Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mudwater (talk | contribs) at 09:36, 19 December 2013 (→VR.5 -- "new editor getting started": Thank you.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• 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

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

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

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

(Initiated 33 days ago on 15 December 2024) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Requests for comment

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

(Initiated 101 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 81 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)

would like to see what close is. seems like it was option 1 in general, possibly 1/2 for IP area. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Genocide#RfC: History section, adding native American and Australian genocides as examples

(Initiated 72 days ago on 6 November 2024) RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Australia#RFC: Should the article state that Indigenous Australians were victims of genocide?

(Initiated 70 days ago on 8 November 2024), RFC expired weeks ago. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 55 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)

 Note: Ongoing discussion, please wait a week or two. Bogazicili (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi)#RfC on the Inclusion of Guard Actions and Court Findings on Motivations

(Initiated 31 days ago on 17 December 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice and the last comment was a few days ago. Can we get an independent close please. TarnishedPath 22:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Estado Novo (Portugal)#RFC Should the Estado Novo be considered fascist?

(Initiated 9 days ago on 8 January 2025) RfC opened last month, and was re-opened last week, but hasn't received further discussion. Outcome clear and unlikely to change if it were to run the full 30 days. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 00:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Does this need a close? Aaron Liu (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I would have just closed it myself, but I don't exactly feel comfortable doing so since I've responded and have a bias about how it should close. Not opposed to just letting it expire, though. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 23:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it should just be left to expire. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Deletion discussions

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 20#Category:Belarusian saints

(Initiated 28 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 6#Category:Misplaced Pages oversighters

(Initiated 28 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 31#Category:Disambig-Class Star Trek pages

(Initiated 16 days ago on 31 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 1#Category:Category-Class 20th Century Studios pages of NA-importance

(Initiated 16 days ago on 1 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 6#Redundant WPANIMATION categories

(Initiated 11 days ago on 6 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 80 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:Israel–Hamas war#Survey

(Initiated 71 days ago on 7 November 2024) Looking for uninvolved close in CTOP please, only a few !votes in past month. I realise this doesn't require closing, but it is preferred in such case due to controversial nature of topic. CNC (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Note: I'm happy to perform the merge if required, as have summarised other sections of this article already with consensus. I realise it's usually expected to perform splits or merges when closing discussions, but in this case it wouldn't be needed. CNC (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

(Initiated 20 days ago on 27 December 2024) Proposed merge discussion originally opened on 30 May 2024, closed on 27 October 2024, and reopened on 27 December 2024 following the closure being overturned at AN. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Selected Ambient Works Volume II#Proposed merge of Stone in Focus into Selected Ambient Works Volume II

(Initiated 11 days ago on 6 January 2025) Seeking uninvolved closure; proposal is blocking GA closure czar 11:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Category:Requests for unblock

Is badly backlogged, with some requests from early last month still unanswered. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Just did a bunch, but it is still pretty bad and I have work to do in real life. The main issue is that admins are issuing username soft-blocks and reviewing admins are not respecting that choice and adding additional conditions through the use of {{coiq}} when in fact the majority of these users have responded in good faith to the block notice as originally made. Comment on this practice is currently being sought at Misplaced Pages:Username policy/RFC. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

UTRS is backlogged as well with 25+ requests outstanding. I'll start working through them now but would welcome a couple extra hands. --Jezebel'sPonyo 23:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I am responsible for a Misplaced Pages educational assignment and one of my students Masumi Patzel has been denied editing access. She gets the following message: You are currently unable to edit pages on Misplaced Pages due to an autoblock affecting your IP address. Our campus administrator Biosthmors has suggested I post a request to unblock her access here. thanks Ituta (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Ituta, I cannot find any autoblocks on the Masumi Patzel account. Could you please verify that she is still unable to edit, and if so provide the IP address that is noted in the block message? If you would like to keep the IP private you can email me the information.--Jezebel'sPonyo 17:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Ponyo (talk · contribs) I can give you the block ID- 4871313 and more info from the email she got: A user of this IP address was blocked by Orangemike for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Because we have a policy against usernames that give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, I have blocked this account; please take a moment to create a new account with a username that represents only yourself as an individual and which complies with our username policy. Ill now ask Masumi Patzel for her IP address. thanks Ituta (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Ponyo (talk · contribs) the account is no longer blocked. thanks again Ituta (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for letting us know and best of luck with the assignment. --Jezebel'sPonyo 16:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

