By color, I mean that when some links to a policy (i.e. WP:V), that it would come up as say a green-link (instead of a blue link)? That might might be a quick improvement? ] (]) 16:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Changing the ] is probably a bad idea. Changing the colour of the box a the top of the page ({{tl|Policy}}, {{tl|MoS guideline}}) might be worth considering. ] (]) 00:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Agreed on the first part; various user scripts and user CSS already do all kinds of link-coloration jobs (redirects in green, links to disambiguation pages in orange, etc.), and people are doing this stuff on a very individual basis. The only thing they've ever had to work around is blue for a link to an article, purple for same but already visited, and red for link to missing page. Introducing more would break all the existing customization stuff. On the latter point, I'm skeptical this is a good idea, because various things that had a guideline tag slapped on them by a wikiproject probably should instead have {{tlx|WikiProject advice}} (a subclass of essay), because they only reflect a "local consensus" of a small number of editors; meanwhile, there are various essays that have the overwhelming support of the community (], ], etc.), but remains essays because they are not written as guidelines but in essay style. For a system like this proposal to work, pretty much every WP:-namespace page would have to be carefully evaluated for whether it is classified correctly, and some would need to be completely rewritten to change classification categories to reflect their actual level of community consensus buy-in. I think it's just going to remain a fact of wikilife that our documentation structure is complex and not perfectly consistent, and has a learning curve. PS: Another issue is ] and similar concerns: there are plenty of times when the literal word of a particular policy is moderated in some particular, narrow way by principles laid out in a guideline or even an essay, but people would ignore such subtleties and just retreat to "my position wins because I cited a policy and you cited only a guideline and an essay" counterproductive thinking (not to mention that one's interpretation of the policy might be completely wrong). We already have too much of a habit of just citing a shortcut as if that explains everything, and we would not want to reinforce that bad habit with a new layer of imprimatur. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 08:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Why can't registered users edit using blocked IP addresses? == | |||
| There are good reasons for disallowing anonymous users from editing through open proxies and web-hosted services, but blocking the IP addresses has the side effect of also locking out established logged-in users. This does not serve any purpose I can think of. Is it technically impossible to implement blocking IP addresses for anonymous editing while atill allowing editing by logged-in ]? --] 15:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Just log in from a different location. ] (]) 15:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Realistically, no one is going to travel to a different location to edit; they'll just donate their time to some other cause instead. Allowing registered users to edit from blocked IP addresses is technically possible and is already done for many addresses and many accounts; see ]. One problem with always doing it is that sneaky vandals can create new accounts. ] (]) 17:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Agree that {{tq|just log in from a different location}} is practically unrealistic for many users. Even I, a sort of nerd, cannot just simply log in from a different location when I'm mobile, and the methods that I could use without paying for a VPN are ] for various reasons. I once spent a week in a rural place where the one local ISP subnet was blocked and that was it for me; rather than deal with the process I just decided to not fix things that week. Yet {{u|Lambiam}}'s question specifically suggests granting automatic exceptions to extended confirmed users, which IMO does present a decent enough barrier for many bad actors. Yes, I'm aware that some LTVs jump this hurdle, but if we took all the ''what if some hardcore vandal does this'' arguments to heart, nobody would be able to edit at all. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span> (]) 21:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::True; allowing EC editors to be IP block exempt seems very useful and almost harmless. I'd be interested to hear from those more familiar with blocking why it's not done. ] (]) 22:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::This is a weird place to have this discussion. Why it's done is simply the reason you've identified above: sockpuppets and banned users evade IP blocks and/or conceal their 'real' identity, either by using proxy IPs or (with IPBE) by using their own blocked IPs. I want to add that changing a location is not always practical, I get that, but sometimes just not using a proxy is a reasonable compromise, like if you're sat in your own home. At other times, IPBE might be appropriate. Other times the block may need re-visiting. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 22:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::While all of that is true, it still doesn't address why extended confirmed users can't be automatically exempted. If we trust EC users enough to edit through EC protection, then why not through certain IP ranges? (And where would be a more appropriate place to discuss this? The implementation would be technical but it's still a policy issue IMO.) <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span> (]) 22:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::This is the ''talk'' page of the VPP project page. Like most talk pages, this type of talk page is more for talking about the page rather than talking about other things. You're welcome to move this discussion or start a new one on the policy page, as far as I'm concerned (you could even continue here and it won't bother me). To answer the question, we don't trust automatically trust every EC user with many things. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 23:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Ah, whoopsie regarding the talk page vs. the project page. Pinging {{u|Lambiam}} in case they want to move it there for wider visibility. At least for me, "we don't trust X with many things" feels like a policy version of ], but I've given my thoughts on this issue and won't push any more. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span> (]) 23:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::If an EC user makes abusive edits, whether through an open proxy or from a regular address, they can be blocked without blocking the IP address. This is a fundamental difference with anonymous users, who can only be block by blocking the IP addresses they are known to use. --] 22:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{tq|why extended confirmed users can't be automatically exempted}} We already have LTAs who game extended confirmed for the sole purpose of disrupting bluelocked articles. Making IPBE something that's granted automatically to EC editors would have ] as zzuuzz has implied. | |||
| :::::::That said, not all IP blocks are the same. For disruptive IPs we already distinguish between ]. As the blocking policy states, the most common type of IP block is a softblock, that prevents only anonymous editing while still allowing already created accounts to edit. Hardblocking, which prevents all edits except for IPBE editors and admins, are typically used for proxies, and colocation and webhosts, due to the higher risk of disruptive editing those services come with. ] (]) 23:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Can't creating new accounts be blocked while still allowing extended confirmed users to edit? --] 22:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:21, 9 September 2024
| Policy | Technical | Proposals | Idea lab | WMF | Miscellaneous |
 Archives (index) |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Page size
Please see Misplaced Pages talk:Village pump (proposals)#Looking for some unofficial clerks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Trying to figure out of this is the appropriate venue for a discussion
So I'm here trying to figure out where to hold s discussion that spun off from an ANI thread on how information about active tropical cyclones (Hurricanes, typhoons etc) should be handled per WP:NOTNEWS and MOS:CURRENT. Between my own comments and those from others, there have been at least four different suggestions on where to hold the discussion, with the latest suggestion being this page. This page seems to be more about changes to policy but some discussions here do seem to be about application. Where ever it is held, this discussion would involve changes to long-standing practices within a WikiProject. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Proposal to change the header
The header for this Village pump begins with these words:
The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss already proposed policies and guidelines and to discuss changes to existing policies and guidelines.
A few editors seem to think that this means editors should not discuss changes to existing policies and guidelines on the talk pages of those same policies and guidelines (the talk pages that say, at their tops, things like "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the What Misplaced Pages is not page").
If you are interested in this, please see Misplaced Pages talk:Policies and guidelines#Venue. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Adding Official Sources as references
Please advise on why official sources such as Airlines and Airport websites cant be used when adding information to Misplaced Pages.
Using Indepandant sources provides incorrect information. For example using a outdated article from clare fm saying Shannon- Paris is ending in October. Which is wrong because the official Airline and airport site state its NOT.
Misplaced Pages is supposed to be reliable source providing old links like that is wrong and unrelibale. Please allow official sites be used AVGEEK7813 (talk) 09:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- They can? An airport's website would be a primary source, which can be used for
straightforward, descriptive statements of facts
like whether that airport has certain flights. – Joe (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)- Ok @TheBanner is convinced that only indepandant sources are allowed and not official sites. He is removing peoples updates that have been gotten from official sites and replacing them with old outdated links. AVGEEK7813 (talk) 10:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well if that is the case then he's incorrect. – Joe (talk) 10:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Are you a moderator on Misplaced Pages? You can confirm so we can use airport websites and airline websites as sources AVGEEK7813 (talk) 10:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's not how it works I'm afraid. We don't have moderators. If you have a disagreement with The Banner (courtesy ping) about a specific source, you should discuss it with him and other editors on the article's talk page and seek a consensus based on policies like WP:V and WP:PSTS. – Joe (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ok thanks for your clarifications anyway AVGEEK7813 (talk) 10:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's not how it works I'm afraid. We don't have moderators. If you have a disagreement with The Banner (courtesy ping) about a specific source, you should discuss it with him and other editors on the article's talk page and seek a consensus based on policies like WP:V and WP:PSTS. – Joe (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- In fact, it was a case where an independent source was just removed. No replacement, just removal. And an unsubstantiated claim that the source used was incorrect. The Banner talk 15:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- If a source is removed, usually the information the source supports should also be removed. The removal constitutes a challenge to the source and the information. If someone wants to restore it, the person adding it should include a different reliable source. Or, discuss on the talk page why the removed source is reliable after all. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Are you a moderator on Misplaced Pages? You can confirm so we can use airport websites and airline websites as sources AVGEEK7813 (talk) 10:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well if that is the case then he's incorrect. – Joe (talk) 10:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ok @TheBanner is convinced that only indepandant sources are allowed and not official sites. He is removing peoples updates that have been gotten from official sites and replacing them with old outdated links. AVGEEK7813 (talk) 10:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)