Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:08, 11 June 2013

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Template:Active editnotice

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Misplaced Pages discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old
• Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion
• Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers/Log
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive367#Close challenge for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus

(Initiated 12 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

Wikipedia_talk:Find_your_source#RfC:_Bypass_Paywalls_Clean

(Initiated 100 days ago on 17 September 2024) everybody has forgotten about that discussion, but it needs closure. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 79 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Request_for_comment:_Do_the_guidelines_in_WP:TPO_also_apply_to_archived_talk_pages?

(Initiated 70 days ago on 16 October 2024) Discussion seems to have petered out a month ago. Consensus seems unclear. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Needs admin closure imho, due to its importance (guideline page), length (101kb), and questions about neutrality of the Rfc question and what it meant. Mathglot (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

And in true Streisand effect fashion, this discussion, quiescent for six weeks, has some more responses again. Mathglot (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

{{doing}} voorts (talk/contributions) 23:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Oops; I put this in the wrong section. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 459#RFC_Jerusalem_Post

(Initiated 59 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Grey_Literature

(Initiated 46 days ago on 10 November 2024) Discussion is slowing significantly. Likely no consensus, personally. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 was very clearly rejected. The closer should try to see what specific principles people in the discussion agreed upon if going with a no consensus close, because there should be a follow-up RfC after some of the details are hammered out. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... —Compassionate727  13:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: Still working on this? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Ugh… in practice, no. I'm still willing to do it, but it's in hiatus because of the three(!) pending challenges of my closures at AN, while I evaluate to what extent I need to change how I approach closures. If somebody else wants to take over this, they should feel free. —Compassionate727  22:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Taking a pause is fair. Just wanted to double check. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

asking for an update if possible. I think this RFC and previous RFCBEFORE convos were several TOMATS long at this point, so I get that this might take time. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#RFC_on_signing_RFCs

(Initiated 42 days ago on 13 November 2024) - probably gonna stay status quo, but would like a closure to point to Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• Done Soni (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Check Your Fact

(Initiated 42 days ago on 13 November 2024) RfC has elapsed, and uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 15:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#RfC: Should a bot be created to handle AfC submissions that haven't changed since the last time they were submitted?

(Initiated 40 days ago on 15 November 2024) This RfC expired five days ago, has an unclear consensus, I am involved, and discussion has died down. JJP_Master (she/they) 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#RfC Indian numbering conventions

(Initiated 39 days ago on 16 November 2024) Very wide impact, not much heat. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• Consensus seems clear, I don't think my Indian-ness poses a WP;COI here, closed. Soni (talk) 22:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of fictional countries set on Earth#RfC on threshold for inclusion

(Initiated 35 days ago on 20 November 2024) TompaDompa (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 33 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (music)#RfC about the naming conventions for boy bands

(Initiated 17 days ago on 8 December 2024) No further participation in the last 7 days. Consensus is clear but I am the opener of the RfC and am not comfortable closing something I am so closely involved in, so would like somebody uninvolved to close it if they believe it to be appropriate.RachelTensions (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable closing a discussion on a guideline change this early. In any case, if the discussion continues as it has been, a formal closure won't be necessary. —Compassionate727  13:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Deletion discussions

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 92 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal: Age and health concerns regarding Trump

(Initiated 71 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Tesla Cybercab#Proposed merge of Tesla Network into Tesla Cybercab

(Initiated 69 days ago on 18 October 2024) This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. N2e (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be better to leave that discussion be. There is no consensus one way or the other. I could close it as "no consensus," but I think it would be better to just leave it so that if there's ever anyone else who has a thought on the matter, they can comment in that discussion instead of needing to open a new one. —Compassionate727  14:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 58 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Stadion Miejski (Białystok)#Requested move 5 November 2024

(Initiated 50 days ago on 5 November 2024) RM that has been open for over a month. Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

(Initiated 29 days ago on 27 November 2024) Discussion seems to have stopped. As the proposal is not uncontroversial, and I, as the initiator, am involved, I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Williamsburg Bray School#Splitting proposal

(Initiated 28 days ago on 27 November 2024) Only two editors—the nominator and myself—have participated. That was two weeks ago. Just needs an uninvolved third party for closure. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... BusterD (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

Using Help me, blocked users and proxy editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A keen editor is blocked for a month. They make unblock requests, rejected twice. They also continue to use their talk (about 40 edits in two weeks) to solicit other editors to make edits at their suggestion. These edits are numerous and wide-ranging, it's not just "tidying up an old issue", "avoiding going rudely silent in mid discussion" or somesuch. They have now taken to using the {{help me}} template to actively solicit other editors to do their bidding.