More Nyttend

Nyttend has speedily deleted the artilce on Swift-Kyle House. I am not an administrator so I can't see what was there, but I believe I created this article, included see alsos, and I don't think a National Register of Historic Places listed property should be deleted in this manner. Nyttend did not notify my of the deletion or make any comment to me about this proprty or communicate and concerns to me about the article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

And I see that he also deleted Sweetwater Inn. I was having trouble finding sources on this structure, but I don't think it should have been speedily deleted in this manner. I have never seen a National Register of Historic Places listed property deleted in a deletion discussion and I believe that Nyttend is again acting against community consensus and in a manner that is disruptive and antagonistic towards good faith contributors. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Both were deleted as A10 which should mean the articles already exist. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Despite extensive warnings, Candleabracadabra continues creating totally unreferenced substubs with absolutely no information other than what already appears on the National Register list from which these substubs are linked. Let me quote part of the criterion in question: "does not expand upon, detail, or improve information" on the topic in question. Look at one of these articles: the entire text was

'''Sweetwater Inn''' is a historic hotel in ] in ]. It was added to the ] on May 2, 1985. It is located off GA 17 on Old Milledgeville Road.The building's coordinates are 33°24′58″N 82°27′19″W / 33.416111°N 82.455278°W / 33.416111; -82.455278

All of this is already on the local list, National Register of Historic Places listings in McDuffie County, Georgia, which gives the place, its address, and its coordinates. Finally, note that the criterion prohibits the deletion of articles whose titles are useful redirects. Redirecting SUBJECT to a "list of SUBJECTs" page is never a good idea, so this too is not a problem. What we have is an editor who persists in creating bad pages and complains when he's show how our policies treat pages such as the ones he creates. Any reasonable administrator is going to see these pages as A10 candidates, and any reasonable administrator is also going to observe that Candleabracadabra's idea of reasonable page creation includes copyvios such as Carnegie Library of Albany, which took text from this page via a Waymarking page that I'm not providing on WP:COPYLINK grounds. Why do we tolerate such actions when they're badly at variance with all relevant consensus (as noted repeatedly at his talk page) as well as with several of our core policies, especially when his first action after a dispute is to run to AN instead of "expressing the concerns directly to the administrator responsible and trying to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner". We should be generous and assume good faith on the part of someone who isn't aware of our standards, but when someone is well aware of them and keeps on violating them, we have no reason to assume good faith. These actions need to be stopped now, either voluntarily or involuntarily. Nyttend (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Even if separate articles are unwarrented, the correct response here wouldn't be to delete the articles, but to redirect them to the relevant lists. You shouldn't be using your admin tools to try and win a dispute about how to arrange content. WilyD 14:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• restore An A10 deletion is for an overlapping topic (not just a standalone article) and is also qualified as "does not expand upon, detail or improve information". However we also have WP:IMPERFECT. These articles seem to be standalone articles from redlinks in list articles. As they're listed buildings (or US equiv.), there is robust sourcing for each one. It is implausible that such an article would be deleted it it went through AfD: because whatever the state of the article, the topic is clearly notable and the rest is just the work of writing.

CSD is there to simplify deletion of articles that would be a "clear unambiguous and unanimous delete" at AfD. It is not there as a means of bypassing AfD for articles that instead would be an equally obvious keep. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Restore. This is BS, it was just covered at ANI. You (Nyttend) appear to have a case of "don't like it" and "don't hear it." I would advise you to reconsider these actions before the community reconsiders the trust that it placed in you. You are also involved and don't need to be using the mop here. GregJackP Boomer! 12:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Agree with User:WilyD that admin tools seem to have been used during an editing dispute as a means "to arrange content". Reverse if possible.--Mark Miller (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• At the very least these are appropriate candidates for a redirect, and not A10 candidates (as the criterion is currently written) so I've restored their history and redirected them to the parent list article. However, I don't have a strong opinion on whether they should/could stand alone or not, so don't worry about checking with me or something before reverting back to the article, if that's what consensus decides. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• I wanted to drop a note that I've done some work on expanding and improving Carnegie Library of Albany. Not done yet, but I think it can become a nice article. Chris857 (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC) PS. the one now at Carnegie Library of Albany (Albany, Missouri) Chris857 (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Nyttend, seriously, you need to stop this, because your recent administrative actions are clearly annoying a LOT of people. If you carry this up, you'll end up being RFC/Ued, or hauled up in front of ArbCom. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Candleabrabacadabra and copyvio

Related to the above: in Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive257#User:Nyttend, near the bottom, there was an issue with Candleabracadabra getting messages from MadmanBot (bot checking for copyright violations in new articles), where Candleabracadabra got some sound advice from User:Flatscan.

Today, i.e. a week later, Candleabracadabra again gets a MadManBot warning, User talk:Candleabracadabra#Colored Memorial School and Risley High School, after which Candleabracadabra rewrites the article (OK), but with a rather alarming comment on the actual copyvio status: "Not sure that it realyl constituted a copyvio, but I am happy to play it safe and be conservative. "

Let's compare the source and the article line by line.

To create this kind of near-straight copy days after being warned about such copyright violations (in an AN discussion), and the lack of clue that this may have been a problematic creation, is worrying. And it isn't a new problem. Only looking at MadManBot warnings on his user talk page (which may or may not be correct), we have:

• 29 April 2012
• 25 June 2012
• 7 May 2013
• Another on the same day
• 10 May 2013
• 18 June 2013
• 5 August 2013
• 16 October 2013
• 13 November 2013
• 2 December 2013
• 3 December 2013
• 12 December 2013

So, if anything, it only seems to get worse, not better. Fram (talk) 10:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Indefinitely block. Anyone who demonstrates such a lack of understanding of copyright opens us up to legal liabilities and should not be editing here. I shudder to think about the WP:CCI. --Rschen7754 11:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Pulling this for now, awaiting further discussion. --Rschen7754 00:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I reviewed two of the items on the list. The first Manly N. Cutter was cleared after a review, but the most recent version was cleared, with a note that the problems had been "cleaned". To be sure they were cleaned by Candleabracadabra, however, the creation process in this article, and the other one I reviewed is not acceptable. It appears that the first version of the article (no longer viewable) was a lightly edited version of a copyrighted source, then edited to clean the problems. This is not a best practice, although it if done correctly, is not a prohibited practice. What is prohibited is doing that in article space, as the .history still contains the copyvios (which I have now removed). If one chooses to follow this undesirable approach, it must be done offline. Not until a clean version exists should it be moved to article space. In the case of Grooverville Methodist Church, the initial version was too close to a source, and that hasn't changed after ten days of editing, so I deleted it. I have only looked at two articles, but the general approach is troubling.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

In the recent cases identified above, I believe the source of the alleged copyvio is a historical marker. As these historical markers were created before the 1970s and without any indication of an assertion of copyright, I don't think there is a copyright claim to be made. This is on top of the fact that there was some rewording and reworking. Historical markers are in fact posted to educate and proliferate information about a subject. There has been some discussion here and elsewhere on the issue. Furthermore I would dispute whether the type of statements noted above "XYZ was built on January 4, 1894" are copyrightable. These are basic facts. I'm not sure how much they can be rewritten or need to be rewritten, but if others have suggestions I am happy to discuss, learn and improve my work. It's also probably worth noting that the online sources cited DO in fact copy the historical markers word for word, something I didn't do. How exactly does someone repharase, reword, and rework "The John Doe building was constructed in 1894" sufficiently to pass muster?

I would appreciate some clarification on the matter, but if I'm to be drawn and quartered for creating copyvios I think the accusations need to have merit and to be discussed calmly and using reason. In the case of the historical markers, who exactly is the copyright holder? When was the assertion of copyright made?

I take these allegations seriously, but if in fact these are copyvios then we have a very large problem on our hands because we have LOTS of images of historical markers on commons. And the images often recreate not only the text, word for word in its entirety for many of these markers, but also logos and emblems.

I take this issue seriously and I am happy to dicuss the issues. I think this antagonistic approach is probably not the best way to go about it. In at least two of the other cases above the sources were from the State of Florida and I believe, again, that the content is by law public domain. Still, I make every effort to rectify and be conservative in any case that arise, even where I don't think the suspicion or allegation is warranted. And as was noted I above I did my best to remove any possiblity of a copyvio from article text. But I think we should be careful about making a slew of accusations that require calm consideration instead of finger pointing, smearing, and jumping to conclusions. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The historical marker for Brunswick was created in 2004, so all of your defense is wrong from the very start. I have no idea where you got the impression that "these historical markers were created before the 1970s". Fram (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

There are a variety of issues that need response in your post above, but I'll just make a few points and hope someone takes the time to post more later. To be sure, it is assumed all creative works are under copyright unless stated otherwise and even if they are public domain sources, plagiarism is still frowned upon.

