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

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

Talk:Anatolia#RfC:_Should_the_map_be_changed?

(Initiated 114 days ago on 18 February 2024) RfC tag has expired and there haven't been new comments in months. Vanezi (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: The RfC starter, Youprayteas, did not include any sources when starting his request. Multiple new sources have been added since February. Bogazicili (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 88 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ariana Grande#RFC: LEAD IMAGE

(Initiated 69 days ago on 4 April 2024) This RFC was kind of a mess and I don't think any consensus came out of it, but it could benefit from a formal closure so that interested editors can reset their dicussion and try to figure out a way forward (context: several editors have made changes to the lead image since the RFC discussion petered out, but these were reverted on the grounds that the RFC was never closed). Note that an IP user split off part of the RFC discussion into a new section, Talk:Ariana Grande#Split: New Met Gala 2024 image. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 66 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI this discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 439. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• As an update, it's been almost two months, the comments have died down and the discussion appears to have ended. I suggest three or more uninvolved editors step forward to do so, to reduce the responsibility and burden of a single editor. Either taking a part each or otherwise. I'm aware that's not the normal procedure, but this isn't a normal RfC and remains highly contentious. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Bump nableezy - 19:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 65 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)

(Initiated 64 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead

(Initiated 62 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Climate_change#RFC:_Food_and_health_section

(Initiated 56 days ago on 17 April 2024) This was part of DRN process (Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_245#Climate_change). It is ready to be closed [1] [2]. Bogazicili (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Ongoing court cases involving low profile individuals

(Initiated 40 days ago on 2 May 2024) RfC template has been removed by the bot. TarnishedPath^talk 13:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Andy Ngo#RfC: First sentence of the lead

(Initiated 39 days ago on 3 May 2024) Discussion has slowed with only one !vote in the last 5 days. TarnishedPath^talk 11:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 440#RfC: RFE/RL

(Initiated 35 days ago on 7 May 2024) Archived Request for Comment. 73.219.238.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 21#Category:Crafts deities

(Initiated 69 days ago on 3 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Mohave tribe

(Initiated 66 days ago on 6 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States

(Initiated 66 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Indian massacres

(Initiated 65 days ago on 7 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Volodimerovichi family

(Initiated 65 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Genie (feral child and etc.

(Initiated 64 days ago on 9 April 2024) mwwv ^converse∫_edits 18:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 29#Category:Muppet performers

(Initiated 60 days ago on 12 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:First Nations drawing artists

(Initiated 59 days ago on 13 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:Neo-Latin writers

(Initiated 58 days ago on 15 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 19#Dougie (disambiguation)

(Initiated 54 days ago on 18 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:Pocatello Army Air Base Bombardiers football seasons

(Initiated 48 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Category:Fictional West Asian people

(Initiated 46 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Natural history

(Initiated 46 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Roman Catholic bishops in Macau

(Initiated 44 days ago on 28 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 3#Frances and Richard Lockridge

(Initiated 42 days ago on 30 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh

(Initiated 36 days ago on 6 May 2024) If the consensus is to do the selective histmerge I'm willing to use my own admin tools to push the button and do it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 56 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]

It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, one more comment in discussion since this comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 40 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 15 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 June#X (social network)

(Initiated 9 days ago on 3 June 2024) - Only been open three days but consensus appears clear, and the earlier it is resolved the easier it will be to clean up as edits are being made based on the current result. BilledMammal (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Following a complaint on ANI about 70 days ago, my AWB access was revoked by Nick after community consensus.(check [3])

Yesterday I had asked Nick if I should request for the AWB access based on my performance since the revocation.(check [4]) I hereby request access to AWB.

I apologize for any inconvenience I caused. I understand the concerns that were raised. During this period, I have made about 30,000 edits and avoided any mistakes. I have been involved with a few backlogs, [5] [6] [7] article creation, promotion to GA, [8] DYK.[9] [10] [11] [12]

Thanks -- OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give us a summary of what you did wrong, and what you intend to do differently if we decide to give you back your AWB access? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Od Mishehu: I had changed dates on about 245 pages, and carried out delinking of wikilinks on articles, such edits violates rules of AWB.

I won't be doing that again. I will be mostly using AWB for working on the backlogs as usual, like I have done before. For a name, there is a category, Category:Infobox book image param needs updating. Used to have about 15,000 previously, I had fixed 5595.[13] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. You weren't stripped of AWB access for delinking and changing dates, and the link you provide above is rather disingenuous – this is the actual discussion that led to your being barred from AWB. Those were just two of a big stack of reasons, and the briefest glance at your recent contributions shows that the circumstances which led to it haven't been addressed. Among the things that led to your being stripped of the bit were making strings of trivial edits with no visible impact on an article – still going on as of today; and, more significantly, making rushed script assisted edits without bothering to check their edits, resulting in errors being introduced into the mainspace – [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] today alone. Yes, everybody makes mistakes and one mistake every thousand or so edits is understandable, but that's five obvious errors (in the sense that even the quickest of glances would have told you you were making a mistake) out of 28 mainspace edits today. An 18% error rate is atrocious, especially since in light of this appeal you were presumably being more careful than usual. In light of what happened to Rich Farmbrough, you're getting off lightly in that it's only AWB you're blocked from. Mogism (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mogism: I have not used any scripts. I started doing the persondata backlog from today, [19] [20] are not errors. I agree that there were more than 2 concerns and also that the edits were contrary to the rules of AWB. I assure that I won't be making them. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: This edit was an error. You then kindly fixed the error a few hours later. GoingBatty (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mogism and OccultZone: Cleaning up backlogs is a reasonable task, even when it doesn't have a visible impact on the page. (The benefit of using AWB to make such edits is that it can also make other general fixes and typo fixes at the same time. The down side is that it takes longer to check each edit before saving.) It's great when OccultZone uses an edit summary to make it clear why the edit was being done, and suggest that OccultZone does so for every edit. I also suggest that OccultZone marks edits as minor edits when doing tasks such as adding {{Persondata}} short descriptions or {{WPBIO}} |listas= values. I wonder if this edit and this edit are correct. GoingBatty (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: About [21], check [22]. It was confirmed that Chinese, Vietnamese and Korean names are not same as the western, middle eastern and South Asian names. You can check the defaultsort, they are same. Check Hu Jintao's defaultsort for an example. [23] is also correct because "Melamparambil" is not included in his real name, many Indian names include the name of profession or region. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to work on persondata for the first time ever, today. Although it is pretty obvious that I would be more careful than ever with that, it was indeed first time and I know that I wasn't perfect with it. When I used AWB, I had "Typo fixing" disabled, and later I had also disabled "auto tagging". OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to work on persondata for the first time ever, today. Well, no, you chose to work on it for the first time today. It's a subtle difference, but important. What made you choose it, and what research did you do concerning persondata before working on it? I'm asking not to be picky, but because I think your answer might be valuable in showing how you decide to do mass edits, and how you check the edits you have done. Begoon ^talk 22:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct and I looked on to the short descriptions that have been used by other similar articles, before I will add some. After these all edits, I have found that best way to check edit is to re-read before submitting it. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It is obvious that whenever you have the latest evidence of violation, you are prevented from the right. Few days ago, I had opposed the rollback right of Flyer22, however, I had to realize after seeing the closure that output is also measured by the experience, that the user has with the distinctive editing pattern. When there is almost 0 trouble, it can be appreciable. I liked [24], [25] After reading the users TP and archives I have found no issues which give me cause for concern. Noteswork (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Quoting GoingBatty: The down side is that it takes longer to check each edit before saving. Looking at the ANI discussion Mogism links, and reading Mogism's comments on recent errors even when editing manually, I think this is certainly one thing people will be concerned about. Editing at high speed needs good grasp of what is being done, and careful checking so that errors don't become a huge problem.

• The edit rates discussed at that ANI make checking edits next to impossible. Can Occultzone tell us what they will do about this issue, so that we can have confidence they will be actually checking edits?
• Additionally can they explain how they will deal with future concerns expressed by other editors with their automated editing? Again, reading that ANI, it seemed very difficult to get OZ to even admit they had made any errors at all. Communication, and possibly language, issues were a major stalling point in that discussion. Has there been progress there?
• Finally, will OZ make a firm commitment that, should errors, or a series of errors, be discovered in future automated edits, they will fix the errors themselves, immediately, before moving onto anything else?

I think answers to those questions might make folks more comfortable about this. Begoon ^talk 20:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 12-17 edits every minute for hours may lead anyone to believe that I am not checking edits before clicking 'save' button. I don't deny that, I have actually worked on that by giving more time into making edits look more manual than I used to do before. Rechecking is always best way to deal with.
• Like Nick had analyzed in the end, that I was speaking more for saving the access than recognizing the mistake, he seemed to be correct with that. It can be seen through the archives of my talk page. But since the next day(18 July), I have not tried anyone to give any chance that they would complain. Tried to improve my approach in dealing with the people. Talk page remains free of complaints.
• Obviously and it is one of the core concept of editing that whenever you make any errors, you have to fix each of them. I am sure that I wouldn't be making in fair amount, and I will try figuring out soon. During these many edits(since revocation), I had some instances where I would make an error but fix it quickly. Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But you didn't answer the questions at all really - by point, here's what you ignored or missed:

• You didn't tell us how you would check edits, you just were concerned with whether it "looked like" you were checking them. This sentence worries me enormously: I have actually worked on that by giving more time into making edits look more manual than I used to do before. You've worked on making your edits "look more manual"? How about working on actually checking them?
• I asked you how you would deal with future concerns.
• You didn't firmly commit to fixing all of your future errors immediately, before moving on. You did say you are aware of this, and you want to improve, so that's encouraging.

I'm sorry if you think I'm picking on you, and it's quite possible I've misinterpreted your answers, because, and here's the other problem, your English is very hard to understand. In the previous ANI you breezed past concerns about communication, raised by BrownHairedGirl and others, basically ignoring them. That worries me. I think you think your communication is better than it really is. It's actually very difficult to follow lots of what you say. I don't think it's wise to let folks who can't answer basic English queries about their actions in an understandable way use mass editing tools. Sorry if that's harsh, but there are practicalities to consider here. Begoon ^talk 23:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I had answered that above, I had said that I re-read every edit before submitting. If I wasn't checking before submitting, I guess I would be having many of the errors and complaints during these 30,000 edits.
• I would attempt to resolve the issue before making any other edit that is related with the issue. For example, when I had started doing the listas parameter, I had complaints on first day, but that was also the last day. It is usually better to resolve at first.
• Yes I agree that I would fix the current issue before moving on, knowing that small amount of mistakes can take bigger form if they haven't been resolved. Just like it happened before, and it should be avoided.

In fact, I had promoted articles to GA, DYK. It was pretty easy to collaborate other editors who were working along. There were numerous queries, but I don't see them repeating same question or concern again. I agree that it was one of the issue that I would ignore the concerns about the edits that I was making, because I thought that I was going by the policy of basic editing although it contradicted the rules of AWB about which I wasn't so aware, but that was my ignorance. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your answers. I'm sorry if you feel I bombarded you, but automated tools have the power to do a lot of damage, very quickly, which is difficult to fix. I'm not going to !vote either way - I think you have very good intentions, but I worry that you tend to overestimate your own language and editing knowledge and skills, which can cause problems, so that leaves me undecided, at this point. Begoon ^talk 00:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Still oppose I see no reason to reinstate AWB here. The tasks described sound like something that should be raised at WP:BOTREQ too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• During these 4 days, and considering the above mentioned discussion, I have made about 2000+ edits, it includes 1000 edits[26] concerning with the living parameter. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support I think we can give the access back. I revoked OccultZone's access once but I think they are more experienced after this time. We can always take the right back once again if more problems occur. The last time the problems were because they used a third-party script in a large scale. I also believe that it's better if they do any changes semi-automatically and slowly than with a bot. It's true they still make mistakes, most probably due to hight edit ratio, even without AWB. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So access has been revoked more than once? I didn't realise that. I'm still concerned - I'd certainly like to see it stipulated as a condition of any return of access that they agree to immediately fix any errors pointed out to them, before moving on, as they seem to agree above. Begoon ^talk 08:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I'd like to AGF and presume that OccultZone has "really learned a lot from {the} incident" and would benefit the project with renewed AWB access. I find i am unable to do so, however, on a couple of counts. One, i'm still concerned about communication ability; i don't really see improvement in it versus the previous incident. Two, the answers to Begoon's questions are, at best, evasive and, possibly actually deceptive; i would like to see more clear explanation from OZ of what he has learned and how he is planning to modify his behaviour. Three, the point Magioladitis raises, that AWB access has been revoked at least twice, with apparently no learning taking place the first time, at least needs to be answered before it is regranted. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 22:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@LindsayH: I have answered every query, I know now better than what I used to do before that what users usually expect after they raise any concern about the mass editing, especially since the revocation I have tried giving them no chance as I have avoided objectionable edits. For the first time, like it was also noted in the ANI, it was revoked for a different reason. That time I had about 10k edits with AWB, but later, I had 85k, we can say that I had little better idea about not using AWB for the things that lead to revocation. For the 2nd time, it was due to the mass changes to wikilinks, and date/numbers. Although I realized that they are ultimately contradictory to the rules of AWB. I am also concerned with the backlogs that require attention. While most of them cannot be handled with semi-auto programs, some of them like I have named one among few others can be better handled with AWB. If we suppose that there would be similar circumstances like before, I will definitely seek consensus for the changes before making them. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support .. Starting from the end of last year, after Sati (practice) was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section, it was having many edit wars, I was informed by Mark Arsten on Indian noticeboard. My intervention was not a success, after a few days there were more doubts because one theory was not applying on other page or it's subsection that was actually relevant with the content of this page. I was kind of sure that this article would be brought to ARBcom.
  Occult has done enormous work on this article and adequately solved these disputes. It has been helpful for many other pages(e.g. Death by burning, Women in Hinduism). Bladesmulti (talk) 06:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. I'm not quite sure what it has to do with AWB access though, really. Seems to me if OZ has talents dealing with those Indian articles, something we desperately need, then he might be better off devoting more time to that, and less time to churning edits we could get bots to do, avoiding the risk of repeating the problems he's had with those. Just an idea, though, and obviously it's up to OZ how he wants to spend his time, in the end. Begoon ^talk 07:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing. My comment was more about how Occult is capable of handling situations. IMO, Occult has provided just enough evidence of an explanation that may reasonably be correct, and it will be sufficient for giving 'em enough rope. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but read what you linked... I don't want to see a well-intentioned user like OZ "hang himself". OZ has a lot to offer, and I don't want to see him back in the same, problematic situations he has been in, since we can't afford to lose good users. Begoon ^talk 12:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was a problematic situation, I regret it. I used to think that what I could do to avoid, still do. I can affirm that I've learned, will continue to learn without causing any trouble. All in all, thanks for the kind words! OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Per Magioladitis and per commitment not to repeat the mistake in the future. VandVictory (talk) 05:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - If we are indeed a community that believes in second chances, and one that understands that sometimes we all err (sometimes egregiously), then it seems logical to allow access back. I see a lot of discussion of minutia and use and such, but to me, granting access is primarily based on around the individuals general understanding of policy, their willingness to accept responsibility for the actions and overall "clue". OccultZone is a good editor, and like the rest of us makes mistakes, but I'm confident he will move forward with caution after this. If not, bit stripping is free and it can be removed again. In the spirit of giving bit access to anyone willing and capable, I think we should not hoard the bits here. Dennis 2¢ 16:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 [27], equally guilty are the British Weights and Measures Association [28]. 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 [29] demonstrates just how much effort is diverted and wasted in dealing with utter trivia. WCM_email 23:19, 8 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 [30] 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]

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]

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]

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]

Bigshowandkane64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been edit warring on several articles pertaining to Disney, wrestling and children's television-related articles since his indef block back in 2013, and has also been adding unsourced information in several BLPs. More recently, he appeared as MickeyMouseTheCoolGuy46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and has continued the same pattern of edits like the previous accounts ([31], [32], [33]). This editor has shown that, despite being given one last chance after another, he is a net negative to the project. This last round of sock puppetry is the final straw. I would like to propose that we should place an indefinite community ban on this individual.

• Support as nominator. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support site ban. VandVictory (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support site ban. User has no desire to change which can easily be seen in his edit summaries of his most recent sock. AcidSnow (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Partial support. I support a ban of Bigshownandkane, but not an indefinite one. It's rather easy to tell that this individual is young and immature, so I propose that we issue a 1-2 year ban to allow him to gain some maturity and give him a chance to become a constructive contributor. However, if he violates the ban, perhaps we could look into extending it to indefinite. --Writing Enthusiast ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong language Irakin ja Levantin islamilainen valtio, please delete--Musamies (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - in future you can tag with {{db-r3}}. GiantSnowman 14:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

I don't know if this is the right place to ask (it involves a probably-deleted page or edit, but isn't requesting undeletion, though only admins and the like can poke their noses into deletions, and no other pages in the header seemed right), and I'm unsure if it's even appropriate/allowed to ask at all, but I got a notification that I was mentioned by User:2602:306:CC2E:EFB0:1C8F:3BD4:6CDE:CB12 (now subject to a rangeblock) on [[:[No page]|[No page] talk page]]. I bet (hope?) it was something completely pointless like transcluding ANI or something (since I've not to my knowledge interacted with said editor), but my distracted "oh notifications don't act like that" ogling has gotten the better of me and I'm now dying to know why I was mentioned... Meh, curiosity killed the cat, I guess. (But satisfaction brought it back?) - Purplewowies (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The IP was just messing around by transcluding a bunch of stuff on User talk:2602:306:CC2E:EFB0:1C8F:3BD4:6CDE:CB12. One of the things they transcluded was another user's talk page, on which you had left a comment. Nothing to worry about. Deor (talk) 23:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was fast! Good to know, I guess. It is curious that when a page/edit is deleted, the notification just breaks. :P - Purplewowies (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See User:BCA-2005--Musamies (talk) 10:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a good faith disagreement about how to handle the user described on the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP page. A recent example of which is 186.37.203.126 who has opened a discussion at User talk:Drmies#Seeking your opnion. The difference of opinion seems to revolve around whether or not the user is banned, and whether the edits should be reverted. I've been asked on my user talk page to intervene recently, and I've taken the view that the user is banned. However, the fact the user has started a discussion on an admin's user talk page is enough to give me pause. Anyway, hopefully we can clear this up, and either agree the user is banned or not. PhilKnight (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a case of either a) the guy is banned, or b) he does exactly as he pleases on Wikipedia, where no rules applies to him whatsoever. He gets blocked for something, and he immediately comes back using a different IP. He currently has two blocks outstanding, yet is still editing. He freely claims that we "cannot prevent him from editing" [34]. His editing is (mostly) fine, until someone disagrees with him or reverts him, then there's reverting with no discussion and eventually, unacceptable levels of personal abuse. I don't believe Wikipedia benefits from his presence, and I only know of one editor who appreciates him, among the large number who find him to be disruptive. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Bretonbanquet, I'm getting kind of tired of seeing the same unhelpful argument rehashed. Their edits are improvements, pure and simple. If you revert them until abuse starts, then for all I know you're baiting them into using foul language. I'd be pissed too. Reverting these positive edits (there's a laundry list on my talk page, User_talk:Drmies#Seeking_your_opnion) makes no sense and only leads to frustration, admin involvement, LTA, cases, mass rollback--in short, needless drama. What do I care who makes this edit? It's a good edit. And now Zambelo (who's always on the look to get something on me) feels the need to join the fray, with this well-explained edit, in which a 2008 source which doesn't mention the subject is made to announce something in 2012 (go look for "Beta" in that article). Bravo. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said, his editing is mostly fine – mostly. Not all of it. And immediately you assume that he is being reverted ad infinitum and goaded into using bad language. I really don't know why you would come to that conclusion. Do you have any proof of it? I have not reverted him on a systematic basis, only where I feel there is a problem with his edit. I do not necessarily advocate reversion of all of his edits. The point is that any reversion of his edits results in an edit war, refusal to discuss and eventual abuse. He effectively bullies others into accepting his edits. I have never been able to question a single edit of his, or even start a discussion, without a major struggle and being called names. And I'm far from being alone. I do not understand why you would support someone who makes a few minor improvements to the project when the trade-off is regular abuse and an open admission to gaming the system. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He has been blocked repeatedly and feels no need to address the reasons for the blocks: vile personal attacks, edit warring, etc. So long as he is allowed to edit -- for whatever reason -- why would he do anything to conform to community standards? He won't, as his recent actions confirm[35][36] He then is shocked that anyone would dare to claim he is editing in defiance of a block[37] despite (as noted) repeatedly saying he is -- and will continue to -- evade all attempts to block him. Drmies asks to what end we would enforce a block. In this particular case, to get rid of an abusive editor. In a larger sense, so that we can meaningfully claim to block disruptive editors. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have not reverted him on a systematic basis, only where I feel there is a problem with his edit.

[38],[39],[40],[41],[42],[43],[44],[45],[46],[47],[48],[49]

Why lie? 186.37.203.196 (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who's lying? Those are the edits I had a problem with. Some of your work I reinstated. Some of my reverts were reverted by other editors who thought your edits were OK, and I left them. Dozens and dozens of your edits I checked, and left as acceptable. Why don't you list those? I've already said that mostly your editing is fine, but it's not your editing that's in question here. You're evading two blocks by posting here. The fact is, you can do whatever you want here and you basically do, by your own admission. The rest of us are not free to challenge you without fear of edit wars and abuse. Right or wrong? Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More lies - no surprise. I guess you do it because you get away with it. That was just a small sample of the many edits that you have reverted on a systematic basis, without regard to the content. If you genuinely had some kind of problem with an edit such as moving a reference to a sensible place, you would a) have been wrong, b) been obliged by the conventions of the encyclopaedia to explain what your problem actually was, and c) not moved the reference again yourself. And why don't I list the edits of mine that you have personally approved? Either you're just trolling, again, or you seriously don't realise that no-one but you can possibly know which edits those might be. Either way, it's more cause for concern about you. 186.37.203.122 (talk) 17:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you engage in a discussion at all without accusing someone of lying and trolling? I restored that part of your edit which I felt was acceptable, yet that's not good enough for you either? As for all the edits of yours that I felt were acceptable, how about all of those from your last two or three IPs that I didn't revert? I checked all of them. You have no need for concern about me. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's possible we're getting off topic here. From my perspective, if we conclude the user is banned, then as far as I'm concerned, reverting his edits in accordance with WP:BAN would be permissible. PhilKnight (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have never been banned. Once you acknowledge that, I'm sure you'll have words with User:SummerPhD about the idiocy of making false claims just for the purpose of destroying substantial amounts of hard work. 186.37.203.122 (talk) 17:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• In my view, the question of whether the person behind the various IP has been banned is moot. The edits in question improved the encyclopedia, and even though mass reversion of such edits might be permissible if s/he has been banned, I believe that even then, it's a textbook example for why WP:IAR exists. Are we here to enforce rules to the detriment of encyclopedic content? Or are we here to improve this encyclopedia? Those are the questions at the crux of this, in my opinion. LHM^{ask me a question} 17:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  A note on "best known for": while I don't agree with blind mass reversion of the IP's edits, his crusade against "best known for" seems wrong-headed to me. It's a common phrase, used even in scholarly works. Here is just one example of it being used in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. There are many more such examples. LHM^{ask me a question} 17:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Banning is an extreme measure. I've looked at the long-term abuse page and at some examples; I've reinstated one edit in the list the IP gives above, and compromised on another. This is a long-running case and I see some mellowing: for one thing, the IP is apparently focusing less narrowly on the particularly contentious issue of whether "best known for" is a legitimate formulation in the lede of an article, or a sloppy piece of OR; for another, they seem to be using fewer of the nasty edit summaries, and I do see them carefully describing their reasoning in the initial edits. On the other hand I'm seeing numerous cases where the first revert gave no specific reason. Maybe my sample is poor; I admit I am utterly unable to judge which particular actors are in fact best known for one or two roles, and inclined to think the IP's right: it's usually more neutral to omit that, and where it isn't, it should be specifically referenced in the article. Because people's careers evolve. I'm getting the feeling this IP's career has evolved a bit too. IP, can we get you to undertake to clean up your mouth, realising that people of all sorts of backgrounds read these edit summaries, and calling someone a moron or even a twat (which like the other word for the female pudenda has differential force in different parts of the world, and neither particularly endears someone to a female editor like me) is just going to get you treated like a hoodlum? More use of article talk pages would also help: it's a place to record your reasoning. Others: shall we have a formal ban discussion, or can anyone find one that has happened? Or can we step back and avoid that in this case - partly by endeavouring to give a reason for the revert, just in case one time it isn't a banned editor? Since the banning offences in this case are apparently the behaviour after the first revert, I believe we may have a way out of that situation if we can keep things on the level of AGF and reasoned disagreement. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I would suggest two courses of action. First, a series of filters to make this editor go away. Second, systematically remove the phrase "best known for" from every Wikipedia article. As disruptive as this guy is, that doesn't forgive this chronic piece of original research. We generally have no idea what someone is "best known for", and I can't envision a source that could make reliable statements about that for us to rely upon.—Kww(talk) 17:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your first course of action will make our articles worse, so I disagree. I have a solution, but he doesn't want to play along: if he gets an account then, I have no doubt, all this will go away. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think if he got an account then yes, largely it might go away. He would at least then be bound by the same rules as the rest of us, which currently he is not. Why does he not want to register? It would be a demonstration of good faith on his part. If he then actually discussed matters when challenged, in a civil way, then compromises could be reached. With regard to the "best known for" phrasing, I think in some cases he is right to remove it, but in others the subject only passes the notability criteria for one thing, and it's not really a stretch of OR to say that's what they're best known for. Including some small guidance on a subject's most notable achievements seems encyclopedic to me, particularly if reliably sourced (like any other statement). Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • You'll note above that in this very discussion, he has accused me of lying and trolling. The fact is that this guy appears incapable of being civil. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I was asked to comment on my experience but I can't add much beyond what I've put at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP#Comments from Wee Curry Monster. The guy's edits are mostly constructive and a lot are reverted by named accounts who should know better. Its those occasions where the edit doesn't improve the article, which are most troubling, since he doesn't engage with editors he simply resorts to the same foul mouthed abuse. I don't believe he responds like that out of frustration, I think that is a fig leaf he is hiding behind as it was supplied by editors defending him. The truth is as he admits himself, he enjoys being abusive to other editors. He doesn't fundamentally add to the encyclopaedia, you'll not see him producing content, simply a few quick grammar tweaks. To be blunt about it, if this were a named account who labelled everyone who disagreed with them a dopey C**T, they'd have had a series of escalating blocks leading to a permanent site ban long. As he IP hops he has been able to evade such sanctions. WCM_email 18:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, RFPP is blocked up so we need some brave souls to go and clerk some of these requests, a handful over 48 hours old and upto 38 pending requests. While you're there also consider our RFC on the layout of RFPP over on the talkpage. tutterMouse (talk) 10:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues is also in need of attention with >400 entries. De728631 (talk) 14:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration case with regards to the Banning Policy, has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. For actions discussed within this case, as well as past history of disruption for which he has been sanctioned, Tarc (talk · contribs) is subject to an indefinite editing restriction. Tarc may not edit any administrative noticeboards, nor User talk:Jimbo Wales, aside from the normal exceptions.
2. Tarc (talk · contribs) is prohibited from reinstating edits or comments that were made or apparently made by a banned user and were reverted for that reason by another editor, regardless of any exception to the applicable policy that might otherwise apply. He is also admonished for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, particularly since he continued even after the disruption was apparent. Tarc is warned that he is likely to be blocked for a long time and/or banned from the project, without further warning, if he does this sort of thing again.
3. Smallbones (talk · contribs) is warned to refrain from edit warring and needlessly inflammatory rhetoric in the future. Further instances of similar misconduct may result in serious sanctions.
4. Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs) is warned to refrain from edit warring and needlessly inflammatory rhetoric in the future. Further instances of similar misconduct may result in serious sanctions.

For the Arbitration Committee, → Call me Hahc21 17:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this