Is this reasonable behaviour for an editor sitting out a month's block?

No names (I'll post that tonight) as the editor concerned is well-known and their name itself could polarise opinions. An objective comment on this behaviour would be useful first. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

As I suggested to someone else recently, this kind of discussion should be held to relate to the talkpage and blocking policies (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Is this no names thing because you can't be bothered to notify them? Lazy bugger.
Anyway, I do seem to remember when I was up to those sorts of antics I got about as far as the fourth template if I was lucky before the talk page was salted. I recommend blocking their talk page access immediately.--Launchballer 10:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I am also unsettled by the use of talk page stalkers (and others via use of a template once stalkers dry up) to de facto circumvent a block. It's time for this to stop, enforcement by removal of talk page access if necessary. Blocked means blocked. Basalisk ⁄_berate 10:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I've not notified them because I don't want overspill from there arriving here to bias comment on this general principle. Also I "haven't mentioned them at WP:AN" yet. I haven't commented on their talk: (their last comment there was a doozy of self-deluding cluelessness), so that it's not obvious from my own history to whom I refer. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Can someone explain how requesting productive edits is bad for the encyclopedia? Last time I checked, you're trying to put in place a rule that's designed to prevent us from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages; such a rule has always been against policy. Of course, if the edits they're requesting are not productive, that's a completely different situation, but your description makes it sound as if you wouldn't object to the editor making these changes before the time when the block was imposed. Nyttend (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I would note that we are incredibly uneven in enforcing the limitation on proxy editing. I'm happy to enforce whatever the community thinks is proper in regards to proxy editing, but policy seems vague and each case seems to be handled ad hoc. This is less than fair and less than optimal. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 13:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

If they're a "productive editor", then why did they get blocked in the first place? We also have a policy against sockpuppeting, I wouldn't like to see that suspended because "it was only being used for productive edits" either. Editors with 1 month blocks are a mixed lot: not 24 hrs, nor indef as incorrigible. Clearly a 1 month means that they have some positive contribution, yet also some serious incompatibility with activity here. I've made proxy edits for other editors myself - even long-banned sockers, where I've (per policy) seen this as an objectively good edit I'm happy to put my own name to. Yet this situation is instead turning into far too much of a route for continuing to edit in new areas, even during a block. As already noted, it's the person that's blocked, not the account. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• I know who you are referring too and I'm also not entirely happy with this. Blocked should mean blocked, not blocked from doing your own edits but you can ask someone else to do them. That said, at least this arrangement avoids the problems that led to the block in the first place. Spartaz 13:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

  The logic of that approach completely escapes me, assuming of course that our purpose here is to create an encyclopedia. Eric Corbett 13:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

  Our purpose isn't though to create an encyclopedia single-handed. We also have to co-exist with other editors. Some editors are incapable of this and their own contributions become dwarfed by the disruption they cause to other, equally productive and equally valued, editors – hence the block. Production should be respected (I don't believe it is adequately), but it shouldn't become a get-out-of-jail-free card. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

  Forcing a problematic editor to make a request for every edit is not a get-out-of-jail-free card; it's quite the hassle for the editor involved. Just remember that people get blocked for reasons unrelated to their content changes; they can be productive content editors and yet cause interpersonal problems bad enough to be blocked. This is a good way of ensuring that all edits are productive, because edits that aren't helpful are a good reason to shut down talk page access immediately. If we start following Spartaz' ideas, we're putting bureaucracy ahead of creating an encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

  What idea is that? I thought my comment indicated a certain lack of clarity around my thinking. I have taken no steps to prevent Apteva from posting their edit requests. Andy asked for thoughts about whether this is legit. I think I'm allowed to express a qualified opinion without becoming the focus of today's 2 minute hate. Clearly nuance is dead. Spartaz 19:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

  Responding to "Blocked should mean blocked, not blocked from doing your own edits but you can ask someone else to do them." Nyttend (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Apteva (talk · contribs), notified. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• It's proxying, plain and simple. Remove Apteva's talk page access, and warn any editor that proxied for him that they will be blocked if they proxy again.—Kww(talk) 19:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

What part of WP:Block#Edits by and on behalf of blocked editors " unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. " will they be blocked under?

If this was such a clear-cut issue, it wouldn't have been raised at WP:AN, but at WP:ANI requesting immediate withdrawal of talk page access. This is a grey area – there is no policy against GF editors following such a request (see my last comment there!), but is the requester abusing their leeway? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• "and they have independent reasons for making such edits" is the relevant clause. Would any of the editors responding have edited the article without the prompting from the blocked user?—Kww(talk) 19:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Prompting and reason are not the same thing. If an editor is made aware of a useful potential edit at a blocked user's deliberate prompting, then they may then have reason to wish to make just that edit – even though they would never have had such reason without the blocked editor's prompt. This can be an entirely GF action and there is no reason to avoid them acting upon it, certainly not to block them, or even to threaten to block them, for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

A distinction without a difference. Under your interpretation, the "independendent reason" clause would have no impact at all.—Kww(talk) 20:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You are anyway far too ready to threaten blocking of other editors. I recall you threatening to block me for adding sources to a contested article, because you claimed that a contested statement now had to meet your personal OR definition, and that you would block editors who added anything that didn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Asking for a source that supports the characterization of the content as "unusual" for a list with the word "unusual" in the title is not the result of any idiosyncratic definition of WP:OR.—Kww(talk) 20:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You might like to consider the concept of synonyms, rather than demanding a text string match. Even Google is smarter than that. We work by consensus, if a source is raised it's entirely reasonable to debate it on the article talk and either accept or reject it, with discussion, with understanding. Instead you prefer admins as omnipotent arbiters, with the power of blocks to back up questions of content. That is not how we work here.

In today's case, you're re-writing a policy that states quite specifically that editors can make proxy edits (in some reasonable circumstances), and you're threatening to block them on sight. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You might like to read what I actually said, Andy. Notice that I didn't use a synonym of synonym, I actually said "synonym".—Kww(talk) 22:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Whoosh. That one went clear over your head. 8-( Why do you think I not only quoted synonym, I even linked it? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

"You are anyway far too ready to threaten blocking of other editors." He is indeed. Eric Corbett 21:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Apteva's response

There is likely nothing that I could add that any other intelligent editor could not add. Blocks are never punitive, and solely preventative. My block is inappropriate because it is solely punitive and is not one iota preventative. Contributions are welcome from everyone, regardless of their status, and however they are received. This includes from a sockmaster that has been blocked a thousand times as well as from someone who never registers an account. We learn about some edits that need to be made from reading about them in the Daily Post, and some from someone making the edit. All that matters is that this is a world class encyclopedia, and we accomplish that through the five pillars, which is why the welcome notice with a link to them is displayed always on my talk page. There is much that I would be able to contribute but that I can not both because of being blocked but also because of being under silly sanctions which will be appealed soon. Apteva (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

A couple things:

• If you believe your block is entirely inappropriate and punitive then you should post an unblock request or email WP:BASC.
• You are flat out wrong about edits from sockmasters being welcome. Some people are not in fact welcome to edit here at all, even by proxy.
• You may think the sanctions you are subject to are silly, but the community imposed them on you, as I recall, after becoming completely exasperated by your behavior. If you expect an appeal to be successful you might want to try owning your own mistakes instead of blaming others.

Good luck with all that. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

(posted before the comment above)

Remind me to notify Arb that some of our admins are unaware of our purpose here. What "and they have independent reasons for making such edits" means, plain and simple, is if a blocked editor sees that Misplaced Pages misspells the word "book" somewhere, say, as "bork", a quick consultation of a dictionary reveals that the word is misspelled. That is what independent reason means, not that you have to independently ''discover'' the error. No further action is needed, and the thread can be closed. Apteva (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Geez, can we cut off the source of all the damn drama, take away Apteva's talk page access, which he has been blatantly abusing, close this discussion, and forget about this guy for a while? If he wants to be unblocked, he can take it to BASC, but there's no reason we have to keep putting up with his disruptiveness. He's managed to be tendentious even while blocked!! Someone shut the freaking door, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Amen to that. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog