Template:Active editnotice

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia: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.

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia 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.

Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.

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 should not normally be in itself a problem at closure reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would call to use 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.

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

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 433#Closing (archived) RfC: Mondoweiss

(Initiated 11 days ago on 16 April 2024) - already the oldest thread on the page. starship.paint (RUN) 14:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:Indo-Pakistani_war_of_1947–1948#RfC_on_what_result_is_to_be_entered_against_the_result_parameter_of_the_infobox

(Initiated 126 days ago on 22 December 2023) No new comments for over 45 days. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Awdal#RFC - Habr Awal/Isaaq clan

(Initiated 124 days ago on 24 December 2023) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Interstate 90#RFC: Infobox junctions

(Initiated 57 days ago on 29 February 2024) Discussion is about to expire and will need closure. RoadFan294857 (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RfC: enacting X3

(Initiated 50 days ago on 7 March 2024) SilverLocust 💬 22:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to add this discussion here. There have been no new comments for over a fortnight. Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:SpaceX Starship#RfC on IFT-3

(Initiated 36 days ago on 21 March 2024) This is a contentious issue with accusations of tendentious editing, so the RfC would benefit from a formal closure. Redraiderengineer (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A note for the closing editor... an inexperienced editor attempted to close this discussion and didn't really address the arguments. There's been some edit warring over the close, but it should be resolved by an experienced, uninvolved editor. Nemov (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another note for the closing editor: beware the related discussion at Talk:SpaceX Starship#Do not classify IFT-1, 2 and 3 as success or failure. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion has only been going for two weeks and closing the RfC will not preclude editors from coming to a consensus on whether or not to remove the categorization entirely. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Is the OCB RS?

(Initiated 32 days ago on 26 March 2024) This WP:RSN RfC was initiated on March 26, with the last !vote occurring on March 28. Ten editors participated in the discussion and, without prejudicing the close one way or the other, I believe a closer may discover a clear consensus emerged. It was bot-archived without closure on April 4 due to lack of recent activity. Chetsford (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Talk:Killing of journalists in the Israel–Hamas war#Merge proposal (5 January 2024)

(Initiated 112 days ago on 5 January 2024) The discussion has been inactive for two weeks, with a preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Eat_Bulaga!#Merger_of_Eat_Bulaga!_and_E.A.T.

(Initiated 111 days ago on 6 January 2024) The discussion wasn't inactive for 7 days. It seems there's no clear consensus on merging those two articles into one. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over a month. So, it could be a good time to close that discussion. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Saleh al-Arouri#Merge proposal

(Initiated 106 days ago on 11 January 2024) Discussion has stalled since March with no new comments. It appears that there is no clear consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviationwikiflight (talk • contribs) 11:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Frederik_IX_of_Denmark#Requested_move_15_January_2024

(Initiated 102 days ago on 15 January 2024) – Requested move open for 2 months, needs closure.98.228.137.44 (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now has been open for three months. 170.76.231.175 (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

(Initiated 93 days ago on 24 January 2024) Merge discussion involving CTOPS that has been open for 2 weeks now. Needs closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WeatherWriter: I would give it a few days as the discussion is now active with new comments. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I support a non consensus closure of this discussion so we can create an RFC to discuss how WP:ONEEVENT applies in this situation. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 87 days ago on 30 January 2024) Listing multiple non-unanimous merge discussions from January that have run their course. Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2003_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Nora_(2003)_into_2003_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 87 days ago on 30 January 2024) Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Pharnavaz_I_of_Iberia#Requested_move_6_February_2024

(Initiated 80 days ago on 6 February 2024) Requested move open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:12 February 2024 Rafah strikes#Merge proposal to Rafah offensive

(Initiated 74 days ago on 13 February 2024) The discussion has been inactive for over a month, with a clear preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2 World Trade Center#Split proposal 16 February 2024

(Initiated 70 days ago on 16 February 2024) Split discussion started over a month ago. TarnishedPath^talk 11:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Genital_modification_and_mutilation#Requested_move_26_February_2024

(Initiated 60 days ago on 26 February 2024) – Requested move open several months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 10 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pursuant to a discussion at WT:MOSNUM, I'd like to propose that general sanctions be established for matter pertaining to units of measurement in Britain. This is a subject area that has seen persistent disruption for many years. For those not familiar with the situation, Britain is currently in a state where both metric units and imperial units coexist. Many people express a preference for one system or another, and the matter is quite political. Our style guide has recommendations about what units to use in articles with strong ties to Britain at WP:UNIT, but these have often been the subject of acrimonious debates. Edit wars about which units to display in articles have caused various problems, including a sock-puppetry campaign by banned user DeFacto. Given all this, and given the recurrent disruption and inordinate time-wasting that is caused by this type of behaviour, I'd like to propose enacting general sanctions, as I said above. These general sanctions would enact WP:1RR for edits that switch units between imperial and metric in UK-related articles, and would allow uninvolved administrators to place sanctions on those who behave disruptively in matters pertaining to British units of measurement. I'm open to other proposals, as well. However, I think that it is about time that something was done to curtail this incessant disruption. It is harmful to the encyclopaedia, it wastes time, and it causes editors to wage political wars on articles that scare aware good editors. Please do comment. I recommend that anyone who comments here should read the talk-page archives at WT:MOSNUM, as they provide a good history of the dispute. RGloucester — ☎ 18:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is long overdue. To put this into perspective, current guidance is to use predominantly metric units with the few exemptions defined where the imperial unit remains the primary unit and to provide a conversion; to be clear the guidance is to use both systems. Its a sensible compromise yet we have seen the talk page held hostage by pressure groups seeking to use wikipedia to advance an agenda; they are not here to build an encyclopedia. For example, the pressure group the UK Metric Association has been advocating its members use wikipedia to advance their agenda since 2008 [1], equally guilty are the British Weights and Measures Association [2]. The problem is both camps are completely inflexible and compromise is an anathema to both, this is making consensus building impossible with ordinary editors unwittingly finding themselves in the middle. A perusal of the archive [3] demonstrates just how much effort is diverted and wasted in dealing with utter trivia. WCM_email 23:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but where in your UK Metric Association source do you see them asking their members to use Wikipedia to advance their agenda? All I see (on page 4 of the newsletter) is a very sensibly written piece describing what Wikipedia is, noting that there are POV policies and style guides which need to be followed, and asking readers to "correct any inaccuracies" in articles related to metrication. It's pretty much the sort of neutrally worded message one might expect to see one of our own WikiProjects addressing to completely new editors. The British Weights and Measures Association post is similar; it simply describes a good-faith clarification they made to an article, and doesn't actually advocate its members to use Wikipedia for advocacy purposes. Maybe both groups really are using Wikipedia to push their points of view, but if so, there's no evidence in the links you've provided. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. The situation sounds rather problematic, and the proposed solution sounds good if applied only to individual editors, as proposed herein. The field is so broad that anything beyond the limited scope herein proposed would be destructive: we mustn't go any farther. Placing sanctions on the whole field would amount to general sanctions on the entirety of the UK, which would be nutso. Nyttend (talk) 23:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: I didn't mean "the whole field", I meant what you said. I apologise if I wrote something misleading. Administrators should be able to place sanctions on individual editors, as proposed above, and as you said. RGloucester — ☎ 00:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was supporting weakly because you said "I'm open to other proposals, as well". We should not be open to other proposals, because the only other proposals that would address this specific problem would be far more wide-ranging than would be appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The situation in Britland isn't problematic, this appears to be a solution in search of a new way of spelling Aluminum. We really need to stop Americans using cups and spoons in recipes before tackling this. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 23:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon? This has nothing to do with WP:ENGVAR. This is about British people arguing amongst themselves about whether metric or imperial units should be made primary in UK-related articles, not about Americans doing anything. The idea that "the situation isn't problematic" is absurd; I recommend you take a look at WT:MOSNUM at this very moment to see why it is problematic. RGloucester — ☎ 00:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that this is a non-issue, and you know it. The vast majority of Britlandians have no issues on this subject, and the WT:MOSNUM link is a hed rerring. The 'camps' are unimportant fringe nobodies, the issue in the UK has been settled for years. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 01:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Er...I don't know if it is settled or not, but I do know that people keep bring it up, edit warring over it. All the more reason to institute sanctions, so that the vast majority of Britons needn't be plagued by petty nonsense in British-related articles. RGloucester — ☎ 01:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. It's just a time-wasting discussion. Everyone who actually lives in Britain knows that we buy fuel by the litre but every road sign shows miles. Eric Corbett 00:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Don't forget, Eric, milk is sold in pints AND litres. Blackmane (talk) 02:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That particular kettle of fish has been boiling for ages. RGloucester — ☎ 02:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know. It amused me the first time I saw it, but after living there for a while, it was something to get used to. Never ceases to amaze me how big a deal people make out of it. Blackmane (talk) 05:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Going in pursuit of the original discussion and the statement by RGloucester. Edit war over minor units cannot be ignored. VandVictory (talk) 05:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Question relating to the implication if this proposal was accepted and implemented. Would this really apply to any editor who made unit changes to any of the 10000s of articles that may be considered to be related in such a way to that UK? If so, how would this sanction be publicised and made known to every new editor who came across what they thought was a unit anomaly in such an article. It wouldn't be practical to alert each and every editor about to make such a change to each and every qualifying, would it? ProProbly (talk) 06:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ProProbly: If implemented like the WP:ARBPIA 1RR restriction, it would basically involve editors being notified after they made edits that changed measurement formats on British articles. After being notified, they would be blockable if they went on to violate the restriction. However, no-one should be blocked for violating 1RR if they have not been notified (although the ARBPIA page states this is possible, in practice it is not done). Number 57 09:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Number 57: Thanks, that helps clarify the likely consequences. That relies on someone who knows about this sort of thing spotting it. Would that also mean, do you think, that someone who changed a qualifying UK article to comply with their interpretation of the WP:UNITS guidelines would also be warned? ProProbly (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • @ProProbly: I wouldn't call it a warning - it's a notification that the sanctions exist. But yes, everyone who makes those kind of edits should be informed. Number 57 20:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto Seems likely this is a sockpuppet of DeFacto. WCM_email 10:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• What about height - both metric and imperial are used in the UK (imperial probably more prominent IMO) and we have {{height}} which converts from one to the other, but which should be displayed primary? GiantSnowman 09:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Height is already in WP:UNIT, but see WT:MOSNUM#Which units should be primary for the height of a UK statue of a UK politician? for an example of how much heat and how little light can be generated by such questions. NebY (talk) 09:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And thats a perfect example of disruption, where one editor took it upon themselves to edit counter to the Manual of Style, to work through a category switching unit order. They then bragged about it offsite and invited other members of their pressure group to join in. But of course per WP:OUT I can't point this out. WCM_email 10:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that. Good grief. We so need general sanctions. NebY (talk) 12:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What might not have come across in Curry Monster's point was the sheer scale of the abuse - this was well over a thousand articles over the course of several months (during this period, according to their contributions, this editor did little on Wikipedia other than converting articles in this category against MOSNUM consensus). Kahastok talk 18:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. We have a workable and mainly working compromise at WP:UNITS and a general desire for peace. But long conflict has left many twitchy and it would be impossible to agree a comprehensive phrasing of WP:UNITS that would cover every possible eventuality - previous attempts to tighten the phrasing have foundered in mutual suspicion of what loopholes and interpretations the other side might seek to exploit. It remains fertile ground for extremists, particularly one who refuses to accept consensus and has no compunction about, indeed takes pleasure in, stirring and wasting the time of fellow editors. NebY (talk) 10:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @NebY: The "compromise" does not reflect the real-life UK practice though and carries no explanation as to the reason for not so doing. It is not supported with evidence, in fact it flies in the face of the available evidence. In short it is totally biased in favour of the metric system. If we fix that, people might respect itProProbly (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ProProbly: I'm glad to see you engaging in civil discourse here, however, this is not the place to go on about changing MOSNUM. That discussion should take place at the MOSNUM talk page. This discussion is only about the proposed general sanctions. RGloucester — ☎ 20:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support—The immediate concern is the latest batch of DeFacto socks, and I don't think the issue would have come up here if there wasn't such a backlog at WP:SPI. We also have discretionary sanctions for WP:MOSNUM (thanks to NebY for pointing this out), but using this doesn't seem to be a good fit for blocking socks or solving the wider problem described in the proposal. If this is what it takes to get the disruption to stop, then let's do it. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 11:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't think Wikipedia needs punitive sanctions on discussing UK units. However, there should be some way of settling disputes over units that get out of hand and a more effective way of dealing with sockpuppets. It is crazy to fight over whether a statue was 9 feet or 2.7 metres tall. The best way to sort this out is to find out the actual height of the statue and go with that. I also think there's something wrong with a hard and fast diktat that all British heights and weights must be Imperial first when UK Rugby League, Rugby Union and Premier League put metric units first for their players. I think we all know that most milk in the UK is sold by the pint but some milk is also sold by the litre. However, MOSNUM could be read as if milk was only sold by the pint. While MOSNUM could do with some tweaking, there's no way that the general preference for miles could or should be overturned at this time. Michael Glass (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Glass, whilst I do respect your opinion, this is not the place to be discussing changes to MOSNUM. That's a different pint-bottle of fish, meant to be dealt with at MOSNUM. The purpose of this proposal is to provide mechanisms for dealing with disruption in this topic area, not to quash discussion on potential changes to MOSNUM. Third-party administrators would be able to impose sanctions, as appropriate, on editors who "repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process" (copied from WP:General sanctions). RGloucester — ☎ 12:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but much of the discussion here has been about what MOSNUM says. If the sanctions are going to apply to such things as edit warring over units of measure, fair enough, but if the sanctions are going to be applied to offences against MOSNUM, then MOSNUM had better be beyond reproach. Michael Glass (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael Glass: No, no. Not "offences against MOSNUM". MOSNUM is not and will never be infallible. Like I said, the point is not to quash discussion about changing MOSNUM, but to curtail disruptive behaviour in those discussions. Only uninvolved administrators will be able to impose sanctions, and only for the reasons that I quoted above. You needn't worry about not being able to discuss changing the current guidelines. RGloucester — ☎ 20:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Background and current situation: Currently the discretionary sanctions (DS) authorised by the Arbitration Committee in the article titles and capitalisation case apply to WT:MOSNUM. Given this comment by an arbitrator on the case's proposed decision talk page the DS likely also apply to article talk pages. If that is the case then the only place they don't apply (depending of course on how broadly you construe) is the changing the characters on articles. From my reading of this thread and of recent discussion regarding it the disruption is being driven by a small number of users and a banned user's socks (which the sanctions will do nothing to stop. My suggestion: (administrative opinion to stay uninvoved) Instead of authorising a brand new set of sanctions for this area can I suggest instead that we just go with the current discretionary sanctions and if editors side step them and only edit war over the characters in articles then they can be brought here individually for topic bans. As far as I can no one has alerted the people involved to ArbCom DS (now mostly done) or made a report to AE so the DS haven't had a chance to work. If I'm reading something incorrectly or you don't agree please feel free to reply so we can discuss. Cheers, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relating those sanctions to this matter seems like a bit of a stretch (one arbitrator's vague words seem like a spurious link), and does not do anything about article-space edits. I see no reason why a new set of sanctions cannot be established for this matter, specifically meant for this purpose, as opposed to weaselling around with old Arb Com sanctions. As far as "a small number of users", there are recurrent editors that cause disruption, but it is certainly not limited to them. Whilst I do agree that what you said could be done, bringing editors here for topic bans, and so on, this mechanism is slow and bureaucratic, often does not work until the disruption has not gone on for ages, and really does not give the appropriate tools to administrators in this area. This is not an area where edit warring or disruption is ever appropriate. There are very few good reasons to ever edit war over units of measurement, perhaps even fewer than in other content areas. Given the history here, I believe that implementing some kind of sanction specifically for this purpose cannot hurt the situation, it can only help it. RGloucester — ☎ 13:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The diff provided is a former arbitrator replying to a current arbitrator's comment [4] that someone would "wikilawyer" DS to articles. I agree that having overlapping DS and GS in the same content area -- arguing MOSNUM and UK units in the same discussion -- would lead to unnecessary ambiguity. Given the community consensus that's forming, an explicit AC:RFAR request to extend DS to UK units seems reasonable. I lack the wikitime at this moment to fill out all the pixelwork. NE Ent 15:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with such an amendment, but I'm not familiar enough with the hidden gears and cogs of Wikipedia to attempt to do anything of that sort. RGloucester — ☎ 16:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite see that overlap would be a problem and if we have sufficient consensus here, should we bother an overloaded Arbcom? After all, we're used enough to telling editors that they're in breach of multiple policies. Can't the community simply impose general sanctions identical to standard discretionary standards with the addition of 1RR on all conflict between editors regarding units of measurement in UK-related articles, wherever across en.wp such conflict takes place? That should suffice for warnings and actions alike. NebY (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's my thinking, NebY. ArbCom seems to make everything more complicated than it otherwise needs to be. Perhaps it is because I'm British, and in Britain courts (yes, I know ArbCom is not a court) do not have powers of legislative interpretation. I honestly believe this is a matter better suited for a new set of general sanctions. However, if those administrators who are frequently involved in general sanctions matters, such as Callanecc, believe that an amendment is better suited, I'd be happy to take that approach in the interest of compromise. RGloucester — ☎ 20:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the principle of general sanctions in this area. What we have at WP:UNITS is basically a decent compromise. Not perfect, but probably the best we're going to get given the levels of distrust on talk.

I would note that when the current rule has been taken to forums for UK-related articles outside MOSNUM it has generally been pretty well-supported. It's quite unusual for this to get brought up at WT:MOSNUM by non-regulars: I had a look and I found only one discussion on this topic on MOSNUM in the last year at that was not either started by a UK-Units regular (including DeFacto socks) or immediately prompted by the actions of a UK-Units regular. And POV pushers on both sides have come unstuck when they've appealed to what they thought was a silent majority consensus for their preferred system - only to find that in fact, editors were happy with the status quo.

I would in particular broadly endorse the points that User:NebY has made. But I would note that a major part of the problem has been outside MOSNUM, with people mass-converting whole topics from one system to the other, particularly when going against MOSNUM advice, and in favour of their own POV. These editors have generally not been sanctioned in the past, and they should have been. We can get too hung up on DeFacto - he's not the only one by any means. There are plenty on the metric side as well - the main difference is that they aren't blocked or banned. Kahastok talk 18:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did forget to say that the problem and the fertile ground for conflict extends well beyond MOSNUM, and I didn't want to imply just one person or just one side needed to exercise or suffer more restraint. NebY (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support no-one says it's logical, but it's real. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - long overdue. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support based on evidence presented here. NE Ent 10:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per all the above, this is sorely needed. WaggersTALK 10:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed wording/remedies

As a broad consensus seems to be developing in favour of my initiative, I'd like to propose a wording for these sanctions.

In articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom, any editor who systematically changes values from metric units to imperial units or vice-versa without justification, or who edit-wars over such a change, may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator if, after being notified of the existence of the British units general sanctions, they repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the five pillars of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or normal editorial processes. Sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages, bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviours, or any other measures that the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, an editor must be given a notification with a link to the decision that implemented these sanctions, and should be counselled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. After being notified of these sanctions, the editor will be subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction when changing values between different systems of measurements in articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom. Notifications must be logged at the general sanctions page to be effective. Sanctions may be appealed at the administrators' noticeboard.

Does this seem appropriate? RGloucester — ☎ 16:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we add that any reference to suggestions that we base unit order on the source used ie source based units is disruptive? Its just as bad from a disruption POV as the edit warring and unit changes. WCM_email 17:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point of general sanctions is not to stifle discussion, but to discourage disruptive editing and behaviour. Such an addition would be completely inappropriate. If an uninvolved administrator believes that someone is editing disruptively, then they can be sanctioned. RGloucester — ☎ 17:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mention the UK: what about the ROI, as well as ambiguous situations such as Man, the Channel Islands, and the various remaining colonies such as Anguilla, BIOT, or Tristan da Cunha? I'm not pressing for such sanctions or attempting to opposing them: I simply wonder how you'd accounted for them, whether "we should include them", "we should not include them", or "the precise boundaries ought to be left to the enforcing administrator". Nyttend (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no ambiguity in Ireland. It is completely metric, at this point. As far as I'm aware, there has never been a dispute over units at articles relating to the places you mention, and hence I do not think it is necessary to specifically include them in the scope. They are such minor cases that I doubt it will ever be a concern. RGloucester — ☎ 19:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, the scope should mirror the MOSNUM guidelines, which specify "the United Kingdom". RGloucester — ☎ 19:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. Kahastok talk 19:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the Falkland Islands are a British Overseas Territory, it is quite obvious that that article has "strong ties" to the UK. RGloucester — ☎ 19:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree entirely. I only brought it up because there seemed to be some question and there was a suggestion that it hadn't come up - after all, the FI have the same status as Anguilla, the BIOT, St. Helena/Ascension/Tristan da Cunha et al. Kahastok talk 20:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that I don't think there is a need to specify that these sanctions apply to the "British Indian Ocean Territory", or whatever. That seems like overkill. RGloucester — ☎ 20:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's late and I'm still buzzing from an extraordinary poetry reading (capacity crowd on its feet), but I can still see how to drive several coaches and horses through and around that phrasing, and I'm sure more alert and less buzzing minds will thoroughly enjoy thinking of more. Maybe patch in "or who edit-wars over such a change, or otherwise engages in disruptive behaviour regarding units of measurement in such articles, may be sanctioned..." Or just look at how DS like WP:ARBPIA are phrased and talk of editors editing in the area of units of measurement in UK-related articles. NebY (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fewer word proposal:

In articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom, any editor who systematically changes values from metric units to imperial units or vice-versa without clear justification, who edit-wars over such a change, or who otherwise disruptively edits may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator if, after being notified of the existence of the British units general sanctions, they repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the five pillars of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or normal editorial processes. Sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages, bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviours, or any other measures that the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Notifications must be logged at the general sanctions page to be effective. Sanctions may be appealed at the administrators' noticeboard.

Less is more NE Ent 23:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC) (edited NE Ent 23:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

I'm of the opinion that it is important that procedure be clear, and I think that your version leaves out a good deal of the procedure. I based my proposal off the British Isles sanctions and the Syrian Civil War sanctions. I believe it is important that we make note that sanctions require notifications and must be logged. I'm also not sure why the 1RR was left out. RGloucester — ☎ 23:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the logging, I missed that on the copy paste and have updated. The proposal says after being notified of the existence of the British units general sanctions, I believe that is sufficient. Additionally, as a too long veteran of the dispute resolution boards, the more language present the more violating editors will seize as an argument for why they were done wrong: But I wasn't adequately counseled! I think it best to keep it short and sweet. NE Ent 23:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can support the version you've just edited, though it needs a bit of copyediting. RGloucester — ☎ 00:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that this version will be gamed to push source-based units over the top of MOSNUM rules because of the reference to "clear sourcing".

Source-based units - that is, a system whereby you use the same units as primary as the specific source used to justify the information (regardless of any other consideration) - has long been used by POV pushers as an excuse to impose their personal preference in this area (because they choose the sources that use the units they prefer). MOSNUM has never preferred source-based units - in fact source-based units have been repeatedly rejected (for the same reasons as would apply to source-based spellings) at WT:MOSNUM when they have been advocated by those same POV pushers - but it has in the past contained wordings that those editors claimed allowed them to override the rest of the guideline in favour of source-based units. The justification claimed for the mass-conversion of articles described here was source-based units.

We should be very careful to avoid wordings that might be similarly exploited. Kahastok talk 08:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support the wording as proposed. If MOSNUM recommends one thing and a source gives another unit as primary, this could be an issue that needs to be looked at. Automatically labelling discussion about this as disruptive behaviour sounds quite problematic. After all, between the Metric fanatics, the Imperial fanatics and the MOSNUM AS IT IS! fanatics, we need to tread a very fine line. Michael Glass (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would support the wording if the words I have struck through are removed. I know I speak from bitter experience but we've editors like Michael Glass have been pushing the idea of source-based units for years ad nauseum. This is one of those disruptive ideas that won't go away and its an excuse to edit counter to MOS. As noted above, a source is selected simply to impose personal preference and the wording proposed left room for further disruptive behaviour. WCM_email 13:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) In light of this comment, and having considered the point about outing raised here and concluded that so long as the evidence is on-wiki there is no problem. I'm not going to pussy-foot about this any more. The editor who went through well over a thousand of articles in a particular topic - sportspeople - converting them from one unit to another directly against MOSNUM guidance, claiming that that guidance was overridden by his preference for source-based units (used as a proxy for metric units because of his choice of sources) is Michael Glass. And it's not the only UK-related topic he has mass-metricated, directly against the advice of MOSNUM with no particular justification, claiming source-based units.

Now that was 2011-12, so it's certainly stale now - but it does nicely illustrate why I and others have particular reservations about Michael's motivations here and why I and others see Michael's constant calls for source-based units on MOSNUM talk (most recently this morning) as problematic. Frankly, he's one of the worst offenders we have here. Kahastok talk 13:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to this post-edit-conflict. I would endorse Curry Monster's point here. Kahastok talk 13:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You fellows are getting something wrong here, as did PBS below. The point of these sanctions is NOT to enforce the compliance of articles with MOSNUM. It is to stop disruptive systematic editing. Someone systematically "enforcing" MOSNUM could be just as disruptive as someone doing otherwise. Changes of units of measurement in British articles should be done through talk page discussion, and these sanctions are meant to facilitate that. They are supposed to stop disruptive editing, stop edit-warring, and so forth. The fact that you fellows are attacking the motives of Michael Glass here is entirely inappropriate. This is not a place for that. This is only meant for the discussion of the potential sanctions. Please take your off-topic comments about MOSNUM and Michael Glass elsewhere. RGloucester — ☎ 15:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I've removed "sourcing", and left "clear justification", as I believe that makes it clear enough without delving into over specification. RGloucester — ☎ 15:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The wording including the reference to sources it appears to me leaves us open to the argument that this does not count as systematic mass-conversion of articles because it's based on sources (because it applies source-based units). Michael appears to endorse this idea. The wording of sanctions should clearly not undermine the MOS, and there is strong potential for this to do so. Kahastok talk 15:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does not "undermine" the MOS, nor does it "support" the MOS. It has nothing to do with the MOS. It has to do with disruptive editing. Regardless, it no longer says anything about "sourcing". RGloucester — ☎ 15:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this dispute has poured over onto this page is proof of why we need these sanctions, regardless. RGloucester — ☎ 16:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, let's try a new proposal meant to address concerns below:

In articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom, any editor who systematically changes values from metric units to imperial units or vice-versa without clear justification, who edit-wars over such a change, who disrupts talk page discussions or normal Wikipedia processes pertaining to British units, or who otherwise disruptively edits may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator. Sanctions can be imposed if, after being notified of the existence of the British units general sanctions, the editor repeatedly repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the five pillars of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or normal editorial processes. Sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages, bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviours, or any other measures that the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Notifications must be logged at the general sanctions page to be effective. Sanctions may be appealed at the administrators' noticeboard.

I've tried to revise this to make it more clear. RGloucester — ☎ 21:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does this address the appropriate concerns? RGloucester — ☎ 16:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if the "five pillars" bit is worth having. Is there precedent for such language? I'm afraid this whole thing might wind up being a civility slugfest.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a number of problems with the proposed text:

1. It introduces an "offence" ("systematically chang[ing] values from metric units to imperial units or vice-versa") that does not have a sufficient basis in policy. It is disruptive if it is followed by edit-warring, which is clearly covered by policy.
2. If the text about systematic changes were to remain, it should not be listed first, since the main problems are uncollaborative editing on the talk pages and edit-warring. A quick look at WT:MOSNUM, even just the relatively minor example of the current (lengthy) discussion on Wikipedia's primary use of imperial units for milk in [returnable] bottles (as opposed to milk in general or milk in other containers!), should indicate where the problems lie.
3. I think blocks of one year without reference to the (administrator) community (e.g. via a noticeboard) are excessive. I think a maximum ban of three months (which can be repeated if the behaviour continues) should be sufficient. Normal blocks still apply, of course, so I don't see a special need for longer blocks or bans using this mechanism.
4. I also don't see a special need to refer to the five pillars.

So how about the following suggestion:

For articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom, any editor who disrupts talk page discussions pertaining to British units, edit-wars over the order of metric and imperial units, or who otherwise engages in disruptive editing, may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator. Sanctions can be imposed if, after being notified of the existence of the British units general sanctions, the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to expected standards of behaviour, in particular those related to consensus-building and edit-warring.

--Boson (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the five pillars are always referenced in general sanctions. Traditionally, this is done by piping "the purpose of Wikipedia" to the five pillars page. However, I personally find the piping a bit bizarre, and so removed it in favour of an explicit mention. The policies that are listed at the "five pillars" page are essential to Wikipedia, and are in fact policies. They are meant to be adhered to, here as anywhere. All general sanctions include a mention of these. "Blocks of up to one year" are par for the course in general sanctions. I'm merely using the standard measures that general sanctions follow, and I see no reason to make these sanctions different from other sanctions, as I said above. Systematically changing of units without discussing such changes and without clear justification is an example of disruptive editing. It has noting to do with an "offence". This is the essential problem with British units, and as such, modelled after the British Isles sanctions, should be primary. Talk page disruption is a problem, but it is inherently secondary in terms of how problematic it is to mass edits in the mainspace. Therefore, I strongly oppose placing talk page matters first. Disruption in the mainspace is always more disruptive than disruptive on the talk page, given that such mainspace disruption can compromise the encyclopaedia and its readers. Please follow the standard "general sanctions" format". They are called "general" for a reason, and there is no need to make many exceptions for this particular example of them. They are meant to be simple, and they are meant to be general. RGloucester — ☎ 22:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer the piped version if that is what is done traditionally. Could you point me to the format for general sanctions that you are referring to. You refer to the British Isles sanctions and link to general sanctions, but you are apparently not referring to the text I find there:

"Any editor who systematically adds or removes the term "British Isles" from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification, or who edit-wars over such addition or removal, may be added to the list of topic-banned editors. For the purpose of adding users to the list and enforcing restrictions under this provision, an administrator should be uninvolved. An administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute). Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) community consensus or Committee approval to do so. All sanctions imposed are to be logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log."

--Boson (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Boson: See the following, from the general sanctions page:

In areas of conflict the Arbitration Committee occasionally authorizes administrators to impose sanctions on editors working on pages if after a warning they repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Administrators may impose a broad range of sanctions including blocks of up to one year, article or topic bans and revert restrictions. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions for more information, areas subject to discretionary sanctions can be found here. The community may authorize sanctions which echo those imposed by the Arbitration Committee, with the exception of appeal and logging procedures.

This is the basis for all general sanctions. I originally got the idea for these general sanctions from working on clarifying the Syrian Civil War general sanctions in a recent AN discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 01:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand that correctly, the formulation is used as a general explanantion or rationale for sanctions at WP:General sanctions, rather than in any particular sanctions text, except in the Syrian issue, which you worked on. By the way, your ping did not reach me, although I have all notifications switched on. Is this a known bug related to your signature or something? --Boson (talk) 09:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't accept your argument that "mainspace disruption can compromise the encyclopaedia and its readers" in this particular case – when we are talking about whether to write

• 270 metres (900 ft) or
• 900 feet (270 m).

It just makes it seem more dramatic than it is. --Boson (talk) 10:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is disruption, nonetheless. Our as an encyclopaedia integrity is at stake, and this particular behaviour is always disruptive and almost never productive. Consensus is critical in this area. That particular text is part of all the sanctions, as it is the basis for general sanctions. When anything says that "general sanctions" may be imposed, it means that these are the "general sanctions" that can be imposed. RGloucester — ☎ 13:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I would strongly oppose Boson's wording because it entirely skips out the nub of the problem. If we could be sure that the mass-conversion of articles would cease, talk page discussion would be easier. RGloucester is right that that such mass-conversion is almost always disruptive. Note WP:FAITACCOMPLI, which points out an Arbcom ruling describing just this kind of behaviour: this precisely describes what some editors have attempted in this area. Kahastok talk 17:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support/Opposition

Strongly Oppose This is instruction creep of the worst sort. It is based on turing the words of a guideline into enforceable policy. Any such enforcement such as this should be based on polices not guidelines "Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts." (Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines)

The devil is in the detail. Why just Britain?

Scope: What does United Kingdom mean does it include does it include the Isle of Man the Channel Islands etc? Is the Channel tunnel French or British. Does this apply to the height of someone who holds both British and Irish identity. Does it apply to someone a Republican born in Northern Ireland who does not recognise the British State and travels southern Irish Passport? What about the speed of a tanker ship does it only apply to British resisted ships or British owned ships as well? Does an article such as the Bombing of Dresden in World War II, What about the Battle of Waterloo does it come under this? What about the American War of Independence (fought before the UK came into existence) and the War of 1812 (after the UK came into existence)? What about the Duke of Wellington who was Anglo-Irish, what about Michael Collins born in the United Kingdom died in an Irish Free State? What about William Joyce executed as a British traitor? What about Henry VIII (born before the UK state existed)? What about articles on Australia prior to Dominion status? What about British India which was a member of the League of Nations? What about the Boer War? What about biographies of British Army soldiers born in the Dominions? The article Tram uses British spelling so is it closely linked to the UK? There are two different articles on railways vans, Clearly boxcar is not British but what about covered goods wagon? The point about British Isles is it is narrow in scope and easy to understand. This is broad in scope and open to lots of misunderstandings and also creep.

"These general sanctions would enact WP:1RR for edits that switch units between imperial and metric in UK-related articles" So what happens to the rest of the edit that involves more than "switch units between imperial and metric" is all the text in the edit involved under 1RR or just the bits in {{convert}} template? Weight in tonnes is about the same as weigh in long tons. In the case of RAF bomber raids were the weight is given as 10 tons and has been copied into a Wikiepida article as 10 tons, if someone changes that to 10 tonnes is that subject to this as clearly 10 tons is ambiguous (could be read as 10 short tons)?

Should the pull-weight of English Longbows be given in lbs, kilos or newtons, are newtons part of this? Is switching between kilos and newtons a breach of this 1RR? If not, then is switching between lbs and newtons a sanctioning act, if so then what is the point of the sanction?

If there is a mix in the article where some place imperial first and the other place metric first is homogenising them all one way a breach of this sanction?

If a horse is measured in hands, does that have to be shown in any other imperial system? Would including hands and having them deleted come under this rule?

Height of humans should it be measured in centimetres or metres does conventing from one to the other breach these sanctions, if not then what is the point of the sanctions as that can be just as divisive as between feet and inches and metres?

The MOS is a guideline not a policy. Before any such proposals as those suggested above (which are based on a guideline), implemented there needs to be a widely advertised RfC, with dozens of people involved (not the less than 1 score who have discussed it here). So an RfC should widely advertised include advertising it on the talk pages of any and all WikiProjects which edit "British" articles. It needs to be put forwards with clear initial wording so that people who are not familiar with British weights and measures are clear on what is being proposed.

-- PBS (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misconstructed the purpose of these sanctions. In no way does this intend to make "MOSNUM an enforceable policy". Many articles don't even comply with MOSNUM. Even on one of those articles, if someone goes around switching units (perhaps to "comply" with MOSNUM), gets reverted, and then keeps switching units, that would be an instance where these sanctions would apply. There do not apply to normal editors making changes, and discussing and attaining consensus for unit changes on the talk pages of articles, nor do they apply to those who discuss changing the guidelines at MOSNUM. They only apply to those who switch units constantly with no good reason, and edit disruptively as such. Read the "British Isles" sanctions. This is similar to that. It isn't like there would be a ban on switching units, and it does mention "with clear justification". Merely it would force discussion on the talk page, as opposed to having systematic changes of units across articles, like the proposals specify. RGloucester — ☎ 14:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any such disruption would be equally true for any article so why single out a specific set of articles? -- PBS (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point of general sanctions is to allow administrators to deal with disruptive editing swiftly in specific areas of conflict. Edit-warring and disputes over units in UK-related articles have caused innumerable problems and inordinate time-wasting. Systematic changing of units in many UK-related articles, as has been done many times by various people, is disruptive. I don't think there has ever been a conflict over American units, Australian units, or whatever. That's because those countries all essentially have one set of units, more or less. In Britain, this is not the case, and that's why we see constant conflict over units. Units in Britain are politically charged in a way that they are not in America, Ireland, or Australia, and that's why they've caused endless conflict here. That's why general sanctions are appropriate. They grant administrators the tools they need to deal with conflict that otherwise isn't being dealt with. The status quo is to let disputes fester for months, leading to all sorts of nonsense like sock-puppetry, disruptive editing, &c. It simply does not work. RGloucester — ☎ 20:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow what you mean for two reasons. First is all pages with measurements need then in imperial and metric, if not then they are either difficult for an American to follow or for an Australian (so at worst all one is talking about is which comes first). Second what does "UK-related articles" mean --See my comments above--ie what is the strict definition that you wish to use for that term? -- PBS (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! You haven't followed the conflict, then. All articles have both metric and imperial measures, or at least they are supposed to. The area of conflict is whether metric or imperial measures should appear first ("primary"). It may sound minor, but it causes 10 tonnes (9+4⁄5 long tons) worth of headaches. That's exactly why it is needed, the same as with the British Isles sanctions, which are most similar to this proposal. It causes inordinate disruption. UK-related articles refers to articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom, the same way "strong ties" works for ENGVAR and date formats. I don't think a strict definition is necessary. If it wasn't necessary for date formats or ENGVAR, I don't see why it would be here. That's up for article talk pages to decide, and in the case of sanctions, for the uninvolved administrator to decide. RGloucester — ☎ 15:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In British English both day month and month day are used. Your are talking to one of of those who was involved in early over ENGVAR :-) ENGVAR is fine vague definition for a guideline because it is an exception to the rule of it an article started out in one version of English do not change to another, and people in good faith can debate on the talk page if a particular page falls in or outside a particular ENGVAR. If you want to use it for sanctions (where by definition good faith is lacking) then you ought to come up with a precise definition of what you mean. I have given lots of examples above of the problem of scope. So what is your clear definition for enforcement of sanctions? --PBS (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I take your points above about advertising this more widely and agree that would go better with some more preparatory work on the wording. But I don't think that wording should be extremely tight and fear the first proposal placed too much emphasis on disruption within articles by unit-switching. This proposal's here and meeting with such general support because we've seen so much wikilawyering, so much playing merry hell with the details and so much delight in finding new tactics and battlegrounds. Looking at Wikipedia:General sanctions#Sanctions placed by the Wikipedia community, I'm attracted to the brevity of "Men's Rights / Men's Rights Movements" and "All pages about social groups" and would favour simply "Units of measurement in UK-related articles". If "UK-related articles" seems too broad, we can probably find a tighter phrasing such as "articles primarily concerning UK subjects". I don't think it's necessary to be explicit that this includes talk pages and project pages and the like, any more than it is for MR/MRM and social-groups sanctions. NebY (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with NebY, here. However, I see nothing wrong with "articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom". This is a standard definition used here on Wikipedia, and is used for MOSNUM purposes. I don't see how this definition is inappropriate. In articles without strong ties to the UK or US, metric is favoured by MOSNUM, though it says that changes should not be made without discussion. In those cases, any dispute would fall outside these sanctions. This only applies to UK articles, like, for example, Bristol Temple Meads railway station. RGloucester — ☎ 17:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm hesitant about the "strong ties" phrasing only because it might encompass articles which also had strong or stronger ties to other places - I'm not sure quite which, maybe soccer or World War Two or some such. Still, maybe we can make progress by looking at Wikipedia:General sanctions#Sanctions placed by the Wikipedia community and considering how we'd fill in the columns along similar lines, for example:

• Applicable area: "Units of measurement in articles primarily concerning UK subjects", "Units of measurement in articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom"
• Type: "1RR and discretionary topic bans or blocks"
• Sanctions: "Explicitly including but not restricted to switching units, forum-shopping, tendentious editing and disputation, being boring" - could probably be trimmed further, though it is tempting to paste in Boson's list. NebY (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctantly oppose the suggested wording. It is not balanced because it does not explicitly and adequately address the main problems, which are at discussion venues such as WT:MOSNUM and talk pages – and in fact distracts attention from these problems, which are more to do with:

• the uncooperative approach of a very small number of vociferous editors
• repeated discussions of previous behaviour that verge on personal attacks and focus on individual, named editors rather than addressing their arguments
• an apparent unwillingness to assume good faith on the part of at least one editor
• consensus building being derailed by walls of text and circular discussions
• discussions of alleged conflicts of interest that verge on (purported) outing
• collaborative editors being tempted to leave and effectively grant veto power to more vociferous and persistent editors.

Whatever the intentions or motivations of any of those involved, changing the order in which metric and imperial units are shown (or the addition of metric units to comply with WP:MOSNUM, as in the recent dispute) is objectively nothing like as disruptive as the nature of the discussions at WT:MOSNUM. What we really need is something that enables egregious sockpuppets to be blocked very quickly, and encourages constructive and brief debate of issues aimed at improving the articles and the guidelines.--Boson (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Er, the wording says "who otherwise disruptively edits" and "who does not adhere to the five pillars". This is fairly standard for general sanctions. It doesn't specify every particular behaviour, merely "disruption". If an uninvolved administrator believes that something is extremely disruptive, he can sanction that editor. RGloucester — ☎ 17:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the enumeration

1. any editor who systematically changes values from metric units to imperial units or vice-versa without clear justification,
2. who edit-wars over such a change,
3. or who otherwise disruptively edits.

The main problems with UK units are more to do with the disruption of the consensus-building process on the talk pages, but the "otherwise" is intuitively understood to mean "disruption of a similar nature", which would probably suggest edits to articles similar to edit-warring. This would target editors "guilty" of one type of potentially disruptive editing and give ammunition to other editors who are actually causing the problem. Similar problems come up in law; I'm not sure if it's covered by the principle inclusio unius est exclusio alteriu. So if we are to have an enumeration, we should probably include both types of disruption, specifically referring first to talk page disruption, and something like the Ninth Amendment ("the enumeration of certain types of disruption shall not exclude any other types of disruption"). --Boson (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't accept that the described issues are the key problems on talk. If those issues exist at all, they arise primarily through exasperation when the same editors make the same arguments for the same changes over and over again, which certainly does happen. In some cases they've been making the same case for years on end, it's been rejected at every turn, and the reasons provided for rejecting the case have been ignored the next time. Editors should not be expected to counter the same argument the 50th time an editor has raised it in the same way as they countered it the first time; to expect them to is to expect an inhuman degree of patience.

I would also note that the difficult nature of talk page argument is to a major degree driven by the backdrop of experience of disruption caused by mass-conversion of articles - particularly when this arises through Wikilawyering the guideline. It is much harder to get consensus when there is no trust, and that backdrop means that there is very little trust. It is this that, ultimately, is a major cause of the problems on talk. If we could be sure that such mass-conversion would no longer take place, I believe that would make discussion at MOSNUM talk easier. Not necessarily always easy - you have people who demand 100% metric and people who demand 100% imperial and it's going to be hard to reconcile them regardless - but easier. Kahastok talk 19:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should remember what started the current flair-up: the discussion WT:MOSNUM#Which units should be primary for the height of a UK statue of a UK politician? started by an egregious sockmaster after this edit] changed the non-compliant "a nine-foot bronze statue" to " a 2.7-metre (9 ft) bronze statue" to make it comply with WP:MOSNUM, which requires that metric units also be specified. --Boson (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been pointing this out. If we could get to a stage where people did not use DeFacto socks as an excuse to escalate this, but rather did what we really should be doing - closing the discussions started by DeFacto socks and letting sleeping dogs lie - then this would also reduce the problems at talk. There are ways in which we reduce the arguments here, but they require everyone's cooperation and we don't have it. Kahastok talk 20:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem at WT:MOSNUM is not that some people want all metric and others want all imperial. Excluding the contribution of the DeFacto sockpuppets, the disputed issues (as I understand them) are relatively minor:

• whether to refer editors to "The Times" style guide
• what to do about sports where metric measurements are often used by the relevant associations (and The Times style guide says that metric measurements are preferred for sports) but the text of WP:MOSNUM (excluding the reference to The Times style guide) prescribes imperial measurements
• what to do about milk, beer, and cider (where the guideline (arguably?) deviates from legislation and usage).

The problem is that the situation is repeatedly misrepresented and disrupted in the way described above.--Boson (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that's how you've understood the issues here, then I believe you've misunderstood them in general. We do have editors who argue 100% metrication and we have editors who argue 100% imperial. Not all of them are asking for it all at once, but it's clear that that's the desired final result. A major argument in the present dispute, for example, is that change would make the guideline more metric and that that would be desirable in and of itself - which misses the point entirely (as Wikipedia is not allowed to express such a POV).

But as I say, one of the major issues is the history of some editors Wikilawyering the rules to push their preferred system. If we could be sure that this will stop, then I believe that this would assist in resolving things by generating trust. I know I would be far more willing to trust that people are not going to systematically abuse the MOS if I was confident they would be sanctioned for doing so. Kahastok talk 20:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re your last point, that's why I used "including but not restricted to" phrasing above. NebY (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That goes a long way to alleviating my concerns and is a good basis for further discussion, but the wording probably still needs a bit of tweaking. --Boson (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. Do you want to suggest tweaks, or talk about what's missing or off so that we can find a brief phrase for it? NebY (talk) 06:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think we can leave in the bit about "being boring", though it is tempting. Perhaps an explicit reference to talk pages and some links to relevant guidelines that include WP:IDHT] etc. would be sufficient. --Boson (talk) 10:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite prepared to sacrifice "being boring" - it was more of a placeholder. I had hoped "disputation" covered talk pages and edit comments - maybe that can be made clearer by extending the examples of behaviours as you suggest, as in this draft: "Explicitly including but not restricted to systematically switching units of measurement without consensus and forum-shopping, disruptive, tendentious and time-wasting editing and disputation concerning units of measurement". Mmm - that's verging on too lengthy. Thoughts, anyone? NebY (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NebY and @RGloucester What does "primarily concerning UK subjects" mean? What precise is the definition of UK/United Kingdom that you are using? -- PBS (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't see how a "precise definition" is necessary. This strike me as splitting hairs. Like I said, I would use the exact same "definition" used by MOSNUM, that is, articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom. RGloucester — ☎ 15:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled too at the implication that we would need a detailed definition of the United Kingdom. WP:MOSNUM#Choice of units itself has "In non-scientific articles relating to the United States... In non-scientific articles relating to the United Kingdom... UK engineering-related articles...". Looking for similar scope issues, I find WP:ENGVAR#Strong national ties to a topic has "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation". Sanctions are no more precise than those policies, which wouldn't surprise anyone who's seen bounds tested: "related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted", "Articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted", "Explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal." and more. There isn't a great deal to choose between RGloucester's phrasing and mine; mine is intentionally slightly more restrictive.

I saw your list of possible grey areas above. They are always with us. Editors have been applying their interpretations of WP:MOSNUM#Units in many surprising ways and arguing fiercely about many possible interpretations. Conflict over use of imperial or metric units has extended to articles very similar to the ones you mention, maybe even to some of those very articles - I haven't checked. Those conflicts can be bitter and fierce, long and draining. We're proposing to damp down those conflicts through sanctions and, I'm glad to say, we actually have strong general consensus among the combatants for this effort - if we can find a suitably balanced phrasing. NebY (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone care to propose a new wording that incorporates the concerns of other editors here? RGloucester — ☎ 18:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NebY and @RGloucester When did the UK you want to use in this these sanctions come into existence? -- PBS (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

???? This is not necessary. Any article with strong ties to the United Kingdom. That means that it includes articles like The Protectorate, as that event is historically tied to what is now the UK. It really doesn't matter when the "UK came into existence". As it says at the MOS for ENGVAR, the Great Fire of London is written in British English because it has strong ties to Britain, even though Britain did not exist in the modern sense at the time of the fire. We don't write that article in Early Modern English, but British English. RGloucester — ☎ 23:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've made another proposal above, if you care to take a look and see if it addresses your concerns. RGloucester — ☎ 04:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

@NebY do you agree with RGloucester's assesment of what UK means ? -- PBS (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My "assesment of what UK means" is irrelevant. If these sanctions are applied, no-one is going to call me up and ask me what UK means, or consult this discussion for my assessment. NebY (talk) 08:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NebY so you are supporting a proposal in which you think there is no agreed definition as to scope. Why? -- PBS (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@PBS:That's not what I said and it doesn't follow from what I said. I've supported the suggestion of sanctions. I haven't supported RGloucester's wording, which I have tried to discuss with them, and I have floated an alternative approach to a formal wording. I now despair. I'm staying away from the latest WT:MOSNUM monster and have only come back here when you've pinged me. NebY (talk) 12:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RGloucester I am not sure which proposal you are referring (what is the time stamp on it). If you do not mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland then you should not link to it. Instead you need to define what you mean by the UK. Do the proposed sanctions include articles about the 26 counties of Ireland that were part of the United Kingdom? -- 20:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to play what I presume is a game. It is fairly obvious what it means, and that's why it is used already for the sake of ENGVAR and date formats. "Strong ties" to a particular country, as opposed to others. Ireland is outside the scope of these sanctions, as they are totally metric, and as has been explained above. Sadly, I feel that you fail to realise that the Great Fire of London has strong ties to the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" despite the fact that that state did not exist at the time of the fire. That's because the territory where that fire took place is part of the modern United Kingdom, and hence the history of that territory has "strong ties to the United Kingdom" as opposed to other states. The history of southern Ireland does not have strong ties to the modern UK as opposed to other states, as the state that it has the most strong ties to is Ireland. Is that that difficult to understand? My proposal is in the "propose remedies" section. RGloucester — ☎ 20:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RGloucester It is incorrect and therefore misleading to say that Ireland is totally metric. It is far from it. It is very similar to the UK, with TV and newspapers using non-metric, and people mostly using non-metric in everyday life. The only difference from the UK is that the Irish government has changed speed limits to kph, but people still have mph speedometers and speak in terms of mph. Ireland should have a section for articles with strong ties to Ireland being required to use the same units as the Irish do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.215.35 (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose in Strongest Possible Terms largely for the reasons enunciated by PBS. Further, what does "strong ties" to the UK mean? What system of units would be used for Capture of USS Chesapeake? DocumentError (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These sanctions are not about determining what units are used where. That's already determined by the MoS (WP:UNIT). Please actually read the MoS and its section on "strong ties" before commenting. RGloucester — ☎ 12:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RGloucester: but you have to "play that game" because you are proposing to put into place sanctions that can have editors banned for a year. For a start you give the example of the "Great Fire of London" but it can be argued that is because London is within the country of England and the country of England is where the English Nation resides (strong national ties to the English). That does not mean that there is a strong national tie between the the state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, it depends on whether one sees the state of the (UK) as encompassing four nations or just one -- a very topical political argument. -- PBS (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point about WP:ENGVAR is it is an exception to a rule (of no changing spellings etc from the initial spellings), but there has to be a consensus to apply it in any given context. It is from a guideline and "guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts" (WP:POLICY) and if there is an article written in a different dialect of English then consensus has to be obtained before a change takes place. This means that even if in your opinion an article has close ties to Britain, if it is written in another dialect then British English does not apply (EG War of 1812). If the initial author had written that in British English then it would still be in British English. But according to what I understand you are suggesting that even if an article is not written in British English if the subject has strong ties to the United Kingdom then such an article would be subject to the proposed sanctions. -- PBS (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You stated above that in you opinion it applies to The Protectorate but it does not apply to the 26 counties. Then what about the Siege of Drogheda? I raised this problem of scope in the Discretionary sanctions discussions of 2013. -- PBS (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also strongly object to the idea that there should be a sanctions warning/information page, you will also find those arguments in Discretionary sanctions discussions of 2013. -- PBS (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If editors want to bring in sanctions on changing measurement types why not make it universal instead of trying to defined it to a poorly defined subset of articles? -- PBS (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is only a problem with British units, that's why. There is no reason to apply sanctions in areas outside the dispute. You are talking about discretionary sanctions, but these are general sanctions. There must be a page to coordinate and log sanctions issued so that administrators can be held accountable. I'm sorry, but I have little tolerance for this odd nonsense about the "nation of England". Can we please have even the smallest semblance of common sense on this page? "Strong ties to the United Kingdom" is an established phrase in Wikipedia jargon. There is nothing unclear about it. As I've said, and as it says at the page I piped it to, strong ties means "strong ties to one country as opposed to others", meaning that in areas where multiple countries have strong ties, it does not apply. I do not take kindly to one editor stonewalling what is overall a broad consensus of many editors above. I'm happy to work to create a good wording, but this is just taking it to another level. RGloucester — ☎ 13:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

""Strong ties to the United Kingdom" is an established phrase in Wikipedia jargon." Where? -- PBS (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@PBS: MOS:TIES and MOS:DATE TIES. RGloucester — ☎ 01:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I don't understand why you care about this in the first place. When I suggested using an internationalized form for the United States you said "In English, American means "AMERICAN". Do you think I cater to the whims of foreigners? Please, go to "the Hispanosphere" Wikipedia, where they can indulge you in stupidity." Since the majority of this master Anglophone race are in the USA and they use imperial units why are we catering to the whims of the dirty foreigners? I thought you were against that? DocumentError (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please take your irrelevant and entirely off-topic vitriol elsewhere. RGloucester — ☎ 03:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm ... okay. DocumentError (talk) 07:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward

It is about time we moved this forward. There is no reason to allow this proposal, like so many others, to flounder. There is broad community consensus that something must be done about the present circumstances, and I intend to get these sanctions up and running. Let me propose another wording, using the basic general sanctions format. This wording should address the concerns of PBS and NebY above.

In articles that have strong ties solely to the United Kingdom, as opposed to other English-speaking countries, any editor who systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another without clear consensus, who edit-wars over such a change, who disrupts talk page discussions or normal Wikipedia processes pertaining to units in UK-related articles, who engages in forum-shopping, or who otherwise disruptively edits may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator. Sanctions can be imposed if, after being notified of the existence of these sanctions, the editor repeatedly repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or normal editorial processes. Sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages, bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviours, or any other measures that the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Notifications must be logged at the general sanctions page to be effective. Sanctions may be appealed at the administrators' noticeboard.

This is my attempt at clarity. Let's not let bureaucracy destroy something that has the potential to abate disruption. RGloucester — ☎ 22:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Re:"any editor who systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another without clear justification". What would constitute "clear justification"? Assertion of common use? Assertion that official UK bodies do it that way? Cited reference style? I changed them weeks ago and nobody noticed until now? A "sock" changed it first? Never mind what common usage might be, modern civil engineering uses those units?94.196.212.246 (talk) 06:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RGloucester I object to the name of this section it is not "moving forward" (which is a biased title) it is "arbitrary break (2)" (or whatever number is appropriate).

I asked ""Strong ties to the United Kingdom" is an established phrase in Wikipedia jargon." Where? You replied MOS:TIES and MOS:DATE TIES but neither of those do mention the phrase instead they state "a particular English-speaking nation" and as such there is no need to define if the English speaking nation is England or the UK. So I am not sure why you write I'm sorry, but I have little tolerance for this odd nonsense about the "nation of England". Can we please have even the smallest semblance of common sense on this page?". So the MOS does not give you a definition for what the UK means, further you are putting in a claim for national ownership on articles which is expressly forbidden in the sentence "This guideline should not be used to claim national ownership of any article".

In you latest version you write ou to talk about "strong ties solely to the United Kingdom" but you are unable to define what the United Kingdom and claim it includes articles like the Protectorate, or in you latest draft are you excluding historical article before 1922 as the United Kingdom before 1922 included Ireland?

You say "This is only a problem with British units, that's why. There is no reason to apply sanctions in areas outside the dispute." but by removing the scope of the UK it would simplify the wording, making it much easier to understand as there would be no debatable pages on the borders.

"any editor who systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another without clear consensus", but from what you wrote earlier "The area of conflict is whether metric or imperial measures should appear first" then it is not a "changes values from one system of measurement to another" but a rearrangement of the ordering of one system of measurement with another.

Higher up the page you said "The point of these sanctions is NOT to enforce the compliance of articles with MOSNUM." then what does "systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another without clear consensus" mean because consensus usually includes the wider community view as expressed in policies and guidelines, explained in WP:CONLIMITED.

In this section you state "There is broad community consensus that something must be done" I see no such consensus particularly as this suggestion has no been put to an Rfc, that has been widely advertised.

Also the whole issue according to this posting to this page was started by an editor adding metric to a page that did not have a metric measurement. Presumably some people objected to the metre before feet measurement, but I do not see why the MOS has to micro manage something like that (first come first serve unless there is a consensus to change it just like ).

Something else that editors to this section do not seem to have not considered it that the the verity of English that an article is written in defines the ENGVAR not the subject of the topic, this means that the advise given in MOS:UNITS is not very useful because ever article is written in a National variety of English and it is the language an article is written in not primarily the subject of the article the should determine any quirks in measurements, although there will be cases where the units used will be tailored via common usage in reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PBS, if you want to change MOSNUM, be my guest. I don't like the current guidance either, and have submitted numerous proposals over the past year as such, whenever this problem comes up. England/Scotland/UK, what's the difference? There isn't any England. It was subsumed into the UK, and anyway, they use the same units. I don't understand what you are talking about with national ownership. I never said any such thing. Merely that I am mimicking the existing guideline at MOSNUM, which specifies that articles with strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use that nation's system of units. Rearranging the ordering is changing the values. "Clear consensus" means what it always means, which is that the appropriate usage should be decided through talk page discussion. MOSNUM itself says in a footnote that in the event of a dispute over units, talk page discussions should decide what units to display where, and that the existing guidance at MOSNUM is not a hard and fast rule. This suggestion does not need to be put to an RfC. Wikipedia is not bureaucracy, and all existing general sanctions were not created through RfCs. If you'd like me to remove the "scope of UK", fine. I'll do it, if you'll support it. However, I don't see why that's appropriate. The point of general sanctions is to remedy a dispute. If there is no dispute, there is no need for sanctions. Given that there is no dispute outside UK-related articles, I don't see why the scope should be expanded as such.

A "biased title"? There is nothing biased about it. I'm merely trying to move forward. What the heck could be biased about that? My break wasn't "arbitrary". I put it there for a reason. PBS, I'm starting to think that your only intent is in stonewalling this proposal. You have shown no willingness to compromise, and have continually nit-picked over things that are utterly absurd and trivial. You are raising issues that have nothing to do with this proposal. You are acting with a clear bad faith attitude towards me, and it is seeping into myself as well. Please explain, PBS, what exactly it is that you want me to do to make this proposal work? If there isn't anything I can do, then there is no point in continuing this discourse. As it is now, it seems as if you are trying to make me write a legalistic document that specifies every potential technicality in existence. No other general sanctions outfit does this, and I don't see why it is necessary here. The administrator in question has discretion in interpreting the basic framework, as he does with all general sanctions. He is held to account by the logging of sanctions, and by the ability of those sanctioned to appeal. There is no need whatsoever to write a constitution here. RGloucester — ☎ 21:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another question for PBS. It is quite clear you don't like my general sanctions proposal. However, there is a widely acknowledged problem with units of measurement in UK-related articles. This problem needs solving, and has caused inordinate disruption. I am trying to remedy that situation, and so far, no one else has visibly tried or succeeded in doing so. Given that you have a great distaste for my proposal, what is your proposal to deal with these problems? If you haven't got one, that says something. There is no reason to allow this disruption to continue. I don't care how it is curtailed, but it needs to be settled. RGloucester — ☎ 23:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I am rather busy at the moment, but I will answer some of your points in detail in about 18 hours or so. In the mean time I would like you to consider the article Berlin Victory Column which is written in British English, but has yet to have imperial measurements on it. I would also like you to consider articles on the Allied bombing in world War II and how to decide which metric conversions to use when the article says 100 tons of bombs were dropped, but the secondary sources do not make if clear if they mean short or long tons. -- PBS (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about that. None of that matters with regard to these sanctions. That's to be determined by MOSNUM. I don't understand why you are bringing up inconsequential stuff here. This is not about MOSNUM, or what conversions to use. No article is forced to comply with MOSNUM, anyway. It is just a guideline. The only purpose of these sanctions is to sanction disruptive editors. What units we use where is inconsequential to this proposal. RGloucester — ☎ 22:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If an article is written in British English then surly the measurements used should be those used in British English? The subject matter is irrelevant, other than in the long term articles about a subject with a strong tie to a English-speaking nation will gravitate to use the English of that nation particular nation. The point being it is not the subject matter that dictates usage but the style of English used. -- PBS (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how the present guidelines are arranged, PBS. At present, if one is writing an article that is not related to the United Kingdom in British English, the guidelines specify that one should use solely metric. Regardless, PBS, this has nothing to do with the sanctions. If you'd like to change the guidelines at MOSNUM, as I've said, please do. I don't like the existing guidance. These sanctions, however, have nothing to do with what units are used where. If you'd like to change the guidelines, go to WT:MOSNUM and contribute a proposal there. In the mean-time, however, I'd like you to respond to my question. That is, what exactly can I do to make this proposal work, and if I can't, what is your proposal to solve this disruption? RGloucester — ☎ 17:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RGloucester "if one is writing an article that is not related to the United Kingdom in British English, the guidelines specify that one should use solely metric" where? -- PBS (talk) 09:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly oppose - existing procedures cover such issues perfectly well; experienced users are well aware of the need to discuss edits that are contested by others. When people don't discuss them and cause disruption, they can be appropriately warned/blocked etc.

A great many new (and new-ish) users are likely to have strong feelings about metric/imperial measurement in the UK. Blasting them with discretionary sanctions without giving them a fair opportunity (and appropriate reminders/warnings) is not conducive to the goal of attracting editors.

This would be creeping bureaucracy, increasing rules and complexity which discourages participation from people outside regular editors.

Certain users are always going to edit-war over what many consider the most trivial of entries; adding further rules about the specific areas does nothing to resolve that problem - in fact it is likely to cause further wasted time arguing over the nuance of the specific rules.

Let people discuss the issue as much as they wish, in an appropriate and cordial manner - indeed encourage such discussion. Use appropriate existing measures to stop edit-wars and deal with those who cause disruption across articles in an appropriate manner.

In general, admins can be too keen to stomp on anything that causes them work; they would do well to remember that the purpose of Wikipedia is to present knowledge, and while it is important to prevent disruption it is not to prevent reasonable discussion.

There are over 9000 similarly 'trivial' topics of frequent and heated discussion, and discretionary sanctions should be reserved for use only when absolutely necessary to prevent disruption.

This sounds like a measure proposed to stop the actions of one (or perhaps a few) disruptive and persistent individuals - I can appreciate that it may make it easier to deal with those specific cases, but I fear it is at the cost of imposing unnecessarily draconian laws upon a great many other users. 88.104.22.153 (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Point of order - is there any admin action still being requested? If not, this discussion should be closed. Discussing changes to policy/guidelines can take place in the appropriate places; AN isn't one of them. 88.104.22.153 (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise, firstly, that general sanctions are always established at AN. This has nothing to do with policy or guidelines, so please stop. No one will get "smacked with discretionary sanctions" unless they behave disruptively. Give that you're a likely sock, I don't think it is really worth engaging with you further. RGloucester — ☎ 22:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wish that personal attacks such as that were actually dealt with appropriately. Sir, if you think I'm a sock, you know how to deal with such a matter - SPI or GTFO.

I know that general sanctions can be established at AN. Is there still a request for such, or have we moved on now to a discussion of policy/guidelines? If it's the latter, it no longer belongs on AN - I hope you'll agree. I believe, at this point, this discussion is unlikely to result in any admin action; if there is an admin action requested, perhaps it could be clearly stated and !voted upon. 88.104.22.153 (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No "admin action", whatever that is, was ever requested. We don't need an administrator to set-up these sanctions. I couldn't give a damn about the policy or guidelines. This is not a request. Presuming that the discussion is closed in favour of establishing these sanctions, they will be established. Said "action" was endorsed by a great many users above. The only dispute has been over the wording itself as proposed. RGloucester — ☎ 02:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any process needs a well advertised RfC to show that there is a consensus for the process. This is not a well watched page and the score of editors who have expressed an opinion to date can easily be described as "a limited group of editors, at one place and time" (WP:CONLIMITED) -- PBS (talk) 09:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264#Excessive topic-ban, a topic ban of User:Lucia Black from Japanese entertainment topics was enacted. I'd like to propose that the topic ban be rescinded, leaving in place Lucia Black's topic ban from Ghost in the Shell and related articles, the prohibition on Lucia Black starting threads at AN/ANI without permission, and any other previously existing topic bans on Lucia Black that might be in place. I have not consulted with Lucia Black on this, but was reminded of that discussion because Lucia Black mentioned me on Jimbo Wales' talk page (and then posted on my talk page as I started writing this).

I want to acknowledge that I do think Lucia Black was disruptive at AN/ANI (including in the thread where the Japanese entertainment topic ban was enacted), and also that I think the topic ban from Ghost in the Shell and related articles was well deserved. I also acknowledge that Lucia Black seems to think that a group of editors are out to get her, and doesn't seem to understand that she actually has been annoying and disruptive in AN/ANI discussions. I thought that the proposal for a full site ban on Lucia Black was reasonable (even though I probably would have voted against a site ban had I voted).

Despite that, I feel the topic ban on Lucia Black should be removed for the following reasons:

1. Lucia Black was in general working productively with other editors on Japanese entertainment related subjects. For example, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_61#We_need_to_make_reforms_.28MOSAM_fix_proposal_2.0.29 and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_61#We_need_another_FA_article, from just before the topic ban was enacted. Because Lucia Black was already working productively in the area from which she was topic banned, the topic ban doesn't seem to serve any useful purpose. Suggesting that Lucia Black should show good work elsewhere before the topic ban is overturned also doesn't make sense to me, as again, she was already doing good work. The only areas where she was really causing problems were Ghost in the Shell and AN/ANI, and she already had separate topic bans for those areas. While she was continuing to be disruptive in those specific areas, topic banning her from other places where she wasn't being disruptive just makes no sense.

2. While I'm not entirely sure what subject area everyone edits in, the impression I got was that the people in favor of both a site ban and a topic ban were primarily people who have interacted with Lucia Black at AN/ANI, and that people who have interacted with Lucia Black on Japanese entertainment articles were mostly opposed to any sort of further sanctions. It seems nonsensical to me for her to be topic banned from Japanese entertainment when the people who work in that subject area don't want her topic banned.

3. Because a topic ban was proposed as more of an aside and not as the main subject of the discussion (which was instead for a full site ban), I think many people didn't mention that they were against it when they otherwise would have. For myself at least, had I realized that that a topic ban was a possible outcome of the discussion, I would have probably participated and voted against a topic ban. I think the consensus of the discussion likely would have been different had a topic ban been proposed directly, separate from the discussion of a site ban.

I want to apologize for taking up any more of anyone's time with this discussion. I know some users (e.g., Hasteur, Robert McClenon, and Salvidrim!) expressed frustration with how much time has been wasted on issues related to Japanese entertainment and Lucia Black specifically. I want to remind everyone that you don't have to respond to this thread (or any thread on Lucia Black, anime, or whatever) if you think your time could be more productively spent elsewhere. I've created this discussion because I personally think that Lucia Black was making good contributions, and that those contributions outweigh any time wasted on AN/ANI. I ask that anyone responding here please consider first and foremost whether the topic ban is useful for the subject to which it applies, Japanese entertainment, rather than focusing on AN/ANI. Calathan (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Her drama wasted too much time of constructive editors, and until the very end, she refused to concede any sort of responsibility towards her actions. Zero awareness of the issues. As far as she's ever let on, she attributes her topic ban 100% to "people out to get her", and "0% her combative and disruptive edits". I can't support repealing it with that sort of attitude. Sergecross73 msg me 21:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But what does any of that have to do with Japanese entertainment? I agree that Lucia has wasted tons of time of people here at AN/ANI, and been really rude to people here, and doesn't acknowledge that she has been wrong here, but again, I don't understand why she would be topic banned from Japanese entertainment articles because of it. Calathan (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's where all the disruption happens. I don't see what's not to get. Sergecross73 msg me 22:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the disruption doesn't happen there, it happens here, at AN/ANI. I've had WT:ANIME on my watch list for many years, and I can't remember ever seeing her be disruptive there. Likewise, I can't remember ever seeing her be disruptive on any anime-related article I've had watchlisted (though obviously she was disruptive on Ghost in the Shell, which isn't one I've watchlisted). Calathan (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you don't spend much time at WP:VG then? She was disruptive with countless video game articles. I'm pretty sure a discussion at WP:VG that spurred the topic ban discussions. Couple all that with her endless issues with the Ghost in the Shell anime/manga articles, and it's pretty easy how they came up with a "Japanese Entertainment" description - the issues occur with Japanese video games, manga, and anime. Unless there's a fourth kind of Japanese entertainment she wants to edit, that this topic ban is impeding on, the end decision made a lot of sense. Sergecross73 msg me 23:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't spend time at WP:VG, so I wouldn't be aware of any disruption there. Ghost in the Shell was an exception to her normal behavior from what I personally witnessed. If there was a lot of disruption talking place elsewhere, then I admit the topic ban makes more sense. Calathan (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly rather surprised you're going through such lengths to change her topic ban. Your account of her actions is more scathing than some of the people who wish to have her topic banned. Sergecross73 msg me 02:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified Lucia Black of this discussion per the page instructions, though I told her I personally don't think she should post here. However, I was wondering if it would be appropriate for me to notify WikiProject Anime and manga and WikiProject Video games. My thought is that would be appropriate since they are subject areas to which this pertains, as long as the notices are worded in a neutral fashion, but I wanted to make sure first. Calathan (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose removal of TBAN altogether, because Lucia hasn't provided any evidence that she even acknolwedges her problems, and has made no effort whatsoever to reassure the community that she will not continue the same behaviour. Propose narrowing/clarification of scope from "Japanese entertainment" to "Japanese anime and manga, broadly construed", because I think it maintains the usefulness of the scope, while providing a somewhat clearer guideline. I also wish to thank Sergecross73 for letting me know I had been mentioned on AN, because Calathan certainly failed to do so. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Salvidrim!, I'm sorry for not notifying you. I initially had your name and the other names I listed linked so that the notification system would automatically alert you that you had been mentioned. However, then I thought that might be rude, since I was specifically mentioning you because I thought you had felt this subject was a waste of time. I didn't want to seem like I was intentionally wasting your time, so I removed the wikilinks. It seems clear that you felt it was rude not to notify you, so I'm sorry for doing that. Calathan (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Revised: Support return to previous status quo (TBAN from GiTS, IBAN with Chris, BAN from AN/ANI, probation enabling pagebans when necessary); the last time she appealed this, then I let myself get carried away by the mob and proposed a siteban without any additional justification other than a feeling of wasted time fueled by my own lack of neutrality. That discussion resulted in the intermediate "result" of the current broad TBAN, and while I think the consensus could've been read either way (I'm not faulting the closer), I do know the discussion wasn't started with a constructive intention and that my own lack of detachment inevitably swayed the community's feel and doomed Lucia unfairly. I apologize for previously acting highly dismissive of Lucia, who, despite everything else, does remain a dedicated (if passionate) contributor. I don't think the current broad TBAN is preventing disruption. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict × 4)Oppose at this time. This request seems to challenge the validity of the topic ban on several grounds, such as that those supporting sanctions were too far removed from Lucia Black's encyclopedia work to cogently evaluate the situation (essentially the opposite logic in WP:INVOLVED), and that the topic ban is too broad (though Calathan also seems to state that the siteban proposal was reasonable, even if he/she would not have supported it). Honestly, I don't find these arguments convincing. If Lucia Black is editing productively in another area and the topic ban had outlived its usefulness, some rolling back of the editing restrictions could be considered. But a facial challenge to the validity of the ban just doesn't seem right. What I find disturbing is the suggestion that AN/ANI regulars should just ignore Lucia Black's disruption of those fora in recognition of her positive contributions, rather than call for sanctions. This ignores the critical problem of unseen disruption—nascent editors who just stop editing when they encounter difficulties. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree strongly that working well with other editors is important, and in general think it is more important than writing good content. If I thought Lucia Black was scaring away editors from Japanese entertainment articles, I would be in favor of topic banning her from there. However, I instead think Lucia Black is working well with other people on Japanese entertainment articles, which is why I don't think she should be topic banned from there (I do however, think strongly that she should be topic banned from AN/ANI). Calathan (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• (Edit conflict x 2) Weak support. I didn't think she deserved to be banned from this stuff in the first place, and back then I voted accordingly, but her behavior wasn't flawless and she hasn't demonstrated any willingness to correct the problems there were. Tezero (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- I thought the topic ban was unnecessarily harsh, overly broad in scope, and vindictive. It's been several months without disruption so the ban is clearly not accomplishing anything useful now, if it ever did, which I doubt. Reyk _YO! 00:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The bans purpose was to end her all excessively combative arguments. There haven't been any Lucia incidents since it was enacted. How can you say it accomplished nothing? Sergecross73 msg me 00:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the overwhelming majority of articles she's banned from, there was never a problem in the first place. The ban is unnecessarily broad and given the, I'll be blunt, sneaky way it was enacted I do not think it should stand. Reyk _YO! 01:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we are talking about a large swath of articles here. to compare its like being blocked from editing all articles related to sports because bad choices were made on a superbowl article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This support is coming from someone who works on anime/manga related articles, I feel that Lucia had already upset a certain group of editors and an excuse was looked for to drive the final nail in. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Even if this is going to end up with clear oppose, no consensus, I have a thought that she has been changed. Knowing what type of discussion these editors had, she could have been blocked forever, may be she has learned something from the topic ban. She is eager to make useful contributions to this topic and so, the topic ban can be removed. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I was the original proposer of the topic-ban, as a "compromise" between a warning and a site-ban. I see no evidence that she has learned her lesson, to stop creating drama. However, she has served time that, for her, amounts almost to a site-ban. I am willing to see her topic-ban lifted on two conditions. First, it should be understood that any further public quarreling with other editors, at which she is a champion, will result in a two-month to six-month block. Second, since we don't know whether she has learned that lesson, she should continue to be topic-banned from any filings at WP:AN or WP:ANI. She doesn't acknowledge that she has learned her lesson, but WP:ROPE applies. If she doesn't know that she can hang herself with 14 feet of rope, we don't need to protect her. Lift the ban for now. Leave the ban on drama board filings in place. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - Lucia: When you are in a hole, quit digging. When you are in a tunnel, quit accusing others of tunnel vision. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Robert McClennon: Are you personally offended by the idea of someone having tunnel vision? its not a crazy accusation or anything. It only suggest that someone is far too focused on a single goal that it impairs them to see other perspectives.

• Can you clarify what you mean when you say "any further public quarreling with other editors, at which she is a champion"? Debates are a part of Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural oppose. Bans should be appealed by the user that is banned, not by a third party. Until we actually hear from Lucia Black here, I don't think this request is actionable. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it a written rule though? Lucia is currently barred from posting on the admin boards so I do not see how she can appeal her case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There is a simultaneous discussion going on at User talk:Jimbo Wales#I need some help that others may be interested in reviewing. For myself I stick by my original point. Despite Lucia Black's protestations to the contrary, I am highly skeptical that she is unable to edit in other areas to demonstrate her capacity to collaborate with other editors in a WP:CIVIL manner. I'm neither for nor against the current ban, but I understand why it was placed and I don't think bans should be treated lightly. Unfortunately I also can't agree with Calathan's description of Lucia Black's past problematic behavior as being restricted to the GitS articles and AN/ANI. I'd love to see her prove herself elsewhere for a period to allow the community to see a positive record of her conflict-free editing. If she can participate productively in an area she hasn't worked before that would seriously undermine the claims that she is nothing but a hardened WikiWarrior. Again I am quite doubtful that she is actually incapable of editing other areas. It worries me that she seems much more bent on getting her sanctions lifted as if they were a mistake or an unwarranted abuse of power rather than acknowledging and addressing her own behavioral problems. -Thibbs (talk) 04:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural oppose until a request is lodged by Lucia. I'd be leaning oppose anyway but a persuasive statement and understanding of the issues involved from Lucia would be appreciated. Nick (talk) 10:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support If anything shows a battleground mentality, it was the repeated calls for a site ban every time Lucia Black came up on AN/I. The only reason those individuals settled for the broad topic ban because the topic ban was effectively a soft site ban. Given that Lucia's area of interest and expertise was in Japanese-related media, they knew that she had almost no chance of having the ban repealed. Second, as Calathan has pointed out, the editors who most worked with Lucia unemphaticly opposed the topic ban. Third, the topic ban was entirely the result of Lucia appealing her previous topic ban, which she felt was unfairly placed. If an editor asks for a review or appeal of a sanction, additional sanctions should not be put in placed. And finally, why are Lucia's biggest harassers complaining that they weren't notified? Think about it for a moment because that exemplifies their battleground mentality. So not only do I support the lifting of the topic ban, but also propose an IBan/topic ban on Sergecross73 and Salvidrim! on all topics involving Lucia Black. —Farix (t | c) 11:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "effectively a soft site ban" - I told you this before, TheFarix, but I find this sort of comment to be frankly harmful to Lucia Black. Why tell an editor that collaboration with others in an area outside of her comfort zone is impossible for her? Honestly this line of argument strikes me as completely lacking in credibility. It's an attack on Lucia's capacity to locate and judge 3rd party sources for reliability and on her capacity to conduct research to learn about topics she is not already familiar with ab origine. The sad thing is that she herself is susceptible to believing these slanders against her. How about a little encouragement for a friend rather than undermining her? -Thibbs (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salv was just upset that he was mentioned by name but not pinged. Valid complaint at AN/ANI. I didn't complain about not being pinged at all. All I've done is comment. I have not started any discussions, or done any sanctions against her, ever. I may be in support of the topic ban, but I've done nothing out of line to warrant an interaction ban. (Nor has Salv for that matter.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious oppose A removal of a topic ban requires 2 things: proof of extensive positive and drama-free work outside the topic area, and proof that the editor has a "method" of avoiding the problems that led to the topic ban in the future. Yes, someone else can show the former, but only the bannee can convince the community of the latter. the panda ₯’ 11:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Per above. This has been stated several times throughout this but it seem like few really care/noticed. AcidSnow (talk) 12:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. When we reject unban requests, unblock requests, and the like, the failed request is often seen as a negative thing for the affected editor, and if failed requests are repeated frequently enough, we'll say "no more". Should this unban request fail, we mustn't see it as a stain against Lucia, since she didn't originate it. Nyttend (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I generally concur, but with a caveat. This request is not so much an unban request but a challenge to the original ban discussion's closure (as well as, in part, a relitigation of the same issues that were handled by the prior discussion). I think a subsequent request based on the same rationale should turn on the outcome of this discussion, regardless of who brings it. Evaluating the original ban discussion closure does not require the same degree of scrutiny, care, or involvement of the banned party that a normal unban request does. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (by being the subject) per Nick's Mr. Stradivarius desire to hear my opinion. I would definitely wish this topic-ban to be appealed. What i want to say more or less is mostly on TheFarix's has been saying and Calathan's opening statement. I believe that the community in WP:ANIME are far more informed on the situation than those who know me only through AN / ANI. After all, we're talking about the subject in which i am currently banned indefinitely from and the community dedicated to improving it.

A lot of times i'm being asked for change. And to be brutally honest...i dont think the ones asking for it will ever see it regardless. The only way i think people will genuinely see change is if they And i'm here to tell you that, i was showing those signs before the additional sanctions were added. Even during the proposal of the additional sanctions, i treated Salvidrim with respect, and didn't attack him or used battleground-like words shown in Talk:Uzumaki#Interview verification. So as you can see, i have definitely been improving, even with pressure of additional sanctions on top of me. But if we all see this objectively and treat this as any other case, you might be surprised to see the glaring holes, as other members have noticed. I believe a lot of this is tunnel vision.

In response of @Mendaliv:, DangerousPanda and AcidSnow. Allow me to inform you in the situation. Initially, I only asked to lessen the topic ban of all Ghost in the Shell to just the article in question (not remove it entirely) according to where the disruption happened and was given permission by an administrator to bring it up in AN and ANI. As years of dispute would have lead to be unresolved, i believed that consensus by having every one else banned from the article except one person would be deemed harmful for the article when the time came to get true consensus would be asked.

However Salvidrim, Sergecross73, and Hasteur were editors who pushed heavily for a site-ban over the same grounds. There was clearly no agreement with it, and had more or less stated that a topic ban would be most appropriate instead. But there was already a topic ban. So, i think if we ask ourselves or at least attempt to answer the question: What merited additional sanctions?

Overall, If we treat this as a discussion and less like a vote, i think that there will be less room for tunnel vision and will be able to consider all points, even previous points that were missed in the past. I believe, regardless of consensus, there was no new grounds for additional sanctions. Lucia Black (talk) 02:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

Again, I have not "gamed the system" or "stonewalled" anything. People keep bringing Lucia to AN/ANI, and I comment. I don't start the discussions, propose the sanctions, or enact the statements. I comment in discussions. This is just Lucia trying to push the blame rather than take responsibility for her actions. Sergecross73 msg me 10:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Sergecross, if you feel that way, can you please tell everyone under what new grounds was necessary to ban me from Japanese Entertainment indefinitely? Lucia Black (talk) 10:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whet do you mean if you feel that way? Do you see my name in your block log? At the place where we log bans? At the top of these proposals? No, you don't. It's not feeling, I objectively didn't do those things. Sergecross73 msg me 11:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Let's look for the hallmarks of a Lucia Black disruptive thread:

White knights attempting to intercede for LB Y

LB passing the buck on any responsibility that they may have had in the previous threads Y

LB tendentiously nitpicking apart opposition viewpoints (See 02:54 post and 10:47 post) Y

No plan for how LB indends to prevent the previous incidents from reoccuring Y

Request for complete removal of sanctions rather than narrowing the existing sanctions Y

Claiming a conspiracy by editors to prevent her from editing Y

No we've already given many editor-years and megabytes of argument to "How can Lucia Black return back to editing her preferred subject area?". Start the request over clean. Avoid the hallmarks that I've pointed out, and there might be a chance of success. As I recall I suggested Japanese entertainment as the scope of the topic ban is because the line between Anime/Manga/Video Games/Actors is so thin that arguments that start in one line of media riot over into the other media with very little encouragement (See also the "Ghost in the Shell" split/merge riot). Cutting off the entire topic area to prevent disruption around/with Lucia Black is not us punishing her, it's us protecting ourselves from disruption Hasteur (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sergecross73 I don't want to argue about word choice. But i don't believe you are simply casting a vote. After all, you have responded heavily in the discussion and its not even trying to be a consistent argument. But i don't want to fight. I asked a genuine question. What did i do to deserve more sanctions? Can you please answer me this? And this isn't just for Sergecross. I think if we get this answered, we'll have our true consensus. What exactly did i do to deserve more sanctions regarding Japanese related media?

Hasteur Most of it is unnecessary to argue about or even a point against me. but the most important points, i will say that are heavily inaccurate. I originally did ask for narrowing existing sanctions (not removing them completely) but the result was more sanctions on top of it over no new disruption within Japanese entertainment. So i rather have the new sanctions removed.

Conspiracy is a strong word, but i will say this to clarify. I don't believe in a secret underground anti-Lucia Black organization where they have a meeting every sunday and find ways to bother me. What i do believe is a group of editors that are human and just as imperfect as the next who have a case of tunnel vision. And for the record, other editors have felt far more strongly about it then i have recently. So if you don't want to prove it to me, prove it to the other well-intending editors who believe it. Lucia Black (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, you want to pass the blame, take no accountability for your actions, make accusations at others while not answering any questions directed towards yourself, and then tack on a little "but I'm not here to argue" in there to make it all okay? This sort of behavior is what keeps getting you all these topics bans at AN/ANI and Japanese media related areas - and now you're using it as your approach to get un-topic banned? You may want to re-think this approach. Some of your supporters were contingent on you understanding what happened, taking responsibility for it, and providing a plan for keeping problems from happening again. You don't seem to understand any of this. Sergecross73 msg me 16:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Lucia: I do admit that I am human, that I am imperfect, and that my judgement may not be detached and neutral about this. I do feel tired of the drama surrounding the discussions about you, and that's probably a less-than-ideal POV from which to approach the discussion. I don't hate you specifically but I've reached my limit of how much idle ranting I'm able to respond to constructively. I admit my own shortcomings (I wish you would do the same!) and I hope that whatever closing admin will treat my opinion with the appropriate weight considering my serious involvement. I won't be surprised or disappointed if the full topic-ban is rescinded, and hope that if consensus does end up leaning that way, that you will be able to resume editing constructively, and hopefully never end up at AN/I again. It is an annoyance for me, but I can't begin to imagine how hard it must be for you to deal with this and if anything, I admire your dedication and persistence. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: I'm only reiterating what TheFarix and Calathan have been saying that there was no additional grounds to add more sanctions on top of the ones that were established within hours. And i have taken accountability for my actions. I never denied that i was disruptive in the article in question. And that was taken accountability from the start when i originally only asked to narrow the Topic Ban, not remove it entirely. If you want to hear my full thoughts on it: i feel bad about it and thought it was a good idea to take a break from that specific article Ghost in the Shell until i was confident that i can tackle the article again. However, to be brutally honest, i don't know exactly what to do when it comes to that specific article to avoid issues other than avoiding edit wars, especially with only two (now one) member involved. Of course i'll think twice and maybe thrice before even getting involved, but i'm not sure i can do it all and still reach a consensus. Not alone at least. The issue has always been lack of consensus for that specific article (not blaming lack of consensus, its just a factor that keeps me frustrated). And that's what worried me when i was banned from the other articles as well. Regardless, my main concern at the moment is the Topic Ban from "ALL" Japanese media related articles.

@Salvidrim!: it does indeed take a lot to say what you have said, and i thank and respect you for it. I personally do take into consideration of my own actions as well. And that's what i have been trying to say before, but i guess to a few other editors and myself believe it evolved into something else when additional sanctions were being asked. The others who support the appeal (and myself) don't know what additional disruption i did in order to elevate the sanctions for Japanese media related articles. So when i'm asked what i can do to prevent this, i'm heavily unsure on what "it" is exactly. If we're talking about Japanese-related articles, i assure you i know how to handle myself the majority of the time. My Achilles' heel is based more on a specific article and specific editor involved. So avoiding that specific article and that specific editor combined will help me focus on editing other articles.

If we're talking about AN and ANI, i am trying my best at the moment to present myself in the best that i can, regardless if anyone agrees with me. And i apologize ahead of time for anything i have said to offend you. And it is taking me a much longer process to respond because i'm taking consideration as much as i can peoples feelings. Lucia Black (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there was any doubt that you had learned from previous incidents you've completely destroyed it. Again with the TL:DR rants and nitpicking apart the opposition. Kindly show yourself to a room with no exit because I (and I would assume many others) are tired of threads involving you and creating much heat for the amount of light we gain from them. Hasteur (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think its too long to be read, but then again. A lot of what i'm saying is by repeat, with some new light. If the problem is that my comments are too long, perhaps dont get involved. And i'm trying my best to show you respect, i ask you to do the same. Lucia Black (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "if you don't want to read everything I say then get out" mentality is precisely the wrong one for this discussion. We have a responsibility to make arguments concise and accessible as part of the consensus-making process. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its more that if you don't want to, you don't have to. But don't hold it against the discussion. WP:TLDR#Maintain civility which suggest that it is a fallacy of ad hominem, Appeal to ridicule, Thought-terminating cliché. There was a much better way to do so. And overall, an argument shouldn't be dismissed simply because it was too long. You can ask me for a more concise version without using TL;DR. So basically, i'm being respectful, please give me the same courtesy. Lucia Black (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too stressful

I personally am far too stressed of a lot of whats being said here. I believe perfection is expected out of me by a community who don't teach by example. And i rather be able to present my points neutrally without someone trying to look for a flaw in word choice. I also believe that this is toxic, and i dont think anything i say to the community will be happy about it.

Its a stressful time. So i'm going to request for Arbitration. I think i'll be able to get far more fairer treatment there. Is it possible to request for arbitration instead? Lucia Black (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "I believe perfection is expected out of me by a community who don't teach by example." - This stings, and rightly so in my opinion. I'm not happy about the way you have been (and are being) treated. I apologize for literally bashing you (although perhaps never very openly) and being generally dismissive of you. I let myself get carried away in the mob and I'm angry at myself for that. I'm not sure exactly why this discussion has "opened my eyes", but damn... you don't deserve to be dismissed this way. However: ArbCom is definitely not the way forward. It's my candid opinion that you would end up digging your own hole deeper; I hope you will not submit yourself to that. I doubt ArbCom would accept the case anyhoe, as I don't think this is something "the community has proven unable to handle". ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your kind words. And i apologize ahead of time if i said that a little too strongly. i think i'm going to give up. I'll probably wait another year or so if someone believes i deserve to get it appealed again. Lucia Black (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Go ahead. Appeal to ArbCom, they'll decline you for forum shoping in addition to this still being solvable in the community (and since you used Appeal to Jimbo while this thread was going in in violation of WP:FORUMSHOP) your sanction will stick. It took a consensus of editors that saw significant problems with your editing to impose the ban, a consensus of editors that saw that your actions during the discussion of the imposition of the ban as problematic and upheld your topic ban, a mixed bag of consensus here indicates that your actions have yet to demonstrate that your editing will not be less problematic. Please follow the advice that I and others gave above: 1. Keep clear of all drama (including discussing your ban) 2. Come up with a way to show that previous reasons for the ban are no longer relevant (i.e. No disruptive posting/editing, brief (~200 words) and to the point statements outlining your view when you're in dispute with annother editor) 3. Accept responsibility for your actions previously 4. Do not make any accusations about other editors that caused your editing misbehavior. Hasteur (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After a good nights sleep and relaxation from the stress, i didn't want to come back. however if you are going to reference other discussions, i suggest you double check and make sure your conclusion is accurate. I originally requested Jimbo Wales to review the previous discussion under beliefs that there is a fundamental flaw on how an oversight lead to the appeal to consensus over whether there was any action warranted. There is indeed a mix crowd but not because the determination of my editing will be less problematic or not. If that was true, clearly this involves WP:ANIME more than the AN community or any Japanese-media related community. Basically, you would've heard them out more.

The truth of the matter is that there are different priorities with the opposers and supporters. The strong supporters note that i am indeed beneficial to the Japanese related articles, and there is proof and witnesses provided. Not only that, but they don't understand what warranted additional sanctions in the first place. That's important. The strong opposers from the previous discussion that originally wanted the topic ban aren't prioritizing that (not an accusation, it's just an objective observation). This isn't about whether i can or can't edit with the Japanese media-related community without disruption (because there's plenty of proof that i can. And there has not been a single counter against these points). But common points within the strong opposers are never connected to the disruption within Japanese media article. The common points is how much annoyed, tired, or at their limit one is during the AN and ANI discussions when it involves me. And the other light opposers are simply opposing out of procedure but if they knew the previous AN discussion was out of procedure, they would possibly be interested in knowing more on why. (and this is said among the supporters)

Basically, this key question needs to be answered: what new actions have I done at all to merit additional sanctions regarding Japanese media related articles? I didn't break the previous sanctions, only requested it to be narrowed and that was given permission by an administrator (so at least i had some ground to do it). And if this long refusal to answer is based on the intention of making a point regarding "she hasn't learned her lesson", than that is just an even more Battleground behavior because answering this will help move things along smoothly without calling it drama or anything. In fact, you would be helping an editor see their flaws. If that's not the case, then i'm sure you will be happy to answer that question. Because not only will you be making a stronger point, but you will also be helping another editor improve. Lucia Black (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the last year or two there's only been one or two admins (me and Redrose64) actively keeping an eye on Wikipedia:Geonotice, and it often happens that neither of us are around to respond to a request or able to pick it up for a day or two - and, as luck would have it, those are usually the very short-notice requests. Would anyone else be able to watchlist it, or (better yet) leave their name to be prodded about it when needed? Actually posting the notices is pretty lightweight - the most complicated part is usually figuring out suitable coordinates, and doesn't usually take more than a few minutes. Thanks, Andrew Gray (talk) 18:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. Antidiskriminator is asking for some geographical and chronological clarification of their topic ban: "A ban on Antidiskriminator editing in topics involving 'Serbs and Serbia 1900-current' (broadly construed)". Peacemaker67 noted, and I agree, that Antidiskriminator's edit to Albanian Kingdom (1943–44) violated that topic ban; now they wish to know if editing Ottoman Empire does. I am inclined to say that it does, but I am willing to become better educated. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, I guess, it is not a violation, since the Ottoman Empire lost all Serbian territories in 1878.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the First Balkan War of 1912 included fighting between the Ottoman Empire and Serbia, and Serbian capture of Kosovo and some other territory from the Ottomans, but that is post–1900, and of course would obviously be included in the topic ban. So, with that proviso, it seems ok to me. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 20:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accordijng to WP:TBAN, the ban should include any edit which involves anything related to the topic in question; this may include some parts of the Ottoman Empire article. However, as long as the user avoids those sections related to the topic of "Serbs and Serbia 1900-current", it should be fine. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I would say it very much depends on what aspect of the Ottoman Empire they are making edits regarding. If it's something related to relations or conflicts with Serbia, then it would fall under the ban. If it was about Ottoman domestic politics in Syria, then clearly not. Number 57 21:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. See the "weather" comments at WP:TBAN — the hypothetical ban affects weather-related chunks of tons of articles, but it doesn't affect all parts of all articles that happen to mention the weather. Nyttend (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

During a recent discussion on the GamerGate article talk page, @Titanium Dragon: made the following statement:

We really need to be careful about this death threat stuff; no one has been charged with anything as far as I know, there are concerns about their authenticity and seriousness, and in the past people have made them against themselves for various messed up reasons. Even beyond these issues, though, I'm seeing news articles which are reporting on these threats as if they were credible even days after they were dismissed by authorities; we should be very careful about this sort of thing, and try to make sure when the authorities are involved that they can confirm this stuff. Independent confirmation of this stuff would be nice, because many folks involved (on all sides) have reasons to lie about being the subject of persecution, or simply exaggerate in a play for sympathy. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This concerns reports from police that recent threats of a shooting at Utah State University were not serious and posed no imminent threat that would warrant cancellation of a speech by feminist gaming critic Anita Sarkeesian. During the GamerGate controversy there have been allegations of fake threats or fake harassment that have been discussed by reliable sources. You can find sourced mentions of this in the article, although such allegations have been roundly criticized they are still a reliably-sourced part of the discussion. Other sources have noted that there is nothing clearly linking harassment with GamerGate. TD's statement above essentially notes all this, and points out that harassment and death threats have been faked in the past. He is raising this point because editors more sympathetic to opponents of GamerGate will feel inclined to treat the threats and harassment as fact and condemnations of GamerGate rather than as allegations with no proven connection to GamerGate.

@NorthBySouthBaranof: subsequently accused TD of claiming several people, such as Sarkeesian, had faked the threats and harassment by making these remarks. Baranof argued this was a BLP violation and reported it at ANI. Before any comments could be made, including a response from TD, @Future Perfect at Sunrise: imposed an indefinite topic ban on Titanium Dragon. I believe there was no BLP violation in his remarks and it was legitimate to raise at the talk page. The discussion itself was closed within four hours by Black Kite giving no real time for wider discussion about the action. Future closed all discussion of the ban on his talk page, so I am raising the issue here for further discussion. I believe the indefinite topic ban was unwarranted given the weak evidence and should be lifted.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Titanium Dragon was directly alleging that people were lying about the threats leveraged at them in his postings, and not referring to any sources that may have stated that they did not believe the current threats were real or not related to #Gamergate. There is no reason to let him off on another technicality.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see him directly alleging that people were lying about the threats? He said people have lied about such threats in the past and that people on both sides have reason to lie.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He was using an old instance of alleged lies to current ones. He has been a drain in the topic area and there is no reason to unban him a second time for skirting BLP.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He noted that people faking deaths threats is not unheard of as a reason for why we should be careful about how we describe threats in the GamerGate article. That is a legitimate point to raise on the talk page as Wikipedia should not present unverified allegations as fact.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, (at least from the comment posted above) this was NOT saying that the current requests were fake, but only that people had made fake threats before so we should be careful. That is not a BLP violation. (I'll look through the old thread and see if there are other things to support it) --Obsidi (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "let's not forget people have faked death threats in the past" in regards to contemporary instances where the FBI is actively investigating threats against three women and their families is a bit much.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't say we should include that in the article, he is just making an argument that we should make sure to have reliable sources and present it in a NPOV (such as such person said they got death threats, or "the police are investigating..", etc.). I also from a quick glance over the topic ban thread found this remarkable, that he was banned within 22 minutes of the case being filed before anyone else had even spoken (even the person accused!), and then the admin said "You are topic-banned, as of now. That means you are not allowed to continue fighting over this topic, including on this page." That's crazy, at least in such a close case let person defend themselves first! (or give them a reasonable amount of time to do so). --Obsidi (talk 23:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are many, many ways to make an argument about the reliability of a source without the entirely-unfounded implication that the victims of internationally-reported death threats made them up for personal gain. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I got to run to go to a meeting at the moment and when I get back I'll go through all the previous cases, maybe that will clear it up. But even if he was previously banned, that does not mean that this statement was in violation of any policy. His past behavior can be taken into account for what the punishment should be if he does something wrong, but not if he did something wrong. He seems, to me, to be suggesting that it is a possibility that they are (as in something that we don't know which is true), and saying that we should try to use WP:RS and make sure to present it in a WP:NPOV to only make claims in WP's voice that we know are really verified. --Obsidi (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The previous ban applied by Gamaliel was not applied properly, and as the admin who redacted them specifically noted at the time, it would not apply against me in the future, though I (and others) are under additional scrutiny over the subject matter. That aside:

One of the major problems we've faced is the lack of independent reliable sources on several incidents. As I noted previously elsewhere, both Zoe Quinn and Milo Yiannopoulos have had claims of death threats and harassment noted by the press, with the latter saying that they had a syringe mailed to their house, with a picture posted on Twitter of said syringe. The problem is that to the best of my knowledge, neither of them have gone to the police about these incidents. These are very serious allegations for obvious reasons, but it is also problematic because per WP:BLP, something like this isn't something which should be sourced to the individual in question, and should have secondary confirmation. There are plenty of secondary reports about these claims in the press, but the problem is that it seems that these come from the primary sources (Yiannopoulos, Quinn) rather than the police or other authorities who would be responsible for investigating crimes. Per WP:CRIME, we're supposed to be very careful about this sort of thing, and per WP:HARASS, we're supposed to be careful about adding stuff to Wikipedia which leads to real-life harassment of people. This is not a theoretical problem, and indeed has already happened.

Last December, The Escapist wrote an article about Zoe Quinn, saying that she had been harassed over her game being posted to Greenlight, which resulted in a flurry of press attention on it, as well as a great deal of harassment directed towards users of WizardChan, whom Quinn said harassed her. The problem was that there was never any independent verification of the harassment, as the only evidence of said harassment was Quinn's own statements; The Escapist was roundly condemned for failing to independently verify that she had been harassed or that, if she had been harassed, that users of WizardChan were, in fact, responsible for it. As a result of it, they added a disclaimer to the article and publicly apologized for the incident, as well as changed their standards as regards reporting harassment. No criminal charges were ever filed in regards to the incident.

This is in sharp contrast to the death threats against Sarkeesian, which have been reported to and investigated by the authorities, who have commented on them publicly. We know that she actually went to the police and FBI over them (though there was a brief snafu over that early on, because people who investigated and actually called the SFPD found that the police knew nothing about it - it later came out that it was being handled by the FBI). The authorities investigated and found that they pose no threat to the public and will not be carried out - they are hoaxes, though who sent them, and why, remains a mystery. Again, to the best of my knowledge, no criminal charges have been laid against anyone over them, and I don't think we even know who sent them. We don't even know if the incidents were the same person or multiple individuals.

There are plenty of other incidents which are also well-documented - the hacking and doxxing of Phil Fish's company, personal attacks on John Bain, the hacking of The Fine Young Capitalists, the hacking of Zoe Quinn's personal accounts, the DMCA takedown notice of MundaneMatt's video on YouTube, and a number of other incidents where we do have independent attestation of at the very least something bad happening. But again, don't know who perpetrated the hacking, and to the best of my knowledge, no criminal charges have been laid on anyone and no one has been arrested for anything in conjunction with any of these incidents.

It is a big mess, and we need to be careful in reporting about it, per WP:CRIME, WP:HARASS, and WP:HOAX, especially in light of previous incidents, but also just in general per WP:BLP policy. That's not to say that we shouldn't report on this stuff, but we need to be careful in how we word it, wait a few days for independent confirmation, and make sure we're actually sourcing stuff which can be verified in ways which are congruent with general WP:RS policy, as well as specific policies as relates to this stuff. If people are sending hoax death threats to people, that is very possibly notable, but we should be reporting them as they are - there's a difference between some angry nerd on the other end of the country saying "I'M GOING TO KILL EVERYONE" and someone actually intending to show up with an uzi and start blasting people, and we need to take care not to perpetuate hoaxes and thereby spread panic and fear (as in the Utah State University case, where the person claimed that they were going to perpetuate a school shooting), but to report on them as hoaxes. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The implication of the statement is clear - Titanium Dragon was impugning the victims of the death threats and suggesting that they were, according to the links, "victim playing, under a "persecutory delusion" and intentionally "hoaxing." This user has *repeatedly* made comments that denigrate and attack people who have opposed GamerGate and people who have been subject to GamerGate attacks. An earlier topic ban by Gamaliel was undone only on a technicality, and in undoing that ban, @Callanecc: specifically warned Titanium Dragon that:

How many times are we supposed to let a single person use Wikipedia talk pages as a place to attack, cast aspersions upon and denigrate their perceived enemies? There are many, many people on both sides of the argument who have managed to contribute to the sometimes-heated discussion without repeatedly making personal attacks against those they oppose. Titanium Dragon has shown themselves fundamentally incapable of doing so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what led to the final call the a topic ban was warranted, but looking at the comments Titanium Dragon posted around that time, there are issues with describing the threats as a "hoax". I get the impression from Titanium Dragon's general discussion that he has formed strong opinions and is trying to temper comments, but has a tendency to slip and make allegations that go beyond the sources or which are very much open to misinterpretation. Nothing deliberate, so much as someone who is having difficulties being sufficiently careful on a very sensitive topic. The problem being that it is a very sensitive topic, and we need to be careful. Most of the errors aren't sufficiently serious to warrant a topic ban in themselves, but at some point someone needs to make a call as to if the ongoing concerns add up to a topic ban. I'd assumed that the final decision was more due to an ongoing problem rather than any specific comment. - Bilby (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A look at Titanium Dragon's prior contributions in this area is instructive. There are literally dozens of edits to talk and articlespace related to GamerGate that have been revision-deleted for BLP concerns. On September 14, Gamaliel specifically warned Titanium Dragon that using talk pages to present unfounded allegations about living people was unacceptable. One week later, Titanium Dragon again presented unfounded allegations, again in such a flagrant manner that the material has been rev-deleted. Subsequently, they were topic-banned. That topic ban was reversed because Gamaliel had not properly warned Titanium Dragon of the discretionary sanctions; however, Callanecc saw fit to note that their prior conduct placed them on thin ice in the subject area. The user in question has proven themselves incapable of discussing this issue without making unfounded personal attacks and casting unsupported aspersions about Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu, among others. I say again, how many times are we going to let someone use Wikipedia as a platform to tell the world that they believe GamerGate's opponents are delusional, self-promotional liars? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See the response below; as was previously noted, NorthBySouthBaranof has an issue with casting aspersions on other editors, for which he was warned that he would be sanctioned if he continued to do so in a previous ANI about this same sort of thing from October 5th. As for the RevDels, as was specifically noted in a yet older ANI about my having been doxxed by Wikipediocracy for editing the article:

• • • It was a proposed section for the article entitled "Scandal", five paragraphs long, written by Titanium Dragon. It was mostly well sourced and mostly neutral, but, in my opinion, some of the key phrases about Quinn were not neutral, and some of the sources used were not reliable. I thought that the problems were enough that it should be removed from the talk page. It was not so problematic that I would consider it as a base for any sanctions proposed here, though. I did think that removing it would be seen as being heavy-handed - and I was right - but I thought that it should be removed anyway. The edit itself was revdelled, not oversighted, so I can still access it. I can email it to you so that you can look at it yourself, if you like. (I see that you haven't set email in your preferences, but if you email me, I can email you back with the section.)

The material in question was posted in good faith, and a yet previous ANI about the same article had noted that there had probably been more revdels than were necessary.

NorthBySouthBaranof was involved in this stuff, so he knows that this was the case. This is yet again a case where NorthBySouthBaranof is involved in casting aspersions on another user, about something that he already knows was dealt with and found to be not problematic in previous ANIs. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are willfully misreading that ANI thread. There is nothing remotely resembling a consensus that "there were more revdels than were necessary." The only two people besides you who made that argument are Tutelary and Diego, neither of whom can be said to be independent of the matter. None of the revdels were restored. So you might say a correct reading of that ANI thread is that that "three people argued that there were more revdels than were necessary, but their argument was rejected."

The fact that one of your posts was found not problematic does not mean that all of your subsequent posts are automatically unproblematic. I am not "casting aspersions" on you - I am flat-out stating that your contributions to this subject area have repeatedly violated BLP by making unsourced and unfounded attacks, statements and insinuations about living people related to GamerGate, and that this behavior is deserving of a topic ban. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one asked that any of them be restored.

And of course you have cast aspersions on me - have claimed that I said that these people deserved to be harassed, something I neither have said nor believe. It was even in the ANI I linked to. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The topic ban should stand. There are a handful of related articles where a very small number of editors have to counter an unending stream of enthusiastic gamers who are keen to use Wikipedia to explain their point of view. However, no matter how beautifully expressed, it is not reasonable for there to be repeated suggestions that amount to saying "the victim is to blame" or "the victim made it up". Johnuniq (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only person claiming anyone is advocating for that is user:NorthBySouthBaranof and company, who have been previously warned about this behavior. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where was this warning?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here, in the ANI about this from October 5th, which YOU participated in I might add, in the closing statement from @Callanecc::

• "This complaint, if it's still to be called that, has been light on evidence of violations of policy or guidelines since the second comment. If editors believe that there has been a violation of policies or guidelines then that needs to be presented either here or at WP:AE with evidence in the form of diffs and explanation of onwiki actions. If editors continue to cast aspersions of each other in violation of WP:NPA and discretionary sanctions procedures they will be sanctioned. I would suggest that if editors believe someone has violated policies or guidelines they report them at WP:AE (if related to BLP discretionary sanctions) as it is specially designed or this type of thing or here."

After NorthBySouthBaranof had said:

• "OK, so what you're saying is that the harassment of Quinn was justified because she had a dispute with TFYC? That she was "asking for it" and deserved it?"

And was chided for it, as I had, very obviously, said no such thing. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make the ANI complaint in question, so I'm not sure why you think I've been "warned," and your quote is not of me, but of Diego (hardly an unbiased observer in this matter) responding to my statement, which I stand by. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted Diego quoting you in that ANI; I have now changed it to remove the quote by Diego, so it is just you. And you were the only person in that ANI who was specifically warned about casting aspersions in the text of the ANI; the word aspersions only appears in relation to you there. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Really don't care, other than to note it's strange to see a topic ban on an editor for repeating reported things. Those things being reported by a RS are a separate matter. Arkon (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No reliable source has reported anything which even begins to suggest that the death threats in question were the result of "victim playing," "persecutory delusion" or "hoaxes" by the victims of the threats. Such claims are made up from whole cloth by the editor in question. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You must have missed my last sentence. That doesn't help your case. Arkon (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • One of the problems here, as I noted above, is that reporting on a previous incident resulted in The Escapist apologizing for reporting on it without validating their claims and adding a disclaimer to the original article, as well as apologizing for the harassment of the users of WizardChan, who had been accused of harassing Zoe Quinn, to themselves be subjected to harassment. No criminal charges were ever filed in that case, and there was never any independent verification of harassment of Zoe Quinn having actually occurred. This obviously impacts WP:HARASS, not to mention the fact that users on Wikipedia itself have been harassed for editing the Wikipedia article by outside groups; Ryulong locked his Twitter account after people complained about his behavior on the article via Twitter, and I was doxxed and Tutelary had pictures (supposedly of them, along with their location) distributed by Wikipediocracy for editing the article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the way to appeal discretionary sanctions. If Titanium Dragon - not some other party - wants to start an appeal, he can follow these procedures he's been made aware of several times now. This thread won't have any effect besides stirring up drama, and should be closed before wasting any more of the community's time.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. I think WP:BUREAU applies here; I'm involved in this, this is the proper venue for it (the admin in question has stated that they are not going to reverse their decision on the matter, so this is the next step), and the fact that I didn't start this appeal is somewhat irrelevant to the fact that I did indeed plan on appealing it, I just had not been planning on doing so today. I'm fine with discussion of this matter continuing here, as this is the next step beyond "asking the administrator to change their mind", which they have stated that they will not, in fact, do. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, Cuchullain is right because you were banned under something from WP:AE and not an exclusively administrative decision.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't filed under WP:AE as far as I know. There are exactly zero results for my name under AE. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look harder.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, yeah. I'm aware. It is a discretionary sanction. It is in the discretionary sanctions section; it ain't from the arbitration committee, which is what WP:AE is. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't BLP discretionary sanctions from ArbCom in the first place?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read the link; according to said link, AN is the second step in appealing a discretionary ban. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I'm not sure I understand the problem: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals_and_modifications says he can "request review at... the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN")" We are at the administrators’ noticeboard, and he appears to clearly be objecting to the discretionary sanction. Is your objection that Titanium Dragon has not said "I officially appeal this discretionary sanction"? If that's the objection then I would refer to the rules are principles. Lastly isn't this board also for review of administrative actions (which includes banning editors)? I don't see why a 3rd party cant object to an administrative action and seek review here. --Obsidi (talk) 02:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an appeal of any kind, it's just more back-and-forth generating all heat and no light. Titanium Dragon, if you want to make an appeal, you need to start it, and you need to be clear about what it is you're trying to do as per the procedures. Tying up the AN with more drama and using it as a way to discuss the very topics you're banned from is unlikely to gain you any sympathy.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, the problem is that Future took action within 20 minutes of the ANI posting. I sincerely doubt he had time to do a thorough review, as Bilby suggested, before taking action. Unfortunately, his involvement in this has been brief but unsettling. Titanium Dragon had earlier in the day filed a report against Ryulong and another editor for edit-warring on the GamerGate talk page. Within 20 minutes Future indeffed the other editor, while leaving Ryulong alone despite Ryulong having flagrantly violated 3RR. Future then goes and indefinitely topic bans Titanium Dragon within 20 minutes of the ANI discussion opening as well, before allowing discussion of the comment to take place. When concerns are raised on his talk page, he shuts off the discussion. No admin should behave this way. I do not believe what TD said warrants sanctions at all, let alone this kind of tyrannical behavior.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• So you'd like the topic ban to be removed, at which point TD's inevitably dubious POV will cause large amounts of wasted editor's time at talk pages and probably here as well, before he's topic banned again? How is that useful to anyone? This isn't a diffoicult issue to parse. Black Kite (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If he does something that he should be banned for then he should be topic banned. If he hasn't done something yet that he should be banned for then he shouldn't be topic banned yet. You can say that his dubious POV will waste people's time, but that isn't a reason to ban him (and banning people for having a "dubious POV" is using admin powers to win a content dispute). Maybe he will be banned for some future action, and if there is good reason to do so at that time I will support it, but that isn't a good reason to ban him before he has done something ban worthy (we aren't in the movie the "minority report" knowing that he will violate the rules in the future). --Obsidi (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TD has done a great job of following policy since the previous topic ban was lifted and I do not believe his recent comments are a break from that. His problems before as far as I can tell were that he would say something sources allude to, but do not state explicitly.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the 8th of October I was topic banned for three months from Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and broadly related pages by the user PBS for being "disruptive"; the two justifying diffs were supplied as this and this. Note that the latter entry appears to have a refactoring of another's comments but that was dealt with and recognized later as a mistake. As evidenced by PBS's template and subsequent text he deemed that my disruption was created by not acknowledging or abiding by a unilateral moratorium on a topical discussion he suggested on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Subsequent to the objection of myself and several other involved third parties, as evidenced across talk pages, PBS stated that my three month topic ban was timed to coincide with his concocted moratorium which he deemed was to last until "the New Year".

I understand how ArbCom rulings work. I understand what disruptive editing looks like. I even try to consciously remind myself not to be melodramatic in the face of perceived slights or injustices. Nonetheless, this topic ban is not only undue in it's very inception but the length is arbitrary, unjust, and far outside the normal parameters associated with this ArbCom ruling. In fact, the length of this already unjustified topic ban seems to be entirely the product of an arbitrary timeline for a topical discussion PBS unilaterally decided upon instead of any logic based upon my actions here or my overall editing history.

My basic point remains unchanged, that the name of the Islamic State is dynamic and debatable and should be discussed by interested editors. That PBS would interject his own whims upon a non-pointy discussion (without any actual main space article changes) and then topic ban a user in good standing for not "abiding by" what was put forward as a "suggested moratorium" is quite outside the normal prerogatives we give to our admins. I would ask for a total rescinding of the topic ban without any prejudice. The ban is unjust and the underlying points of the discussion I was engaged in are perfectly legitimate in light of not only our naming conventions but the application of core policy. GraniteSand (talk) 05:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an odd ban to me. The admin placed a moratorium on name changes for ISIL, which, I think, shouldn't be done. (consensus is what make or breaks change , not by admin fiat ), and the two posts he pointed to were not disruptive, nor incivil. It was normal conversation on the page regarding the name. I'd say that ban needs to be shot down, and the admin needs to be , at the very least, counseled that he cannot rule by fiat the way he's attempting to do on that page. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I initially suggested a moratorium when closing the RM on the page (Revision as of 19:12, 3 October 2014). When that was ignored, I posted a more explicit message (Revision as of 18:10, 7 October 2014) Warning that it was no longer a suggestion and was now a warning by an uninvolved administrator under the general sanctions that apply to that talk page.

Revisions to User talk:GraniteSand

• Revision as of 19:11, 7 October 2014 (diff) — Sanctions notification specifically mentioning new sections initiated by GraniteSand since the last RM. Includes the line "If you have any questions about this post then feel free to ask me."
• Revision as of 22:20, 7 October 2014 (diff) GraniteSand removes Sanctions notification (prof or reading).
• Revision as of 10:28, 8 October 2014 (diff) Topic Ban
• Revision as of 23:47, 8 October 2014 (diff) In response to a posting by GraniteSand on my talk page Revision as of 21:22, 8 October 2014 (diff). This explanation includes the diffs mentioned above by GraniteSand note that the Rabbit line is incidental, one has to look at the bottom of the diff to see its relevance to this topic ban.

The reason for the ban is fundamentally a case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT. As I outline in the last bulleted diff presented I had been quite clear on this issue, but the two edits made by GraniteSand to the article talk page (see initial diff 1 and diff 2) shows that GraniteSand had either not understood, or was wilfully ignoring my disruptive posting. GraniteSand made no attempt to ask me for clarification either on the talk page (where GraniteSand made the two postings below my "moritorium/disruptive" statement) or on my talk page.

The length of the moratorium is three months this is customarily recognised as the minimum time between RMs whenthe participants of an RM have discussed the issue thoroughly--and with four RMs in the proceeding 2 months + a host of other sections on the talk page about moves had discussed the issue thoroughly and exhausted the RM process. The length of the topic ban on GraniteSand ties in with the next date that there will most probably be discussion on moving the page so that GraniteSand can participate in that discussion.

This is not a user account block or a general ban, GraniteSand still has literally millions of other pages to edit during the topic ban. -- PBS (talk) 11:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sanctions don't say anywhere that a discussion changing or move the page to a different name ( no comment on whether or not the name suggested has merit) is part of them. Once again, admins cannot rule by fiat. There's literally only ONE time that anything that even remotely looking like a fiat can be used, and that's WP:OFFICE actions, and that's rarely ever done. So, by admission you:

• Made a suggestion, that no one took you up on
• Made that suggestion a rule. With nothing else except your status as an admin to back it up
• Then proceeded to block someone for not being incvil, but rather for violating the rule you added in
  
  

That's an bad block and it needs to be reverted. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 13:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to rehash the debate PBS wasn't involved in (until he suspended it) but here's some background on my edits in response to new and more explicit accusations of disruptive editing. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is predicated on the assumption that the parameters of the discussion and the accompanying justification have mostly not changed, that you're just beating a dead horse. When it comes to naming conventions surrounding the Islamic State, there is an active and robust discussion going on in academic and journalistic circles. In the days leading up to my topic ban there had been an empirical shift in what these independent reliable sources had to say on the topic, as I demonstrated on the discussion page by compiling a list of entirely new sources on the topic, some less than a day old at the time. Additionally, most naming convention discussions had taken place prior to ISIS changing their name to Islamic State and had therefor largely been a matter of semantics between ISIS and ISIL and not a discussion on whether the new IS was preferred over the previously settled upon ISIL. This is all to say that I was bringing new sources to an active topic and advocating my interpretation of those sources. That is nothing to be discouraged, much less topic banned for, and is not a case of disruptive behavior, even if some editors didn't like it or disagreed with my interpretation. GraniteSand (talk) 23:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The user refused to consider consensus and was very combative against PBS and other involved users. He seemed to be looking for a fight. Legacypac (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Could I have a sanity check on my deletion of Greenacre School for Girls for speedy deletion? The whole article was a near word-for-word copy of the sub pages from the school's own website, so I deleted it. I then realised that this article had been around for well over a year. Was I right to speedy delete it, or should I have tried to salvage it first? Stephen! ^Coming... 12:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can always salvage it later; there's no hurry for that, but there should definitely be a hurry for trashing copyright infringements. Nyttend (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's necessary to quickly eliminate copyright infringements. However, I think you could have created a 1 or 2 sentence 'stub' article in the same length of time you spent posting this to AN - Greenacre School for Girls is a independent high school for girls from age 3 to 18, located in Surrey, England. <ref>their website, and a couple of news articles/books/gov listings, whatever. And a couple of links to articles about such schools, IDK, but it'd probably only take 5 mins to do - creating an appropriate stub might send new/potential editors the right message about how they can add to this project in an appropriate way. 88.104.22.153 (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been open for 16 days. Could somebody close it? I can't close it myself because I participated in the discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. JohnCD (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do think something needs to happen to User:Ryūlóng for this slander against me and others, even if it is basically just a slap on the wrist. Halfhat (talk) 10:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Future Perfect, do not close an active topic ban proposal because apparently, there's 'no consensus' to do so. That's the freakin' point, get consensus to sanction editors, and if they fail when closed by an admin after a reasonable amount of time (not one freakin day), then that's fine, but not early. Tutelary (talk) 10:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Fut Perf is an administrator who did not weigh in at all in this and closed it. You don't get to reopen it because you want me gone.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like he said though if someone cam up with a proposal with a realistic chance of census, you can start a new topic, I'd be very surprised if anyone came up with one though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halfhat (talk • contribs) 11:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Halfhat: did you mean 'chance of success' ? Ranze (talk) 12:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to bring to everyone's attention that there is an ongoing dispute on the procedure of warning and logging of warnings in case of Syrian Civil War and ISIL topic sanctions WP:GS/SCW. The dispute is whether non-administrator editors can issue official warnings and log them into WP:GS/SCW, with no WP:ANI procedure and/or violation required. The dispute comes after a number of users began issuing multiple warnings for other editors and logging those warnings as official warnings in line with administrators (user:Bbb23,user:EdJohnston,user:Darkwind,user:Callanecc,user:Monty845,user:Dougweller,user:Ks0stm ,user:PBS). I have to emphasize that from August 2013 and until October 2014, only administrators had issued official warnings using Template:SCW&ISIL enforcement and logged them at WP:SCWGS, whereas regular users could utilize the template:uw-1rrSCW (with no logging). Official warnings had been used to justify further sanctions against editors, thus being logged there had constituted a kind of "stain" in regard to Syrian Civil War area articles.