Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:58, 26 March 2015

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

This is not the page to report problems to administrators or request blocks.
	This page is for discussion of the Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy itself. Report incidents such as block evasion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Report violations of the three-revert rule at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Report active, persistent vandals at Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism.

See WP:PROPOSAL for Misplaced Pages's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Misplaced Pages guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages.

The contents of the Misplaced Pages:GlobalBlocking page were merged into Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy on October 18, 2012. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Minor clarifying changes

A recent edit () by @Bennylin: was just reverted by @Bbb23:, with the explanation too many changes/additions without first discussing them, at least initially on Talk page. Looking at the edit, it appears that there are (at most) four changes, all minor bordering on housekeeping, all constructive, and none making any substantive change to the policy.

1. The text describing the different flags/conditions (anon-only, block account creation, etc.) that can be applied to a block has been slightly expanded to include the actual text from the Special:Blockuser checkboxes.
2. The "Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address" check box - previously omitted - has been explicitly identified.
3. The semicolon-separated list of common types of IP blocks has been converted to a numbered list for clarity.
4. A template identifying the WP:HARDBLOCK shortcut was added.

I have therefore restored Bennylin's edits, since they seem helpful and don't break anything. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

No issue with the above changes but it reminded me of something related: Regarding the types of block (at WP:HARDBLOCK), I think it would be worth changing "the most common type" to anon only with account creation disabled. Having account creation enabled isn't used anywhere near as often. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with TenOfAllTrades in that the changes proposed were not in any way inconsistent with (or too different) to what was specifically desired in those sections by the community, that the changes were better than the original, and the changes should remain in place. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Support, as the changes add clarity IMO; also support Callanecc's desired change to reflect actual practice.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

RFC on appeals process for banned or long term-blocked users open

See Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Ban appeals reform 2015. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

CUBL section

Do I remember rightly that we have, or have had, checkusers who aren't admins? If so, the WP:CUBL section should be reworded. Right now, the third set of <ref></ref> tags says "Non-Checkusers should not review Checkuser blocks that require access to Checkuser data, e.g., when an editor is professing innocence or is questioning the validity of the technical findings in any way." Surely there's nothing wrong with an admin reviewing a checkuser block after consulting with, and following the relevant instructions of, a non-admin checkuser. Or to put it a different way, a non-admin checkuser should have the right to be heard when someone asks for a checkuser block review: the CU and admin tools are different, and we ought to listen to a checkuser's input regardless of whether that checkuser has admin right as well. Nyttend (talk) 03:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI: As per Special:ListUsers, there are not currently any non-admin checkusers. Samsara 13:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I did not make a spam edit. Can you please unblock me and specify what topic or page or link you are accusing me of . 2601:D:C080:8CC:A1AF:43BC:A5FB:F158 (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

This is not actually an edit request. (you are not proposing a change to Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy). Will reply on your talk page. --Jeremyb (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, your address does not appear to be currently blocked, although edits from your IP address has been identified as a spamming problem at WP:AIV and it may be blocked soon. Someone using your IP address has been repeatedly inserting what appears to be promotional links into various articles (seven of them, to be precise). If that was not you, it may be a good idea to register for an account so that you can distinguish your edits from those of the person who has been doing that. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Proxy editing

I'm opening this section for discussion of this edit by Samsara. I agree with Bbb23 that the wording could be improved, but I am opposed to obscuring the proxy editing aspect. - MrX 11:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

How is it being obscured? Samsara 12:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I must say that I personally prefer the original wording as it is unambiguously about proxy editing, which crops up more often than one might imagine.  Roger Davies 12:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I feel that Wikipedians are responsible for their contributions at all times. puts out a very clear message. Samsara 12:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that the previous wording is clearer. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

How so? Don't just make statements, give reasoning. Samsara 13:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Removing references to proxy editing obscures a very real concern. Many times have I seen blocked users try to circumvent their block by suggesting edits that other users could make on their behalf. Also "at all times" is redundant language.- MrX 13:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Please review the edits you revert more carefully in future. The phrase "proxy editing" was not removed. As for "at all times", this objection did not require a wholesale revert. Samsara 13:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Samsara's first change removed the phrase "proxy editing" and "proxying". After objections, Samsara restored the phrase "proxy editing". I don't feel as strongly opposed to the latest iteration as I did to Samsara's first, but I still think it deemphasizes the issue. On the plus side, Samsara wikilinked WP:V. They added WP:N (the concept wasn't there in the original version). Even assuming some of what has been changed is positive, overall the strength of the interrelationship between the blocked editor and the one doing the blocked editor's bidding has been lost. The opening phrase "Wikipedians are responsible for their contributions at all times" seems like a superficial-of-course kind of line that has almost no conviction. I am not reverting back to the original version because I don't want to continue the edit war, which is unseemly, but I recommend that Samsara revert back to the original until there is a clear consensus on how the language should read.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

You're making assertions that aren't true. Please review the page history again - the phrase "proxy editing" was never removed. Samsara 15:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

You're right about that. You put it at the end, and I failed to notice it when I wrote the above comments. Substantively, everything else I said is accurate, and I still object to your changes and the way you went about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Samsara, I fail to see what is so much better about your version. Furthermore, why are you WP:Edit warring on a policy page? The top of the page is clear: "This page documents an English Misplaced Pages policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus." Flyer22 (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This change deemphasises the rules against proxy editing which, if anything, should be placed at a higher priority. If I were going to change this policy at all, it would be to make it clear that examining a list of reversions that were made due to a block and restoring them is not an "independent reason" for making the edit. The changes being proposed here are useless at best.—Kww(talk) 00:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

examining a list of reversions and restoring them is not an "independent reason" for making the edit Is this irony now? The bottom line from my point of view is that the status quo wording unnecessarily makes this into a special case of a general principle. The principle is, you're responsible for the merit of your edits. We've never placed a moratorium on edits made by blocked users, and I don't see how such a rule could ever make sense. We do make mistakes, and we may sometimes even block users on erroneous grounds. We should allow someone else to take up the case of a meritorious edit, but they should understand clearly that this makes it their edit and they should expect to have to defend it. I don't see how Misplaced Pages can reasonably operate otherwise. It sounds to me like you are proposing that an edit, once it has been made by a blocked user, cannot be subsequently made by another user unless they can come up with a completely new reason justifying the edit, and failure to do so must result in reverts and further blocks. That sounds like a rather extreme right wing position to me as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned. Maybe I'm misunderstanding...? I have trouble imagining that everybody else is reading this policy completely differently from the way I read it. Samsara 00:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)