I'm not sure this is an "antagonistic" approach--this is a discussion noticeboard, with topics leaning toward admin attention (such as clearing copyvios from revision histories). Killiondude (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yet Misplaced Pages holds photos like this found in the historical marker article itself, which clearly show a year 2000 date of inscription and with the copyright asserted to be the Misplaced Pages editor/photographer, and whose image pages even have a full-text transcription of the photographed text. It seems to me that hanging Candleabracadabra here is not the priority if Misplaced Pages holds numerous similar potential copyvios by others. Rather it looks like a policy discussion about publishing the text of historical markers is in order. Additionally, I agree with Candleabracadabra that copying the very short sentences of the type "<Building> was constructed on <date>" do not constitute a copyright violation (if that's all he copied); such short sentences by themselves do not pass the threshold of originality. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

You raise a good point that we have some work to do to determine which of those historical markers are acceptable. However, as someone who just deleted an article, I assure you it was not deleted for having simply copied "<Building> was constructed on <date>".--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

@Someone not using his real name: Thanks for bringing that to our collective attention. I have listed that file at WP:PUF and I am looking through that article to see which ones need deletion too. Ramaksoud2000 21:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I am currently tagging a bunch right now down at Commons. Ramaksoud2000 22:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm commenting because I saw the notification. I'm not a WP:Copyright problems regular – I just saw a good-faith offer to restore an article that likely contained problems. Considering the article count and the possibility of bad reviews and restorations, uniform processing at WP:Contributor copyright investigations might be warranted. Flatscan (talk) 05:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Notifying users of a sockpuppet discussion

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

I had always been under the impression that any administrative (or higher) action being discussed about a user required that the users involved or accused must be notified, so I added this to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/header. It was reverted here by Legoktm with the edit summary of "no you don't". Since when? If a user is being discussed on WP:AN or WP:ANI (or any of the related boards), they must be notified. If the user is being discussed in a mediation or in an arbitration case, they must be notified. Why is WP:SPI special? It's not like they can do anything to hide evidence already created, so there no need for secrecy. Please share your thoughts on this issue. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I have notified Legoktm here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you could have asked me before coming here? It's pretty simple, why should we notify LTAs that we've detected their socks? Legoktm (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

As this involves more than just you and me, I brought it here for broader input. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Not really, but okay. Legoktm (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it involves only you and me. Things are done by consensus here on Misplaced Pages. I was WP:BOLD and made a change, it was reverted by you, so now we are here to find out what the rest of the community thinks. I brought the issue to everyone so it can be discussed and a consensus reached. Whatever is decided will be fine with me, even if I disagree with the final decision. How is that a bad thing? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought we only notified unblocked editors? With LTAs they'll be blocked anyway, so there's no point in notifying them as they won't be able to take part in the SPI anyway. Black Kite (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The issue which prompted this involved an unblocked editor. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Right, a blanket rule like the one you tried to add won't work. Each case needs to be considered on it's own. Clerks will notify a user if they feel its appropriate and the filer didn't. Legoktm (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

So modify it to suggest it be done in some cases (like a clueless newbie who isn't really doing it maliciously). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I prefer the sockpuppet discussions to remain under the radar, as it were, with regard to the person who is about to get blocked. This prevents them from learning more about how we detect them. For editors who have been making many useful edits, perhaps they can be notified as a courtesy. Binksternet (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Binks here. I never file a report unless I am 95-100% sure, so not notifying the editor decreases drama. And like B says, gives the master acct less info about his tells. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

This argument doesn't really hold water since once a sock is blocked, they have one of the various sockpuppet templates placed on their user page, and all of those templates link directly to the SPI discussion. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I oppose this change (which should have been discussed with the SPI team beforehand) for the same reasons as Legoktm. Of course, established users should be notified, but not for trolls who enjoy being reported to SPI (and I'm not being sarcastic, some actually do). --Rschen7754 21:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Nothing in WP:BOLD indicates that all such changes need to be discussed with the self-appointed "SPI team" (whoever that is). As this was a rather minor change in the grand scheme of things, I didn't see a reason to discuss it beforehand, though you'll note that I didn't get in an edit war and immediately brought it up for discussion to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding things. As I already posted here, I'm fine with it either way, however consensus determines. I'm not crusading for one way or the other. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:CUOS and WP:SPI/C; the SPI team is not self-appointed. Furthermore, it's common courtesy to ask the people who actually do the work in any organized area of Misplaced Pages, be it ArbCom, SPI, BAG, AFC, DYK, FAC, DRN, CHU, etc. before you go around making changes in their procedures. I expected a bit better from a bureaucrat. --Rschen7754 00:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Outside of Checkusers, they are all self-appointed as clerks can be "any user in good standing" (with training, as it notes), and administrators are welcome to help without any caveats. Pretty much anyone who wants to help in the process is welcome to do so. Regardless of that, almost all pages on the site can be edited by anyone, including project pages, with or without discussion. As I keep stating, and as people keep ignoring, I didn't see it as a significant change in anything. Getting all worked up over a tiny things such as this is not worth the time it is taking. The change I made was reverted, and I brought it here for discussion. I haven't ever tried to force people to keep it. I haven't said Legoktm was wrong to remove it (though I did ask if I was remembering things correctly with my, "Since when?", above). It appears I was incorrect in my reasoning on this one point, and that's fine. You're blowing this far out of proportion to the change I made in good faith.

And quite waving your holier-than-thou "I expected a bit better from a bureaucrat." over my head. I have never claimed to be infallible, and that's certainly not a prerequisite for being a 'crat. I'm sure you make mistakes, too. Many procedures and guidelines have been changed over the years without extensive (or even any) discussion, especially when it's a low-impact, non-critical part such as user notification (which is handled for logged-in users by the notification system, as pointed out by someone below). I wasn't expected to be attacked by people when I brought the issue here for discussion. If you can't participate in a discussion without flinging underhanded insults like "I expected a bit better from a bureaucrat." (implying that I'm somehow perfect and will never make a mistake, and therefore have failed for perhaps making one), then perhaps it's time for reevaluating how you interact with people. I made the edit in good faith, thinking it was a good thing to do and just overlooked for some reason. It appears there was good reason behind leaving it out, and I can accept that reasoning. This is the whole reason I brought it here, to make sure of the reasoning behind removing my good faith edit. That's it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

"Outside of Checkusers, they are all self-appointed as clerks can be "any user in good standing" (with training, as it notes)" - no, we regularly decline candidates for clerkship.

My issue here isn't that you made a mistake, it's that you are showing a gross lack of respect for people who actually work at a Misplaced Pages process, and not valuing their input. And then, you took it to AN, to override what the SPI team would say. It's that you don't see the issue with barging in and changing the instructions for a process that is disconcerting. --Rschen7754 01:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you even read the page (WP:SPI/C)? It specifically states a clerk can be "any user in good standing" (with the training I mentioned, and that it mentions, emphasis added). To quote the third paragraph on the page in full: "Clerkship is open to any user in good standing after an extended period as a trainee. Administrators are also welcome to help at SPI by patrolling."

As for your other allegation, I'm not showing any lack of respect for anyone at SPI, and I certainly value their input. That's why I brought the question here and notified interested parties at WT:SPI. I specifically wanted their input (as well as that of the rest of the community). I didn't bring it here to "override what the SPI team would say". You're assuming far too much and trying to read my mind, and you're not very good at it. The SPI process does not belong only to those who are currently working in that area; rather, it belongs to the community as a whole. You seem to me to be trying to wall off your own little private garden there and getting all huffy because someone (in this case, me) made a good faith edit, correcting what I thought was an simple oversight, and then accusing me of motives I don't and have never had just because I opened a discussion about it? I've respected you as a great contributor for years, Rschen, and this attitude really surprises me. I'm not trying to step on toes here. I'm simply trying to find out the reasoning behind Legoktm's actions. Now I understand them, and I'm fine with the reasoning. It makes sense. You don't need to keep attacking my motives and accusing me of things which are blatantly untrue. I have great respect for all of the volunteers who help with Misplaced Pages in whatever capacity they choose to help. So don't say I don't, and don't accuse me of things about which you have no clue. I came here to have a discussion about the issue, not to be beaten up for doing something which seemed to be good at the time. I've already admitted my mistake, but I'm not willing to fall on my sword over something as insignificant as this. As I stated before, you are blowing this far out of proportion. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I've been involved in the selection process with quite a few clerks, so I'm well aware of how it works. In practice, very few non-admins are selected for the role, as a non-admin clerk cannot block; furthermore, CUs make the final decisions regarding who can be a full clerk, and the standard is fairly high. You may also want to read through the actual selection process WT:SPI/C.

I fully understand that you may not have realized the impact that such a change would have at SPI. But in general you would probably have gotten a similar reaction if you had done something similar at FAC, or DYK - yet even more so here, because the entire process at SPI is to aid the CheckUsers, who are legally liable to the Foundation for any bad checks that they make, and thus have to abide by policies that are not determined by community consensus. That's where being BOLD may be your right, but doing something without asking, or telling people who work there how their process works, will step on toes. I don't want to go on and on about this on AN as we're getting off topic and repetitive, but I hope that you'll take this into consideration in the future. And for the record, my statements were not meant to come off as insulting, and I apologize if it came off that way. --Rschen7754 08:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Notifying is discretionary on the part of the filer or anyone who is investigating that feels that there is a need. Sometimes we do but most of the time we don't as it isn't required. Many socks have a history of bringing disruption to cases and it is better to not invite them to the party. Also, there are considerations such as beans in line with Binksternet & Diannaa's concerns. I concur with Rschen7754.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Adding that your impression "I had always been under the impression that any administrative (or higher) action being discussed about a user required that the users involved or accused must be notified..." isn't correct. We never notify vandals to explain their actions at AIV for example.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that. You are incorrect about my impression, though, because that was my impression at the time I wrote that. I couldn't, off the top of my head, think of any such incident boards where we didn't do that. I haven't done much with AIV for a few years, so I'm not surprised my quick interneal, "Can I think of any places where we don't do this?" process overlooked that one. It is an exception to the rule, however, as is (apparently) SPI. As I noted above, perhaps an instruction would be in order which suggests notification in the case of established editors, or in cases where it doesn't appear the person was doing it maliciously but rather out of frustration. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The change was (rightly) reversed. The next step was to discuss the suggested change on the policy/process talkpage, as per WP:BRD. ES&L 21:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

A link to the discussion was placed on the talk page of WP:SPI and the discussion was placed here in order to get more visibility for the discussion. I didn't initially place one on WT:SOCK, but I've put one there now. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It's just a bit disturbing that such lapses should come from a bureaucrat. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not a lapse, but rather not seeing a valid reason (initially) for not having that bit of instruction there when it was common across almost all other such incident boards. Apparently being a 'crat now means a person must be perfect. I don't remember that being in the job description, nor am I aware of any 'crat (or admin, or editor) here who is perfect. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Misunderstanding of WP:BRD isn't just limited to n00bs :-) ES&L 22:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Nor are mistakes. Hindsight is 20/20, as they say. I can't say that I have every nuance of Misplaced Pages memorized, nor do I think anyone does. We make mistakes, learn from them, and move on. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

If someone has an account, WP:Notifications will automatically let the person know that the account has been mentioned on the SPI page. A long-term abuser can be expected to have the SPI page watch-listed. For IP editors, it would be a courtesy to let them know they've been reported. —rybec 22:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The WP:DENY principal adapts well in this situation also. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I can see it applying in many or most cases at SPI. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought I had converted most of those templates to use {{noping}}...blegh. Legoktm (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I took a look at the discussions currently listed at WP:SPI. Apart from {{checkuser}} (which pings the potential socks), many of the discussions link to one or more of the accounts in the evidence or discussion. If users aren't to be notified, people should also avoid linking to accounts that way. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The instructions here do mention notification, but for the reasons stated above, it is only a suggestion. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed , yes anytime someone's mentioned in a sockpuppet investigation, they should be notified.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   17:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

That is a bad conclusion and were we to accept it then it would mean that we have always been blocking the innocents. If you frequented WP:SPI enough then you would have the experience to know that isn't the outcome of our cases; you would also know it because editors would have been complaining about incorrect outcomes on multiple noticeboards. Usually the complaint is that we are backlogged and not that we are doing the job incorrectly. But if we are, the first place that you would start would be WT:SPI which is where you would hold any such discussion on mandatory notices...it wouldn't be decided here as this isn't the right place to form consensus on that issue.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog