| Revision as of 17:59, 28 October 2014 view sourceWehwalt (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators152,769 edits →General sanctions for matters pertaining to units of measurement in Britain: suggest← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:56, 5 November 2014 view source Fram (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors247,926 edits →General sanctions for matters pertaining to units of measurement in Britain: Closed, consensus for sanctions and for text proposed in "moving forward"Next edit → | ||
| (310 intermediate revisions by 92 users not shown) | |||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
| == General sanctions for matters pertaining to units of measurement in Britain == | == General sanctions for matters pertaining to units of measurement in Britain == | ||
| {{archivetop|There is clear consensus for general, community-authorised sanctions, and there is clear consensus for the text at the top of the "moving forward" section. ] (]) 07:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| Pursuant to a discussion at ], I'd like to propose that ] 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 ] to Britain at ], 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 ]. 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 ] 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 ], as they provide a good history of the dispute. ] — ] 18:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC) | Pursuant to a discussion at ], I'd like to propose that ] 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 ] to Britain at ], 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 ]. 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 ] 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 ], as they provide a good history of the dispute. ] — ] 18:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC) | ||
| Line 257: | Line 257: | ||
| ===Moving forward=== | ===Moving forward=== | ||
| *It is about time we moved this forward. There is no reason to allow this proposal, like so many others, to flounder. There is broad community consensus that something must be done about the present circumstances, and I intend to get these sanctions up and running. Let me propose another wording, using the basic general sanctions format. This wording should address the concerns of ] and ] above. | |||
| {{quotation|In articles that have ] solely to the ], as opposed to other English-speaking countries, any editor who systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another without clear consensus, who edit-wars over such a change, who disrupts talk page discussions or normal Misplaced Pages processes pertaining to units in UK-related articles, who engages in ], or who otherwise disruptively edits may be sanctioned by an ]. Sanctions can be imposed if, after being notified of the existence of these sanctions, the editor repeatedly repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the ], any ], or normal editorial processes. Sanctions imposed may include ] of up to one year in length, ] from editing any page or set of pages, ] on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, ] 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 ].}} | {{quotation|In articles that have ] solely to the ], as opposed to other English-speaking countries, any editor who systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another without ], who edit-wars over such a change, who disrupts talk page discussions or normal Misplaced Pages processes pertaining to units in UK-related articles, who engages in ], or who otherwise disruptively edits may be sanctioned by an ]. Sanctions can be imposed if, after being notified of the existence of these sanctions, the editor repeatedly repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the ], any ], or normal editorial processes. Sanctions imposed may include ] of up to one year in length, ] from editing any page or set of pages, ] on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, ] 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 ].}} | ||
| ::This is my attempt at clarity. Let's not let bureaucracy destroy something that has the potential to abate disruption. ] — ] 22:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC) | ::This is my attempt at clarity. Let's not let bureaucracy destroy something that has the potential to abate disruption. ] — ] 22:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Comment''' Re:"{{green|any editor who systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another without clear justification}}". What would constitute "clear justification"? Assertion of common use? Assertion that official UK bodies do it that way? Cited reference style? I changed them weeks ago and nobody noticed until now? A "sock" changed it first? Never mind what common usage might be, modern civil engineering uses those units?] (]) 06:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC) | *'''Comment''' Re:"{{green|any editor who systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another without clear justification}}". What would constitute "clear justification"? Assertion of common use? Assertion that official UK bodies do it that way? Cited reference style? I changed them weeks ago and nobody noticed until now? A "sock" changed it first? Never mind what common usage might be, modern civil engineering uses those units?] (]) 06:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC) | ||
| Line 306: | Line 305: | ||
| ::::::::::If there is a real consensus for such sanctions then that will be reflected in the outcome of a widely advertised RfC. Quite frankly it concerns me that "a limited group of editors, at one place and time" can bring in sanctions which may then get a person banned for a year. I would suggest that all such sanction proposals should be subject to a widely advertised RfC. This one in particular is badly defined and potentially affects 100,000s of articles and hence could involved almost every editor unless they restrict their editing to a very narrow field of topics | ::::::::::If there is a real consensus for such sanctions then that will be reflected in the outcome of a widely advertised RfC. Quite frankly it concerns me that "a limited group of editors, at one place and time" can bring in sanctions which may then get a person banned for a year. I would suggest that all such sanction proposals should be subject to a widely advertised RfC. This one in particular is badly defined and potentially affects 100,000s of articles and hence could involved almost every editor unless they restrict their editing to a very narrow field of topics | ||
| ::::::::::I can not find anything that says "articles that do not have strong ties to the United Kingdom or the United States should be written entirely in metric" please quote the sentence in ]. I think you are misunderstanding the first two sentences of the guideline. Because if it were true then for example the box at the start of the article on ] need to have the imperial measurements removed, as does the article on the ]. I also think that it opens up an interesting consideration, in that if the language is in a national verity of English why would one switch units depending on locaiton? Do Americans suddenly understand the metric system when reading about the weight of a Frenchman but fail to understand a weight expressed that way for an American? -- ] (]) 15:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | ::::::::::I can not find anything that says "articles that do not have strong ties to the United Kingdom or the United States should be written entirely in metric" please quote the sentence in ]. I think you are misunderstanding the first two sentences of the guideline. Because if it were true then for example the box at the start of the article on ] need to have the imperial measurements removed, as does the article on the ]. I also think that it opens up an interesting consideration, in that if the language is in a national verity of English why would one switch units depending on locaiton? Do Americans suddenly understand the metric system when reading about the weight of a Frenchman but fail to understand a weight expressed that way for an American? -- ] (]) 15:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::::], if you want to force RfCs for all general sanctions, please go gain consensus for creating such a policy. It does not exist at present. No one will "banned for a year" unless they cause such severe disruption that they would've been blocked for a year anyway without the sanctions. The uninvolved administrators that can issue sanctions are held to account by logging and by appeals to ]. It doesn't affect any editor that does not systematically change units or disrupt unit-related discussions. That's a very small niche of editors, and even then, they must first be notified that the sanctions exist before having to worry about sanctions. If you read ], you will see that metric is specified as primary in instances of articles not related to the UK or US. I think you're misinterpreting my words, anyway, because conversions are always given in such cases, as it says at ]. The dispute has never been over whether to use metric or imperial without conversions. Conversions are a separate part of the guidelines, ]. The dispute is over what unit is primary. In articles not related to the UK or US, metric is primary. The guidelines are clear. ] — ] 17:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | :::::::::::], if you want to force RfCs for all general sanctions, please go gain consensus for creating such a policy. It does not exist at present. No one will "banned for a year" unless they cause such severe disruption that they would've been blocked for a year anyway without the sanctions. The uninvolved administrators that can issue sanctions are held to account by logging and by appeals to ]. It doesn't affect any editor that does not systematically change units or disrupt unit-related discussions. That's a very small niche of editors, and even then, they must first be notified that the sanctions exist before having to worry about sanctions. If you read ], you will see that metric is specified as primary in instances of articles not related to the UK or US. I think you're misinterpreting my words, anyway, because conversions are always given in such cases, as it says at ]. The dispute has never been over whether to use metric or imperial without conversions. Conversions are a separate part of the guidelines, ]. The dispute is over what unit is primary. In articles not related to the UK or US, metric is primary. The guidelines are clear. ] — ] 17:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | ||
| {{od}} | {{od}} | ||
| @] If one person proposes general sanctions on an issue on this page, and no-objects then would you say that a consensus exists for those sanctions? -- ] (]) 17:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC) | @] If one person proposes general sanctions on an issue on this page, and no-objects then would you say that a consensus exists for those sanctions? -- ] (]) 17:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC) | ||
| Line 328: | Line 327: | ||
| ::::How can you say that? The only person that is vehement opposed is PBS. Otherwise, there is a well of support. Are you going to allow PBS a filibuster on this proposal? I've tried working with him, as you can see above. ] — ] 17:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC) | ::::How can you say that? The only person that is vehement opposed is PBS. Otherwise, there is a well of support. Are you going to allow PBS a filibuster on this proposal? I've tried working with him, as you can see above. ] — ] 17:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :::::Then perhaps one idea is for you to ping them, and the others who have expressed support or oppose to various versions, to come back and re-engage to see if there is consensus on your most recent language. I think it needs to be seen that there is broad agreement to the same thing. Because some of those !votes are three weeks old, and a lot of discussion has passed since then.--] (]) 17:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC) | :::::Then perhaps one idea is for you to ping them, and the others who have expressed support or oppose to various versions, to come back and re-engage to see if there is consensus on your most recent language. I think it needs to be seen that there is broad agreement to the same thing. Because some of those !votes are three weeks old, and a lot of discussion has passed since then.--] (]) 17:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC) | ||
| *{{ping|Wee Curry Monster}}{{ping|Nyttend}}{{ping|Roxy the dog}}{{ping|Blackmane}}{{ping|Eric Corbett}}{{ping|VandVictory}}{{ping|NebY}}{{ping|Lesser Cartographies}}{{ping|Michael Glass}}{{ping|NE Ent}}{{ping|Kahastok}}{{ping|Sjones23}}{{ping|The Rambling Man}}{{ping|Waggers}} Per ]'s suggestion above, I am pinging all editors that have participated here. Please evaluate the newest wording proposal, at the top of this section. ] — ] 19:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::New ping per above: {{ping|Callanecc}}{{ping|Psychonaut}}{{ping|Boson}} ] — ] 13:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*'''Support'''—The value (in my opinion) lies not in how many tendentious editors will be blocked, but rather in putting up a big, red, rotating sign that says "Danger, don't poke here." Perfect language to do this doesn't exist; the current proposal is more than adequate to communicate what needs to be communicated. ] (]) 20:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*'''Support''' Its one editor who has not experienced the particular frustration of being in the middle of two warring parties who has spun out what was a clear consensus for this. There has been a desperate need for some measure to stop the nuisance of constant battles over trivia. Long overdue. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 21:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I basically agree with Lesser Cartographies and Curry Monster, but would make further comments. | |||
| :I think that PBS does raise some good points. In most circumstances we ''would'' consider aligning an article with the MOS to be editing with the global consensus. While RGloucester is right that the MOS does encourage talk page discussion and deliberately leaves room for exceptions where there are genuinely good reasons for them, there is the question of what happens where there are not, and whether we should just freeze those inconsistencies in time (and note that this is an open question - some have advocated this independently of these sanctions). I also think that a specific reference to switching the order of units may be useful as this is primarily what we mean when we say "changes values from one system of measurement to another". Most measurements in most cases should have a conversion regardless. | |||
| :But in other areas I think PBS is not right. Strong national ties is a fairly standard description, and ultimately what matters is what rule is being applied. If the UK rule is being applied, then the sanctions may apply. If consensus is that the UK rule does not apply, then normal editing conditions apply. If people are disputing as to whether the UK rule applies or not, then we can apply sanctions if they are judged to be appropriate. Sanctions are not going to be applied by bots but by admins who (we would hope) can tell if/when somebody is deliberately interpreting this point too broadly or too narrowly. Worst comes to the worst, we can discuss the individual case here. | |||
| :All in all, so long as we are clear that "changes values from one system of measurement to another" includes switching the order of units, I feel that my concerns are outweighed by the benefits of the proposal and thus I would '''support'''. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 21:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think it is fairly clear that "changes values from one system of measurement to another" means switching the order. I can't think of any better way to word it, and I think it is clear. If you have a ] alternative wording for that phrase, feel free to propose it. ] — ] 22:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*'''Support''' There's just too much being invested by disruptive editors in such a small matter as this. Having lived in the UK, I've found that most people will use one or the other simply through familiarity, personally I learnt to convert between various imperial and metric systems out of courtesy to others even though by trade I deal with metric measurements. Misplaced Pages should be catering to all readers regardless of their preferences. ] (]) 22:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :* '''Support''' <small>]</small> 23:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*'''Support''' That wording is fine, good job ]. ]] 08:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*'''Support''' ] (]) 04:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*'''Support''' Sanctions are needed, as discussed above. The wording is adequate and viable. ] (]) 13:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*'''Support''' as long as it is clear that swapping the order per ] is covered. ] (]) 18:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've been thinking about this. Would it be a good idea to put the words "(including switching the displayed primary unit with the conversion)" or something to that effect after "systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another"? It makes it a bit longer and I think it's understood now that it's included but I think it's worth making it explicit. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 11:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Perhaps ''any editor who changes the order of presentation or systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another without ...'' - as an aside we keep using '''primary''' and '''secondary''' which I think signals the wrong impression, the MoS also has the same issue. ] (]) 11:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think recent changes to the MOS have actually made those words a bit more prominent, and I think you may have a point about them. I would be happy with your wording - but do we need to get ensure that "systematically" applies to changing the order of presentation as well? '']'' <small>'']''</small> 12:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You're making it more complicated than is necessary. This is clearly what the existing text refers to. Remember, it is not the editor's interpretation of the text that matters, but the uninvolved administrator's. There is no chance for Wiki-lawyering, and anyone can refer to this discussion to confirm it if it necessary. The text of this discussion becomes the "community decision" that authorises the sanctions. There is nothing unclear about the present wording. Please don't get further bogged down in details. ] — ] 15:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I agree with RGloucester but I'd put it more strongly; if we carry on re-drafting, we will never have these sorely needed sanctions. The current wording is adequate for the task. It's futile to seek perfection; other sanctions aren't perfectly worded either, but they work nevertheless. ] (]) 16:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::If there is one thing I have learnt on this topic, and in observing other sanctions dealing with editors liable to Wikilawyer, it is that it is very unusual for there to be genuinely "no chance for Wiki-lawyering". It helps if things are tied down and it helps if admins wanting to enforce the sanction don't have to wade through this much text. | |||
| :::::::If there is this much resistance to a change in the wording, perhaps an alternative would be for the closer - if they find consensus for the point and if they find that this interpretation has consensus (and no-one has objected to it so far) - to mention the point explicitly in the close? '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::{{ping|Kahastok}} There is resistance for a few reasons. Firstly, it will make the wording extremely complicated and clunky for no good reason. Secondly, we are not writing a constitution here. We should mirror what other sanctions use. There is no need specify every little thing. Thirdly, such "re-draughting" is only likely to result in further delays. Fourthly, it is quite clear what the existing phrasing means. There is absolutely no ambiguity. However, I somehow managed to think of a clearer wording that might satisfy you, and have implemented it. It is "who systematically changes the system of measurement used to present a value without ]". How's that? ] — ] 17:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::{{ping|RGloucester}} please restore your post of 18 October 2014 to its original state. It is that wording which others have discussed and for which they've expressed their support or opposition. Changing it now makes parts of the subsequent discussion incomprehensible and renders it difficult if not impossible for any closing admin to evaluate the expressions of support and whether they are still applicable. ] (]) 18:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::The text has undergone many changes, and has been evolving constantly. There is no change in meaning with my edit, but it merely clarifies something that multiple editors have asked for clarification on. The text must be able to evolve. I've been making incremental changes since the start of this discussion, to bring it in line with the ideas that people have brought to the table. I don't even remember what this text look liked on 18 October. I'm sure it looked very different. ] — ] 18:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::{{ping|RGloucester}} you had made no changes to that text since you pinged editors on 28 October 2014 except for wikilinking "consensus". You have been here long enough to know that you should not refactor discussions. Kahastok's suggestion for the close is a good one; let it be. ] (]) 18:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::I posted it first on 18 October (not "28 October"), and have made multiple minor changes since, as far as I'm aware. If you want me to go through the edit history and find them, fine. I don't even know what "refactoring" means. If you'd like to revert it, go ahead. I don't particularly care, one way or the other, because they both mean the same exact thing. I'm getting fed up with this bureaucratic nonsense, however. Editors need to be more flexible and pragmatic. ] — ] 18:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::{{done}}. I checked from 28 October because that's when you pinged editors to respond per Wehwalt's suggestion and they began to respond. Do read ]. ] (]) 18:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::(ec with both above) TBH it still reads to me like it could be Wikilawyered as excluding switching the order of units. I've seen it insisted before that nothing in policy or guidelines - including in ] and at the top of ] - suggests, implies or otherwise indicates that there is any problem at all with switching order of units on UK-related articles on an industrial scale solely for reasons of personal preference, so I am particularly concerned about this. You ''have'' to expect Wikilawyering in this area and pin the wording down to prevent it. Now, we all know that this is the behaviour we're talking about, but an admin not familiar with the ins and outs of MOSNUM might not, which is why I suggest that a reword or a comment in the close might be of benefit. Note that no redrafting is required for a comment in the close. | |||
| :::::::::Part of the reason I mention the closer is because in a previous - particularly poisonous - discussion where I felt the result was going to be Wikilawyered, I asked a set of questions for the closer which were duly answered in the close. With the answers right there, at the top of the discussion, anyone looking at the consensus could see what had been agreed, and that it was quite different to what the Wikilawyer-in-chief was already claiming that it was. This gave me a lot more confidence that the result would be robust and harder to Wikilawyer. As it happens, touch wood, we've never revisited that discussion. How much this is to do with the questions answered in the close and how much to do with the indefinite block of said Wikilawyer-in-chief a month later is impossible to say. I suspect the latter, but the greater confidence that the close gave us was still welcome. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 18:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::I'll be honest in saying that I see a bit of (perhaps warranted) paranoia in your replies here. There is no perfect wording. No one will confuse this. It is very clear that any disruption of this kind would be sanctionable. As I said before, though, what MOSNUM says is quite irrelevant. This is not about enforcing MOSNUM, but about stopping disruptive behaviour. Consensus here has determined that such systematic changes are disruptive, and hence sanctionable. I'm fine with the idea that closer should mention this. If you'd like me to revert to the old wording, I'll do it. Regardless, even if this was somehow portrayed as "not referring to switching unit order", it would still be sanctionable under the "who otherwise disruptively edits". The only way to appeal such a sanction would be at ], where it would be easy to make clear whether whatever such an editor did was disruptive or not. There is literally no room for whatever "Wikilawyering" is. There are too many protections in place, such as the necessity for an ] appeal, and the clauses about "general disruption". ] — ] 18:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::I am OK with not changing the proposed words. ] (]) 17:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ====Process==== | |||
| *'''Comment''' as this section is fairly short I have turned this into an RfC so that a wider community consensus can be sought. I have done this rather than start a new section for a RfC as it is unreasonable to ask those that have expressed an opinion within the last 24 hours to do so again. -- ] (]) 10:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I strongly oppose this unilateral action by you, PBS, to turn my wording into an RfC. I've removed the template. ] — ] 12:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| From the history of the page: | |||
| *13:31, 29 October 2014 PBS (→Moving forward: Second Try for an RfC) | |||
| *13:40, 29 October 2014 RGloucester (Make your own section if you want an RfC. I don't.) | |||
| I don't believer that this section belongs to you! So under what right are you reverting edits made by me? If I create another section for an RfC, opinions will be split over two different sections. This is not fair on people who have already made their opinions clear, and needlessly complicates the RfC, but if you insist I will create a section below this one. -- ] (]) 13:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are adding an RfC template in conjunction with my words, in a way that would be misleading. It implies that I support this so-called "RfC". I have repeatedly said I do not. In fact, I believe that any opening of an RfC at this stage would be disruptive. No RfC is necessary. The only one that seems to think so is you, and furthermore, no other general sanctions ever were established by RfC. If you want to start an RfC, you should draft a proposal. Do not use my proposal for your RfC. ] — ] 15:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] For someone who is seeking the consensus of the community to bring in some general sanctions, I find it extraordinary that you would not want to include as many people as possible in building that consensus and are trying to block an RfC on the issue! | |||
| :::The RfC does not in any way alter what you have said. It does not imply that you support the RfC, and that is not the issue. Your have twice removed an RfC what the RfC process says is "If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template. '''Do not close the RfC just because you think the wording is biased.''' An RfC tag generally remains on the page until removed by the RfC bot or the originator." My emphasis. You are free to state under the RfC that you do not support the RfC if you so wish but you are not free to removed it for that reason. | |||
| :::If you will not let me place the RfC banner at the top of this section then I will create a new one at the bottom and I will use you proposed wording because that is for which you are seeking to gain consensus. As I have said it will be inconvenient for those who have already expressed an opinion in this straw poll and could easily lead to confusion, hence the reason I think it better to convert this section into a RfC. -- ] (]) 18:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::In fact, it shows bad faith on your part. It singles my proposal out amongst all other general sanctions proposals, and puts a bureaucratic block in front of it. Not because of any particular policy or guideline, but because of one editor's opposition. You do not have a right to filibuster this proposal, nor do you have a right to unilaterally force bureaucratic measures on it. I will not allow you to use my wording for any RfC of yours. If you'd like to make a proposal, write one up and then start an RfC. My wording is not going to be used in any RfCs requested unilaterally by you. I will follow the established procedure for general sanctions proposals. I will not be made to jump through hoops at your behest. If you continue to disrupt this proposal, I will be forced to open a thread at ]. ] — ] 18:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| I have posted an ANI over the issue of an RfC. See ] -- ] (]) 17:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I do not think that there has been enough participation in this process (only about a dozen users have commented on the most recent wording). I wanted the RfC to encompass the opinions already expressed, but unfortunately RGloucester is opposed to that, so I have started an RfC in the hope that it attracts many more participants, so that if these sanctions are to be imposed that it is clear that they are broadly supported by the editing community. See below: | |||
| *] | |||
| -- ] (]) 10:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Unfortunately RGloucester has now the RfC I opened in a new section, having already twice closed the RfC when I opened it in this section. I have ask an uninvolved administrator at ANI to revert the close as I do not want to edit war over this issue. I am disappointed with this behaviour and I am not at all sure why RGloucester is so hostile the seeking a broader consensus (either for or against this proposal), however I would ask anyone considering closing this section to consider if the actions of RGloucester are in the spirit of consensus building and do not conclude that the views previously expressed here necessarily reflect a wider consensus that might be generated by the Rfc. -- ] (]) 21:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::You're really pushing it, aren't you? No general sanctions have ever been established by RfC. No RfC is needed to establish general sanctions. The proper procedure is a discussion at ], and that's what we've done here. I've spent weeks engaging in "consensus building" and modifying the proposal as appropriate. I've spent weeks asking you for things I could do to resolve whatever concerns you have. You've not aided me in that regard, and instead have started forum-shopping and filibustering this proposal, going on and and on about "wider consensus". No "wider consensus" is necessary. This is a public noticeboard, and the standard one used for establishing general sanctions as it says at the guidelines on such matters. Your personal desire for a "wider consensus" does not override the existing guidelines, nor the existing procedures that exist to establish general sanctions. You have no engaged in consensus-building, only bulldozering. Every time I attempted to work with you, you failed to work with me or others to address your concerns. You have no ground to stand on. ] — ] 21:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The closure of the RfC , praise God, by an uninvolved administrator. Now we can all get on with our lives, sans the incessant disruption of a one Mr PBS. ] — ] 03:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' The extraordinary wall of text above, as an example of what goes on, makes the need for sanctions in this area fairly clear. ] (]) 03:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|GoldenRing}} Please move your comment to the above section, with the other comments on the proposal. This section is only for process-related stuff. You can delete my comment when you move it. ] — ] 04:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| == Proposal to remove the topic ban of Lucia Black from Japanese entertainment topics == | == Proposal to remove the topic ban of Lucia Black from Japanese entertainment topics == | ||
| {{archive top|'''No consensus for change. Topic ban remains in place'''. ] Whether or not anyone believes there ''should'' be a topic ban, there is the perception of one and perception is reality in this case as violating that will be enforced. The ban was instated in ''August'' and more than two months later, absent small editing at ] (admittedly for a serious GA review), there's been drama ''about'' the prior drama. It's been a two-month status quo so I don't see how that's creating ''additional'' sanctions. Again, it wasn't that the editing ''at'' the Japanese entertainment articles that was problematic but that the editing ''about'' the Japanese entertainment articles created problems. There are very few people that cause disruption no matter what they do, it's usually a particular topic. Now, there is a distinct difference between arguing ''about'' the topic ban and accepting it to argue ''to remove'' it. If Lucia Black wants to argue the former, there's always ARBCOM but I'd put odds on being blocked entirely to prevent further disruption if we go that route. There are more than four and a half million articles here. Find something else to work on. If Lucia Black wants to argue the later, it seems like fairly reasonable editors ask to see that there is editing outside the topic in an adult manner and an acknowledgement about the prior problems. -- ] (]) 02:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| At ], a topic ban of ] from Japanese entertainment topics was enacted. I'd like to propose that the topic ban be rescinded, leaving in place Lucia Black's topic ban from ] and related articles, the prohibition on Lucia Black starting threads at AN/ANI without permission, and any other previously existing topic bans on Lucia Black that might be in place. I have not consulted with Lucia Black on this, but was reminded of that discussion because Lucia Black mentioned me on Jimbo Wales' talk page (and then posted on my talk page as I started writing this). | At ], a topic ban of ] from Japanese entertainment topics was enacted. I'd like to propose that the topic ban be rescinded, leaving in place Lucia Black's topic ban from ] and related articles, the prohibition on Lucia Black starting threads at AN/ANI without permission, and any other previously existing topic bans on Lucia Black that might be in place. I have not consulted with Lucia Black on this, but was reminded of that discussion because Lucia Black mentioned me on Jimbo Wales' talk page (and then posted on my talk page as I started writing this). | ||
| Line 456: | Line 520: | ||
| Like i said, ARBCOM is the only way to go, at this point. NO one is willing to answer this important question. And to me, it will forever look like "your topic banned because there was a consensus for it". I think in ARBCOM, the question will have to be answered, because its no longer about whether consensus controls any action, ARBCOM will be the consensus. SO it will rely more on which one has the more relevant point. ] (]) 21:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC) | Like i said, ARBCOM is the only way to go, at this point. NO one is willing to answer this important question. And to me, it will forever look like "your topic banned because there was a consensus for it". I think in ARBCOM, the question will have to be answered, because its no longer about whether consensus controls any action, ARBCOM will be the consensus. SO it will rely more on which one has the more relevant point. ] (]) 21:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ===Another arbitrary break=== | |||
| == Nip Gamergate in the bud == | |||
| At this point, rather than pursue the same path and arguments that happened in the original topic ban discussion, I propose that we hear from a broader base of members from WP:ANIME and WP:VG. In the previous discussion (after looking back) I, perhaps somewhat hastily, proposed the wider anime/VG ban in addition to the GITS ban but ultimately only supported the GITS ban. I'm sure parties to the current discussion will want to wade in here, but rather than seeing the same old names rehash the same arguments, I think fresh eyes need to be brought in. Lucia, I highly recommend ''against'' starting any discussion here, not because I want to muzzle you, but I sincerely want to see what others, apart from the regulars here, have to say. ] (]) 22:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive top|result=This is obviously not going anywhere. While there are well-based concerns about an influx of tendentious single-purpose accounts, neither the mass blocks/topic-bans initially requested by the OP, nor the boomerang request for a topic-ban of the OP currently have any chance of consensus, and much of the thread is just the usual mud-slinging. If somebody has a constructive idea how to handle the disruption, please start afresh. ] ] 10:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| :Anytime a discussion involves an edit Lucia dislikes or when she proposes a policy change, there is always an endless debate. While having been out of the loop and skipping most of the discussion, I believe Sergecross and Hasteur analyzed Lucia's behavior quite accurately. However, I think Lucia should receive different sanctions instead of the topic ban, mainly due to her edits on articles no other editors are taking up. My suggestions for sanctions would be: 1) Lucia should not start discussions on policy, MosS, and whatever changes that could be made. 2) Aside from vandalism or something that goes against the MoS, she should consult with an editor who will discuss the edits in her place (or turn her down on her request for a discussion). Her having two consistent consultant editors in WP:Anime and WP:VG would be sufficient. That should settle the ''Lucia Black disruptive thread'' syndrome unless I forgot something. Course, it'd be up to Lucia to accept those terms or not. If this does go to Arbcom, I can only imagine a complete ban for her. Excuse my grammar and derailment of thought here, it has been a long day for me. ] (] '''·''' ]) 11:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| As the ], the {{la|Gamergate controversy}} article is a hive of POV pushers and BLP violators. Its talk page has seen an abundance of brand new accounts and long dormant accounts arriving who have done '''''nothing''''' on the English Misplaced Pages except contribute solely to the article, its talk page, and several related articles and talk pages (], ], ], ], etc.) in order to bring the external dispute onto Misplaced Pages under the guise of making sure the article isn't biased (or making sure that it stagnates and has a mark at the top saying it is biased). The following list of users contains editors who, again, have zero edits outside of this topic area in the past 2 months, either because they are a newly registered account or they are an editor who had an account and had not previously edited for months or even years at a time until the shit hit the fan. | |||
| * I cannot make this decision for the community, but I will say: | |||
| :* Misplaced Pages is not about ]. | |||
| :* An ] is calling for {{Diff2|631585723|help}}. | |||
| : ] (]) 08:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| All of these editors have solely used Misplaced Pages to push the "pro-Gamergate" agenda, many have been chastised for violating ] for repeating the false allegations that the movement believes in, and may have edits that have been revdelled for those reasons. There are other established editors that have also been pushing the pro-Gamergate ideals, but they are not listed here (but they will very likely make themselves known in this discussion). If the article is going to overcome any issues users in good standing and in good faith see in the article, Misplaced Pages needs to follow the examples of other websites before it that have become centers of this controversy and remove the advocates and POV pushers from the equation, as Misplaced Pages has done in other topics before as well. These various users need to be blocked for violating ] and ].—] (]) 18:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Having a question about sources at an obscure and largely unimportant article is hardly a reason for or against anyone's topic ban. It's truly mind-boggling to think that you thought this would matter in this discussion. ] ] 01:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *"''All of these editors have solely used Misplaced Pages to push the "pro-Gamergate" agenda...''", that's a pretty serious accusation, {{u|Ryulong}}. You sure about every member of this list? ] (]) 18:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:Yes. I am sure. Each editor on this list is a ] that has been intensely involved on the talk page, after years of never using Misplaced Pages or being brand new accounts, all to make the same or similar statements about the state of the article as being biased against the Gamergate movement (mainly complaints that defining it as "misogynist" or even mentioning the documented death threats puts the movement in a negative light). Again, several have been blocked. Several have had their edits revdeled due to BLP. All of them have been making the same threads on the talk page or editing the article (while it was unprotected) to make it conform to a more positive view on the movement when that view is not supported by reliable sources.—] (]) 18:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *::You're not taking Protonk's hint. '''At least''' one of these names most definitely doesn't belong on this list (I stopped looking when I saw that; perhaps there are more?). If you aren't going to take the time to look at your own list, why do you expect others to? --] (]) 19:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Okay. I made a mistake with Overlord Q and Kaciemonster as below. I've been compiling this list over the last several weeks so don't hold those errors against me when . I am now positive that all of the members of this list comprise SPAs who are solely on Misplaced Pages or have solely returned to editing Misplaced Pages for the sole purpose of pushing a POV on the article as that is ''all'' that these editors have done since mid-August 2014. It's also extremely difficult for someone who is not an admin to easily point out that some sligthtly more established editors (such as Retartist) have had several edits of theirs revdelled for violating ] over the controversy.—] (]) 19:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Please remove me from this list. I've edited topics outside of gamergate, and have only posted on the talk page trying to start a discussion on restructuring the article to make it easier to understand. I've been nothing but respectful to everyone that I've interacted with. I honestly can't see how you can accuse me of pushing POV or a pro-gamergate agenda at all. ] (]) 19:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:Fine.—] (]) 19:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *::How about "I'm sorry for accusing you of being a fucking gamergate SPA" without any actual evidence? ] (]) 19:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I was just about to add an apology when you edit conflicted me. I am sorry, Kaciemonster, for having included you in the whole of this list. The rest of this list has none of the other issues. Every member of this now final list is indeed a Gamergate SPA.—] (]) 19:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *::::{{ping|Ryulong}} I'd like to know why you put me on this list in the first place, especially considering how quickly you removed me from it when I brought it up. The note "To an extent" was next to my name, too. If you had been compiling this list for weeks there must have been something that caused you to add me to your list of people you believe to be SPAs and POV pushers. ] (]) 02:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Perhaps it was your comments like .—] (]) 02:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::''Perhaps''? You accused me of being an SPA and POV pushing "to an extent", and ''perhaps'' that comment I made is the reason? That comment was reason enough for you to put me on a list of people you wanted to have blocked from editing? The only POV I pushed was about the article being an overblown mess, and I don't think anyone can accuse me of anything different. Unless it was my tone that was the problem for you? In which case you should check yours. ] (]) 03:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Because I clearly don't remember the exact reason I picked your account amongst the 3 dozen others above that I am much more certain on their behavior it was obviously a mistake to include you amongst them. You were removed. I apologized for having added you in the first place. What more do you want?—] (]) 03:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::I love the tone of "Oh, I can't be bothered to give a shit if I wrongfully accused someone". ] (]) 03:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::What is wanted of me in this part of the situation? I was wrong. I admitted it. The user's not listed here anymore. What more is there to do?—] (]) 03:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::I told you what I wanted and you responded nonchalantly with a link to a comment I made about the structure and overabundance of content in the article. It was in no way block-worthy, and I don't understand how you can't see why I'd be upset about being collateral damage in your effort to get rid of the POV pushers. I'd appreciate your apology more if you didn't wedge it between comments to other people, considering the severity of the accusation and punishment you wanted for me. ] (]) 03:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::I wanted to modify my original response to you hours ago to have a proper apology for having included you in the list but I was hit with an edit conflict. It can't be helped now. I was wrong for including you in the list. And I am sorry for having done so in the first place, particularly without any recollection of any actual comment you posted that led me to decide you were one of the many probematic editors.—] (]) 03:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::: Thank you. ] (]) 03:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes I revived this account, so what? I haven't broken the rules, I have remained civil, and admitted to being inexperienced. I also made some other edits. ] (]) 19:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's all you've done since you've returned and your edits, while civil, are still advocating for a bias that cannot be covered.—] (]) 19:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's most of but not everything I've done. I've done a couple other things like fix the redirect for Kooper (Paper Mario character). ] (]) 20:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Who pissed in your coffee?, Up until this point i've been completely civil and all i've done is point out the bias in ONE article on this site, And you think that i need to be banned?, YOU need to be banned for trying to start a witch hunt against other users. ] (]) 19:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Pepsiwithcoke, you have been involved in to remove the "allegations" that the death threats she received were related to Gamergate. The "Please keep your feminist agenda out of this article" is rich.—] (]) 19:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Whitewashing?, None of the accusations that Gamergate people put the info out there has been proven, It was Wu herself that said that it was GG that posted the info, If it could be proven that GG supporters posted the info i would have no problem with that in the article. ] (]) 19:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Multiple reliable sources have reported the information. Just because you personally believe that the content is not proven based on ] does not mean the Misplaced Pages article must reflect your opinion.—] (]) 19:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Just because it's been ''reported'' doesn't mean that it's ''proven'', The ] could come out today with an article that says the sky is purple, Does that automatically make the sky purple?, This entire argument is "Our Gamergate article is totally neutral, and here are these 50 people that belong to Gamergate and disagree. Can we ban them?" ] (]) 19:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::If the preponderance of reliable sources claim that it's proven, then Misplaced Pages can report that it is proven. And POV pushers are still POV pushers.—] (]) 19:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Also, If you want to ban 50 people from editing a subject because of perceived "Bias" for a subject, <redacted> You should be banned for bias as well. for having a proven bias against the subject. ] (]) 20:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Don't fucking link to my private Twitter account.—] (]) 19:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Quit trying to cover your ass, I didn't link to a "Private twitter account", I linked to a PUBLIC tweet you made before you made your twitter private that has been archived, And how about you ] (]) 20:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Don't link to my fucking Twitter, period. What I do off of Misplaced Pages does not have anything to do with what I do on Misplaced Pages. I should not have been contacted off site weeks ago for something I did on site because of this fucking controversy. I would not have developed this mindset if I had not been subject to this unnecessary scrutiny and harassment.—] (]) 20:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::It does when it's showing your hypocrisy in trying to start a witch hunt in the name of "Bias" when you yourself are the one with the most bias here, And for the record, Here's what the tweet he keeps deleting says "I Don't have time to deal with gamergate fags" ] (]) 20:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::I have '''''never''''' introduced anything biased into the article. And stop bringing up that god damn tweet. I signed into Twitter for the first time in weeks to look something up and I was being tweeted at by some Gamergater asking me if I "considered an academic" in some sort of entirely unnecessary way to push my buttons. I blocked him, used 4chan vernacular, and didn't think anything of it until I got bombarded with notifications going "Ryulong's homophobic" "@Jimmy_Wales do you let biased editors like @Ryulong to edit Misplaced Pages" for days on end until I shut my Twitter off from public view but that obviously hasn't stopped anyone from their goals of completely discrediting me because I said something off-color off of Misplaced Pages.—] (]) 20:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Let's face it, even if Ryulong has got a couple wrong here, the vast majority of these accounts are exactly as he describes. Blocking the vast majority of them would lose Misplaced Pages precisely nothing. I don't see the problem with that. ] 19:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **I'm not against blocking accounts, but I think we'd want a closer look than one which netted us two false positives at least. ] (]) 19:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ***And those false positives were removed. There is not another such false positive in this list. There are editors who have been off of Misplaced Pages for 6 years in one case returning for the sole purpose of editing the Gamergate article to favor the movement's POV and there are accounts registered recently doing the exact same thing. My mistakes have been noted and dealt with. The list as it stands as of this edit is perfect.—] (]) 19:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ****I would argue they have not been. Allow me to go through the list and point out the accounts that aren't "SPAs". | |||
| {{collapsetop}} | |||
| *ArmyLine: Editing since 2012. Including articles like David Horowitz, Laboratory animal sources, and University of Toronot Students Center. | |||
| *Ranze: Editing since 2012. Including articles like ThunderCats (1985 TV series), Tokimeki High School, Roman Polanski, The Jim Henson Company, and others. | |||
| *Tupin: Editing since 2008. Only two edits on the Gamergate page. Other edits include GLaDOS and Galactic Empire. | |||
| *Thronedrei: Editing since December 2008. Edits include a whole bunch of Gundam stuff. | |||
| *Loganmac: Editing since 2008. Edits include a bunch of band stuff like As I Lay Dying and a TV show called My Life as Liz. | |||
| *Artman40: Editing since 2006. Wide variety of edits, including a lot of science articles and gaming articles. | |||
| *Kau-12: Editing since 2006. Edits about a game called Exteel. | |||
| *Snakebyte42 Editing since 2012. Lots of comic edits. | |||
| *Torga: Editing since 2008. Edits include topics like Prostitution in Europe, Suikoden, and the film Idiocracy. | |||
| *Retartist: Editing since 2013. Edits include various tech and political articles. | |||
| *Iamaom: Editing since 2009. Edits include lots of user pages and lingustics pages. | |||
| *Muscat Hoe: Editing since September 2014. Edits include Left 4 Dead 2, the Keratin 5 protein, the page on the Birdman film, and others. | |||
| *Bosstopher: Editing since 2011. Edits include various biographical pages and talk pages on historical events and biographies. | |||
| *Skrelk: Editing since 2006. Edits are widespread. | |||
| *Lasati: Editing since 2007. Edits on video game design and Gerhard Klopher. | |||
| *DavidHOzAu: Editing since February 2006. Edits include many gaming topics, android software development and engineering. | |||
| *Tabascoman77: Editing since 2007. Edits include various films, etc. | |||
| *Will McRoy: Editing since 2013. Edits include Council on Foreign Relations, Boreal forest of Canada, Are Your Smarter Than a 5th Grader?, Sri Chinmoy, Anita Sarkeesian, and others. | |||
| *Pepsiwithcoke: Editing since 2012. Edits include WWE, Madison Rising, Classic Game Room, Spencer Gifts, New York Knicks, and others. | |||
| *Javier2005: Editing since February 2014. Edits include Jack White, Fermatta Music Academy, Foxit Reader, clickbait, Anita Sarkeesian and others. | |||
| *Halfhat: Editing since April 2014. Edits include Phil mason, New Super Mario Bros. Wii, and lots of user talk pages. | |||
| *SmoledMan: Editing since 2012. Edits include articles on Windows 8, Microsoft, energy, the Chicago Transit Authority, and others. | |||
| *Cs california: Editing since 2006. Edits include botanical articles, gaming articles, and food/cooking articles. | |||
| *Theawesome67: Editing since 2013. Mostly talk page edits, only one of which is on the GamerGate talk page. | |||
| *Ginnygog: Editing since October 2014. Only one edit on the *talk page* of Gamergate. Not controversial. | |||
| {{collapsebottom}} | |||
| 25/36 (nearly 70%) of these are not "single purpose accounts" made to push any agenda. Some of the rest may be, and perhaps those accounts should be topic blocked or something. But Ryulong is again trying to get rid of anyone who doesn't agree with him. When is this going to end? When is he going to finally get reprimanded for his actions? He clearly should not be involved in this discussion or any like it due to his personal biases. ] 20:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Again, '''I have pointed out that several of these editors have returned to Misplaced Pages after months or years of inactivity to solely begin contributing to ] and related pages'''. They ''became'' single purpose accounts. And where have you come from? What is this claim that I'm "again trying to get rid of anyone who doesn't agree with "?—] (]) 20:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: I've been watching this discussion unfold from the sidelines for a while, afraid to say anything because I feel like you'd basically do the same thing to me, despite me having a history of editing random Misplaced Pages articles on topics that I'm interested in. Every step of the way, I've seen you treat people like dirt. I've seen you yell and swear and curse and make false accusations in order to get your way. And thus far, you've basically gotten away with it all. Now you're taking a list of 35+ users and saying that Misplaced Pages should get rid of all of them because they don't agree with your point of view. Your claim that they are "mostly SPAs" has yet to be proven (that burden is on you), and I have already for the most part disproved it. I personally went through ALL of their contrib pages and saw that the group that I pointed out (aside from one account) has been just like me -- interested in Misplaced Pages enough to edit certain articles over time that interested them, but not interested enough to spend the majority of their free time on it. I feel that you're very much out of line and you need to be removed from this situation in favor of someone who isn't going to try and get admins to delete accounts of people who disagree with them. ] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned"> — Preceding ] comment added 20:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :::But every editor that you have pointed out has done '''''nothing''''' since Gamergate became a thing other than involve themselves in Gamergate and related topics here. Even if they had varied editing histories prior to August 2014, that doesn't change what they've done since then.—] (]) 20:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: It started in August, yes? So let's look for edits since August. | |||
| {{collapsetop}} | |||
| * Willhesucceed: Edited Mediabistro/Mecklermedia/TV Newser in October. Made edits about NHK in October. Edited Mariah Carey in October. | |||
| * Ranze: Edited David Benoit, Insert key, List of fallacies, Formal fallacy, Dora the Explorer, etc in October. | |||
| * Thronedrei: Edited Misaki Momose and Mayu Watanabe in September. | |||
| * Loganmac: On the talk page for Edge of Tomorrow in September, as well as the "Misplaced Pages: Non-free content review" page. | |||
| * Artman40: Edited Kepler (spacecraft), Plasmodium. Medusa, Binary star, etc in October. | |||
| * Snakebyte42: Edited Tales of Zestiria, Moon Knight and The Dark Knight (film) in September. | |||
| * Torga: Edited Alexander Dale Oen, Øygarden, John Alvheim, Stoltenberg, Idiocracy and Suikoden in September. | |||
| * Iamaom has only made three contributions to the Gamergate talk page, and isn't very controversial. | |||
| * Muscat Hoe: Edited Valerie Arem, Birdman(film), Inferno (Dan Brown novel) and others in October. | |||
| * Bosstopher: Edited Kaarle Krohn in October. Saints Cyril and Methodius, Gregorian mission and others in September. | |||
| * Skrelk: Edited Competition between Airbus and Boeing and Nuclear weapon in October. | |||
| * DavidHOzAu: Edited Engineering in October. | |||
| * Javier2005: Edited Clickbait in October and Fermatta Music Academy in August. | |||
| * AnyyVen: Edited Revenge porn in October. | |||
| * Halfhat: Edited Kooper, Goomba, and Net (device) in October. | |||
| * SmoledMan only has three posts on Gamergate, all in the talk page. | |||
| * Cs california: edited Passiflora antioquiensis in October, Pol Pot, Micropenis, Arisaema sazensoo and Arisaema yamatense in August. | |||
| * Theawesome67: On the talk page for Lego Ninjago and edited "Misplaced Pages:Sandbox" in October. | |||
| {{collapsebottom}} | |||
| ::::So again, we have a large amount of accounts making non-GamerGate edits in October, September, and August. But there's one common element in most of these. Your name. These people disagree with things you have to say and disagree with the current way the GamerGate article is behind handled. Regardless of their reasons, this isn't reason enough to call them "single purpose accounts" and try to have their accounts deleted. ] 21:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::As EvergreenFIr points out, they count as "zombie accounts".—] (]) 21:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::This information of yours does not detract from the edits being made on the Gamergate related pages.—] (]) 21:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Nope. But it sure does lay to rest your claim that "...every editor that have pointed out has done nothing since Gamergate became a thing other than involve themselves in Gamergate and related topics here." Which defeats your original argument that they're "single purpose accounts".] 21:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Thank you for the defense {{U|DarknessSavior}}, and may I add that I opted not to bring my old account out of the closet because it's too easy to link it to who I am in real life, and given the nature of this controversy, that's something I wanted to avoid. For the record, that account was created in 2005. ] (]) 23:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| However, let me add as significantly involved: there is a problem with the bias of the article as Ryulong and a few other editors have pushed for which some of these "SPAs" (if we're calling them that) have tried to help resolve. (The nature of the bias is an essay undo itself but the tl;dr version is that while we cannot balance the coverage 50/50, we also should not be pushing one point of view as indisputably correct as the current state of the article does). Ryulong has been the target from offsite prodding from the main proGG areas (Which I've monitored just to get a feel for whats going on) and I know some of these editors are coming here and voicing ''valid'' concerns - some we can't act on but valid nevertheless, but at the same time, Ryulong's name is a major target by these offsite places. Ryulong has been rather short on temper with these editors for justifiable reasons but this is a sign to back away, not to try to silence the other side. --] (]) 19:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Masem, I have been sitting on this list for weeks and any off-site prodding I may have been subject to should not factor into my determination that all of these accounts are single purpose accounts here just to push for the "It's not about misogyny, it's about ethics and only ethics, stop calling us misogynists" POV that pervades the movement when the media is against them.—] (]) 19:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've seen the same edits you have. Yes, it is annoying to deal with the nth user saying "it's not about misogyny". There's definitely signs of meatpuppetry to a degree to change things via other sites. ''But'' most of these editors have not crossed any line (for example, the most recent one, regarding their username, which I've warned them about) that requires silencing them. The lack of any attempt by you and a further others to even hear them out is why they keep coming and why you are getting ridiculed off site. --] (]) 19:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::They've been heard out weeks before the newest one has shown up to say the same thing. Every aspect of the article must be examined and explained over and over again when a new editor goes "it's not about misogny, that's what those fucking feminazis want you to think". Misplaced Pages can work on this article with editors who are pro-Gamergate but have been on the site longer and know how things should work, unless they cannot be adequately trusted to edit the project constructively as is the case with Titanium Dragon.—] (]) 20:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, I'm frustrated to having to re-explain why WP cannot cover the topic in the way they'd like to see. But new users coming in to offer input - even if it is "this article is biased, fix it" - is not a reason for admin action. WP does not block SPAs just by virtual of being SPAs but based on more critical evaluation of their actions related to their SPA. One adds something that is not-quite-a-BLP issue about a person involved after showing they are an SPA that is arguing the side against that person- yeah, that's going to put them on thin ice. But thats not the case for the majority of these people. --] (]) 20:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *This is the type of issue that Misplaced Pages is always going to be plagued with. When an editor always acts relatively civil and makes all their edits within the rules it is hard to do anything about them. But when an editor's sole purpose is to make edits in one POV direction, whether in this stupid issue, on political campaigns, ethnic conflicts, or whatever, it's very clear that they are not here to build an encyclopedia. I would have no issue with any necessary actions being taken.--] ] 19:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| (And as I note, these users don't appear to have been notified of this AN. They might end up being SPAs but they have a right to be notified and participate.) --] (]) 19:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Doesn't the "If your username is linked you're push notified" thing work?—] (]) 19:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: It does. ] <sup>] ]</sup> 19:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well more like asking if it counted as notification.—] (]) 20:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The instructions note that they still need the formal notice (per top of page). I believe this is to differ from when you just mention a user as an aside, and when a user is directly involved in the AN matter. --] (]) 20:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well other than the indefblocked users and those who have found the discussion through the push notifications, that's been taken care of.—] (]) 20:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Don't really appreciate being called out as a part of some sort of blacklist, thanks. I only asked questions on the talk page and made no attempt to edit the article itself. Again, don't appreciate the hunt going on here.] (]) 19:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Despite a complete lack of interest in the actual subject on my part, I've been keeping an eye on the GG spectrum of articles, as there have been occasional egregious breaches of BLP in the articles and the talkpages, along with plain POV pushing, like the "Please keep your feminist agenda out of this article" noted above that was used as an edit summary to remove cites that included the ''New York Times''. In general the participants have been civil, but this is an example of a situation where a host of narrowly-focused new contributors can overwhelm and exasperate more experienced, less-focused users. Misplaced Pages doesn't handle such situations well. More eyes would be welcome: most of the people I've had to warn have modified their approach. Nevertheless, I see a lot of contributors' patience being frayed, and a tendency to ignore ] in favor of of-the-moment analysis, and a tendency to try to dismiss mainstream media coverage in favor of non-RS sources. Attention from experienced editors would be valuable. '''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 20:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *This is the last straw. It's blatantly false that I haven't contributed elsewhere. I've made major changes to ], ], ], ]. I've made lesser but still significant contributions to ], ], ], ], ], and ]. I've been participating in discussions all over through the Feedback Request Service and have been presenting new sources in order to improve the Video Game Project. Soon I'll be helping to revamp the video games controversies page (see the . And as you can see, I've been , too. | |||
| :That aside, it doesn't matter whether others are here for only one purpose. The point of Misplaced Pages is that anyone can contribute to anything they find of interest. Are we really going to punish people for not being interested in contributing to more than one topic? That's directly against the spirit and purpose of Misplaced Pages. | |||
| :Furthermore, there are three editors on the Gamergate talk page that have opposed ''every single contribution I've made'', even after I make concessions/compromises. They're actively obstructing ''any'' progress we can make on that page unless it's exactly what they want added to the page. I suggest that ''they'' are the ones to be kicked off the page for bad faith, lack of cooperation, incivility, and abuse. {{u|Ryulong}} is one of those people, and I'll be opening a case against him now. ] (]) 20:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::All of those other articles you cite are still related to the Gamergate controversy in one way or another.—] (]) 20:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::A lot of those articles have been extensively revamped and improved by me. The admins are free to look through the edit history for the pages to see that I've already contributed significantly in my short time here. You are acting in bad faith, {{u|Ryulong}}. Shame on you. ] (]) 20:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Whether or not they were extensively revamped or improved does not change the fact that they are still peripheral to the controversy that is the issue here.—] (]) 20:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And most of the changes made on most of those pages are primarily about things other than Gamergate. You're grasping. ] (]) 21:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That still doesn't change the fact that ], ], etc. are still articles related to Gamergate.—] (]) 21:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::That doesn't matter if the changes have been primarily about other topics. Admins, ignore Ryulong's agenda and go look at all the articles I linked to above for yourself. You'll see I put a lot of time and effort into improving a lot of them in areas that have nothing to do with Gamergate. I'm confident you'll come to the right decision. Editors shouldn't be banned from topics or Misplaced Pages simply because they have a different perspective than others. That's not what Misplaced Pages is about. | |||
| :::::::I have nothing further to add. | |||
| :::::::Don't bother replying, Ryulong. ] (]) 21:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| This is the definition of a witch hunt if I ever saw one on Wiki. You're just pointing out these apparent SPAs (but going into the history of them, they don't meet your strict definition of contributing '''nothing''' except to these articles) nor have you outlined the proof that these editors should be blocked or banned. Indeed, the person above, was making good faith questions on the talk page regarding the article, yet you included their name and recommended indefinite blocks saying 'nothing will be lost'. They apparently being an 'SPA', I don't care what you think, being an SPA does not mean that you automatically get freakin' blocked. They can contribute generously to one single topic area, and as long as they aren't being disruptive, violating civility, or doing any other nasty things, you can't stop them from doing so. ] (]) 20:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Tupin's edits have ''solely'' been steeped in the controversy, such as or .—] (]) 20:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: It didn't meet your definition of 'related articles' and your strict of '''nothing''' contributed except. Look at earlier contributions. The fact that this user did edit other articles. Even so, where is the diff that should grant an immediate indefinite block to this user? Being an SPA is not a crime. ] (]) 20:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::The GLaDOS shit was on KotakuInAction and other Gamergate forums as some sort of "look at this feminist agenda being pushed on Misplaced Pages" thing a while ago. And earlier contributions come from years ago.—] (]) 20:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I get a feeling that if I were a SPA in that was adding "anti" arguments and removing/questioning "pro" ones that there would be no issue here.] (]) 20:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :<s>For some ''strange'' reason there haven't been any such SPAs.</s> Correction on this statement: .—] (]) 20:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::So are you going to add that one to your list? ] (]) 21:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::It doesn't have to be part of the list in order to be considered.—] (]) 21:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Well, Mr. Ryulong, you owe me an apology. Due to my work I leave and return to Misplaced Pages as I am able and as I research certain topics, including Gamergate. If you had only looked further into , you would not have made these false accusations. I know it's difficult for some of the more toxic personalities to stomach, but some of us do indeed have lives, schedules, and obligations outside of this website. I will be very disappointed in the administration if Ryulong is not at least investigated following these unfounded allegations.--] (]) 20:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Your present actions on Misplaced Pages speak for themselves.—] (]) 20:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::. Decide for yourselves which parties have the undue influence here.--] (]) 21:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Quality over quantity. People have yelled at me over those numbers before but no one has felt like going through the article's history to point out '''''anything''''' wrong myself or {{u|NorthBySouthBaranof}} have done wrong.—] (]) 21:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Oh, don't worry. I've got a ream of links to your behaviour that I'm now going to ask the admins to address. ] (]) 21:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That behavior better not include anything off site because everyone's been complaining about my edits to the article.—] (]) 21:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::And here's them for the talk page: ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 21:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So discussing edits before making them or trying to engage with other editors is a bad thing now?--] (]) 21:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Nope. And neither is editing on the article itself a bad thing. But these two links to reveal some "heavy users". ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 21:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| So I looked through the contributions of a few people at the top of your list, can you explain what these articles have to do with the gamergamergate controversy? ArmyLine (Southern Poverty Law Center, Laboratory animal sources, University of Toronto Students' Union, Gynocentrism), Ranze(David Benoit, Benoît, Insert key, Blue Drop), Tupin (FaceBreaker, Galactic Empire (1980 video game), Generation NEX). As a completely uninvolved editor in this dispute (I have not made one edit on the gamergate page) it looks to me like you are just trying to get your opposition in a content dispute banned. --] (]) 21:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :You are picking edits from ''long'' before Gamergate happened or minimal edits outside of their edits to other articles.—] (]) 21:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Here's an idea: how 'bout we topic-ban POV pushers instead of blocking them? It will have the same effect on SPAs, and allow non-SPAs to continue editing in non-Gamergate areas. The fact is that there has been some problematic editing on those pages. Those pages should probably be full-protected for awhile, have a hair trigger about POV pushing when they're un-protected (similar to Israeli-Palestinian issues), and people who are removing reliable sources or engaging in other forms of POV pushing should be topic-banned. <span style="border:1px solid;background:#800080">]]]</span> 21:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:Whatever method is best to ensure that the article goes forward when it becomes unprotected and does not become protected again due to POV pushers edit warring on whatever content had been proposed over the last week and a half of protection.—] (]) 21:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *::I notice that you, Tarc, TRPoD, and NorthBySouthBaranof (basically every major non-admin editor to this article) seem to be the common denominators in every single edit war and subsequent lockdown thus far. Curious about the mental gymnastics you have been using to place the blame on the many unconnected parties who you have consistently shouted down and refused any form of engagement or discussion with. People will hear about Gamergate and come over to edit the article. Keep the sources of every single one of the lockdowns and there will only be more lockdowns. This isn't really rocket science.--] (]) 21:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:::That's certainly because myself, {{u|Tarc}}, {{u|TheRedPenOfDoom}}, and {{u|NorthBySouthBaranof}} are the only other editors in question editing the page in the first place. We can and have disagreed with much of the content proposed for the article because it's pushing a POV that should not be pushed due to ], ], and other policies, but that does not stop every single editor from going to the page and making the same arguments that we have to again refute.—] (]) 21:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Which is the problem I see: experienced users are being exasperated and exhausted by the volume of argument from a large number of users who are either unfamiliar with WP policies, or who aren't concerned with policy. Ryulong is Exhibit A for "exasperated editor." This is a perennial issue on any controversial article, where new participants rehash the same discussions over and over. '''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 21:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Well .—] (]) 21:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I certainly see some ]s here... ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 21:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:Specifically, {{U|Lasati}}, {{U|Derpen}}, {{U|Nathan905RB}}, {{U|Javier2005}}, {{U|AnyyVen}}, {{U|YellowSandals}}, {{U|Halfhat}}, {{U|DownWIthSJWs}} <small>Whose username is problematic</small>, {{U|Racuce}}, {{U|Kau-12}}, {{U|Torga}}, {{U|Skeeveo}}, {{U|Willhesucceed}}, {{U|Loganmac}}, and {{U|Exefisher}}. Few others are zombie accounts that recently came to life just to edit on this topic as well. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 21:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *::The "zombie account" issue is exactly the problem I'm trying to explain aside from the new accounts.—] (]) 21:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Javier2005, AnyyVen, Halfhat, Torga, Willhesuceed and Loganmac do not deserve to be on that list as per my argument above. They have made other posts since GamerGate started and are not SPAs. ] 23:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{re|DarknessSavior}} all edits (or recent edits) are related to this controversy. That's SPA. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 00:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::What a surprise that the person who disagreed with including Cathy Young's criticism of ], despite her being a notable, respected person in gender discussions, would want me banned. I can only ask the admins to recognise the bias of this person and ignore their opinion. {Edit: moved this paragraph from below to where it should have been.} ] (]) 21:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{reply to|EvergreenFir}} Except it's not. If you read the article on SPAs it specifically says that a user's recent edit history should not be used to determine whether or not they're an SPA. And I also point out above (if you even bothered to read that) that the majority of people Ryulong accuses of being SPAs have either had accounts for many years and/or have been posting in other articles recently. He also accuses several people for only making posts on the talk page alone, which shouldn't be an issue. ]<span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned"> — Preceding ] comment added 00:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> | |||
| ::::It's quite apparent. But I didn't look at the nature of their contributions, but that they resurrected for the sole purpose of editing on this topic is highly suspect. But some may legitimately have left wikipedia but been compelled, for better or worse, to edit because of this topic. But not sure how ] they are even if that is true. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 21:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes I only registered to HELP on this topic, yes I am pro GamerGate and yes I said that the news are biased. But because of MY bias I never tried to edit anything, I just wanted to get more neutral/pro GamerGate articles into the discussion. I thought that this was the idea of a talk page. If this is something you get banned for, well have a nice day.] (]) 21:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm going to post to advocate for ] he has only acted civilly and tried to help. He said he had help fix nonneutral articles on smaller wikis and wanted to share what he had learned. If I remember correctly he said he was busy at the moment. So that's why I am posting this. ] (]) 21:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::YellowSandals' definition of neutrality resulted in one of his edits being revdelled by Acroterion and his others as being vague attempts to .—] (]) 21:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::But I think he acted in good faith. He admitted to be inexperienced on Misplaced Pages, so errors are understandable. You can't ban for inexperience. ] (]) 21:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::He may have claimed to act in good faith, but the bulk of his edits were attempts to skew the POV in the favor of the gamergate movement.—] (]) 21:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The revdel'd edit was something that made me consider an immediate block. It wasn't an error, it was straight-up defamation. '''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 21:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well I missed it then. I never saw him do anything bad, but I didn't read everything on the talk article, only bits.] (]) 21:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :To quote the article on SPAs | |||
| :"the timeline of a user’s edits should not be considered when using single-purpose account tags. One must look at the editor’s complete edit history, not just recent edits. Examples of non-SPAs include | |||
| :Users with a diversified edit history that become inactive for an extended period and later re-establish themselves with single subject edits. Note that a time gap in edit history may be evidence that the person was referred to Misplaced Pages by an outside source, but it isn't evidence that the person is an SPA. | |||
| :An established editor focusing on a single topic is not an SPA. Once an editor is well established with a large, diversified edit history, he or she can focus on single subjects for extended periods of time without being labeled an SPA."{{unsigned|Halfhat}} | |||
| ::They're still zombies.—] (]) 21:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I looked through thirty of the accounts listed in the OP and would guess that around 80% aren't single-purpose users by any stretch of the definition. The dishonesty only begins here, it's pretty laughable to say that an article like ] is related to Gamergate (no mentions in the article or talkpage) and to use that as evidence for blocking someone. I feel that this thread is a transparent attempt by Ryulong to get people who disagree with him blocked/topic banned, and I see that I'm not the only person commenting who has that opinion. <span style="white-space:nowrap">— ] | ] | 21:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)</span> | |||
| :Anyone who has been following the subject knows that Breitbart is a related entity and there are plenty of mentions in the archives. It's not on our article presently because of BLP violations inherent to its original involvement and because no one can quite decide how it should be incorporated. And again this is an issue of zombie accounts that have become SPAs, much like you have become yourself by inserting your opinion here.—] (]) 21:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Apparently I'm a single-purpose account now, despite being an admin who's been editing for 9+ years, lol. <span style="white-space:nowrap">— ] | ] | 21:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)</span> | |||
| :::Well like everyone else you've appeared out of nowhere to pile onto this attempt at a boomerang. I apologize.—] (]) 21:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| My only edits to that page have been to replace the POV tag that ] and others saw fit to remove despite clear instruction to not remove it until the dispute was resolved. Oh and I called out Ryulong for being uncivil on the talk page, so there's that. ] (]) 21:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :The POV tag was disputed and the dispute was the reason it was added. Doesn't that sound suspect?—] (]) 21:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::If the POV tag is under dispute you don't remove it, which is what you did. Please read ]. ] (]) 21:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::As has been pointed out multiple times in the past on the article, the POV tag is solely there to serve as a crimson letter because there are no real issues with POV that can be solved due to the nature of the controversy. There was no consensus to add the POV tag in the first place, and that lack of consensus to add the tag was taken as a consensus to add the tag after all. That's what's the issue with it.—] (]) 21:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Per ] you need consensus to remove, not add, the POV tag. Regardless, I would like an explanation for how my 3 edits to the page make me a SPA and warrant a ban considering the majority of my contributions have been to other pages, despite your claim of zero edits in the past 2 months. ] (]) 22:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There was a whole requested edit discussion to add the tag that did not have a consensus to do so and there was no discussion at the time as to the article not fitting ].—] (]) 22:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::] and clearly no consensus was reached. Maybe something was agreed on earlier but consensus can change ] . Nevertheless you accused me of being a SPA that had "zero edits outside of this topic area in the past 2 months". My contribution history shows this to be demonstrably false. ] (]) 22:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I object, and take offense to being placed on Mr. McCarthy's, I'm sorry, I mean Ryulong's list. I am not an SPA, and in fact most of my edits pertain to aviation. I feel that this list violates WP's prohibition on personal attacks, and is uncivil. ] (]) 21:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Your comment is a violation of ].—] (]) 21:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, the McCarthy reference was inappropriate, and I apologize. I do feel that your accusations of people being SPAs and/or sock/meatpuppets does also violate NPA, as does the compilation of this list. I would also point out that my sole argument/contribution in that article is that it is biased to the anti-gamergate side, and that that is a valid dispute. You have been arguing that it is a one-sided issue, and that is inaccurate. ] (]) 22:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have only claimed that people are SPAs and "zombie accounts" on this matter and it is making editing the article or discussing anything a pain in the ass, not to mention that the only claims for me being "anti-GG" are my off-site comments and the fact I keep telling people "you can't add that because of BLP" or "you can't remove that because it's sourced even if you do disagree with it".—] (]) 22:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Also someone must have linked to this on KotakuInAction because is getting out of hand.—] (]) 21:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Let me make this simple. Your accusation on me is flat out false and I demand to be removed from the list. I made the following edit this month which is totally unrelated to GamerGate https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kooper&diff=prev&oldid=629121848. I haven't made many other edits but for another recent one I also added a correction on the page about Goombas. Note 2 is not 0. ] (]) 22:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :So one out of how many edits are not Gamergate related then?—] (]) 22:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ignoring userpages and in your time period I counted 6. ] (]) 22:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC) ] Just to notify you ] (]) 22:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)prove | |||
| ::Oh and further the claim I'm just there to make the article more Pro-GG is trivial to disprove. I have suggested using multiple Anti-GG articles as sources for example https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=630642325 ] (]) 22:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Let's go down the current list: | |||
| * - Edited in June and February of this year, many edits from December of last year. Clearly not an SPA. Was a fairly low-activity account, but clearly not a dead account. | |||
| * - Not even close. Large number of edits every month of this year up until September that had nothing to do with GamerGate. | |||
| * - Edited a lot in July and June of this year. Made edits in September of this year unrelated to GamerGate, including one several days before any edits about GamerGate. | |||
| * - Not even close. Large number of edits each month of this year unrelated to GamerGate. Even in months when there was editing related to GamerGate, a lot of editing was unrelated. | |||
| * - Lots of edits every month of this year. | |||
| * - Edited as recently as June of this year on subjects that have no relation to GamerGate. August edits this year related to Anita Sarkeesian, but no apparent connection to GamerGate. | |||
| * - Edits from September and October of this year before any GamerGate-related edits. | |||
| * - Edits every month of this year save January, June, and September. | |||
| * - Made exactly one comment on GamerGate talk page in the course of three revisions. Had several edits from earlier this year. | |||
| * - Edits from every month of this year save June and April. | |||
| * - Has made exactly one comment on the GamerGate talk page. | |||
| Ryulong really needs to stop pulling this crap. There are undoubtedly some editors who have popped up solely to make edits regarding this topic or some who dusted off old accounts to get involved, but a very large number of editors he has named here are not SPAs or zombie accounts. A number of these editors have had minimal involvement in the article as well. His suggestion to block all of them is purely disruptive given his lack of effort in reviewing the contributions of the editors he is naming and even just sussing out who in his long list can even be accurately described as an SPA or "zombie account" is imposing an unreasonable burden on other editors, not to mention constituting a wide-ranging personal attack.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 23:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :So, i am on this list because i'm a spa? Let me state here why i am not a spa or zombie. First, i have edited other topics all the time before this started. The reason i am only editing gamer gate is because it interests me ATM. Also because of school and short attention span i can't edit much so i lurk around every day on multiple boards, this means i am here all the time but i don't have the time to edit. ] (]) 07:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===What Admin Action Is Requested?=== | |||
| What admin action is ] requesting? Is he requesting that all of the users in his list be indeffed? If so, '''Strong Oppose''' for multiple reasons. First, there were mistakes in his original list, and the community does not have proof that all of the mistakes have been corrected. Second, is the issue sufficiently urgent to warrant the draconian action of banning a long list of users based on one editor's statement? Third, procedurally, the users haven't been properly notified. Is he requesting all of the users in his list be topic-banned? If so, '''Oppose''' as not quite as bad as indeffing them. Is he requesting further review of the history of each of the editors? That is fine to request, but is asking a lot of time from the community? Is he requesting full protection for the article while ] or ] is pursued? Full protection may be necessary, but there are too many parties to expect the full agreement needed for either style of dispute resolution. | |||
| Is Ryulong requesting ] in order to streamline action by uninvolved administrators against the SPAs? If so, '''Support''' that. | |||
| The ArbCom recently declined a filing on GamerGate, but noted that it might be necessary to revisit it later. | |||
| What admin action is being requested? ] (]) 22:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :"These various users need to be blocked for violating ] and ]." - yes, that's exactly what's being requested. <span style="white-space:nowrap">— ] | ] | 22:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)</span> | |||
| :Any admin action to deal with the plethora of accounts solely here to push an explicit POV on the article. General sanctions, topic bans, full out blocks. However it can be settled. And any mistakes I made in the original list have been fixed to the list as it stands now.—] (]) 22:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'd like to request that some sort of sanction be imposed upon Ryulong for composing this accusatory list in violation of ], and for his numerous attacks and accusations on the article talk page, and for repeatedly removing the POV tag despite the existence of a valid dispute. ] (]) 22:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::And, I'm still on the list. ] (]) 22:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is not a violation of WP:NPA and you still belong on the list.—] (]) 22:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :And is what we need to deal with. A brand spanking new account diving head first into the dispute using the same old "these are totally not biased sources" links to Breitbart.—] (]) 22:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :This is just... hilarious, I have no words. Ryulong seems to have a personal mission to own the article, he said he had quit the article and for those two days the talk page was peaceful. Your SPA claim against me is ridiculous. I barely even have edits on the GamerGate article since most of them were reversed by you bare seconds after I saved them (seriously, the last time I wrote two entire sentences, and I counted, he reverted them in 6 seconds. Faster than it took me to refresh the edits list. This is just sad Ryulong. Do what you want, want to ban me and everyone else so you can have your article, go ahead, I personally prefer not to spend my entire days on Misplaced Pages. Ryulong has contacted me on my personal twitter and told me to "learn to fucking read" and referred to my reddit username yet never did I link them. He has called out user Torga for allegedly asnwering "the clarion call" on reddit to edit the article in a pseudo doxxing incident. He constantly insults and uses rude words (go ahead, search the word "fuck" and all the hits are his) and thinks of fellow editors as lesser than him, all just because he seems to have a personal mission against what he calls "gamergate fags". He has admitted to being biased. And to admins, please remember the time he was an admin, he hasn't changed a bit ] (]) 22:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Your personal twitter was linked to by another editor because you took their thread directly to KotakuInAction and Twitter to be sent to the Gamergate wolves. My comment at the time was dealt with as well because you should have learned to read the thread properly. There was no "pseudo doxxing". I made a blanket statement about the state of the new editors and "zombie" editors who came to the article for one express purpose and that was to push the pro-GG POV. And god forbid I happened to load up the page the minute you reinstated the edit I reverted. This retaliatory character assassination is ridiculous.—] (]) 23:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::You seem to think I care ] (]) 23:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's strange Ryulong, I thought there was ]? ] (]) 00:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::"Pro-GG" is just shorthand for "supporters of Gamergate".—] (]) 01:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I'm hoping I'm putting this in the right place. Sorry for the delay in responding, but my work prevents me from being more active on Misplaced Pages than I'd like. I have been using wikipedia for years - something I'm sure many people could say - but only recently registered an account. Normally most of my edits I do anonymously, but admittedly I do very few by comparison. I did indeed register an account so that I could participate in the ongoing creation and editting of the Gamergate controversy page, and did so for the reason I expressed on the talk page: " I came here first looking for a definition of Gamergate, and failed to get one, let alone a coherent one." I don't know if my actions qualify me as an "SPA," but I don't have the time to produce a lot of edits across Misplaced Pages, especially when doing anything with such an involved topic as GG has become. I have not edited the article itself, and regardless am not able to since it's been locked since I even first read it. Therefore, my only involvement has been on the talk page, where I have conducted myself as civilly as possible, regardless of the response and despite often not being given the same respect. In fact, my first edit, to that page, ever, was a question regarding the summary of a source, to which the complainant here responding that my "head must be deeply buried somewhere." I also question the logic behind the accusation that I am "pro-Gamergate" as my by far largest contribution to that talk page was an elongated debate with another editor, defending the fact that the introductory sentence should indeed maintain mention of issues of misogyny and that the implication of Gamergate as being misogynistic is valid based on valid secondary sources, and that these claims should not be whitewashed because that would reflect bias. Ironically perhaps, Ryulong was on the same side of the discussion. Regardless, the bigger issue seems to be that any editor who is sympathetic to GG and even those who do not vehemently detest the movement are very quickly labelled by Ryulong and certain other editors, which I will not give by name, and often responded to in a way I believe is easily contradictory of ] if nothing else. He seems to think that a bias against supporters of Gamergate constitutes neutrality. I think that this behaviour is easily visible by reviewing the talk page in question and I would suggest if any action is taken, it would be to review the behaviour of all involved editors as a whole. My activity has been strictly limited to discussing composition of the article in the talk page, I have formally admitted to my inexperience, and even requested advice and direction following a rather aggressive response from one editor, to no avail. I came here, and am operating, in good faith and would hope that my inexperience does not exclude me from participating considering that Misplaced Pages is the "encyclopedia anyone can edit." In light of everything that has gone on including the manner in which he has conducted himself, I would like to put forward that I feel Ryulong is ]. Please feel free to address me or contact me if any further questions, comments or concerns arise. ] (]) 23:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ====The action requested==== | |||
| To Robert McClenon, I would like to propose a topic ban for all single purpose accounts and "zombie editors" who have primarily been editing Misplaced Pages in the past two months to articles regarding or related to #Gamergate in any way. Any and all editors I have listed above are free to edit Misplaced Pages so long it is not on any article related to #Gamergate, broadly construed. This would obviously include any article that may be about someone who has made themselves part of Gamergate or any other entity that Gamergate has attacked or incorporated into themselves, ranging from ] and ] to ] or ]. This would obviously allow editors like Skrelk to continue editing articles on aerospace engineering or anyone else to pick up any other topic they would like to edit and stick to it.—] (]) 23:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :So because I have few edits on my newly registered account, posted on the latest of 10 incarnations of the talk page for the Gamergate controversy article, I should be suspended from editing articles including ]? I feel that's at least "a bit" of a logical jump and "somewhat" excessive. ] (]) 23:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Because #gamergate has attacked Time due to their publication of Leigh Alexander's piece, then yes, it would restrict edits to that article just as much it would restrict edits to say ] or ]. Such a restriction would not prevent you from editing articles on mycology, astronomy, the Cold War, etc.—] (]) 23:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::...and how about ], ] and ]? Because this seems like a slippery slope right here. ] (]) 23:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That's what "broadly construed" means.—] (]) 23:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::To be fair, a ban wouldn't extend to all video games. Just whatever indie stuff Gamergate has actually set its sights on.—] (]) 00:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| another potentially useful action would be to ban the creating of a new section to drop a new "source" without providing any specific actionable article change. this would help reduce the chat forum of simply discussing the subject . -- ] 01:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Let me get this straight. There is seriously a debate here about blacklisting people simply because you disagree with them? An actual list of names of people who subscribe to the "wrong" viewpoint?! Is that what Misplaced Pages is doing now? I hope I'm not alone in seeing a problem with this sort of thinking. | |||
| :Furthermore,, let me just ad that it really doesn't matter if that's their "only" edits. Their contributions either are appropriate or not appropriate, and the rules of Misplaced Pages regarding submissions will bear that out. Restricting the editing of an article on Misplaced Pages only to "approved" people (read: people with the "Correct" views) is not particularly likely to combat any bias within the articles in question. Let each submission stand on its own, and deal with spammers, vandalizers, and abusers on a case-by-case basis, just like the rest of Misplaced Pages.] (]) 01:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :And, as a side note: "As the above discussion illuminates, the Gamergate controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | views) article is a hive of POV pushers and BLP violators." I hope the user who proposed this idea can appreciate the irony of that statement, considering his/her fairly transparent motivations and viewpoints in the very act of proposing this. ] (]) 01:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Is that the case here? No. This is a discussion to restrict editors who are '''solely''' on Misplaced Pages to edit articles concerning #Gamergate, either those with brand new accounts or those who have had dormant accounts that they have since exclusively used to push a POV on the article or its talk page. Editors such as myself who are painted as biased by these other users have become exhausted in having to deal with editors like yourself who have come to the English Misplaced Pages push an agenda.—] (]) 01:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ryulong, {{user|Ironlion45}} has been an editor for ''9 years'' and has ''never'' made a Gamergate-related edit, they're clearly not a single-purpose account. Earlier in this thread you accused me and {{user|OverlordQ}}, who you requested a block for, of being single-purpose accounts despite the fact that we have some 13 years of adminship between us and have never edited a GG-related article either. You're clearly grasping at straws to get anybody who you think disagrees with your viewpoint blocked, your accusations are bordering on personal attacks, and you should drop the issue before it backfires on you. <span style="white-space:nowrap">— ] | ] | 02:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)</span> | |||
| ::::It's hard to identify good faith and bad faith when there are people who have not been editing for months or years at a time coming to this thread to say "this is bad" and when Overlord Q is coaching people on basically how to get me banned and how to get their way on Misplaced Pages on a thread on Reddit that contains post hoping that I get killed for crossing someone else online. There needs to be something done to stem the constant stream of new users and "zombie accounts" to the Gamergate articles going "this needs to be changed because it's not about this" contra to all reliable sources as much as people coming here because they read about it on the two separate threads on KotakuInAction coming here to discredit me. The bulk of the people here complaining about the list are those on the list or the handful of established editors who share their point of view on this topic external to Misplaced Pages. There are just as many uninvolved editors who recognize that there is an issue with many of the users I reported. All I know is that the more I respond to these criticisms or questions, the deeper the hole I dig.—] (]) 02:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Utterly oppose''' any such action as a topic ban on people one editor has declared "zombie editors". The list given was clearly inaccurate as posted. Assurances were given it wasn't. It was proven to be inaccurate. It was then amended. Now it ''really is'' accurate ~ and we're to believe that because...? No. This smacks too much of an attempt to silence an opposition, perhaps an incredibly wrong and POV and unhelpful and largely single-minded opposition, but that act of silencing is not justified simply by the fact of opposition. I have no opinion at all on Gamergate, largely because i don't understand it (our article, which i tried reading and confess to giving up), though i think i did edit ] once; if that makes me involved, so be it. Cheers, ''']'''<sup>]</sup> 05:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ====Quick observation==== | |||
| : I would just like to casually note here that Ryulong has seen fit to use profanity repeatedly here, on the "Administrators' Noticeboard", while everyone else arguing with him has been ]. I would also like to highlight that he has demanded that others not cite his Twitter for evidence of his bias, even though he Reddit discussion of the Twitter incident in question in a previous arbcom case, in order to complain about "harassment". Further, he asserts that certain allegations are false, without evidence, when he has not even demonstrated an understanding of them. He continues to call other people "POV pushers" and deny introducing bias into the article, straining all credulity in the face of the attitude he has demonstrated not only on Twitter but on the Gamergate controversy talk page. Case in point: another editor had made comments on the talk page describing Gamergate supporters as "sexually repressed basement dwellers" who were "childishly lashing out"; when I called out the POV demonstrated by these comments, Ryulong revdelled my edit as "trolling", and ''let the other comments stand''. | |||
| (Arbcom, please tell me that is not acceptable conduct on talk pages. If that's supported, what's next? Shall we allow people to write things like "Liberals are scum" on article talk pages, and remove the call-outs? How about flat-out racism?) | |||
| I also have absolutely no idea how this argument that accounts can "become SPA", after years-long histories of meaningful contributions, can possibly be given any consideration. ] (]) 02:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :My personal and private Twitter account is of no import to anyone on Misplaced Pages. No one has bothered to put forth any evidence or any bias they think I introduced to the article itself. The edit history can attest for that all. I cannot revdel anything because I have no deletion capabilities. And the fact that editors with old accounts have suddenly and solely decided to edit Misplaced Pages for one express purpose makes them single purpose accounts now, particularly when they haven't been editing Misplaced Pages for years at a time in some cases.—] (]) 03:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :This IP has also solely been used for editing things relating to Gamergate, including an edit that was indeed revdelled (again, I don't know how to link to it without admin bits) and .—] (]) 03:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry; you made an edit - i.e. ''rev''ision - that ''del''eted several separate comments I had made. Forgive me for thinking that's what "revdel" meant. There is nothing questionable about any of the edits I made; I have simply been calling out bias and hypocrisy, WRT the POV that's allowed to be expressed on the talk page, and WRT what is or isn't allowed to be said on the basis of it being "true", and WRT what is or is not considered a "reliable source" for the article. Just a reminder that BuzzFeed is currently sourced for the article, but WhatCulture is being disallowed as "clickbait"; that Quinn is allowed to present her primary-source side of the story via a Cracked article, but nothing whatsoever from Gjoni has been allowed, even though he has had plenty to say that does not involve her; and that sites like Kotaku and Polygon are being treated as impartial, reliable sources for an article that is explicitly about allegations made against them. ] (]) 08:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::There is nothing on the ] article linking to Zoe Quinn's Cracked article <s>or anything on Buzzfeed</s>. It never has included anything of the sort. And every reliable source has pointed out that the allegations against Kotaku and Polygon have been disproven so there's nothing wrong with using them as sources.—] (]) 08:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Citation 18. " Bernstein, Joseph (September 2, 2014). "Why The Gamer Rebellion Won’t Last Very Long". BuzzFeed. Retrieved September 22, 2014." I very distinctly remember the discussion on the talk page from a while ago complaining about the inclusion of the Cracked content. As for "the allegations against Kotaku and Polygon", there are '''vastly''' more of these than the reliable sources have even deigned to '''mention'''. Everyone points to one specific case from the very beginning and acts like it disproves everything. It's absurd. | |||
| :::::Okay, so there are Buzzfeed refs. However, they are articles by a staff member and not the aptly described clickbaity lists by a WhatCulture "contributor" and not a paid staff member who is subject to editorial oversight. And the Cracked article was argued for use but it was ultimately decided against it as far as I am aware. And '''if they're not in reliable sources then they are of no import to the English Misplaced Pages'''.—] (]) 08:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===2 Proposals === | |||
| I have two proposals, I’ll split them out so people can vote on them separately. I should also note, that I have not made one edit to the gamergate controversy articles or talk pages. | |||
| ====Topic ban the clearly SPA from Gamergate ==== | |||
| Topic Ban from Gamergate broadly construed for 1 month those that are clearly SPA’s created only to talk about this: Lasati, Derpen, Nathan905RB, AnyyVen, YellowSandals, DownWIthSJWs, Racuce, Kau-12, Torga, Skeeveo, Willhesucceed, Exefisher. Hopefully during that month they will be able to edit other pages and can continue the conversation at that point, if they wait a month and just start back up again we can reconsider. Loganmac seems to be an account that just woke up after a 3 year hiatus to talk about this subject, given the account existed longer and did deal with other issues a long time ago, I suggest a topic ban of Gamergate for 1 week (hopefully Loganmac can edit a few other things in that time). --] (]) 03:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :This still does not address the issue of the "zombie editors" of which Loganmac is one of them. There was another editor who had all of 2 edits in 2008 and then made a series of edits to be autoconfirmed to contribute in the article and talk page beyond semi-protection.—] (]) 03:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I added a 1 week topic ban for Loganmac, after 1 week hopefully there will be a few more edits on other topics, and it will all work out. --] (]) 03:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I was going to argue that there are other editors that fit the same mold as Loganmac, but I'm clearly thinking of Torga who made and then .—] (]) 03:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::] I suggest you read my findings above. Many of the accounts you listed are not SPAs by any definition of the word. Many of those accounts have been on-and-off active for many years. There are a few (like six or seven, IIRC) accounts that were only created about a month ago and have only posted about GamerGate, and they deserve to be banned. The rest do not. ] (]) 05:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Why does Ryulong get the more lenient penalty here? He has been more disruptive than those editors combined!--] (]) 03:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Because I've consistently been here for 8 years and spend time on other articles and away from the dispute that is highly problematic and has resulted in several edits from these editors that have had to be removed from the page histories. And also these are proposals are not dependent on each other.—] (]) 03:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I proposed what I felt was appropriate from looking through ] history. If you wish to post diffs and make the case for a longer ban for ], please do so. The accounts I am proposing topic banning mostly didn't even exist before this story started, it seems likely they are ] and here to ] (and maybe to get around the previous semi-protection). If you feel that there are other ]'s on the other side of the controversy, please post them. --] (]) 04:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ====Topic Ban of ] on Gamergate broadly construed for 48 hours==== | |||
| In addition to coming on here and proposing we topic ban as SPA many clearly not SPA accounts, what I see is a lot of ] and ] going on by ]. You really feel the need to revert other users talk page comments? (, , , , ). And then edit warring in a close a discussion in a talk page conversation (, , , , , , , ). If people still want to speak, you shouldn’t be blocking them like that in a talk page. This is in addition to other comments that suggest battleground editing (for instance , ) And I see this thread as an extension of that trying to ] accusing anyone on the other side of the issue. So I propose we topic ban ] from Gamergate broadly construed for 48 hours. This kind of behavior is not appropriate, and hopefully won’t continue happening after the topic ban is lifted. --] (]) 03:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :WRT the reversion of talk page comments, I notice that one frequent theme is an insistence on people "not replying to old threads" after less than a week. Strange; I could have sworn that it's normally permissible to respond to years-old comments on talk pages. ] (]) 09:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Nathan095RB is one of the SPAs pushing a POV who was responding to old threads, when they were in dire need of archiving. Butter and Cream has since been blocked for the exact reasons I made this thread in the first place. And this shouldn't be a ] situation. And those other comments you're linking to are not ] vios. And if it solves anything, I will gladly abide by this restriction so long as the SPA topic ban takes place.—] (]) 03:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::This should absolutely be a ] situation, you've been throwing accusations left and right, and came to ANI with a veritable enemies list. ] (]) 03:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::There are uninvolved editors who seem to agree that the problem I reported exists.—] (]) 03:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There are certainly some SPAs who came here with bad faith, but that doesn't justify coming up with a list demanding sanctions on many innocent editors.] (]) 03:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You came on here and reported an administrator as a SPA... think about that. That is in addition to lots of other accounts that were clearly not SPA's. I would hardly say that any uninvolved editors agree a problem exists with those accounts. --] (]) 03:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I removed the administrator. I removed accounts that did not fit the criteria I put forward. And all of these other accounts have been identified as problematic but not SPAs. EvergreenFir has seen the "zombie account" issue and Acroterion has identified that editors like myself are at our wits end in dealing with editors who come to these controversial articles.—] (]) 03:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I support this solution, though I believe 48 hours is too brief. As for the first, I don't think we should reward Ryulong's bad behavior nor should we ban a wide swath of "SPAs" who may very well have been brought to Misplaced Pages due to an interest in Gamergate but have also edited unrelated articles. Such a metric would need to be capable of universal applicability, which would mean that if, say, an evolutionary biologist starts editing a bunch of articles on (disputably) controversial books disputing creationism over a few months then out he goes. However, a metric of constant edit warring, profanity, obtuseness, and general incivility is something which should and often is enforced on Misplaced Pages. I am still surprised no disciplinary action has been taken against Ryulong as of now.--] (]) 03:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::These unrelated articles edited by anyone I've brought up were months or years prior to diving headfirst into the Gamergate dispute. And I don't see how being banned from anything is a reward for anything.—] (]) 03:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Okay, how do you explain the fact that I have taken longer breaks before this? I'd like a straight answer from you, please, not some "your present actions speak for themselves" hand-waving.--] (]) 03:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I cannot explain that. I can only see a current pattern with several accounts that have had hiatuses that have ended with a sudden decision to edit Misplaced Pages in favor of the Gamergate movement.—] (]) 03:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I've made two edits to your precious Gamergate article. Two edits. I have work which makes it logistically impossible to edit Misplaced Pages for months at a time. I'd appreciate it if you could just admit you were wrong on this one and put as much effort into clearing my name as you put into defaming it. Thanks.--] (]) 04:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The last thing I will say for this for now is that in the month and a half you've been back to editing Misplaced Pages, you've spent zero time outside of Gamergate, and even a year ago you were to a related topic.—] (]) 05:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::So pretty much because of an edit to an article which would, by some very tenuous logic, to have been related to Gamergate if Gamergate was a thing at that time, you're keeping me on that list and not apologizing. But I guess you aren't responding anymore so I guess I'll never grasp the greater meaning of what you were trying to say here.--] (]) 05:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::It shows you have a pre-existing bias and POV. And you still haven't touched anything that wasn't Gamergate since you began editing again in September of this year.—] (]) 05:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Oh, you mean those two edits I made to your precious article? Or are you upset that I've used the talk page to voice my concerns? I edit articles as the subjects interest me. I'm curious, though, why your demonstrated off-site and on-site bias should not earn you a topic ban but this extremely disingenuous datamining should earn me, and the other unrelated parties, such a ban. You seem to demand every benefit of the doubt but be extremely liberal in assuming bad faith and others quite eager to write off your bad behavior and bias as "frustration". Well, for the record let me say that you and your buddies are not the only ones exasperated here.--] (]) 06:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::There is no offsite bias. I was contacted offsite for my actions onsite, dismissed it flippantly, and then was subject to the usual pestering and harassment anyone who dares to defy Gamergate on social media gets subjected to. And despite every single claim of bias, there has not been '''''one''''' instance of any of that alleged bias entering the article itself. Just complaints of my behavior on the talk page.—] (]) 06:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::, repeatedly. Because the dispute only came from SPAs (see a pattern here?). Let's see, also the of your edits happen to paint Gamergate in a bad light. , despite the actor being the first person to use the tag (didn't have enough of a neckbeard?). You happened to word Intel's decision to remove advertising from Gamasutra in an... . Should I go on?--] (]) 06:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Tag was disputed. That's one edit that was based on a source proposed by someone on the talk page and its presented as an op/ed piece. Adam Baldwin has one parenthetical statement dedicated to him on the whole page so he's not wholly relevant at this stage, not to mention I'm the one who added the photo to the page in the first place. And that Intel stuff was still under discussion and unconfirmed at the time, and .—] (]) 06:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| There clearly is a problem with single purpose accounts on this subject. There is sock puppetry and meat puppetry going on to an extreme degree. However Ryulong's solution is more extreme and is poorly aimed. | |||
| Ryulong's idea should be opposed and refused but I don't think we need to break out the boomerang just yet. When you are facing dozens of sock puppets pushing a POV it is easy to see enemies in the shadows. While he may be lashing out at some people incorrectly I don't think he is acting in bad faith. | |||
| I recommend a long walk near a beach or a river. ] 03:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Generally agree with Chillum. Although the poor judgement shown here by Ryulong makes me think he is too invested in the topic to be a constructive force right now. I would urge him to step back and avoid the topic until after the holidays. The work will still be there, the policies won't really change, and the flood of SPAs should (hopefully) be down to a trickle by then. ] (]) 04:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I have no doubt my opinion is of lower value being new here, and I accept that as well as any topic ban I may receive. I am sure the article regardless of my involvement is in capable hands. Regardless, I do feel there is a failure to properly address Ryulong's language, incivility, namecalling and overall bad manners. This is well documented in the complaints here as well as his responses, encapsulated in specific regards to this issue in the associated talk page, and has much past precedence. When an editor and former admin has a noted, long history of complaints regarding verbal abuse, I don't think it should be overlooked. ] (]) 04:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| There is a severe issue with SPAs in these related articles and while Ryulong's request here may have been ill-formed or poorly-argued, it is not bad faith but the result of pure frustration at the flood tide of SPAs attempting to reject or weaken the reliably-sourced consensus view of GamerGate and attempting to insert poorly-sourced conspiracy theories, innuendo or outright personal attacks on the movement's enemies. Very few experienced, long-term editors have been willing to deal with this issue — and not without good reason, as those of us who have done so have found ourselves including . The fact of the matter is, there are lots of people attempting to use Misplaced Pages as a platform for telling the story of GamerGate as they want it to be told, not as the ] are telling it, and there are very few of us who began editing this article without an ideological purpose. I have no doubt that this will end up in a fiery mess at ArbCom's door at some point. ] (]) 06:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===Please ban Ryulong from contributing to Gamergate controversy or its talk page=== | |||
| I provide a link and a quote for each. | |||
| '''Incivility'''<br/> | |||
| It's just you two who are anti-Quinn/Sarkeesian who keep parroting the same bullshit | |||
| Please see my previous comment. Provide the sources right here, right now. | |||
| The majority of people on this page are fucking sick and tired of listening to Titanium Dragon and other editors constantly whinge | |||
| you kept making new threads on the exact same shit in the same day | |||
| Stop bitching about neutrality | |||
| You two should get off of your high horse that defecates in real time. | |||
| Enough of this bullshit.—Ryūlóng | |||
| Would you gaters stop kvetching about Leigh Alexander and how you think she's biased? Jesus fucking Christ. | |||
| Will you shut up about your and the movement's perception that anything Leigh Alexander writes is biased and unusable on this page? It's just the same shit repeated every other day. | |||
| Revert it ASAP. {There are several instances where they presume to speak for people, and even tell people what to do.} | |||
| would you stop fucking saying | |||
| No one has any fucking time to review games because of all the bullshit that's going on in Gamergate | |||
| go through every single fucking archive of this article and see the same thing get rehashed every other thread by a brand new voice bitching about the same exact things as every other voice that came before. This article is beseiged by single purpose accounts seeking to push a pro-Gamergate point of view on the page by removing everything that they consider is anti-gamergate because of some conspiracy they have in their minds that everyone in the media is out to get them and that only people who are as vindictive and pro-gamergate as they are are the unbiased voices in the crowd. That's why Milo Yiannopoulos is being touted as their savior right now because he acts just like they do and wrote something that put them in a positive light and put everyone they've been attacking in a negative light | |||
| stop drinking the koolaid | |||
| Sign your fucking posts. | |||
| Your head has to be deeply buried somewhere | |||
| '''Bad faith'''<br/> | |||
| It's just you two who are anti-Quinn/Sarkeesian who keep parroting the same bullshit | |||
| you're obviously in the gamer camp on this issue | |||
| So it's nighttime in the United States so all the anti-Quinn people come out of hiding? | |||
| {After my posting an article which does exactly the opposite:} Is there a reason you need to keep maing new threads on each bunk source that you find that will assist your case into changing the topic of this article to not include the issues of sexism and misogyny? | |||
| There have been constant calls that the article is biased, but it has been demonstrated that these claims are coming exclusively from members of the movement | |||
| We do not need to cave in to any external pressure (which all these single purpose accounts are). | |||
| there is no issue with neutrality on this page, just gaters whining about not having a beneficial bias. | |||
| go through every single fucking archive of this article and see the same thing get rehashed every other thread by a brand new voice bitching about the same exact things as every other voice that came before. This article is beseiged by single purpose accounts seeking to push a pro-Gamergate point of view on the page by removing everything that they consider is anti-gamergate because of some conspiracy they have in their minds that everyone in the media is out to get them and that only people who are as vindictive and pro-gamergate as they are are the unbiased voices in the crowd. That's why Milo Yiannopoulos is being touted as their savior right now because he acts just like they do and wrote something that put them in a positive light and put everyone they've been attacking in a negative light | |||
| Would you gaters stop kvetching about Leigh Alexander and how you think she's biased? Jesus fucking Christ. | |||
| So per the usual gater logic | |||
| It's clear you're trying to discredit her word here, and the word of anyone that has voiced opposition to Gamergate. | |||
| you single purpose accounts, Twitter gaters, or Redditors | |||
| '''Bias'''</br> | |||
| Maybe I'd be neutral if people didn't go out of their way to harass me because I edit this page. Now back to Romero's with you. | |||
| Ryulong has long been generally disruptive, abusive, and uncooperative. They are a great hindrance to getting anything at all done there. PLEASE remove them. Thanks. ] (]) 04:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Disruptive is unfounded. Abusive, unfounded as there's no swear directed at anyone. Uncooperative, only with the SPAs, who are again the only people I could theoretically be a "hindrance" to getting anything done. This is all retaliatory and unfounded.—] (]) 04:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::"Abusive, unfounded as there's no swear directed at anyone." That's a very narrow definition of abuse/incivility, and not even what WP:CIVIL states. This list is also by no means comprehensive, to this topic nor in general. Whether I'm earmarked an SPA or new editor, I, nor anyone else deserves what Ryulong is chronically serving. ] (]) 04:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::There's a difference between the proposals put forward by the neutral voices in this thread and the ones put forward by the invested parties. As per Chillum and Aprock, I definitely need to take another break from the article. They among other neutral editors here have also recognized the issue with the single purpose accounts and other non-neutral editors and that should still be examined regardless of my behavior towards anyone.—] (]) 04:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Is that a proposal for an ] topic ban? (You didn't specify how long you are proposing the ban should be). --] (]) 04:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry, I'm new to this. I suggest a year's ban, or at least 6 months. From what I gather, this is not the first place or time that they have behaved like this. Ryulong has a reputation for this sort of behaviour. Hopefully a significant ban will help foster a more cooperative, cool-headed attitude. ] (]) 05:28, 23 October 2014 | |||
| ::That's all way too much. This controversy will be long forgotten by then to matter.—] (]) 05:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Exactly. ] (]) 05:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::So there you have it, without any intervention he'll be back to bullying and pushing his narrative on the article again. His last voluntary break lasted how long, exactly? Two days?--] (]) 05:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I also remember when people said it'd be over when Destiny was released ] (]) 06:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Agree on boomerang and extensive topic ban for Ryulong per being uncivil, extremely biased, owning the article, battleground, off-wiki behaviour and biting noobs. ] (]) 05:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I should not be punished for off-wiki behavior when '''I was directly harassed offsite by other people'''. The one tweet you were sent '''is still plastered for everyone to see on your user talk page''' and my tweet to you was previously dismissed. I am not biased. I have not expressed any ownership of the article. Again, I will agree to a voluntary break as per Chillum's suggestion, but this is not a situation where complaints of my behavior by heavily involved users who are themselves not innocent of anything should be acted on. Anything beyond that or Obsidi's proposal is far too excessive.—] (]) 05:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Like that time you said you were quitting and you came back to insult everyone less than 48 hours later? So the fact that random people "harassed" you gives you the right to insult me on my twitter account? Why don't you lay off the Internet for a while instead, you seem to piss people off everywhere you go and made it seem like it's just "gamergate fags" doing it, while you proudly say there's several fandoms you've pissed off. Do you actually like doing this? ] (]) 05:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's not good enough. Trying to get me topic banned or from Misplaced Pages altogether is the last in a long line of harassment I've experienced from you and other editors simply for holding a contrary view. The same goes for other editors who've disagreed with you, as your scattershot ban request goes to show. You've been requested several times on that talk page to observe rules of civility, and—those times you've decided not to ignore the requests—you've backslid into your behaviour within days. You make little to no attempt to cooperate with those with whom you disagree, even on very simple requests/submissions that can be easily addressed. You deserve a longer break. ] (]) 05:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Stop bringing up that god damn tweet I made on my account long before any of this was a thing. God damn it. I'm allowed to say what I want on Twitter when it's not affecting anyone but myself. I am not colluding with anyone offsite as was the complaints with IRC when the arbitration case took place. And fandoms are mad at me because of the exact reason you are. Because I am upholding the rules and regulations of this website and they do not like how that works. Again, I will remove myself from the article. I will keep away more than the 48 hours it took for me to get bored sitting in Hong Kong airport with nothing to do for 5 hours. I will spend my time on this website as I normally do, not bothering with that article. But anything you and Willhesucceed have drug out to try to pin the blame of everything on me is still miniscule to the recognized disruption that has happened from the parties I did list above. You two are still not free from blame, no matter how much you play the victim.—] (]) 05:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::In fact I think this is the first time he hasn't included the word fuck on a reply to me, hey that's progress ] (]) 05:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::'''Agree''' that Ryulong needs to be away from this topic. From what I've seen he does his best to control the article, including throwing innocent editors (including an admin) under the bus. He makes blanket statements about how accounts are SPAs when they clearly are not. He says that certain editors have ''only'' made edits on particular articles, when I have proven they have made edits in others. He is trying to get these accounts outright banned from the topic, if not banned from Misplaced Pages in general. There are other, more neutral editors on that page that can take care of any potential problems. Ryulong needs to be removed. One month topic ban or more please, three months preferred. ] (]) 06:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::From my perspective, this is not about "punishment for off-wiki behaviour"; this is about how off-wiki behaviour demonstrates bias that is (a) inappropriate for an editor of the article and (b) repeatedly denied, minimized or deemed irrelevant by the person in question. ] (]) 09:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::There is no god damn bias. And even if I did have one I am allowed to hold opinions on something so long as those opinions do not negatively affect any Misplaced Pages article that may involve those opinions. Anything I've done on ] was supported by reliable sources and Misplaced Pages policy. Just because you and every other gater out there disagrees with it does not mean jack squat.—] (]) 09:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::See, this would be the whole "journalistic ethics" thing in action. Other people believe your opinions '''do''' negatively affect the article. And you are not an impartial judge in that matter. BTW, WRT the tweet in question, I don't see a link to it on Loganmac's talk page as claimed. ] (]) 09:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And just like in Gamergate, those people don't have any proof that they're right. Also, Loganmac's Twitter account is indeed linked on his user talk page so the tweet was readily available 3 weeks ago from that link, but Bosstopher .—] (]) 09:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Wasn't sure where to edit this mile-long article where this can be seen, but here goes (cut-and-pasting from above):] (]) 05:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Would like to point out I edited the talk page, and never touched the main article page. I merely wanted to give my input into what I perceived as non-neutral language from other editors. I felt a few maintained double-standards with respect to sources (and were using in my opinion, illogical rationales). I also suspected this stemmed from bias towards the subject material based on things that were said. I said my piece and left. I think the fact I edited a talk page on an article as it was being written qualifies me for a ban proves my point about subject-matter bias. My account has been active since 2007, and I don't edit articles a lot (because I don't want that responsibility, just sometimes to add to the discussion). But I *have* edited other articles, check my history and see. (Edited for tone to remove my initial outrage that I'm even on here) ] (]) 05:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Also, while I'm here I want to expound on my outrage. Talk pages exist specifically for discussion of a topic. You're publicly calling out wikipedia editors for expressing an opinion you disagree with on the appropriate talk page for that article? And now I have to defend my account from a ban? Maybe Misplaced Pages should have a sixth pillar to not create a chilling effect. ] (]) 05:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm here because of a note Ryulong left on my talk page yesterday. Do I still need to defend myself from a ban, have I been judged in absentia, etc? What's going on with that? ] (]) 06:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Nothing's happened. Nothing's been acted upon.—] (]) 06:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I want to explain something I hope you'll understand. I rarely bother logging in to Misplaced Pages. I specifically use my account on the referenced topic's talk page because of the harassment and doxxing going on. I didn't want my IP to visible, I didn't want to be a target. Now you have called me out in a rather short list that's publicly available to everyone, making accusations against me without even talking to me first. I am now a target, as is everyone on that list. I want to express that whatever differing opinions we may have on the finer points of NPOV, I find this incredibly irresponsible. ] (]) 06:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Then you should read much of this thread to see that people agree with you. My proposals were apparently ill timed and poorly implimented. I can't take anything else back at this stage. It is highly unlikely that anyone at this stage other than myself will be sanctioned for anything.—] (]) 06:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Can we please remove the list of names, myself included? It probably won't do much good at this point, but my name is still on a list that says "All of these editors have solely used Misplaced Pages to push the "pro-Gamergate" agenda, many have been chastised for violating WP:BLP for repeating the false allegations that the movement believes in, and may have edits that have been revdelled for those reasons." This puts a target on those users, and as I said there has been a great deal of doxxing and harassment going on regarding this subject. ] (]) 06:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::There's no target. And there's no doxxing on Misplaced Pages, despite the claims above.—] (]) 06:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'm not making claims that Misplaced Pages doxxes people. I'm saying that trolls and harassers who do doxx people need very little information to get started. A careless username used somewhere else (twitter, blogging site, etc), distinct writing styles, and so forth. If GamerGate has proven anything, it's how hard it is to hide yourself from a determined attacker. So I'm saying that having a very small list of usernames and claiming they are "pushing a pro-gamergate agenda on Misplaced Pages" while calling them out at the very top of this section paints a target on those usernames. And if indeed they're *not* being banned or those allegations have been insufficiently demonstrated, I'm asking you to please do them (and myself) the courtesy of removing that section before North America wakes up in a few hours. If the bans are still being discussed, by all means leave it there. ] (]) 07:14, 23 October 2014 | |||
| (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Basically, you say you can't "take back anything at this stage" but removing that section with the names would certainly help in my mind. Just my opinion, as someone on that list who feels falsely accused. ] (]) 07:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| And '''anyone''' reading this should take a look at the people commenting because I am almost sure that the thread I was alerted to as existing on Reddit is drawing editors here to pile on.—] (]) 06:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Are you listening to yourself? You irresponsibly accuse dozens of people of allegations X, Y, and Z, and you're amazed when there's a backlash? Really? Instead of reflecting on your behaviour, here you are, blaming everyone but yourself. All the more evidence you need a long, enforced break. ] (]) 07:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. Ryulong is guilty of one thing: attempting to engage with a series of editors suffering from serious cases of IDHT. Perhaps Ryulong should have walked away when upset (as I have done), but certain editors have considered a lack of immediate response as approval to add their opinions into these articles. The last month has a been an assault of belligerent new (and returning) editors with demands to be spoon-fed policy, demands to defend policy, demands to explain why this or that tell-all blog isn't a reliable source, many of them leading with pointed accusations and insults. Anyone who hasn't taken the bait is a saint and deserves to be showered in barnstars. ] (]) 06:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Maybe full protection for, say, 1-2 days would help cool everyone's heads down. Then again, it probably wouldn't. ]'']'' 06:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:The article's been fully protected for 2 weeks. This is all based on rumblings on the talk page.—] (]) 06:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *::I know. I meant the talk page. But, that's so unorthodox that it would probably 1) never happen and 2) make for some interesting publicity that the WMF would have to deal with... ]'']'' 07:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:::It was semiprotected for a bit, but that probably only caused more problems.—] (]) 07:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| My prior experience is with less formal fan wikis, like stuff for video games or so on that have much lower, niche traffic. They're a lot less stringent with the rules, so I did get knocked once for remarking on an unsubstantiated claim about a living person, but after the warning I took a break from editing then came back later to read through the policies regarding that sort of thing. I actually took an interest in the Gamer Gate article because of an alleged DMCA abuse involved, but when I found the article it was a mess and had the "biased" tag. I don't know if I would be a regular editor for Misplaced Pages since I usually just like to write for fun, but I thought I'd try something from whatever angle one introduces themselves to a locked article with the "biased" tag because I've fixed biased articles before. | |||
| If you do decide to ban me I will just peacefully go away like an appeased ghost. However, I don't think that's going to reduce the number of new people trying to fix the Gamer Gate article. It opens by stating the controversy is about "misogyny", which I've argued is kind of insulting to one side of the debate when more neutral phrasing like "identity politics" or "cultural conflict" or virtually anything would convey the same meaning without the negative connotation. People will feel inclined to pop in as long as the page insinuates a stance like that. ] (]) 07:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :This isn't a new venue to discuss the content dispute.—] (]) 07:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Point is, you can't ban everyone who disagrees with you. As long as people come to the page and think Misplaced Pages is directly insulting them, they'll say something. If you're feeling cornered and surrounded enough to show up with a list of people you want axed, it's not because anyone's out to get you. It's because the article is absurdly biased and they think Misplaced Pages a reasonable place that will listen to them. ] (]) 07:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Maybe if you bothered to actually listen to of the {{u|NorthBySouthBaranof}} has been giving you to your constant complaints of bias or insults and the like, you would understand you are reading too far into it. Describing the movement as having misogynistic aspects is not an "insult". | |||
| :::Everyone who has never looked at the article before, YellowSandals is exactly the kind of person that myself and every other regular editor to the page is tired of dealing with. Refusal to listen to the other editors. An insistence that his point of view is not being adequately represented. An insistence that Misplaced Pages is somehow perpetrating some wrong that slights the group he represents. This is why I initially made this thread. Because there are people who just will not listen.—] (]) 07:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Many of the people you've included on that list cannot be said to fall under this category. ] (]) 08:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yet many do.—] (]) 08:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The disputes go like this. "We have to change the wording." | |||
| ::::"Why?" | |||
| ::::"It's biased." | |||
| ::::"No it isn't. I don't think the periodicals we quote are biased so it's not biased." | |||
| ::::"But the periodicals are involved in the controversy and they're on a side. They're using insulting language." | |||
| ::::"Well most of them are on the same side so it's okay." | |||
| ::::"But they're hostile and insulting their readers and they're losing their advertisers." | |||
| ::::"So? They're mostly on the same side so if we don't repeat them in Misplaced Pages's voice then it's undue weight." | |||
| ::::And I keep pursuing it, but this is basically the solitary argument I have about the whole stupid article. Why are the accusations of misogyny written in Misplaced Pages's voice instead of saying the periodicals think it? The article needs a lot of restructuring, but this is why you keep seeing the same arguments over, and over again. It's not because they're POV pushers - it's because the page takes a side and it's kind of insulting about it. It doesn't have to be, but you act like it's exhausting and unreasonable to be hearing from dozens of people who press this for a while only to get exhausted themselves before they give up. ] (]) 08:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::'''This is not another venue to continue the content dispute.'''—] (]) 08:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Please remove me off this list. I want to know why am I on this list since I only the only info I added was on EA not disclosing their hacks because of a reporter and Kotaku checking the data. I added NOTHING on any anti-feminism or pro-feminism or pro/anti-gamer gate. I have been on wikipedia since 2007 and '''I never had ANY pages going and doing a WITCH HUNT to ban users from editing and NOT respecting wikipedia's NPOV '''. None of the information I added had no sources or a biased source. Misplaced Pages should really consider banning whoever started this witch hunt on users since I only added 2 sentences and was automatically assigned an alignment to a certain side. -] (]) 09:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's all gone now. I withdraw my initial proposal. Let the single purpose accounts and POV pushers take over the god damn article. I am done.—] (]) 09:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Agree''' with ban of ] per witch hunting of editors of page:] for POV purposes. See my edits with source and the accusations above. Claims I users who do not regularly edit must be banned. Accusations of POV pushing without proof.--] (]) 09:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's not what this was about and it's over. You all get your way.—] (]) 09:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::What is my way? I am still branded as pro-gamer gate since I am in the "Extended content" section --] (]) 09:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I deleted my "Extended content" section nearly an hour ago.—] (]) 09:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Agree''' with ban of ] for attempts to eliminate opposing points of view, ownership of the article, and general incivility. I have been included in this list despite receiving an apology from Ryulong for the accusation of being an 'SPA' and find my name still being dragged through the mud despite having clearly debunked these accusations over a week ago. I made one neutral comment on the talk page and was attacked for POV-pushing by Ryulong and one of his cohorts, which turned into a significant altercation unrelated to the content of the article. Additionally, Ryulong has clearly stated his bias (located ) and has no business in this article. He claimed to be 'taking a break' to avoid a ban last time and wound up editing the article when less than two days had passed. This editor is toxic and needs to be removed from this article so that new voices stop being attacked and some semblance of neutrality can emerge. Please note that I am currently banned from Gamergate-related topics, but as my name was dropped directly by Ryulong, I am assuming I am entitled to comment regardless. Out of respect for that ban I will limit my involvement to this singular edit. ] (]) 10:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Nothing I've written in that attempt at posting a dif is a "bias" by any means.—] (]) 10:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*'''Agree''' per ] with a '''reminder''' that ] is not the only one behaving uncivilly. Tarc and TRPoD have also been to this noticeboard for similar issues before. ] (]) 10:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::All of these editors advocating for my ban are heavily involved in the article and content dispute, actively topic banned, or simply calling for my ban out of retaliation for my now entirely redacted list. This needs to stop and it needs to stop now because Retartist is now trying to turn this against {{u|Tarc}} and {{u|TheRedPenOfDoom}} because they, along with {{u|NorthBySouthBaranof}}, are the only vocal editors opposing the proposed changes from everyone I had reported.—] (]) 10:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I do think something needs to happen to ] for this slander against me and others, even if it is basically just a slap on the wrist. ] (]) 10:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Future Perfect''', do not close an active topic ban proposal because apparently, there's 'no consensus' to do so. That's the freakin' point, get consensus to sanction editors, and if they fail when closed by an admin after a reasonable amount of time (not one freakin day), then that's fine, but not early. ] (]) 10:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:Fut Perf is an administrator who did not weigh in at all in this and closed it. You don't get to reopen it because you want me gone.—] (]) 10:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Like he said though if someone cam up with a proposal with a realistic chance of census, you can start a new topic, I'd be very surprised if anyone came up with one though. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :::{{ping|Halfhat}} did you mean 'chance of success' ? ] (]) 12:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think I meant "consensus". I can't believe I did that. ] (]) 16:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : It seems noteworthy to me that during the above discussion, ] said that he "was done" with the article, and indicated that he would voluntarily stay away for "more than 48 hours". The edit log indicates, however, that he has not stayed away at all. ] (]) 16:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Let this die FFS.—] (]) 16:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | {{archive bottom}} | ||
| == Request for clarification on Syrian Civil War and ISIL sanctions - warning policy == | |||
| {{Archive top|result=Any editor may alert another editor to the existence of ] provided they use the prescribed template on the procedures page (other language will not do) and log the notification on the same page. Just as with ArbCom's alerts to discretionary sanctions, a notification (alert) is '''not''' a sanction and may not be objected to by the editor receiving the alert.--] (]) 13:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| I would like to bring to everyone's attention that there is an ongoing dispute on the procedure of warning and logging of warnings in case of Syrian Civil War and ISIL topic sanctions ]. The dispute is whether non-administrator editors can issue official warnings and log them into ], with no WP:ANI procedure and/or violation required. The dispute comes after a number of users began issuing multiple warnings for other editors and logging those warnings as official warnings in line with administrators (],],],],],],],]). I have to emphasize that from August 2013 and until October 2014, only administrators had issued official warnings using ] and logged them at ], whereas regular users could utilize the ] (with no logging). Official warnings had been used to justify further sanctions against editors, thus being logged there had constituted a kind of "stain" in regard to Syrian Civil War area articles. | |||
| Logging of warnings by non-administrators in the past two weeks was done at ] log by ], ] and ] and as a result five users have been logged as "warned". At least in some of those 5 cases, the logging and warning template were put for no clear reason. As far as i could check, there was no ] procedure in those cases and apparently even no violation of 1RR (at least in some of them). The logging of warnings at Syrian Civil War & ISIL sanctions log actually has taken place in parallel with the standard logging of administrator ] (logging on October 19), for which i requested his observation and notified him of reverting logging of warning by IP user, who made it with no WP:ANI procedure and in fact no 1RR violation. Re-interpretation that any user can warn and log those warnings any time brings a lot of confusion into the community as i put this discussion - see ] initiated by me on Dougweller's page, ] initiated by ] and ] on Technophant's talk page, etc. | |||
| As pointed out by one of the editors, the ] guidelines may bring some confusion to some readers, as the guideline reads as following: | |||
| ::''Any editor may advise any other editor that discretionary sanctions are in force for an area of conflict. However, these only count as the formal notifications required by this procedure if the standard template message – currently <nowiki>{{Ds/alert}}</nowiki> – is placed unmodified on the talk page of the editor being alerted.'' | |||
| The guideline implies that any editor may notify others on sanctions (in case of ], it is ] notification, which is not logged as official warning), however formal notifications are using ] template, usually as a result of WP:ANI complaint on 1RR violation, and are indeed logged into the warnings log by administrators. Unless there is indeed a new interpretation to ARBCOM guideline and indeed from October 9th non-administrator users are eligible to issue official warnings and log them as sanction warnings with no limitation (and apparently no specific cause), i suggest to clarify this and remove non-administrative warnings of the past two weeks at once.] (]) 21:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I have to bring an example, that in 2013, i was mistakenly warned and logged in warnings section by administrator ], but upon clarifying him that no violation occurred on my behalf, the warning and the log was . It is a good example against the proposed interpretation, that warnings can be issued by anyone and for no specific reason.] (]) 21:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Greyshark, you've got it all wrong. We've tried to tell you this at ], but you haven't listened. ] is merely a notification template. There are ] for all other discretionary and general sanctions. Notifications are most patently NOT "warnings". They are merely intended to make editors aware of the fact that the general exist in topic area mentioned. The template you mention, ], is in fact a warning that implies bad behaviour. This is entirely separate from ], which does not imply bad behaviour on the part of the editor receiving it. No "AN/I" procedure is necessary, as this does not imply bad behaviour on the part of the editor receiving it. It merely is a notification, for informational purposes. By the way, there is no such thing as an "official warning" as we don't have anything "official" here. There is no reinterpretation. It has always been the case with discretionary sanctions, that any editor can issue a notification, provided that he follows the proper procedure. That means one notification per editor per year, not using the template to threaten someone, and only using the bare template with no accompanying text. You need to listen. We've tried to tell you this about ten times, at this point. Instead, you refuse to hear what others are telling you. ] — ] 21:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::], Can I ask about ]? What was it that you recommended be removed? to what extent was the request valid? and was there a removal as claimed? Having read your edit I have felt significantly wronged. Clarification would be appreciated. You quoted: "Editors issuing alerts are expected to ensure that no editor receives more than one alert per area of conflict per year. Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned." ] ] 23:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It is very simple. You of the Syrian Civil War sanctions by PBS, as is recorded in the log. Technophant forced a new notification template on your page, along with an associated warning. Of course, he didn't bother to look at the log and see that you'd already been notified. It was clear that he was doing this as bad faith badgering. It was highly inappropriate of him to do that, and I removed the notification from the log as such. ] — ] 00:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I was the subject of one of these warning by a non-admin for no obvious reason other than apparently the warner did not like my opinion on something. Since sanctions are not (usually) applied unless a user has been warned, the warning puts me a significant step closer to sanctions in the event some editor wants to push for sanctions. If ANY user can warn ANY user and log it for ANY reason including NO reason, I propose to take the defensive measure of going forth to warn and log every user that might dislike my edits or opinions on ISIL/Syria Civil War or seems even a little lame brained. That way if they complain later against me, we are on the same footing and same risk of sanctions. Let me know so I can act accordingly. ] (]) 02:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::That's battleground behaviour, Legacypac. These are not "warnings". As I've said, they are notifications. Anyone that edits in this topic area can be notified, and most likely should be. You won't be sanctioned for anything unless you edit disruptively. If you follow good editing practices, you won't have a problem. General sanctions are meant to encourage good editing, not battleground behaviour. Remember, you can only receive one notification of the general sanctions. You've already been notified. Anyway, you are demonstrating that you are aware of these sanctions merely by commenting here, so it wouldn't matter if the notification were logged or not. You could still be sanctioned, if you edited disruptively. ] — ] 03:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::If you reread my post substituting "notify" for "warn" the point is the same and there is little practical difference in the words. We all know that some editors get pretty invested in these topics and that an active editor can easily trip the 1RR during normal editing, so a notified editor is a more risk. Either an editor is justified in notifying editors willy nilly - and therefore I should really follow through on my defensive plan since "Anyone that edits in this topic area can be notified, and most likely should be") or uncalled for non-Admin notifications like ]'s are ] and inappropriate. Please clarify. ] (]) 04:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::A notification is called for if one has edited articles within the scope of the sanctions. There is nothing "willy-nilly" about it. If you'd like, you can choose to edit in other areas. There is a practical difference, because the notification does not imply bad behaviour on the part of the receiver. "A notified editor is more at risk", you say? Only if they decide to edit disruptively, which is the point of the notification. If an editor is clearly aware that general sanctions are in effect, he should be extra careful when editing these topics. He should follow good practices, as he should on all articles. If he does not, that says something about his character and about his behaviour. Phrasing such as "defensive plan" shows that you have a battleground attitude. Even if another editor has such an attitude, that does not excuse you having one. All it seems that you'd like to do is skirt around these sanctions. That's unacceptable. Accept that you need to edit carefully, and that if you don't, you may be sanctioned. It is that simple. Do not focus on "combatting" other editors with sanctions notifications. Such use of the notifications could be construed of as disruptive editing in of itself. ] — ] 04:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I have not gone forth and notified a list of editors, I only lay the scenario out for illustration. Since you have now called that plan battleground, you will agree that the editors who have done just that are engaged in disruptive editing. I'd appreciate the disruptive notification against me and others be reverted now. Thanks. ] (]) 04:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :If you think someone is being disruptive, go to ANI. I don't see any way of 'un-alerting' you. You've been told about the sanctions now. It would be against the principal of the whole thing to say you can be 'un-alerted' and therefore can't be sanctioned by an independent Admin. ] (]) 05:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::] who is not an Admin seems to have used a template well labeled "This template should only be used by administrators." https://en.wikipedia.org/Template:SCW%26ISIL_enforcement on my talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ALegacypac&diff=629967195&oldid=629918338#Hello and logged the notification here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Syrian_Civil_War_and_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant I want that reversed as it is correctly pointed out at the top a scarlet letter on my editing and puts me a step closer to sanctions if someone does not like my editing. And ] why go to ANi when this is already the AN? Either the template is wrong when it says it should only be used by Admins, or open season everyone can use it on anyone to level the field in the case of a future dispute. ] (]) 07:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Interesting thread. I received a sanctions notice about editing in Syrian War-related articles and went on the 2014 list as having been notified. I asked the admin who did this for an explanation, as I had never been found guilty of any infraction in editing, and received a vague and irritable answer. I have never found out why it happened, and am understandably annoyed about being on that list when co-editors, also free from rule infraction, are not. --] (]) 12:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There is no "explanation", which is what the template does (did you read it?). It is pure notification, and you can notify people just as well as anyone else, if you think they're not aware of the sanctions. Everyone is subject to sanctions regardless (if they are truly disruptive), so it doesn't matter as much as you say. You're not supposed to use the notifications to threaten or combat editors. It is entirely neutral. Please read the ] guidelines on "alerts". ] — ] 13:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::] Unless it was coincidence I think my posts acted as catalyst. I am still trying to get my head around the content of ]. I later asked for help ] and made enquiry ]. I personally want to know the validity of various interventions. ] ] 13:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Ok, I've figured out what happened. ], ] and I had a discussion about the problem that this template was not yet in line with the new ArbCom alert system, which as has been said doesn't require an Administrator to place the alert notice. Bbb23 made one edit which removed one bit about an uninvolved Administrator required to place the notice, but missed the rest. I'm now going to fix the rest per our earlier agreement. I'm sorry that this has led to so much confusion. ] (]) 15:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::This actually implies that indeed i'm correct and up until recently (August 2014) only administrators could do the warnings using the warning template. Apparently, three of you agreed in August 2014 that anyone can use the template for notification, however i don't see that there was also an agreement that the warnings can be ''logged'' by non-administrators and that in fact there would be no control over such warnings and logs (until October 2014, most of those warnings went through WP:ANI as 1RR violations). I hope you understand that if anyone can log warnings at WP:SCWGS for anyone, there would be no control over the number of such logs as potentially ALL editors of the Syrian Civil War and ISIL topic may be warned and logged (by any editor). As a result this warning log would swell to an incredible size (thousands?), as there will be an interest to justify future sanctions complaints in every single edit-dispute. This doesn't make sense and completely changes the purpose from preventing edit-warring to promoting "warning-warring".] (]) 16:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Thank-you ] for digging and explaining that you were on a different page than the rest of us. Grayshark explained the next problem very well. If this gets opened up, and everyone gets notified/warned and logged, then we will all be on the same footing and being "notified" will be meaningless. That would be a big waste of time and remove any value there is to the current system. Also, if anyone can notify and log, then surely anyone can remove the notification and log. ] (]) 17:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::If I'm on a different page it's because I agree with the decision on ArbCom alerts & that this should be treated the same. An editor can remove these alerts from their talk pages, but no one can remove a log arbitrarily - if you do, you are likely to be blocked. ], ], how is this different from ArbCom alerts which anyone can add? All that's happened is that this notification has been brought into line with others. ] (]) 17:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::So is it ok if I notify and log ] first? ] (]) 17:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::He doesn't need to be notified, because it is clear that he is aware of existence of the sanctions (he is contributing here). I really see a lot of bad faith here on the part of editors who are editing in the area under the scope of the sanctions. I feel like the ] needs to be deployed. ] — ] 17:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} I haven't read every word of the above. I've been asked to comment here by several editors. I'll try to make this as simple as possible. Any editor may alert another editor to the existence of discretionary sanctions in this area as long as they use the prescribed template and log it appropriately. Any confusion on this score was resolved . Alerts, just like ArbCom alerts, are ''not'' considered a sanction and generally may not be objected to by any editor. (I suppose if someone thinks that a particular editor is disruptively issuing alerts with an ulterior motive, they could take that editor to ANI.) The template does not require an uninvolved administrator to be issued. It doesn't even require an uninvolved editor (using the term "uninvolved" in its English sense). Therefore, any editor who complains about receiving such an alert or about "selective enforcement" is out of line and should just let it go. For clarity, I would propose the following changes to ]: | |||
| * Currently it says: "The presence of these templates is not a prerequisite for issuing sanctions, but editors should be made aware of them prior to being sanctioned. Editors can be notified of these sanctions with the {{tlx|SCW&ISIL enforcement}} template." The first sentence should be removed because an alert ''is'' a prerequisite to issuing discretionary sanctions. The second sentence should read: "Editors '''must''' be notified of these sanctions with the {{tlx|SCW&ISIL enforcement}} template." (change bolded) I don't think editors should be using any language other than the template. | |||
| Similarly, the following sentence should be changed lower down: | |||
| * "For consistency, the template {{tlx|subst:SCW&ISIL enforcement}} should be used." should be changed to "For consistency, the template {{tlx|subst:SCW&ISIL enforcement}} '''must''' be used." (change bolded) | |||
| Unless there are objections to these changes, I'll make them.--] (]) 23:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I would love to see input from Admins who are not involved in creating this confusing situation. ] (]) 02:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Legacypac, there is nothing confusing about it. The guidelines for DS say what they say. No "administrators" created this situation. It has been in place from August 2013. Accept the reality, and get on with it. If you don't want to be sanctioned, don't do anything sanctionable. It is that simple. You're not supposed to try and get around the sanctions. You're supposed to follow the rules and edit properly. ] — ] 02:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks Bbb23. I of course agree with the changes. Legacypac, once again, this is in line with the rest of the discretionary sanctions alert. Read ]. If you are unhappy, complain to ArbCom, but I doubt you will make them change their mind. I am curious though as to why you thin this particular issue should be handled in a way very different to the other discretionary sanctions alert, as both make it quite clear that any editor can add the alert notice. ] (]) 07:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The original that imposed the community sanctions was closed by me in August 2013. As I stated in my close, "The sanctions themselves will be precisely the same as they are for ] except for the topic and the fact they are community-based rather than Arbcom-based." In other words, the sanctions were intended to mimic ArbCom sanctions. At the time, the warning (now alert) system had not been revised, along with the rest of the discretionary sanctions, but the imposition of discretionary sanctions by the community, by all logic and given the history of ''these'' sanctions, should be handled in line with those revisions.--] (]) 13:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I am not trying to get around the sanctions, I am trying to understand why a non-admin can use a template clearly labeled as for Admins only. If you are saying that is fine, so be it. If you are saying the template contains an error, please fix it. ] (]) 23:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{ping|Legacypac}} Are you reading this thread? If it isn't fixed, please show me where it still says that. And as I said, an alert is an alert, you can't be unalerted, but if you really object then I'm sure one of us will alert you. Again, if you have a problem with a specific editor, start a new thread at ANI. ] (]) 08:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} Without objection, I made the changes I proposed above '''except''' I did not remove "The presence of these templates is not a prerequisite for issuing sanctions, but editors should be made aware of them prior to being sanctioned" as I realized belatedly it is not talking about the alert template but the talk page template.--] (]) 13:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{Archive bottom}} | |||
| == Rfcu deletion review == | |||
| {{archive top|result = The RFC/U was properly deleted, although another one may be filed ] (]) 02:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] was created, seconded, and commented on by multiple editors before being deleted based on a good faith but incorrect emphasis on the wording of the RFCU guidelines. This is disruptive to the collaboration process. Discussion with deleting admin is at ]. Could someone please undelete? <small>]</small> 08:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :No. Go do something else. {{facepalm}}. ] ] 08:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * Seconded. Already raised at ] | |||
| : The backstory for this is at: | |||
| :* ] | |||
| :* ] | |||
| :* ] | |||
| : This blanked RfC/U has a bunch of problems. The main ones are that a number of GF editors took part in it as a valid RFC. Their contributions (yes, I'm one) have now been deleted and hidden from the public record. Why? Why does Jehochman get to single-handedly disenfranchise a number of editors? | |||
| : Secondly, this RFC wasn't merely closed / hatted / struck through, it was deleted and hidden. Only admins can see it, lowly editors cannot. WP has a problem already with admin privilege, this is playing further into that. | |||
| : Since the draft, a situation has also developed where the panda is no longer having to face a public RFC, they're facing a series of brushfire talk page decisions, each of which is framed on the basis of being a de-admin request! We do not put admins through this sort of kangaroo court, even the worst of them. We have an RFC/U process and if anyone wants to de-admin someone, that's where they have to start - even if they don't like the ''clear'' consensus response they were getting. We do not work in this way outside of process. | |||
| : Yes, I raised this with Jehochman already and was patronisingly dismissed with "sigh". ] (]) 09:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Andy, I am sorry but you are just not telling the truth. What I said several times is that I would happily supply any editor their deleted contents. As the page stood, it was an attack page containing both valid criticism and invalid material imported from a variety of sources such as ArbCom voter guides. I have explained very thoroughly that an RFCU needs to be properly certified by two users who discussed THE SAME issue with the subject. That did not happen here. NE Ent proffered a discussion from 2012, which is stale any any case, and Msnicki showed one from 2014. At this point I think we need to look at warning NE Ent for headhunting, and ] (which though not his intentions, may be the effective result if he's not careful). I've explained over and over how to file a valid RFCU but he (and you) are refusing to listen. The reason I said "sigh" is that I was repeating the same answer to the same question for the third time in the same thread. If you don't want to make people feel exasperated, read what they've already written and join the conversation in an informed way. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Whether that page was started as a valid RFC or not, it was treated as one by many other editors. Two editors certified it, or believed they had certified it and would probably have re-certified in in any necessary manner if they had known your plans. Several editors, myself included, then expressed opinions towards this RFC. | |||
| ::: Yet Jehochman over-ruled all this. Others ''have no voice in the matter'', only your opinion is to be seen. Your offer to send contributors copies of their own text is farcical - the point is that you've removed it from the ''public'' record. Why do you think that it is acceptable for you, acting alone, to disenfranchise other editors like this? | |||
| ::: The clear consensus expressed in the RFC views was that the RFC had no merit, certainly not as it was phrased. If the RFC had thus been ''closed'', I don't think there would have been any complaint. This deletion wasn't closure though, merely a tactical retreat ''to have another go'' at it again, despite this rejection. | |||
| ::: You are deeply involved in this RFC - you've now ], unofficially and away from sight, and have re-drafted it in your own image. You are clearly intending to persist with this, despite consensus of other editors having once rejected it. Will others again choose to reject it? Maybe, maybe not. But if you persist with this long enough, I'm sure your patience will wear them down in the end. After all, what's the point in pretending that non-admin editors have a voice here when they are blanked at the whim of one? | |||
| ::: You're happy to interject little homilies into . Did you read them? Particularly the advice to avoid ad hominems? I will thus thank you not to call me a liar. ] (]) 21:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: N E Ent, I looked on your user talk page and I see Jehochman speaking to you about the RFCU calmly and rationaly, explaining why it was removed, and I agree with him. Follow his advice if you're serious. I would recommend this report be closed down as a bad faith attempt to force an admin's hand <span style="text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em blue">]] </span> 11:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * I agree that Misplaced Pages has flexible rules, but not when we are talking about people. If you want to create a page giving somebody critical feedback, you need to make sure it doesn't become an attack page. Yes, you can criticize somebody as part of a valid dispute resolution attempt; you can't criticize somebody to settle scores--that's called a personal attack. NE Ent, the RFCU you created contained elements of both. The main problem with it was the the certifications didn't relate to the same dispute, which calls into question whether the page is valid dispute resolution, rather than score-settling. Because of that, the page needed to be deleted. A secondary problem is that the page contained a lot of hearsay evidence, such as ArbCom Voter Guides. Evidence in the form of "These other editors don't like the subject" isn't valid. You have to let each editor speak for themselves; you can't import criticism from elsewhere because that's prejudicial. These could be honest mistakes, so I am hopeful you'll listen to what I'm saying. I told you how to fix the problems and said you were welcome to re-file. I offered to give any editor a copy of their comments so they could add it to a new RFCU. Msnicki accepted my offer and I created ]. At this point, several other editors have picked up on the main (and good) evidence that you presented and are discussing the matter with Dangerous Panda. I think you should be patient and let those discussions wrap up, and then decide what to do. There's no point in running parallel dispute resolution over the same matters; that's stressful to the subject and inefficient. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I think that closing the RFC/U was done within policy. I didn't care either way as I had already stated that much of that material didn't belong within the RFC itself, but an uninvolved admin made the call. At the time, I do think my statement of fact was the most supported anyway. It caught me off guard, but it makes sense. There were significant problems, including using two year old discussion as proof an attempt to resolve had taken place, and of course, the whole "running for Arb" statements, which was completely improper to include. More importantly, the idea behind the RFC/U has continued on the editor's talk page and a number of people have participated in a more neutral fashion. Unquestionably, there are valid questions to be asked, but closing down an RFC/U that wasn't certified properly, combined tons of irrelevant material, and was confrontational from the start didn't prevent those questions from being answered, and arguably, made it more likely they will get answered. Ent, I've known you a long time and agree with you more often than not, but I think you've climbed on a high horse on this one and it isn't bringing out the best in you. ] ] 14:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I understand NE Ent's frustration, but there were some problems with the RFC/U. The Arbcom voter guides were unhelpful and Msnicki's somewhat meandering complaint really didn't make a strong case for a long term conduct issue. Currently, three users including myself are attempting to constructively dialog with DangerousPanda on his talk page. If those discussions are not fruitful, then some of the evidence from the aborted RFC/U can easily be copied to a new one. I think it is important that we give DangerousPanda every possible opportunity to understand and act on the concerns about his conduct in the context of his role as an admin. I would like to add that the comment made by Doc is completely unhelpful, and does nothing more than fuel hostility. Perhaps it was intended as irony? - ]] 17:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *: The comment appears to violate rule 3 of the ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :* ''"I think it is important that we give DangerousPanda every possible opportunity to understand and act on the concerns about his conduct in the context of his role as an admin. "'' | |||
| :: So he's guilty already, even before the next RFC is filed (and ignoring that the first RFC was so "invalid" it had to be removed altogether). Why don't we all get our Little Red Books, put our Chairman Mao suits on and hold a public self-criticism session? | |||
| :: Just to re-state it for those who didn't get to see the one and only RFC that has been raised, ''consensus of multiple editors was that it was a worthless RFC and there was no case to answer''. ] (]) 21:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Not quite. I've been clear in stating my opinion that his past conduct is inconsistent with adminship. Some agree with this; some don't. I'm not sure what you mean with the Chairman Mao comment, but please don't feel obliged to explain it.- ]] 22:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * I am concerned that wikipedia admins see fit to 'close' a discussion by deleting from view of non-admins. It's rare that is necessary, and it's a very worrying trend. Can some admin please take the time to remove anything innapropriate and restore it? I dislike cover-ups.] (]) 22:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **My understanding is that we have always deleted uncertified RFCs. We also delete many SPI investigations where there isn't enough evidence to justify the complaint. Even at Arb, if a case is declined, they don't create and keep a page for it, it is simply deleted. You can argue against that policy in general, but in this particular case, the admin did exactly what all others have done before him, ie: standard operating procedure. Basically, "it never happened", as it wasn't properly certified to start. ] ] 22:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ***It is hard for me to argue whether or not it is ''necessary'' to delete a page when I cannot see it. It might be appropriate due to slander, legal threats, outing, copyright concerns, etc. - and if that's the case, tell me, and I'll be content to let it go. Otherwise, at least let's see what is under discussion. ] (]) 22:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::* ''"It never happened"''. It did. Other editors happened to it. | |||
| ::: What indication is there that this ''could not'' be certified? The two editors who certified it clearly thought they had done so! If they'd had the slightest hint it wasn't certified, I have no doubt they'd have then done so. | |||
| ::: I contend that a valid RFC was opened and certified, then rejected by consensus. It thus existed, but has no implication for Panda. | |||
| ::: Jehochman contends instead that somehow it didn't happen the first time, yet despite not even being valid enough to exist, it now has to be re-opened again until it gives the right answer. If it didn't even get so far as to be validly certified before, why the need now to bring it back? ] (]) 22:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::In all fairness Andy, Jehochman didn't just delete and walk away, nor say the complaints were unfounded, and a number of people have spent a fair amount of time trying to accomplish the same thing. The majority of endorsements in that RFC/U were from people agreeing that the RFC/U was majorly defective. That doesn't take away from the claims or concerns, but the method of which they were filed was defective. Dragging all the comments from his run for Arb, for example. That is a huge no go. You are implying they are commenting in that RFC/U. It wasn't quite bothersome enough for me to close the RFC (although it was bothersome enough that I commented about the defects), but closing it was certainly within the discretion given admin. Regardless, it is here now at WP:AN, I'm confident the community can decide if that was within discretion or not. ] ] 23:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::* By all means, close the RfC. This is what consensus on it was obviously pushing for: the RfC was without merit. | |||
| ::::: This is not what Jehochman did. Instead he took an RfC heading for no-issue closure and instead he hid the first copy, so that he could immediately re-open it and then it could then give the "right" answer. To do so he also had to exclude the views of a number of GF editors. Look at ] to even change indentation on a talk: page thread. Yet it's OK for Jehochman to crash and burn a whole RfC? ] (]) 00:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I get what you are saying, and frankly, I expected it would crash as well. Not because there were zero merits, but because of the way it was framed. I said as much there in that discussion. If I'm not taking sides (and I am really not), then I think what Jehochman did was neutral in spirit as there really were procedural issues with the age of the complaints, and the continuity between complaints. And again, the Arb issue poisoned the well. It might be frustrating to some, but I saw the close as an attempt to be fair and neutral, even if it wasn't convenient, and I can't help but to support something if I think it was neutral and within policy. If the community wants to review DP's actions, fine, let them do so properly in a fair and balanced way. I think MrX's efforts on DP's talk page are exactly the right way to do it. Applauding his efforts doesn't require agreeing with his conclusions. ] ] 01:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: I keep seeing phrases like "poisoning the well" and "double jeopardy". This is not a US courtroom drama. Principles of US jurisprudence aren't applicable here. The Arbcom issue might have been irrelevant (How can we even see now? It has been hidden from the plebs) but WP practice is to close such issues by an admin, not a naive jury, and so they are expected to exclude such matters for themselves. | |||
| ::::::: I am concerned now though about the number of separate places where this interrogation of Panda has kicked off again simultaneously. We do not work this way, that is why we have a centralised RfC: so all can see it, so the inquisitee only has to face their inquisitors in one place. ] (]) 01:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I don't watch much US TV, so I have no idea what they say. But an RFC/U is a place that requires a minimum number of witnesses and "victims" to certify, you must present evidence, and there is a set of rules about evidence, so saying it is completely unlike a trial might be a bit naive. And poisoning the well DOES matter, it is a matter of good or bad faith, no different than intentionally presenting any other evidence knowing it is out of context. You get close to breaching policy there. And anyone can restart the RFC '''now''' if they want. There is no bar. Jehochman has offered to copy the test to anyone. I think I have as well. The closing and deleting wasn't a determination on the merits, it was nothing more than a technical/administrative function. I do think waiting a couple of days to see how DP reacts to the questions is ''smart'', but it isn't required. Honestly, what has slowed down restarting it more than anything is this very request. ] ] 01:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * The RfC needs to be restored and allowed to run its course. If there are any violations of OUTING or BLP in the RfC, then those can be selectively removed without deleting the whole thing. I swear, everyday WP's administration comes up with new ways to reduce itself to a farce. ] (]) 23:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Begin Template:UND -->] '''Not done and ''will not'' be done'''<!-- End Template:UND - nd2 --> | |||
| WP:RFC/U has a firm requirement that an RFC be certified by multiple parties within 48 hours of creation, and that any such pages be deleted should such certification not appear. After examining the deleted content, I can assure you that the page was deleted approximately 60 hours after creation, and that it was not certified by anyone except for Msnicki. You are free to create a new RFC/U, but policy absolutely mandates the deletion of insufficiently certified RFC/Us. If you wish to object to this provision, propose changes at ] or the Village Pump. ] (]) 02:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == ] proposal == | |||
| {{archive top}} | |||
| Given the cesspool of the talk page and its 10 pages of archives, and the ] closing comments of Fut Perf, here is a new proposal. -- ] 11:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{cquote|1) That a new section be opened on the Gamergate talk page for "potential sources" where any new source may be listed in a citation form with a brief description of its contents.<br> 2) That no new section be opened on the talk page that does not consist of a specific proposed change to the article. <br>3) That each user may only make a statement citing policies and reliable sources supporting or opposing the change and is limited to a total of 500 words '''per proposal''' (plus links to reliable sources)<br> 4) That after 5 days a non-involved admin determine if a policy-based consensus exists to make the proposed change.<br> 6) That a non-involved admin may close at any time a proposed edit that is substantially similar to a proposal that has failed to establish a policy-based consensus within the past 3 weeks.}} | |||
| -- ] 11:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion of Gamergate controversy proposal=== | |||
| As this proposal and the proposal in the following section seem quite different (though possibly complementary), I have separated them again so each has its own section for discussion and support and oppose votes. Otherwise things will be too confusing. I would ask ], ], ] and ] to revisit here to make sure their votes are in the correct section(s). ] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>]</small> 16:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - It appears that this proposal, which does not appear to have consensus, has to do with the specific draconian restrictions proposed by TPROD. ] (]) 18:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===Support Gamergate controversy proposal=== | |||
| * '''Support''' ] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>]</small> 16:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' - This is a draconian restriction, but is better than full protection. ] (]) 16:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per notaforum. ] (]) 16:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''', and prefer this to the standard discretionary-sanctions form of resolution proposed below (or would support both together). I think in a situation like this it may be more helpful for all users involved if they are given clear, concrete guidance as to what they should or should not do on that page, rather than just a necessarily vague and all-encompassing threat that admins will ban them if they do something bad – in somebody's eyes, according to some non-specified set of criteria. ] ] 19:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===Oppose Gamergate controversy proposal=== | |||
| * '''Strong Oppose''' I'm much rather see a talk page get 100ks of discussion handled in a civil manner than edit warring on the article over a few character bytes. There is no evidence that the talk page has been mis-used (save for the claims that adding new sections with no actionable steps is a "problem" which it is not as long as they are pointing out potential references) to warrant this type of managed lockdown of it. --] (]) 16:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per Masem. If there are BLP issues with the talk, then the users who posted them, not the talk page process, are at fault. ''']''' 16:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong Oppose''' You don't get to invent new policies to control dissent ] (]) 16:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''No thanks''' We don't need more sources or a triage team for sources or whatever. We need a more clear article and a good way for ''disruptive'' SPAs to be shown the door. ] (]) 18:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Opppose''' because Misplaced Pages is supposed to be the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit". When we start adding selective restrictions on certain articles or topics, it violates WP's basic premise. I'm aware that ArbCom places discretionary sanctions on certain topic areas, but they should be the only ones with authority to do so since WP doesn't currently have a configuration control board. ] (]) 23:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{notdone}} This proposal fails. Please see the one below which has passed. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == Proposed Gamergate solution by {{u|Hasteur}} == | |||
| {{archive top|result= | |||
| *Sanctions page established at ] | |||
| *There's been 23.5 hours of discussion of this, and the measure is passing with a 2:1 support ratio. I will log this at ] and create a page where any sanctions can be logged. We should keep a central list. The log page will be linked from that General Sanctions page, once I figure out where to put it. If this sanction creates problems or is insufficient, feel free to come back to ] and request that it be removed or changed, based on specific incidents. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| I freely assert that I am a gamer, that I do read various news outlets, that I have not edited the Gamergate nexus of articles. I have some experience with disruptive subsections of the encyclopedia. Therefore I propose the following as Community endorsed General Sanctions | |||
| {{blockquote|Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic space of ] <s>loosely</s>''broadly'' construed, if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. This may include, but is not limited to, page banning, topic banning, semi protection, Pending Changes enabling, or blocking any editor with an interest other than that of the Misplaced Pages community and without regard for compliance with content rules. Sanctions may be appealed to the administrator who placed them, the administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee}} | |||
| The idea is to give administrators a shorter path through our sanctions system for topics that are attracting a particular level of disruptive elements. This does not discriminate between the pro/anti camps but is designed to try and restore the air of civil debate back to the system. | |||
| ===Discussion of Proposed Gamergate solution=== | |||
| *Subborned below {{Ping|TheRedPenOfDoom}}'s proposal (and yes I know the page is a redlink) ] (]) 13:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: "Subborned"? (Sorry, not meaning to just pick on typos, I'm genuinely asking in what relation to RedPen's idea this is meant to stand. As an alternative? As an addition to it?) ] ] 13:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{Ping|Future Perfect at Sunrise}} TRPOD and I proposed our solutions at almost the same time, so I took the action of moving my proposal under theirs. ] (]) 13:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I support this proposal in spirit, but I think a few tweaks for clarity and specific wording would be in order. I was thinking of suggesting something that is similar to the Men's Rights Movement Probationary Sanctions.] --] (]) 13:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Ping|Kyohyi}} I cribbed the wording from the GS/MMA authorization (Just above ]) ] (]) 13:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::They are clearly similar in intent, though I think the MRM probationary sanctions are a little more specific on actions. My reading of your proposal suggests that editors be warned before being sanctioned is this correct? --] (]) 13:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{Ping|Kyohyi}} the MRM GS has a very perscriptive and tied set of rules. IIRC, we evolved there after a nebolus form of GS didn't resolve the issue. The implication in the proposed statement is they get one warning then on the next failure they can be sanctioned using whatever means the admin feels is necessary to prevent disruption. ] (]) 14:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Changed loosely construed to broadly construed per wording of {{U|RGloucester}}. I intended broadly construed much the same way that other sanctions use the "target article and articles that are reasonalby involved near the target" ] (]) 18:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - It appears that this proposal, which appears to be passing, has to do with general sanctions as usually defined rather than the more specific restrictions. ] (]) 18:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I just wanted to say that there is little need to challenge every oppose. Particularly those taking the position that this idea is to broad have a valid position even if I don't agree with it. ] 23:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===Support Proposed Gamergate solution=== | |||
| * '''Support''' This is basically DS, except proposed by the community instead of ArbCom, and if used properly, will quickly cut down the disruption. Misplaced Pages, unlike most of the internet, has already acknowledged that GamerGaters don't have a legitimate point of view, so admins just need a shortcut to get rid of problematic editors on both sides. ] (]) 13:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' though I'd specify that gold-locking (full-protection) is also an option. <span style="border:1px solid;background:#800080">]]]</span> 13:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **{{U|Purplebackpack89}}Full Protection is included in the list implicitly (''this may include, but is not limited to''). I didn't want to make it too verbose, but indicate both the user side options and page side options available to the uninvolved administrator. ] (]) 13:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - I noted in the now archived chaotic discussion that I would '''support''' general sanctions. I would prefer that the ArbCom take this case and impose ArbCom discretionary sanctions, whose rules, while rigid, are more clearly defined, but this is close enough. ] (]) 14:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - Oppose full protection (gold-locking) except as a very short-term remedy in extreme cases. It is better to allow questionable edits that can be reverted, with the remedy of blocking or topic-banning the editors making the questionable edits. This will permit us to remove the gold-lock. ] (]) 14:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>'''Comment''' What are we voting on here? The proposal by TRPOD, or that by Hasteur? ] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>]</small> 15:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)</s><small>Now clear. ] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>]</small> 16:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *'''Support''' on the Hasteur proposal, as seems reasonable to deal with SPAs that are just here to stir the pot, as opposed to those that are here to try to actually help (even if they offer solutions that WP cannot realistically offer). --] (]) 15:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' --] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>]</small> 16:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' in conjunction with existing BLP sanctions. ''']''' 16:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - reasonable step in the right direction to keep it clean, especially with regard to BLP-issues. '''~'']'']''' <small>] ]</small> 17:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - This is a clear plan and should resolve the ongoing concerns. ] (]) 17:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Support – Though I think the wording should be revised, and that "loosely construed" should be replaced with "broadly construed". ] — ] 17:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' That should cut down on any problems. --] (]) 17:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''': Anything to stem the tide.—] (]) 18:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''': Something approximating DS is what this topic area needs. ] (]) 18:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''', though it sounds like is effectively just a more streamlined version of the tools admins already have under ]. We really need more uninvolved admins coming in and handling disruption when it starts.--] ]/] 18:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * I am up for this. I am not involved in any way, the whole "gamergate" thing is one big WTF for me. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 19:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' and I seriously hope that more experienced editors will take a look at the issues presented and become active on the pages. ] (]) 20:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Given the scale of the problem I think this is a good solution. ] 20:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''--] (]) 23:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)\ | |||
| *'''Support''' -- too much overheated involvement and not enough reasoned detachment is occurring for encyclopedic process to function. ] (]) 12:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. It's either this, or the topic continues banging along until it ends up under formal discretionary sanctions (and a bunch of blocks and topic bans) applied by ArbCom. I admit that I don't find the "involved admins will run amok!" "this is the encyclopedia ''anyone'' can edit!" shouting below particularly persuasive—and you would still have the same hypothetical problem with a formal DS ruling. For a topic like this one that involves a great deal of short-attention-span blogospheric noise, I might have been tempted to include a sunset clause (6 months, say) but there's nothing to prevent someone from starting a new discussion six months from now (or whenever seems sensible) to review this remedy.<br>Speaking generally, there is a history on Misplaced Pages of sanctions being 'beta-tested' by ArbCom; once the community gets a handle on how particular remedies work (and, for that matter, where the bugs in the process are) then it becomes possible to impose ArbCom-developed remedies through community discussion. Back around the time I first started editing, the only way to ban an editor was through full ArbCom proceedings. Topic bans and their associated boilerplate phrases ("broadly construed") were first generated as ArbCom remedies. It looks like we're now seeing the first steps of the same evolution for discretionary sanctions. ](]) 12:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===Oppose Proposed Gamergate solution=== | |||
| *'''Oppose''' There have been far too many one-sided abusive and WP:INVOLVED admin actions for me to have any trust in this as an effective solution. Until we clean up the admin corps acting in this area, this "solution" will only invite further disruption.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 17:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ** The amount of admin action in regards to this has been actually small for the amount of conflict there is - a few fully prots of the main page, and a few clear users blocked, Titanium Dragon's involvement notwithstanding. Editors just need to be reminded that we should behave like this is entirely a BLP issue, keeping the same level of behavior and civility as should be expected in those cases. --] (]) 17:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **I can only surmise {{U|The Devil's Advocate}} from your complaint that you didn't read even the first line. ''Any '''uninvolved administrator'''''. If an involved administrator is using this to bludgen the opposition, then in short order the sanctions can be reviewed (''Sanctions may be appealed to the administrator who placed them, the administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee'') and overturned by the will of the community. If an administrator repeatedly misuses the sanctions, direct action can be taken against them (warning them not to use it, RFC/Admin Action, ArbCom). There's plenty of chances to prevent against "admin corps" from being corrupt. ] (]) 17:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Do you not get the part where I said involved admins are not respecting the fact that they are involved? Not to mention admins who are "uninvolved" in a strictly technical sense, but have all the same been abusing their tools. This has been a recurring problem and involved admins continue to act as though they are uninvolved. Only an ArbCom case can truly address these problems.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 17:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::*I think you may be misunderstanding. The proposal specifically excludes involved editors. ] (]) 18:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::*If admins are involved and taking administrator action call them out (privately via their talk page, here at AN, etc). That isn't a valid reason to assume the 99% of the admin corps is unable to use this method to tamp down some of the more disruptive elements. All I hear from you is nebulous numbers, no hard facts. I'm inclined to think your entire opposition is AdminFUD. ] (]) 18:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::* I'm certainly no longer in a position where I'd use the tools on Gamergate. I closed some discussions early and warned some participants but once I started to comment more on the talk page I've tried to never mention my admin status or the tools. I'd welcome someone having the authority to step in who is also a relative outsider. Where in my case I stuck around long enough and had enough of an opinion that I became a (somewhat limited) participant in the discussion. ] (]) 18:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' for now as far too broad. Tighten this up and add some sanctions for administrators that overstep their bounds and I can support. ] (]) 19:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **{{Reply to|Thargor Orlando}} If administrators overstep their bounds there's the appeal back to the community and appeal to ArbCom to restore the sanctioned user and censure,restriction, and ArbCom for the Adminstrators who systematically abuse this tool. ] (]) 20:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ***That's really not good enough for me for this type of proposal that has a lot of heat and a lot of entrenched interests on multiple sides. There really needs to be some sort of failsafe in place that will make an administrator take a moment and think ''before'' acting; as currently proposed there's no such mechanism. ] (]) 20:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ****If that's the argument you want to use then we should summarily desysop all administrators as there's just as much protection around blocks, revdel, rollbacking, etc. Every administrative action is reviewable. ] (]) 21:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *****"The idea is to give administrators a shorter path through our sanctions system for topics that are attracting a particular level of disruptive elements." With as much heat as this is generating, maybe a "shorter path" isn't going to help matters. It seems much of the problem beyond the behavior of some new (and in some cases newish) editors is the heavy-handed response, and I don't see how encouraging that without some sort of specific, clear failsafe in place will solve the problem. The proposal assumes the only badly-behaving parties are on one side of the issue. ] (]) 21:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' It's too broad and singles out editors that don't adhere to the party line, Unless clearly biased editors like Ryūlóng are also banned from editing related subjects, This is a bad idea. ] (]) 20:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **{{Reply to|Pepsiwithcoke}} ''This does not discriminate between the pro/anti camps but is designed to try and restore the air of civil debate back to the system.'' If {{U|Ryulong}} misbehaves he's equally as subject to sanctions. ] (]) 20:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. Admin do not need a shorter path. They have the tools and the right to do much of what was proposed but this seems like something that needs to go through arb com.--] (]) 21:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::There is no need to go through ArbCom. This strikes me as very similar to the ] situation. General sanctions there, established by a discussion here, have significantly helped in containing edit-warring and bad behaviour in what is an extremely contentious area. The same should be applied here, in an area that seems even more contentious. If there is one thing I've learned in editing contentious topics, it is that general/discretionary sanctions really do make a difference in how people behave, depending on whether there are any administrators around to enforce them. They never have a negative impact. ] — ] 22:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::There may not be a need to go to arb com over this yet. That much I do agree with, however...if we take these steps it is almost as if we are asking for admin to have the same powers...so why do we even have arb com. No...admin have all the tools needed for this at the moment and nothing Hastuer has proposed seems needed yet.--] (]) 23:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per RGloucester. Admins have quite enough powers to deal with this and other issues, without asking for super-powers.] (]) 22:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:He's not opposing it.—] (]) 23:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *::No...I am and RGloucester just responded to my comment.--] (]) 23:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' This is what we have ArbCom for. If it's bad enough to warrant sanctions then follow process and submit a request for Arbitration. Using a snap shot of consensus from a pool of often frustrated editors displaying several layers of ] in order to ad-hoc discretionary sanctions is not just a bad idea here, it also sets an alarming precedent. ] (]) 23:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:This doesn't need to escalate to that level yet.—] (]) 23:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Functionally, that's what's already being asked for. If this situation is half as out of control as you've presented it as being, right here at AN, then this is something that requires the sort of systemic and sustained response that is pursued through ArbCom. If it's not really all that after all, and this is simply a particularly ugly and magnetic content dispute in a pop culture article, then there are host of tools available to all users to deal with it, without attempting to usurp the prerogatives of ArbCom. If sanctions are needed then take it to the rigorously vetted committee of people that we entrust with such things. ] (]) 23:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Bravo GraniteSand! An excellent response!--] (]) 23:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Opppose''' because Misplaced Pages is supposed to be the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit". When we start adding selective restrictions on certain articles or topics, it violates WP's basic premise. I'm aware that ArbCom places discretionary sanctions on certain topic areas, but they should be the only ones with authority to do so since WP doesn't currently have a configuration control board. ] (]) 23:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:The restriction is "continued" problems, after being warned once. Anyone can edit, and they can make an honest mistake (per AGF), but subsequent disruption in the same line is not accepted. This still allows anyone to edit, just that we become less tolerant of people who aren't here in WP's best interests. --] (]) 00:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *::Misplaced Pages needs more tolerance...not less and this seems akin to censorship in my opinion and/or stopping a conflict that we, as editors have no control over off Misplaced Pages. We should deal with the dispruption in a case by case manner as this is not so out of control that these steps are needed.--] (]) 00:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Mark, the issue is that this off-wiki conflict has been dragged onto Misplaced Pages due to every other community out there already cordoning off and kicking out anyone who has been causing disruption in this topic area. The article is plagued with single purpose accounts and POV pushers who are accusing anyone of disagreeing with them as being the POV pusher and they are the bastion of neutrality while being the ones constantly subject to revdels and the like.—] (]) 02:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *::::That sounds remarkably similar to the ] issue...which went to Arb Com and was accepted.--] (]) 03:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Do you really think it's a wise idea to send anything on a current and developing event to ArbCom?—] (]) 05:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' because, as others have said, we have ArbCom for a reason. Look, just being neutral, this strikes me as quite prone to abuse. I know that there is a way to appeal the actions taken but on an ideological level I don't agree with this "shoot first, ask questions later" style of administrating. Less neutrally, I also don't like Ryulong's championing of this solution. I can sort of understand his/her perspective on the issue, but I have to agree with others who said previously that he/she seems to be trying to "own" the article. I'm aware that Ryulong is equally subject to this rule, but given the way things are right now I can't see it being equally enforced. Furthermore, if administrators started handing out sanctions ''ipso facto'' and the only recourse was to bring your case up on the public noticeboard or the ArbCom (which should have been the one sanctioning you anyway), I could only imagine that leading to ''more'' drama. What's wrong with a ] warning on the article, anyway? Since when have encyclopedias seriously attempted to neutrally document events ''as they happen?'' That sounds like a Sisyphean effort to me, so I can definitely understand Ryulong's frustration if that is indeed what he/she is attempting to do. --] (]) 03:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :On a somewhat related note, I think I have a counter-proposal that doesn't hand out almost unrestricted power and unchecked sanctions like candy, but I've never proposed a solution before. Is it as simple as adding another section to this talk page? --] (]) 03:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ec}} Yes. Add the new section as a subsection to this one using level three headings <nowiki>===Title of subsection===</nowiki>--] (]) 03:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::If you think you have a solution to offer, make a new section with similar heading breakouts like this one, with the first section outlining the proposal. --] (]) 03:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Who are you to say any of this when and the last edit from the IP you claim to be was 2 months ago? Why should my agreement to this detract from its usefulness? And I can't be "owning" the article. I was just too ballsy to suggest something be done about a problem that no one has adequately deatl with at the time.—] (]) 05:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::That was more than just uncivil that was a personal attack. Who are you to question any editor input just because they have just begun an account? If you can't remain civil...just don't comment please. As far as your "ownership" of the article, I don't know if it is true or not...but it is certainly possible.--] (]) 05:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::He is accusing me of things without actually being able to demonstrate any knowledge of what happened. The only people who have consistently accused me of ] violations are the same people who have had to have their edits removed from public view due to their inability to adhere to policies and have brought the external dispute over this article subject onto Misplaced Pages in the process. The only thing I am guilty of is not having any patience for these editors appearing on the article's talk page to rehash arguments that are already on the talk page to begin with.—] (]) 05:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::He/she is NOT accussing you of anything but agreeing with others who have. It was actually an attempt to relate to your position, but you seem to want a tit for tat here when it is not needed. And...you do need more patience. Seriously.--] (]) 05:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It's hard to have any palpable patience in this area when long before I posted what has been called by the detractors a "witch hunt" that blocking one person harassing me on Twitter led to weeks of harassment offsite.—] (]) 05:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Well...you need to try. The stuff that is off Wiki is not something I will discuss, but I have had the same issues before and that is indeed where patience is needed...that or report those issues to the site admin where the harassment took place...and then have patience.--] (]) 05:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Twitter doesn't have the best track record.—] (]) 05:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| * Just as a note of procedure, I've added the {{tl|sanctions}} template to the talk page of the gamergate article to make sure it is clear there. --] (]) 16:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==Application of ]== | |||
| Per the ] and the above consensus, I request an administrator take appropriate action for this edit by {{ping|Diego Moya}}. The user is well aware that the allegations were proven false and that their false nature has been widely covered by the media in covering this incident. -- ] 08:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :If you had read the article's talk page, you would have noticed that I removed the word on the basis of tone, not facticity. Whether the allegations were true or false were not a concern to my edit, the way it's written is. What exactly is the "appropriate administrative action" that you expect to be applied for this content dispute that you didn't discuss? ] (]) 08:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Whether you frame it as a "content dispute" or not, you have specifically edited the article in a way that is contrary to ] . -- ] 08:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oh, did I? What part of BLP? ] (]) 08:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ('''Note''' - before you linked the above NEWBLPBAN threat from my talk page I hadn't seen before the above "Proposed Gamergate solution by Hasteur", that apparently is now a "broadly construed, community-endorsed" addition to General Sanctions. I'm digesting through it now to see what it implies). ] (]) 08:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Response against your BLP violations are fully covered by the existing ], the above consensus regarding gamergate simply further identifies your edit as problematic and as deserving action. -- ] 09:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'll ask it only one more time before I start considering you disruptive: What BLP violation that would merit administrative action are you accusing me of? With links and quoting of the exact relevant part of the policy, please. ] (]) 09:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::That you either fail to understand or are attempting to claim ignorance of how your removal of the sourced and widely covered fact that the allegations were false is incompatible with BLP argues for not only a ban from gamergate but a ban from all articles about living people. -- ] 09:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: No case for sanctions here. Whether the "allegations" should be labelled as "false" right away or be shown to have been false only through the following sentences is a legitimate question of editorial judgment and good writing; I can't see any BLP violation here. ] ] 09:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I quite disagree that any "matters of style" allow us to read ] as condoning any formulation that presents the ranting blog post of an ex boyfriend (repeated ad nauseum by internet trolls )to sit as an unadorned "allegation" when all of the reliable sources covering it specifically point out that the "allegations" had zero basis for being made in the first place. "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must '''be written conservatively'''" and "Care must be taken with article structure to ensure '''the overall presentation ''' and section headings are broadly neutral." and "BLPs '''should be written responsibly, cautiously,'''" and "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or '''is accused of committing, a crime''' unless a conviction is secured". Specifically removing the "falsely" descriptor is in contravention of all of those portion of BLP | |||
| . -- ] 19:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I was going to ask it TRPoD's filing of this thread was the basis for a ] on ], but in this instance I won't pursue it further. Doom, in the future please try to keep content disputes to the talk page. ] (]) 09:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{U|TheRedPenOfDoom}} Your action here is a quick way to earn yourself a warning on this topic. I'd hate to have to issue the warning and make your next minor infraction a instant sanctions.... ] (]) 19:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :The ] concerns a central point in the Gamergate issue where gamers "claimed" that named people had engaged in unethical/corrupt behavior. The claim is known to be false—it is unacceptable to use ] to justify slanting the article by describing the claim without explaining that it is known to be false. TRPoD's request is valid. ] (]) 08:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::It looks like a good edit to me. If readers are too lazy to read the rest of the paragraph, there's nothing we can do about that. And I'm a bit disturbed by the frivolous nature of this complaint. BLP is not a hammer to destroy legitimate edits. ] (]) 15:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *The idea that there's a ''tone'' issue in using "false" to refer to claims that have been resoundingly proven false is bizarre. And the talkpage discussion confirms that tone isn't the issue at all, as the user arguing to remove "false" suggests replacing it with "viewed as false by the mainstream press" or similar silly weasely things because we just don't knowwww what's true. I don't think this is blockable in isolation even under the NEWBLPBAN, but has the user tried to make the edit repeatedly or otherwise behaved disruptively with regard to this topic or the BLPs of the writers and devs in question? –] (] ⋅ ]) 16:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::This isn't particularly a case for the sanctions, but Diego Moya needs to be ''much'' more careful in making sure their edits accurately represent the sources, especially when BLP claims are involved. This has been a recurring problem for Diego for two years at the similar article ] (cf. ,). In my experience, though, he has generally been willing to work out the problems they introduce.--] ]/] 13:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == RFC Problem at ] == | |||
| There has been a lot of disruptive editing at ]. The RFC process has been disrupted. | |||
| There is an open Request for Closure as follows: | |||
| :::Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 25 August 2014) and ] (initiated 31 August 2014)? The opening poster for the first discussion wrote: "Should this article be redirected to ]?" The opening poster for the second discussion wrote: <blockquote>Should the lead sentence of this article call the ancient Macedonian kingdom a "kingdom", without further specification, or a "Greek kingdom"?</blockquote> Please consider the later related discussions ] and ] in your close. Thanks, ] (]) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| The two formal RFCs and the two subsequent “Requests for Consensus”, which were not formal RFCs, are not on the article talk page. The formal RFCs are on ]. The “Requests for Consensus” are neither on the talk page nor in the archive. Occasionally an RFC is archived by a bot before it is closed. However, in this case, it appears that ], who had been actively involved in the dispute over the lede, archived all of the relevant discussion: | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AMacedonia_%28ancient_kingdom%29&diff=630339433&oldid=630338122 | |||
| and | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom)/Archive_7&diff=630340292&oldid=630339385 | |||
| on 21 October, after Cunard had listed the RFCs for closure. Then Luxure deleted much of the discussion without an edit summary: | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AMacedonia_%28ancient_kingdom%29%2FArchive_7&diff=630340292&oldid=630339385 | |||
| That included the deletion of the Requests for Consensus that Cunard had requested be considered by the closer. I have reverted the deletion, so that the entire archive is present and can be reviewed by a closer (although closure may be problematic because of disruption of the RFC process). | |||
| The article is subject to ], and sanctions may need to be considered. ] (]) 04:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :The entire process was disrupting and disrupted, but, at present, a working (and apparently stable) consensus has emerged. I'm not exactly sure what the function of this section is (Misplaced Pages arcania for sure), but I urge the admins to simply let this (now) sleeping dog lie without trying to "fix" anything. --] (]) 05:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Second Taivo. The reason I archived those disruptive and disrupted 'discussions' was because it took to much space up (2560000 bytes) and it was labourous to scroll through, not because of my supposed hidden agenda. The talk page is no longer a mess of bickering editors. ] (]) 06:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Move "Howrse Online" to Howrse == | |||
| {{atop|1=] G11'ed by {{u|FreeRangeFrog}}. I SALT'ed preventively to match the existing protection on ]. <span style="font-family:Sylfaen;color:white;background:black;padding:0 3px;">☺ · ] · ]</span> 21:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| The article ] was protected for some reason (I failed to find out the reason for this protection). | |||
| Somebody created ] instead, this article should be moved to ] as Howrseonline is not the correct name for the page. | |||
| ] (]) 12:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''No''' The article was create protected because editors kept re-creating the article without meeting the minimum standards for an article. I have examined the page you want moved there and have initiated a ] on it because there are no independent reliable sources on the article. 3 references to the site for the game itself, and one reference to a "Questions and Answers" site does not make independent reliable sources.] (]) 12:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **Yes, I did not want to edit the page while it is using a wrong page name. I added sources now, so you can see, where the correct article might go. | |||
| ] (]) 22:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == ] article on Misplaced Pages == | |||
| Hi, I would like to share a concern I have with the editors of this article (i.e. ]). I think they think they own this article and it should never have been FA in the first place. The main reason it is not a universal view on the subject but the Baha'i point of view ONLY. If you go thru the talk page archives you will see over and over again the illustration of what I just said. In all honesty, I don't think it benefits the Baha'is themselves since people except more from an encyclopedic article than a regurgitation of the Faith/Cult's point of view on the subject (see their website at www.bahai.org for comparison). The ] article is very different than what you would find on, let's say, the vatican website (& rightly so) and so on. I have the best intentions when I say this, but some narrow minded editors there make any addition which is sourced to a reliable source very difficult if not impossible and it should not be so on Misplaced Pages. I think this article would benefit greatly if other truly uninvolved editors keep an eye on this article and make contributions from time to time. Please note I grew up myself in a Baha'i family but I'm no longer baha'i :) ] (]) 14:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't have the knowledge of the subject to say whether or not your edit was accurate, but using a term like "cult" to describe them is hardly likely to lead to positive feelings and constructive collaboration. ] <sup>(])</sup> 23:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Note that the phrase was "faith/cult"; this is appealing to people who would use either term, i.e. adopting a neutral point of view. ] (]) 00:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::In the same way that using the phrase "soldier/babykiller" to refer to a member of the military would be NPOV and a good way to start off dispute resolution in good faith? Anyhow, this is offtopic, the correct location to discuss edits to that article is at ]. ] <sup>(])</sup> 12:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC). | |||
| == To end an iBan == | |||
| {{atop|1=iBan removed (<small>(Will unlist from ] shortly.)</small> after having served its purpose. Skål! <span style="font-family:Sylfaen;color:white;background:black;padding:0 3px;">☺ · ] · ]</span> 18:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| And I'm calling it "iBan" cause I think that's cute. {{U|Skyring}} (aka "Pete") and {{U|HiLo48}} became subject to an interaction ban , after a proposal by {{U|DangerousPanda}} (aka "Colonel Bamboo"). The two have decided (see my talk page, "Breach of interaction ban...") that they wish to drop this, and they promise (implicitly, and no doubt they'll make it explicit here) they will get along. There is no real formal way that I can see in ] to make this happen (short of an appeal to Jimbo or an arbitration request), so I figured this is the easiest way to do it: to let the community give its blessing to the undoing of a community-imposed iBan. All in favor please say "aye". Thank you. ] (]) 23:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Aye''', as it would remove the potential of blocks, for either editor. ] (]) 23:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - ] - ] 23:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' --] (]) 00:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. A ban's for when people won't give it a rest; when they agree to give it a rest voluntarily, there's no point to the ban, and it can actively be a problem if they want to collaborate on something. ] (]) 00:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **<small>Given Pete's infoboxes, I suspect that he's in the USA (he has a "visited 30 of 50 US states" and "Route 66", which presumably outweigh "Guernsey"), so he'll probably be going to bed in the next few hours. Here in the USA, it's still yesterday from HiLo's perspective. ] (]) 00:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ***<small>Which I was driving a along Route 66 week before last, but I'm home again now. In Canberra. --] (]) 00:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ****<small>Hmm, never mind then...] (]) 01:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *'''Aye''' - ] (]) 00:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yea''' --] (]) 00:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' It seems the iban has outlived its usefulness and is starting to get in the way. Strike it down. ] 05:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' but with a caveat that they should be reminded that any future incivility toward each other will result in blocks. If the ban has served its purpose and they want to get along now, good. If not, they should have learned, and can be blocked. ] (]) 16:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' since none of them has a problem interacting with the other.--] (]) 17:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' with an understanding of a short leash, per Robert McClenon. Interaction bans aren't just to protect the involved parties from each other, they are also intended to protect the community from disruptive spillover. ](]) 17:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * Agreeing with the above. Given the circumstances, I'd suggest the thread is closed and the restriction is removed without further delay. ] (]) 17:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Thank you all, and thank you {{U|Salvidrim!}} for closing. {{U|Skyring}} and {{U|HiLo48}} have been following this anxiously so I don't have to ping them; I wish them both the best. ] (]) 22:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Backlog at Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old == | |||
| Fyi, there is a backlog at ].--] (]) 02:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Backlog breaking transclusions == | |||
| Hi, | |||
| Theres a large backlog at ] thats breaking transclusions of the <nowiki>{{admin_dashboard}}</nowiki> template. Is there anyone willing to take a look at clearing some entries, there are currently 91 reports there. ] (])(]) 10:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :This isn't the first time something like this happened -- I know it's never ''supposed'' to be this backlogged, but that still shouldn't literally break templates. A technical fix might be warranted on {{tl|admin_dashboard}}. <span style="font-family:Sylfaen;color:white;background:black;padding:0 3px;">☺ · ] · ]</span> 18:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *This is quite boring. Where's {{U|Daniel Case}} when you need them? ] (]) 23:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I ''am'' around; I just have concluded a weekend when I had less access to my computer to do this than I thought I would, and I am in the middle also of getting the National Register listing of the ] properly noted in about 20 separate lists. ] (]) 04:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Just as I thought, off improving the encyclopedia instead of... never mind :)--]] 16:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == there is a content that violates copyright == | |||
| Dear Sir/Madam, | |||
| we university of Somalia ICT Technitian, the issue that i need to report is the content that creates conflict of two universities 1 is a Somali National University and 2 the other is University of Somalia. this is the link of the link of the content that violates the copyrights of their respected owners. https://en.wikipedia.org/Somali_National_University. this information is a eal information that belong to the Somali National University but the logo that pops up when you search Somali National University from Google Search Engine is for University of Somalia. so the actual link of the logos is here http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7e/Somalia-national-university-logo.jpg | |||
| By Gaanbe | |||
| {{redacted}} <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| : Hello. Apparently the image you pointed out ], was included on our ] page in the past (possibly in error), but was removed from there a couple of days ago . If Google is still showing the image on its search page, that may well be based on the previous versions of our article and it just hasn't caught up yet with the correction. For the moment, that's all we can do; if Google is still showing wrong data, that's unfortunately something only Google can solve, not we here on Misplaced Pages. ] ] 10:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi Gaanbe. Thanks for explaining the copyright mixup. The gif was originally taken from the Ranker university website, which attributed its original source to Somalia National University on Freebase . It also licensed the file for reuse via a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic license. It seems that Ranker may indeed have mixed up the university's logo with that of another university. Given this, the file has now been removed from the Somali National University page and should be deleted shortly. Best regards, ] (]) 16:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == UAA backlog == | |||
| In response to the request above, I've handled a bunch of ] situations, but I'm confused by ''Beso de Trueno Mil Novecientos Sesenta y Cinco'' and ''Eternalnameonearthmuhayimanaemmanuel2000''. DeltaQuadBot, which runs WP:UAA, marked both of these usernames purely because they were more than 40 characters in length. Do we normally softblock users just because of long usernames? I know we often block long-and-confusing usernames (e.g. ] wouldn't last long), but ''Beso de Trueno Mil Novecientos Sesenta y Cinco'' and ''Eternal name on earth muhayimana emmanuel2000'' aren't gibberish or otherwise confusing. ] (]) 23:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I remember dealing with it before somewhere, but I don't remember what was done. I think the issue is the confusing length. I thought there was some technical reason it got added to the list. Im on my mobile so I'll take a look Monday or tomorrow to dig through who added it and look at my talk archive. -- ] ] 05:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::There used to be code in ] that prevented usernames longer than 40 characters, but this was recently removed as MediaWiki itself already limits usernames to 65 characters. For more details, see ]. — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 06:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Overly long usernames aren't block-on-sight anymore, but you really might want to talk to the user about them if they decide to stick around. ] (]) 04:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Appeal of broadly construed three month topic ban == | == Appeal of broadly construed three month topic ban == | ||
| Line 1,368: | Line 613: | ||
| :::Instead here is an alternative proposal: that there will be an RfC with a simple statement "It is proposed the moratorium of page moves should be lifted immediately" (similar to ] -- the difference being that was proposing to create one this is to lift it); and if there is a consensus that the moratorium should be lifted the topic ban on GraniteSand will also end, otherwise the topic ban stays in place until the moratorium ends. -- ] (]) 12:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC) | :::Instead here is an alternative proposal: that there will be an RfC with a simple statement "It is proposed the moratorium of page moves should be lifted immediately" (similar to ] -- the difference being that was proposing to create one this is to lift it); and if there is a consensus that the moratorium should be lifted the topic ban on GraniteSand will also end, otherwise the topic ban stays in place until the moratorium ends. -- ] (]) 12:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::::PBS, there is no reason to attack me. You're well aware that I support the moratorium, as evidenced by comments. I never said otherwise. However, I do not support the topic ban. I believe these matters are separate. GraniteSand has agreed to abide by the moratorium until it is overturned or expires. That means he won't be "filling the talk page with debates about the moratorium", because, as I said, he would pursue an overturn of the moratorium in a new thread here at ], as is appropriate for review of administrative actions. The idea that his topic ban will only end if the moratorium ends is draconian, to say the least. ] — ] 14:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC) | ::::PBS, there is no reason to attack me. You're well aware that I support the moratorium, as evidenced by comments. I never said otherwise. However, I do not support the topic ban. I believe these matters are separate. GraniteSand has agreed to abide by the moratorium until it is overturned or expires. That means he won't be "filling the talk page with debates about the moratorium", because, as I said, he would pursue an overturn of the moratorium in a new thread here at ], as is appropriate for review of administrative actions. The idea that his topic ban will only end if the moratorium ends is draconian, to say the least. ] — ] 14:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::: So, by your post above, 6 users asked for a move discussion. You state that this occured after you suggested that no move occur until next year. It appears consensus was against you. I understand |
::::::: So, by your post above, 6 users asked for a move discussion. You state that this occured after you suggested that no move occur until next year. It appears consensus was against you. I understand you're aggravated, however, by calling your suggestion and discretionary sanction, you've given the appearance of ignoring consensus and forcing your will in. Therefore, in a show of good will, I suggest you drop the ban. As my contribution history shows, I haven't posted on that page at all, and have no stake in whatever name consensus decides, so it's not like I have a side I'm on here (as far as naming goes ). <span style="text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em blue">]] </span> 17:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC) | ||
| PBS has seemed to have gone through a daily edit cycle without responding to either ] or ]. While I very much appreciate the input of admins and editors so far, an entire week has gone by and no uninvoloved admin has rendered a judgement or opinion here. This is ridiculous. Therefor I'm going to take the rather unorthodox step of reaching out and requesting the input of three admins whose opinions and judgement I greatly respect, even though I've often found myself in disagreement with them at various points. These editors are {{ping|DGG}}, {{ping|Acalamari}} and {{ping|BrownHairedGirl}}. This could very much be viewed as canvassing but all three are of independent mind and I don't expect any particular result. At this point any result would be adequate, even if it's "no". I just want some resolution here so I can move on to the next step, one way or another. ] (]) 12:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==Blanking of archived AfD discussion as "defamatory"== | |||
| :I did not respond to KoshVorlon because the time stamps on my post do not support the assertion. I did not respond to RGloucester because I think that I have already answered the points RGloucester raised. I have started an RfC on the Moratorium on the talk page of the article (See ]) -- ] (]) 14:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I have twice restored the content of ] here ] and ] following blanking of the whole article by ] with the edit summary '' (removed derogatory comments put in this page about this bio showing in search engine, please do not put it back)''. A previous reversion by an IP ] and another different IP ] suggests a campaign to remove this archived discussion. I am danger of 3RR if I restore the content. Perhaps the important issue is whether potentially damaging assertions made in an AfD should be referenced as, for non-admins such as me, we cannot see the content deleted at AfD which may well have been supported by appropriate references. At present I have simply reverted on the principle that Misplaced Pages is not censored. Any guidance or suggestions appreciated. <span style="background-color:lightblue">''''' ] '''''</span><span style="background-color:lightblue"> <sup>''] Talk ''</sup> </span> 17:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I was asked for an opinion. As I see it. the disruption is the continued focus on the pagename of the article. Such repeated discussions are in my opinion not conducive to editing articles, which is what an encyclopedia should be doing. I support unblock if he is willing to accept not discussing renaming of this article anywhere on WP until the end of the moratorium, and not bringing an RfC on the matter or encouraging one. (If on is brought by someone else in good faith, I think one brief comment there would be allowable, but I very strongly advise that nobody open such a RfC--it is counterproductive to the concept of the moratorium.) I think the moratorium was a very good idea. I would in fact be very much in favor of a considerably longer one, except that the actual situation in the RW is itself unstable. ''']''' (]) 18:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :In response to reasonable requests, we will generally blank AfDs or other process pages as a courtesy, with the recognition and understanding that the content of the page is still readily available in the page's history; see ]. Of course, I would be curious about which search engines are returning AfD discussions—AfDs are flagged to ''not'' be indexed (]), and neither Google nor the default Misplaced Pages search box will return this page when searching on the individual's name. ](]) 17:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|DGG}}, as I said before, I'll abide by the moratorium until it is lifted. It seems like PBS has decided to start an RfC. I'm assuming that nobody has a problem with me participating there in a concise manner. As far as lifting my topic ban, should another uninvoled editor agree in addition to you would you be comfortable making an affirmative action there? I know that both you can RGloucester have made conditional statements of support there but RGloucester is involved and I wouldn't feel good about it without the input of one more admin. ] (]) 22:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I have courtesy blanked and added {{tlx|xfd-privacy}} to the page. There is no reason it has to be visible. ] ] 17:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::You cannot participate in the RfC whilst topic-banned. That would lead to a block. ] — ] 23:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Given TenOfAllTrades valid point and that the AfD contained nothing defamatory beyond the subject not having received sufficient coverage for Misplaced Pages's inclusion guidelines, I don't know why this should be hidden. ] (]) 17:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Which is why, after <s>two admins</s> the only admin to participate so far has conditionally supported the lifting of my ban, I suspect {{ping|PBS}} has put the cart before the horse and stared the RfC now. I would guess he sees the potential for my topic ban being lifted so he's trying to have this done without my participation. Unless I'm wrong, and he, as the blocking admin, wouldn't mind my participation there. ] (]) 23:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::What does it hurt to have it blanked? I do not see anything negative that will occur if a 4 year old AFD is blanked. ] ] 17:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::this is of course an absurd situation: this sort of circular dilemma is a violation of one of our basic principles, NOT BURO. I am not familiar with the working of arb enforcement & how to word things there. Will someone who is please enter the appropriate modification there. Enough is enough. (I can say from everything I've seen here that I will very strongly support continuing the moratorium.) ''']''' (]) 04:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I initiated the RfC on the moratorium, to counter the the argument presented here that is is an arbitrary action with no support. I would prefer to unilaterally lift the sanctions on ], but GraniteSand you have to give a clear indication that you will not only follow DGG's requirement " is willing to accept not discussing renaming of this article anywhere on WP until the end of the moratorium, and not bringing an RfC on the matter or encouraging one." but in addition agree not to discuss the Moratorium anywhere on WP (or participate in the current RfC on the Moratorium -- If you wish to have your opposition to the moratorium noted in the Open RfC I will do that for you). -- ] (]) 11:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{{ping|PBS}} The alternative option, PBS, is to change the topic ban. You can very easily narrow it to "discussing changes to the title of the ISIL article for xxxxx", as opposed banning him from ISIL all together. ] — ] 12:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Lifting my topic ban while insisting that I not participate in the only subject I was an active in the topic isn't lifting the topic ban at all. You've started an RfC on your unsolicited moratorium, poorly advertised it and then insisted that my dissenting voice not be allowed to participate in it, all to prove its broad support. That's ridiculous. Your RfC needs not just the dissenting voices that initially objected to it but a wider consensus from outside the article page which has become somewhat of an echo chamber on the issue between two or three editors. I fully agree to RGloucester's conditions and but you've already nullified DGG's terms by starting an RfC. ] (]) 23:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Where else would you like the RfC advertised? -- ] (]) 14:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::The bevy of previous editors who have brought up the topic should be advised and it should be advertised in relevant WikiProjects such as MILHIST, IRAQ, SYRIA, and TERRORISM. I'd also expand the RfC subject classification. ] (]) 00:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *My view of it, for what it is worth, is that the topic ban was correctly added. There was a request to change the name, there was a consensus in opposition to changing the name, and GraniteSand continued to make edits changing the name and insisting on brining up the issue right away. That violates ]: "proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive." Given this was under discretionary sanctions ] was free to institute the topic ban as an uninvolved admin. That said an exactly 3 month moratorium shouldn't be done without consensus (which the RfC seems to be providing from what I have seen of it so far). But GraniteSand was not waiting even close to a reasonable time before proposing to see of consensus had changed, and that's disruptive even without an explicit moratorium. That said I would support limiting the scope of the topic ban to "discussing changes to the title of the ISIL article" until the RfC for the moratorium closes and then for the length of any moratorium, outside of a single vote and a maximum 300 word reason in the RfC on the moratorium. --] (]) 23:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Your view is worth a lot, thanks for taking the plunge and participating. Now, for what ''my'' two cents is worth, I'd like to point out that the consensus you sight was merely a snapshot. If there was a consensus to not reexamine naming conventions then the page wouldn't be seeing a flood of requests to do so. The consensus you're talking about consists of two, at best three, editors who are heavily involved in the article space. Not that I'd say it constitutes ] but it's definitely some what of an echo chamber where those few editors quickly band together to shoot down new voices concerned about naming conventions. COncerns pop up, these couple of editors play off each other to shoot it down, rinse and repeat. It was for this reason which I wanted to put together a well advertised RfC on the subject, so as to establish an actual consensus, which I was topic banned for suggesting. Also consider that much of the "old history" used to justify this moratorium was based on the semantic argument between ISIL and ISIS, one that I agree has been resolved. My concerns are about the recent renaming of the group to Islamic State, which is only a few weeks old and has so has a much shorter history. I also introduced brand new sources on the topic which has only broken in the past two weeks, thereby demonstrating that what independent reliable sources had to say on the matter had shifted. ] (]) 00:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Bot issues == | |||
| ::: Sam, keep in mind that our reaction to a description like "Non-notable businessman and one-time court litigant" can be very different from that of the subject who is not acclimated to wiki-jargon. So if the suject prefers that the page be "]", I think we should err towards making that largely cosmetic change. ] (]) 17:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| It seems to be a bot been editing while logged out or some technical issue. ]. I will post this up on VPT as well. ]] 03:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Er, I'm not sure which point of mine you're agreeing with. I don't see why we need to maintain a permanent monument declaring a living person to be "non-notable" – particularly if it is true – especially if that person is made uncomfortable by it. (I did mention that his comment about search engines seemed odd, but I will now note explicitly that there are certainly some less-popular search engines which ignore the no-index request.) ](]) 18:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{comment}} Possibly ClueBot 3 according to recent contributions to own user page. --]] 03:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Fair point regarding terminology, I wasn't necessarily arguing that all AfD pages should always be visible, I just didn't deem it overwhelmingly necessary to hide this content. I don't really have any qualms now that it's hidden. ] (]) 18:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Discussion active on ], not blocking at this time. — ] <sup>]</sup> 03:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{unindent}}I nbelieve that we should never blank AFD discussions, unless they're about BLPs and the persojn in question asks for the blsanking. That having ben said, there is no need to revert such blanking, provided that the AFD has been closed and is not currently being discussed elsewhere (such as DRV) - anyone who wants can still look back at the last non-blanked version and se what it said. ] ] 21:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Okay, thanks Xaosflux. ]] 04:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I do agree with ] here, while the language is relatively mild, if it's turning up in search engine results it could be upsetting or prejudicial to this person's business interests. Blanking is cheap, and it's easy enough for anyone to access the discussion through the "History" link if they really want it badly. ] <sup>(])</sup> 00:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC). | |||
| :::Blocked, see notice at the bottom of this board, and more details at ]. — ] <sup>]</sup> 22:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{done}} Issue resolved, block cleared. — ] <sup>]</sup> 22:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{ping|Xaosflux}} You should never block RFC1918 IPs, because it causes problems for users behind trusted XFF proxies. ] (]) 22:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I did soft block it only, so logged in users should have been fine, I also watched for auto blocks and none appeared while being observed. — ] <sup>]</sup> 22:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Banned from IRC? == | |||
| I don't think it matters very much one way or the other, but I find myself curious as to why folks think a rude search engine that ignores robots.txt wouldn't just crawl the "View History" link on the page into revisions and then crawl the version before blanking? <small>]</small> 02:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Apparently my IRC nick (GeorgeEdwardC) has been banned from numerous IRC channels. I'd like to question this, since I did absolutely '''nothing'''. I'm banned from {{irc|wikipedia}}, {{irc|cvn-wp-en}}, {{irc|wikidata}}, and I'm not sure why. It could be my IRC provider, and it might not be. '''] – ] – ]''' 17:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Misplaced Pages has nothing to do with IRC, we have no authority there and it isn't under the control of the Foundation. You would need to talk to someone there. I know, that might not seem obvious, but really, we aren't affiliated in any way. ] - ] 17:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :So... Where can I contact said people? It appears I'm only banned from WMF channels, except #cvn-simplewikis, strangely. '''] – ] – ]''' 17:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are not banned from IRC. The IRC client you were connecting with has been banned from our channels due to it repeatedly being used abusively by others. If you connect with another client, you should be fine. For future reference, however, questions about IRC bans, etc should be asked on the #wikimedia-ops channel on IRC. You're much more likely to find someone who's able to answer your question there than on a noticeboard onwiki. ] (]) 19:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi George, ] has set you a ban exemption for your NickServ account for the #wikipedia channel and I have just set you one for the #wikidata channel. If you identify to your NickServ account, you should be able to join both these channels. If you can't join, poke either Rjd (RD on freenode) for #wikipedia or if you can't join #wikidata, poke me (JohnLewis on freenode) and we'll resolve it for you. Thanks, ] (]) 19:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks! '''] – ] – ]''' 08:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==Authority to topic ban?== | |||
| An admin can topic ban a user at their own discretion if and only if discretionary sanctions have been authorized for the topic; see the banning policy's section . If there are no DS, topic bans can only be done via consensus on AN/ANI, which is in practice pretty difficult to achieve, even in cases where … well, never mind, forgot what I was going to say. Anyway. | |||
| I bring this up in relation to a situation where I have blocked a user for two weeks for personal attacks and battleground editing on and around a certain article. The user has requested unblock and unambiguously offered to stay away from the topic for six months in return for being unblocked to work in other areas: "I would like to be unblocked on the condition that I stay away from and related pages (for at least 6 months)." My whole TLDR block rationale and all details can be found and the complete unblock request , but they don't really matter, as this is a question of principle. I would like to comply with the request, but I would need to be sure of the status of such a topic ban. I need it to be as tight as a T-ban as defined at ]; the user's proposal is made in good faith, no doubt, but I still don't want to end up with an unenforceable ban. Can the user's own offer give me the authority to topic ban them, which I don't otherwise have per ]? I hope so; it would presumably make the user happy, and me also. In any case I'm not going to request a community topic ban, it's too much of a hassle and timesink and would make far fewer people happy. ] | ] 20:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC). | |||
| :In theory, no, in practice, it's not that uncommon for a user to accept an informal ban in order to get unblocked. Given the user has suggested the condition, I don't think community ban discussion would be that big a deal -- don't see why anyone would oppose it. <small>]</small> 21:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :From my experience, any sanction given as a condition of unblock is an enforceable sanction, as long as the user agrees to it before being unblocked. Because they are voluntarily accepting it, you are just acting on behalf of the community by inacting it Like all admin actions, it would be subject to review and the community could override or revert your decision, but again, that is true of everything you do as admin. This would be a self-imposed sanction in lieu of remaining blocked. If you KNOW the community would accept it, then there is no controversy and you are just saving the time of the community. Just as when you block a vandal, you know the community would vote to block them. While it isn't written down in policy this plainly, the spirit of policy supports it, so ] backs you. It isn't extremely common, but it is done somewhat regularly for serial edit warring and the like. I would log it like any other tban. ] - ] 21:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :While I agree with ] above (technically no, in practice yes), I bet we can get community consensus that any topic ban voluntarily accepted as a condition of being unblocked is authorized by the community (maybe with some maximum time limit). That would solve it in theory as well going forward. --] (]) 22:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think this is tested frequently enough to be confident that the analysis by Dennis would always apply—my feeling is that a wikilawyer could justifiably say that an unblock cannot include a logged topic ban. However, it's a model unblock request and I recommend simply accepting it with a request that the user follow their offer to stay away from the topic for six months. There is no need to point out there would probably be a bad outcome if there were a future problem regarding the topic in less than six months. That is, a voluntary offer accepted with an unblock is as good as a topic ban in practice. ] (]) 22:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : {{U|Bishonen}} should not worry that much about an unenforceable ban. What if {{U|Elvey}} happens to make a positive contribution to that topic? The user may be playing with fire, but it is possible; would an administrator block because of positive contributions? Let the user make a disruptive edit and the decision will be easier. ] (]) 00:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| As a practical matter you can warn an editor not to do X, because you are afraid that if they do X, they will get themselves into trouble. If the editor then does X in a harmless way, you ignore it, but if they do anything slightly malicious, you can be very strict. Effectively, this functions like a topic ban, but I recommend not calling that or you'll get people riled. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : {{U|Bishonen}} unblock away. The agreement isn't going to be binding as a topic ban though. Blocks are for short term disruption. "Promising to end the disruption by staying away from the topic area" is an unnecessary added condition to just "promising to end the disruption." On it's face, it appears that the editor is offering more but in reality is offering less ("I won't edit war or personal attack in that Topic Area"). Really, the unblock should happen on a general promise to stop disruption and the bar for reblock would be very low for the behavior, not the topic. Don't even bother with the topic area as it's really just a reason to appeal a future block for the same behavior in a different area. I like the idea of the conditional topic ban offer and it should be tracked so that future disruption is a very low hurdle but in the end it's a simple block for disruption. --] (]) 01:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::], the user offered to stay away altogether from the topic area for at least six months. The other things they wrote — I'll AGF, I'll be civil, etc — clearly referred to their future editing ''elsewhere''. (The small topic area we're talking about is far from being the user's only interest on Misplaced Pages). Anyway, I've offered them an unblock on the conditions they themselves suggested. Thank you all for your input, it was helpful. Going to bed now. ] | ] 01:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC). | |||
| ::As an alternative take on this; admins were elected to represent the disciplinary will of the community. When an editor makes an offer of a voluntary topic ban and the admin chooses to accept the offer and unblock based on the strength of that commitment, it should be viewed as a community endorsement of the topic ban and that violations of said topic ban should be dealt with in the usual way. ] (]) 23:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *This unblock request has a negotiable, voluntary covenant. The user has agreed to a set of conditions for their unblock. If they violate the conditions, the unblock is void by their own agreement. There's no harm in returning the block when they violate their own agreement. No one is making them agree to the terms; they're quite allowed to just stay blocked. Doubly so when '''they proposed the conditions of the covenant themselves'''. Unblock, and if they violate their own proposed terms, block them back again. Simple as that. --]''''']''''' 01:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:No, that is not right. I have seen time and again editors violating their bans with some absent-minded gnomish and trivial change. To say that the editor has voluntarily agreed to a set of conditions for their unblock fails to recognise that it is under duress. It just becomes an end run around the restrictions on placing bans. ] (]) 20:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == How to disengage? == | |||
| This is related to the ] but I am not looking to bring up any other individuals' behavioral issues directly as none of them to me can be qualified as admin actions, only my own participation and behavior. I have been struggling to keep the article in what I feel is the right neutral tone that meets WP's standards but been getting stonewalled. In terms of dispute resolution there is currently an ArbCom case, but the likely result presently is going to be them denying the case until sanctions have had a chance to be tested, so at most in a couple of weeks until the case will be reopened. | |||
| In the meantime, I am finding myself to a degree consumed by trying to keep the talk page discussion going about neutrality and facing multiple editors that simply aren't going to change their mind (but otherwise doing nothing that is ANI-worthy behavior at this point). I'm at a point that I feel I just want to disengage myself from the discussion at least until the ArbCom case can be reopened, but I need help disengaging as I feel if I look away, the article is going to get much less neutral than it should be. I need advice how to do this (arguably I could just unwatch the pages) or any other recommended steps or advice. --] (]) 03:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *As you already stated, you could just unwatch the articles. You would probably need to unwatch a lot of the dispute resolution forums (such as AN/I and WP:BLPN). If you don't think that's enough to force you to disengage, would you be willing to accept a topic ban? ] (]) 04:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Disengaged is all you can do. If I had followed that advice in the past? I never would've gotten my 13-month forced vacation. ] (]) 04:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Just give up, abandon the article completely. It is not worth stressing yourself out by endlessly arguing against entrenched viewpoints on a talk page. —] (]) 07:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I've found myself having to do the same before, unwatch the page and anything remotely linked to it, including some user's pages. Quit cold turkey, then limp away. It is very possible to care too much, about the right things, and have a desire to do good things, yet have it consume you so much it can bring out the worst in you over time. It is discouraging at the time, but often the best solution for everyone involved, including yourself. ] - ] 16:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Sad to say this (because of the specific topic), but I agree with the others - just unwatch and leave. Unlike most, you understand that there is nothing that can be done there - and I'll add further that several of the most problematic users there have gained a bit of immunity, so there is nothing that can be done ''here'' either (or, well, more specifically at ANI). So, bad as this sounds, accept the inevitable and drop it before you get into trouble, and go clear some of those admin backlogs that are inevitably piling up elsewhere. ]'']'' 20:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{Collapse top|Off topic comment was redacted, apologized for, apologized for again. Requested this be collapsed.}} | |||
| :* As, as far as I know Eric has not been editing that article so it's a bit rude to bringing his name up here. Given the last block on his account remained until it timed out, perhaps we can end the "immunity" nonsense? <small>]</small> 00:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*That is how drama gets started, casting aspersions at someone who is completely uninvolved in this. ] - ] 00:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*I would like a good explanation from you Ansh666 as to why you brought my name up here. ] ] 01:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Jesus, people, it clearly has nothing to do with...sigh. I give up. I'm sorry I mentioned it. ]'']'' 03:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::*:So ''why'' did you mention it? My analysis is that you believe me to be some kind of barbaric entity, and you attempted to leverage your belief, which you supposed would be shared by many others, to blacken the character of another editor by comparing him to me. I think that's shameful. ] ] 18:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::* The comment was not a good idea. It has been redacted and apologized for by the editor who made it. Perhaps we can stick to the topic at hand and not digress further. ] 18:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::*:That's your idea of an apology? ''Why'' is he sorry he mentioned it? ''Why'' did he attempt to blacken another editor by comparing him to me? Has he apologised for that? ] ] 18:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::* If you feel this needs to be discussed then please take it to the users talk page, this is not the appropriate venue. And yes, "I'm sorry I mentioned it" is an apology. ] 19:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::*:No, it's not. It's an expression of regret at having done something, not an apology for having done it. ] ] 19:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::*If you redacted one of your personal attacks and said I'm sorry I would drop the matter for you too, I imagine most admins would. Again if you want to discuss it take it to the users talk page. ] 19:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::*:What you're trying to hide is a despicable attempt to blacken other editors by comparing them to me. You may believe that to be acceptable, but I don't think many decent people would. ] ] 20:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*I'm annoyed that I'm back here, but I guess I should clear this up. I have absolutely nothing against you, Eric, and I apologize to you personally for unintentionally involving you in this matter. As far as ''why'' I said it, I've sometimes browsed the admin boards when bored for years (which in retrospect has always been a bad idea so I should really stop doing it), and on occasion have run across discussions in which others maybe express that you are "some kind of barbaric entity". I don't believe I have participated in any of these discussions (nor have I seen the last one that NE brings up, apparently), and if I had it clearly did not leave a lasting impression. As such, my experience is second-hand, without any of the vitriol which, as is now evident to me, exists in the community about this issue. I was attempting to make an objective rhetorical comparison, and, clearly, I did get my point across, but it was in a much-less-than-ideal way, and I am once again sorry for that. I hope you all accept that I was writing in good faith, and we can get back to the main point, Masem and Gamergate. If nobody objects, I'd also suggest that someone collapse the entire comment thread after my original statement. ]'']'' 00:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{Collapse bottom}} | |||
| *Consider it like being in love with a female, who isn't in love with you & considers you only a ''friend''. What's best is to walk away. Don't do anything ''for'' her, unless she does things ''with'' you. ] (]) 19:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **Is this an actual fucking joke? ] (]) 02:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ***A touch of light humour from RL experiences. But, if you wish it deleted, I will oblige. ] (]) 02:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC: General actions over systematic changes of values from one system of measurement to another == | |||
| {{archive top|result=Closed as duplicate. Please comment at the ] above. ] — ] 14:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| Should ] based on the following quotation be enabled? -- ] (]) 09:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{quotation|In articles that have ] solely to the ], as opposed to other English-speaking countries, any editor who systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another without ], who edit-wars over such a change, who disrupts talk page discussions or normal Misplaced Pages processes pertaining to units in UK-related articles, who engages in ], or who otherwise disruptively edits may be sanctioned by an ]. Sanctions can be imposed if, after being notified of the existence of these sanctions, the editor repeatedly repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the ], any ], or normal editorial processes. Sanctions imposed may include ] of up to one year in length, ] from editing any page or set of pages, ] on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, ] 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 ].}} | |||
| *'''Comment''' see previous discussion: ] -- ] (]) 09:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Request that this RfC be closed immediately''' – I explicitly told PBS not to use my words, or my text, for any RfC that he wants to start. He made an ] thread on this matter, and no one supported his bad faith behaviour. Now he comes back here, takes the words I told him not to use, and tries to start a farcical "RfC". This is a joke, a duplicate of an existing discussion, and a attempt to stymie something that has consensus. I've followed the normal process, but that's not good enough for PBS. Instead, he has to badger me, separating the proposal I wrote from its authors, staring RfCs without my consent. I believe that PBS should be sanctioned for such behaviour, but I'll deal with that at ]. ] — ] 13:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*If there are differing views on the wording, it would seem appropriate to offer several alternatives and ask the community to choose one (or none) of those, especially when dealling with a topic where "ownership" of the rules may be one of the major issues. --] (]) 14:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::PBS doesn't have a "differing view on wording", and PBS hasn't presented an alternative wording. He has presented the wording I PROPOSED in a parallel process, as an attempt to discredit my proposal above. I've spent weeks proposing various alternatives, asking or feedback, and the results are up above at the appropriate thread. This is just a diversionary attempt at forcing a bureaucratic process onto this proposal. General sanctions are not established by RfC. They are established through discusion at ]. Close this thread. ] — ] 16:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: *'''Close this''' there's already one running on a this same board above us. Though we don't own our words on Misplaced Pages (nothing's copyrighted), it's a bit unusual, to say the least , to have two RFC's on the same thing running. Close this one and let the other one continue on. <span style="text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em blue">]] </span> 17:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I believe it is an ethnical obligation, rather than a legal one. ] — ] 17:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The other proposal is explicitly NOT an RfC, RGloucester objected to using the RfC process for his proposal (which is his right to do), and so the other one is not an RfC. --] (]) 20:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Close as duplicate'''—While this was a good-faith effort to broaden discussion, there are far better ways of accomplishing that. ] (]) 19:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::"What are the far better ways of accomplishing "? -- ] (]) 12:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' I don't see the problem, if he wants a larger audience to come here and comment on it, it doesn't stop or prevent the previous proposals from continuing, and does not stop them from reaching consensus just as they normally would. (although if/when the other proposal gets consensus this would probably be closed at the same time as moot). The only problem I can see is potentially fractured conversation on the topic, but given the RfC has different procedures and a different audience I don't think its that big of a deal. --] (]) 20:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::He doesn't have the right to force this proposal through an RfC. No where in policy or guidelines is he given the right to do that. ] — ] 20:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::He is free to request an RfC on anything he wants to. That doesn't force your proposal to only go through an RfC (they can operate independently).--] (]) 20:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No, because this RfC is my proposal. He's taken my proposal, moved it around, screwed up the existing discussion and caused what can only be described as ]. ] — ] 20:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If he is proposing that regardless of whatever consensus occurs in your thread, the RfC will reverse that, I would agree with you, that would be ]. Forum shopping is like going to one admin, getting the answer "no", going to a second admin to try get a different answer (and so on). Using the second one to override the answer given in the first. But I see this request differently, he is not proposing that whatever consensus you come up with be overridden by the RfC. He is proposing his own process (using an RfC), that may get consensus before yours does. For instance yours might end in "no consensus" but the RfC would continue collecting input for the rest of the month and might get a consensus at the end of that. Its very rare to have something like this occur and should usually be avoided so that we can have a unified discussion, but it isn't contrary to any policy that I am aware of. --] (]) 21:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::My first proposal was to convert the section you named "moving on" into an RfC you refused to allow that. So I do not think you ought not complain that it is "]" if I I have started the RfC else where. I am surprised and disappointed that you did not and do not agree to see what the broader community thought of this proposal. -- ] (]) 12:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment.''' This noticeboard is clearly labelled as for "information and issues that affect administrators". Any RfC on general sanctions clearly affects non-administrators too. Accordingly, regardless of other issues concerning the appropriateness or otherwise of the RfC, I would have to suggest that it is inappropriate to hold it ''here.'' ] (]) 20:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Are you suggesting that the prior thread on this page about "General sanctions for matters pertaining to units of measurement in Britain" should also not be done on this page? (otherwise I don't see how an RfC is any different) --] (]) 20:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, because community-authorised general sanctions are always established at ] per ]. That's how it has always been done. No "RfC" is required. ] — ] 20:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree with that, AN is the right place for this (and that a RfC is not required, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible). --] (]) 20:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' to the current wording because topic is very narrow (like "British Isles") and could be defined more succinctly as "edit-wars over the order of metric and imperial units", and the scope is unnecessary and makes it too complex. In more detail: | |||
| *# United Kingdom is not clearly defined. There have been at least 2 UKs (and possibly three--depending on the interpretation of the name of ]). It is not made clear if UK includes the nations that existed before the UK came into existence. So the scope of these general sanctions are not defined. For example the proposal sates "solely to the United Kingdom, as opposed to other English-speaking countries", is the height of the ] covered by this article as he was born in Ireland. Is ] covered by this definition? What about ] (is it no because India is involved and is an English speaking nation?), or ] (is is yes because Myanmar is not English speaking or is it no because it was a Province of British India?). What about the ] (1815)? What about the ] (1941), as there were divisions from other Commonwealth nations involved in the battle. There are 100,000 of articles which could or could not be interpreted as having "strong ties solely to the United Kingdom" depending on how the UK is defined and what solely means. -- It would be much simpler and far less confusing if the two clauses were removed completely and the sanctions started with "Any editor who systematically..." | |||
| *# RGloucester states above "The point of these sanctions is NOT to enforce the compliance of articles with MOSNUM". If the MOS is to be ignored then it makes a mockery of the wording "clear consensus" because a clear consensus also involves the wider consensus as expressed in policies and guidelines. | |||
| *#"any editor who systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another without clear consensus" See the previous point on consensus. However this is not the main issue in this sentence. From reading the conversation ], it is not the changing of values from one system of measurement to another but changing the ordering so that instead of "imperial (metric)" an editor changes the ordering to "metric (imperial)" -- or vice versa. So the wording of this proposed general sanction is not addressing the issue for which it was created, as it is quit possible to change the ordering without changing the values. -- "Any editor who systematically reorders imperial and metric measurements without a clear consensus to do so" | |||
| *#" who edit-wars over such a change, who disrupts talk page discussions or normal Misplaced Pages processes pertaining to units in UK-related articles, who engages in forum-shopping, or who otherwise disruptively edits " This is far to broad and besides is clearly coved by usual guidelines and policies already. | |||
| *#"Sanctions can be imposed if, after being notified of the existence of these sanctions" This can be seen as interfering with normal administrative actions, as those who have been blocked for "otherwise disruptively edits" argue that they were not notified. | |||
| *#"bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics" what is the "topic" and what are "closely related topics"? | |||
| *#"Notifications must be logged at the general sanctions page to be effective." This is a very bad idea, because unless everyone who ever edits any of the affected pages are notified then notification becomes a warning system to warn of possible sanctions, and as such editors who do not think that they deserve a warning object to being listed in that way. If there has to be a central logging system the "notifications" should only be logged by uninvolved admins and calling a spade a spade be listed as warnings. (see my comments and others at ]). | |||
| *#-- ] (]) 12:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *PBS you've already expressed your opinion fifty thousand times. Please stop this forum-shopping nonsense. I will pursue action against you, if you keep this up. ] — ] 14:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == The page title "Cross-country skiing (sport)" restricted to administrators == | |||
| Per the discussion on the ] we wish to create a new article about the ]-sanctioned sport using ]. When I try to create ] I get the page titled "Permission error" with the text "The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators...." I'd be grateful if an admin could lift this restriction. I based the titling on examples like ] and ] but if someone knows of another convention I'm open to suggestions. --] (]) 22:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :That title is not protected, nor has it ever existed. Are you sure you have the correct casing? <span style="color:red; font-size: smaller; font-weight: bold;">§]</span><sup>]</sup> 23:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I just created ] for you, so go ahead and edit it as you please. If it was actually not the correct title, let us know and we'll check it out for you (and redirect/delete the title I just created). <span style="font-family:Sylfaen;color:white;background:black;padding:0 3px;">☺ · ] · ]</span> 23:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|Cornellier}} Something doesn't seem right here. It sounds like the message you saw was ], which appears when a page matches the title blacklist. However, there's nothing on the title blacklist that matches that title. Also, it looks like you were able to create ] yourself, since the first revision is yours. Are you sure that was the same page that gave you the error, or was there a slight difference in the title? ] (]) 21:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Help with file deletions == | |||
| Here's three files that I can't delete, because I was the nominator. If another admin could have a look please and delete if they check out ok? Thanks in advance. -- ] (]) 02:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse top|All done, thanks}} | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| Just as a point of procedure, you can perfectly well delete those yourself too. It's not an XfD but a speedy procedure, which by definition means that a single admin can do the whole process. The prior tagging is also not a "nomination" but a mere notification regarding the grace period. The only case where processing it oneself is not advisable is if a substantial objection was raised in the meantime. ] ] 06:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Okay thanks, I did not realize that. -- ] (]) 14:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Complaint re. Drmies & Dennis Brown == | |||
| <div style="margin-left:0px"><!-- NOTE: width renders incorrectly if added to main STYLE section--> | |||
| {| <!-- Template:Collapse top --> class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="background: transparent; text-align: left; border: 1px solid silver; margin-top: 0.2em; " | |||
| |- | |||
| ! style="background-color: #CFC; text-align:center; font-size:112%; color: black;" | Sockpuppet complaint. Blocked. ] 04:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| |- | |||
| | style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; font-size:112%;" | | |||
| I'd like to formally complain about these two administrators. As advised by Drmies, I'll try to keep this short, but if you want the full picture of what happened, it's at the Guy Fawkes Night and Requests for page protection pages. | |||
| 1. Drmies protected Guy Fawkes Night (5 Nov) today (3 Nov) until 10 Nov</br> | |||
| 2. It was not being vandalised at the time</br> | |||
| 3. It had not been editted at all for 24 hours</br> | |||
| 4. This is against policy</br> | |||
| 5. I want to edit it, so I complained there</br> | |||
| 6. He and others claimed it's all OK</br> | |||
| 7. They gave no proof of this</br> | |||
| 8. I gave proof it's not (quoting the precise policy wording)</br> | |||
| 9. They ignored me</br> | |||
| 10. I was told to take it to RPP</br> | |||
| 11. I then got criticised for taking it to RPP</br> | |||
| 12. Responding, Dennis claimed Drmies protected because of a "string of vandalism"</br> | |||
| 13. Drmies didn't confirm this (as it's clearly not true)</br> | |||
| 14. Drmies even confirmed it was preemptive (already known)</br> | |||
| 15. Dennis rejected the request anyway, stating: "a convincing case hasn't been put forward to unprotect. In spite of claims, protection appears to have been put in place for good cause and a reasonable duration, in compliance with community expectations." | |||
| There's lots more evasive and abusive crap that I've had to deal from them and others than detailed above, but I'm keeping it short. So, let's be clear - I'm not hear for justice, I'm not here for punishment. But I am here for redress. People are perfectly free to feel differently for their own reasons (of which several were put forward), but policy is policy - I have as much right to edit that article as anyone else as long as it is not being actively vandalised. I should not be expected to have to beg or persuade or convince anyone that the edits I planned to make were worthy before I even made them. "Why did you not follow the wording of the policy?" is as simple a question as can be asked of an administrator. I should not have to ask multiple administrators the same questions multiple times without getting a straight answer to a straight question. Not following the protection policy is as good a reason as you can get for lifting a protection. No administrator should be supplanting clear policy based reasoning with supposed community expectations without offering any proof that they even exist, and certainly not when the claim is being made by an administrator who so clearly ignored the evidence put before them for review. What I seek is simple - if these two administrators have not followed community expectations as I think is the case, then I very much want them to admit that here. I won't ask for an apology. If however they are doing the community's bidding and the policy is just a complete pile of horseshit (on this one specific issue anyway), then I'd appreciate that being made clear here with some actual evidence, and then I'd appreciate someone immediately modifying the wording so that nobody has to go through this frustrating experience ever again. ] (]) 03:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :You appear to be the latest editor with a confrontational attitude to demand that that specific article conform to your wishes. You've been treated courteously despite a lack of courtesy in your edits. Semi-protection appears to be entirely warranted under the circumstances, given the upcoming date. '''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 03:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *My summary of events is a bit different, but by "events" I mean things where something actually happens. 1. Editor wants a wikilink added. 2. Editor finds article semi-protected so places an edit request on talk page. 3. Edit is performed by auto-confirmed editor. 4. You're welcome (thanks {{U|Gaijin42}}). The rest is a waste of pixels. ] (]) 04:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| |}</div> | |||
| == Proposed deletions backlog == | |||
| I'd be grateful if someone could look at the proposed deletions starting with ] from 25 October. Thanks. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 13:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I've actioned the entries from the 25th, but there's still plenty from the ] and ] that need looking at. ] <sup>(])</sup> 13:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC). | |||
| ::Thank you. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 14:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{atop|1=It ]. <span style="font-family:Sylfaen;color:white;background:black;padding:0 3px;">☺ · ] · ]</span> 19:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| Over 100 request for ], can we get some eyes over there please. ] (])(]) 18:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{tl|CSD-categories}} says 58 now. <span style="font-family:Sylfaen;color:white;background:black;padding:0 3px;">☺ · ] · ]</span> 19:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Closure review of RfC on general sanctions == | |||
| {{archive top|result = Do we need someone uninvolved to bless the closure of a duplicate section? Because I'll do that. The duplicate section is closed. As is this one. Go comment on the original section. ] (]) 02:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| This is a request to review the close at ]. I discussed this with the closer ]. | |||
| Closure requires an uninvolved editor per ], in this case the editor who closed, ], is clearly involved (and so far does not dispute that). Instead he has invoked ] to claim the ability to close this RfC. I believe this closure to be invalid and ask that it be reopened. --] (]) 23:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :See also ] -- ] (]) 23:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I didn't close any "RfC". There was no "RfC". There was farce, and I merely marked it as such. Any attempt to re-open this so-called "RfC" would be endorsing the disruptive actions of PBS, of his forum-shopping, of his bad-faith, of his filibustering, of his bulldozering, and of his inability to work with other editors to come to consensus. ] — ] 23:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == ] closed == | |||
| :My experience with tinkering with a few crawlers is that various history pages, when they're not being linked to directly, are too "deep" for crawlers to reach consistently. Some of the more advanced ones will also get a bit suspicious that the contents of many revision pages are largely identical. Lastly, some crawlers such as Google dislike URLs that contain querystrings, which our history pages use. In other words, most of them probably could, but they don't. ] <sup>(])</sup> 06:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC). | |||
| The ] arbitration case is closed following a suspension period of 60 days. The following considerations were taken by the Committee: | |||
| *I agree entirely with Abecedare & Ten - blanking on request (or accepting blanking by third parties) is entirely reasonable. AFD discussions can read very harshly to the subject or anyone not familiar with our jargon and insisting they're searchable in the face of third-party concerns is a bit harsh. It's not as though the discussions become inaccessible! ] (]) 20:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree also. We deliberately have a relative more open policy in discussions than in articles because we need some way to evaluate the suitability for a WP article and that sometimes does include negative or unfortunate comments. it's unfair to leave them so very visible. ''']''' (]) 20:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: This is one of the more common requests via OTRS. For living individuals, having a page on the internet that declares you are "not notable" is obviously unpleasant. It's all in the history, the bar to courtesy blanking AfD debates is and should be low. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{quotation|1=<nowiki></nowiki> | |||
| == Revoke sanctions pertaining to Singaporean election == | |||
| #The WMF has introduced a , prohibiting the use of the same account for both work and non-work purposes. With effect from 15 September 2014, staff are required to segregate their work and non-work activities into separate work and non-work accounts, with the work accounts containing the identifier '(WMF)' in the account name. | |||
| #{{User|Eloquence}} has on the English Misplaced Pages. While this does not prevent him holding staff administrative rights on a designated work account, it does mean that as he resigned the tools while an arbitration case was pending, he may only regain administrative rights on his personal non-work account via a successful ]. | |||
| #The WMF has a number of initiatives aimed at improving working practices. This includes a new software implementation protocol which provides for incremental roll-outs of upgrades and new features. | |||
| }} | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee, ''<small>→ Call me</small>'' ]] 00:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| were established in an AN/I thread in 2011. They are largely irrelevant now, and should be revoked. The text of them is as follows: "], ], ], ] and ] are put under 1RR and semi-protected". The 2011 Singapore election article specified by the sanctions has barely been edited this year, and I can't find any record of enforcement. There is no reason to keep these sanctions around. ] — ] 12:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :''']''' | |||
| *'''Support''' unless there's something I'm missing. Restrictions like these on then-current or future events should probably normally be drafted to expire within a year of the event's conclusion unless there's some compelling reason to default to maintaining them. —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 16:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Reflinks error == | |||
| *'''Suspend, but not revoke''' Per ], the latest this subject area could turn over is 2017 (but probably sooner). I'd prefer to see the sanctions suspended with a blanket notice to all parties that if misbehavior restarts that the sanctions will come back into force with the will of a single administrator. The fact that General sanctions had to be enacted to fix conduct behavir is indicative of a serious problem in the subject space. ] (]) 18:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| When I try to access , I get "Internal error: The URI you have requested, /fengtools/reflinks/, appears to be non-functional at this time." --] (]) 01:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I imagine new sanctions would have to be established for such a thing. As it stands, most of these articles haven't really even been edited this year. I'm not aware of any procedure for "suspending" sanctions. The article you mention is not named in the sanctions decision. ] — ] 18:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Remove'''. I think that's what "support" means. The "these general sanctions" link goes to ], a huge page all about someone who's since been indefinitely blocked; it looks like she was a huge part of the problem. The situation cannot be the same next time around: if she's back, we'll revert and block the sock(s), and if others are being equally disruptive, we should consider the situation anew, and if neither one, then sanctions won't be warranted. We can't predict it before the election situation ramps up, so we shouldn't retain sanctions. ] (]) 21:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, that's the page that is presently linked at ]. It seems no formal page for the sanctions was ever drawn-up. As far as I can tell, they've never been enforced either. There certainly isn't any record of it. ] — ] 22:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{Reply to|RGloucester}} Here's the linkage: ] -> Infobox -> (Next Link). It seems reasonable to leave these sanctions in place as there is rumbling that the next elections are going to be called in the next year (see the text of the article I pointed at). If no disruption happens then we can look at revoking the sanctions, but I'm hesitant to revoke them entirely (and require an entire new set of disruption/GS discussion) to re-institute the sanctions if it becomes a problem. ] (]) 22:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As these sanctions were not "broadly construed", but limited to certain articles, you'd still have to start a new discussion to get them to apply to that article. Regardless, this strikes me as ]. They are not being used, and have never been used. If they are needed in the future, they should be created in the future. ] — ] 22:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support'''. If there are problems during the next election, we can re-instate the sanctions. ] ] 12:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:56, 5 November 2014
| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles, content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
- For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
- To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
- If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
- Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
- For administrative backlogs add
{{Admin backlog}}to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. - Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
- If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use
{{RfC closure review}}
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Start a new discussion | This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared. |
| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles, content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
 Archives |
|
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 Misplaced Pages discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).
Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.
Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.
Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.
On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.
There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.
When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.
Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.
Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.
Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.
Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.
| Technical instructions for closers |
|---|
|
Please append |
If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
Other areas tracking old discussions
- Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old
- Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion
- Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
- Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
- Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
- Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers/Log
- Misplaced Pages:Proposed article splits
Administrative discussions
Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive367#Close challenge for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus
(Initiated 35 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request
(Initiated 33 days ago on 15 December 2024) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
Requests for comment
Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments
(Initiated 102 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 459#RFC_Jerusalem_Post
(Initiated 81 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. 22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- would like to see what close is. seems like it was option 1 in general, possibly 1/2 for IP area. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Talk:Genocide#RfC: History section, adding native American and Australian genocides as examples
(Initiated 72 days ago on 6 November 2024) RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Australia#RFC: Should the article state that Indigenous Australians were victims of genocide?
(Initiated 70 days ago on 8 November 2024), RFC expired weeks ago. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Talk:Israel#RfC
(Initiated 56 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: Ongoing discussion, please wait a week or two. Bogazicili (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi)#RfC on the Inclusion of Guard Actions and Court Findings on Motivations
(Initiated 31 days ago on 17 December 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice and the last comment was a few days ago. Can we get an independent close please. TarnishedPath 22:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Talk:Estado Novo (Portugal)#RFC Should the Estado Novo be considered fascist?
(Initiated 9 days ago on 8 January 2025) RfC opened last month, and was re-opened last week, but hasn't received further discussion. Outcome clear and unlikely to change if it were to run the full 30 days. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 00:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Does this need a close? Aaron Liu (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would have just closed it myself, but I don't exactly feel comfortable doing so since I've responded and have a bias about how it should close. Not opposed to just letting it expire, though. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 23:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it should just be left to expire. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would have just closed it myself, but I don't exactly feel comfortable doing so since I've responded and have a bias about how it should close. Not opposed to just letting it expire, though. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 23:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
Deletion discussions
| V | Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 29 | 32 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 11 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 5 | 18 | 23 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 48 | 51 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 20#Category:Belarusian saints
(Initiated 28 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 6#Category:Misplaced Pages oversighters
(Initiated 28 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 31#Category:Disambig-Class Star Trek pages
(Initiated 17 days ago on 31 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 1#Category:Category-Class 20th Century Studios pages of NA-importance
(Initiated 16 days ago on 1 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 6#Redundant WPANIMATION categories
(Initiated 11 days ago on 6 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
Other types of closing requests
Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal
(Initiated 114 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal
(Initiated 80 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Survey
(Initiated 71 days ago on 7 November 2024) Looking for uninvolved close in CTOP please, only a few !votes in past month. I realise this doesn't require closing, but it is preferred in such case due to controversial nature of topic. CNC (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: I'm happy to perform the merge if required, as have summarised other sections of this article already with consensus. I realise it's usually expected to perform splits or merges when closing discussions, but in this case it wouldn't be needed. CNC (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker
(Initiated 20 days ago on 27 December 2024) Proposed merge discussion originally opened on 30 May 2024, closed on 27 October 2024, and reopened on 27 December 2024 following the closure being overturned at AN. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Talk:Selected Ambient Works Volume II#Proposed merge of Stone in Focus into Selected Ambient Works Volume II
(Initiated 11 days ago on 6 January 2025) Seeking uninvolved closure; proposal is blocking GA closure czar 11:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading
General sanctions for matters pertaining to units of measurement in Britain
There is clear consensus for general, community-authorised sanctions, and there is clear consensus for the text at the top of the "moving forward" section. Fram (talk) 07:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
- 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 , equally guilty are the British Weights and Measures Association . 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 demonstrates just how much effort is diverted and wasted in dealing with utter trivia. WCMemail 23:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, but where in your UK Metric Association source do you see them asking their members to use Misplaced Pages to advance their agenda? All I see (on page 4 of the newsletter) is a very sensibly written piece describing what Misplaced Pages is, noting that there are POV policies and style guides which need to be followed, and asking readers to "correct any inaccuracies" in articles related to metrication. It's pretty much the sort of neutrally worded message one might expect to see one of our own WikiProjects addressing to completely new editors. The British Weights and Measures Association post is similar; it simply describes a good-faith clarification they made to an article, and doesn't actually advocate its members to use Misplaced Pages for advocacy purposes. Maybe both groups really are using Misplaced Pages to push their points of view, but if so, there's no evidence in the links you've provided. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Support Don't forget, Eric, milk is sold in pints AND litres. Blackmane (talk) 02:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- That particular kettle of fish has been boiling for ages. RGloucester — ☎ 02:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- 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)
- That particular kettle of fish has been boiling for ages. RGloucester — ☎ 02:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- @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)
- @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)
- Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto Seems likely this is a sockpuppet of DeFacto. WCMemail 10:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- @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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. WCMemail 10:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't know that. Good grief. We so need general sanctions. NebY (talk) 12:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- 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 Misplaced Pages other than converting articles in this category against MOSNUM consensus). Kahastok talk 18:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't know that. Good grief. We so need general sanctions. NebY (talk) 12:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- 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. WCMemail 10:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- @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)
- 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)
- Comment I don't think Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process" (copied from WP:General sanctions). RGloucester — ☎ 12:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process" (copied from WP:General sanctions). RGloucester — ☎ 12:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- The diff provided is a former arbitrator replying to a current arbitrator's comment 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)- I would be fine with such an amendment, but I'm not familiar enough with the hidden gears and cogs of Misplaced Pages to attempt to do anything of that sort. RGloucester — ☎ 16:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Support no-one says it's logical, but it's real. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support - long overdue. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support based on evidence presented here. NE Ent 10:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support per all the above, this is sorely needed. WaggersTALK 10:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages, 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)
- 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. WCMemail 17:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- In other words, the scope should mirror the MOSNUM guidelines, which specify "the United Kingdom". RGloucester — ☎ 19:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Ahem. Kahastok talk 19:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Ahem. Kahastok talk 19:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- In other words, the scope should mirror the MOSNUM guidelines, which specify "the United Kingdom". RGloucester — ☎ 19:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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 Misplaced Pages, 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))
- 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)
- 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)
- I can support the version you've just edited, though it needs a bit of copyediting. RGloucester — ☎ 00:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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".
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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. WCMemail 13:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
(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)
- Adding to this post-edit-conflict. I would endorse Curry Monster's point here. Kahastok talk 13:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Okay, let's try a new proposal meant to address concerns below:
In articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom, any editor who systematically changes values from metric units to imperial units or vice-versa without clear justification, who edit-wars over such a change, who disrupts talk page discussions or normal Misplaced Pages processes pertaining to British units, or who otherwise disruptively edits may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator. Sanctions can be imposed if, after being notified of the existence of the British units general sanctions, the editor repeatedly repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the five pillars of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or normal editorial processes. Sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages, bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviours, or any other measures that the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Notifications must be logged at the general sanctions page to be effective. Sanctions may be appealed at the administrators' noticeboard.
I've tried to revise this to make it more clear. RGloucester — ☎ 21:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Does this address the appropriate concerns? RGloucester — ☎ 16:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm wondering if the "five pillars" bit is worth having. Is there precedent for such language? I'm afraid this whole thing might wind up being a civility slugfest.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have a number of problems with the proposed text:
- It introduces an "offence" ("systematically chang values from metric units to imperial units or vice-versa") that does not have a sufficient basis in policy. It is disruptive if it is followed by edit-warring, which is clearly covered by policy.
- If the text about systematic changes were to remain, it should not be listed first, since the main problems are uncollaborative editing on the talk pages and edit-warring. A quick look at WT:MOSNUM, even just the relatively minor example of the current (lengthy) discussion on Misplaced Pages's primary use of imperial units for milk in bottles (as opposed to milk in general or milk in other containers!), should indicate where the problems lie.
- I think blocks of one year without reference to the (administrator) community (e.g. via a noticeboard) are excessive. I think a maximum ban of three months (which can be repeated if the behaviour continues) should be sufficient. Normal blocks still apply, of course, so I don't see a special need for longer blocks or bans using this mechanism.
- I also don't see a special need to refer to the five pillars.
- So how about the following suggestion:
For articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom, any editor who disrupts talk page discussions pertaining to British units, edit-wars over the order of metric and imperial units, or who otherwise engages in disruptive editing, may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator. Sanctions can be imposed if, after being notified of the existence of the British units general sanctions, the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to expected standards of behaviour, in particular those related to consensus-building and edit-warring.
- --Boson (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Firstly, the five pillars are always referenced in general sanctions. Traditionally, this is done by piping "the purpose of Misplaced Pages" to the five pillars page. However, I personally find the piping a bit bizarre, and so removed it in favour of an explicit mention. The policies that are listed at the "five pillars" page are essential to Misplaced Pages, and are in fact policies. They are meant to be adhered to, here as anywhere. All general sanctions include a mention of these. "Blocks of up to one year" are par for the course in general sanctions. I'm merely using the standard measures that general sanctions follow, and I see no reason to make these sanctions different from other sanctions, as I said above. Systematically changing of units without discussing such changes and without clear justification is an example of disruptive editing. It has noting to do with an "offence". This is the essential problem with British units, and as such, modelled after the British Isles sanctions, should be primary. Talk page disruption is a problem, but it is inherently secondary in terms of how problematic it is to mass edits in the mainspace. Therefore, I strongly oppose placing talk page matters first. Disruption in the mainspace is always more disruptive than disruptive on the talk page, given that such mainspace disruption can compromise the encyclopaedia and its readers. Please follow the standard "general sanctions" format". They are called "general" for a reason, and there is no need to make many exceptions for this particular example of them. They are meant to be simple, and they are meant to be general. RGloucester — ☎ 22:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- I would prefer the piped version if that is what is done traditionally. Could you point me to the format for general sanctions that you are referring to. You refer to the British Isles sanctions and link to general sanctions, but you are apparently not referring to the text I find there:
"Any editor who systematically adds or removes the term "British Isles" from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification, or who edit-wars over such addition or removal, may be added to the list of topic-banned editors. For the purpose of adding users to the list and enforcing restrictions under this provision, an administrator should be uninvolved. An administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute). Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) community consensus or Committee approval to do so. All sanctions imposed are to be logged at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log."
- --Boson (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Boson: See the following, from the general sanctions page:
In areas of conflict the Arbitration Committee occasionally authorizes administrators to impose sanctions on editors working on pages if after a warning they repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Administrators may impose a broad range of sanctions including blocks of up to one year, article or topic bans and revert restrictions. See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions for more information, areas subject to discretionary sanctions can be found here. The community may authorize sanctions which echo those imposed by the Arbitration Committee, with the exception of appeal and logging procedures.
- This is the basis for all general sanctions. I originally got the idea for these general sanctions from working on clarifying the Syrian Civil War general sanctions in a recent AN discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 01:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- If I understand that correctly, the formulation is used as a general explanantion or rationale for sanctions at WP:General sanctions, rather than in any particular sanctions text, except in the Syrian issue, which you worked on. By the way, your ping did not reach me, although I have all notifications switched on. Is this a known bug related to your signature or something? --Boson (talk) 09:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Boson: See the following, from the general sanctions page:
- I don't accept your argument that "mainspace disruption can compromise the encyclopaedia and its readers" in this particular case – when we are talking about whether to write
- 270 metres (900 ft) or
- 900 feet (270 m).
- It just makes it seem more dramatic than it is. --Boson (talk) 10:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- It is disruption, nonetheless. Our as an encyclopaedia integrity is at stake, and this particular behaviour is always disruptive and almost never productive. Consensus is critical in this area. That particular text is part of all the sanctions, as it is the basis for general sanctions. When anything says that "general sanctions" may be imposed, it means that these are the "general sanctions" that can be imposed. RGloucester — ☎ 13:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- I don't accept your argument that "mainspace disruption can compromise the encyclopaedia and its readers" in this particular case – when we are talking about whether to write
- FWIW I would strongly oppose Boson's wording because it entirely skips out the nub of the problem. If we could be sure that the mass-conversion of articles would cease, talk page discussion would be easier. RGloucester is right that that such mass-conversion is almost always disruptive. Note WP:FAITACCOMPLI, which points out an Arbcom ruling describing just this kind of behaviour: this precisely describes what some editors have attempted in this area. Kahastok talk 17:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
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." (Misplaced Pages: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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages:General sanctions#Sanctions placed by the Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages:General sanctions#Sanctions placed by the Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages:General sanctions#Sanctions placed by the Misplaced Pages community and considering how we'd fill in the columns along similar lines, for example:
- 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages:General sanctions#Sanctions placed by the Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- The problem is the enumeration
- 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.
- 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)
- The problem is the enumeration
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I've been pointing this out. If we could get to a stage where people did not use DeFacto socks as an excuse to escalate this, but rather did what we really should be doing - closing the discussions started by DeFacto socks and letting sleeping dogs lie - then this would also reduce the problems at talk. There are ways in which we reduce the arguments here, but they require everyone's cooperation and we don't have it. Kahastok talk 20:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- 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)
- If that's how you've understood the issues here, then I believe you've misunderstood them in general. We do have editors who argue 100% metrication and we have editors who argue 100% imperial. Not all of them are asking for it all at once, but it's clear that that's the desired final result. A major argument in the present dispute, for example, is that change would make the guideline more metric and that that would be desirable in and of itself - which misses the point entirely (as Misplaced Pages is not allowed to express such a POV).
- But as I say, one of the major issues is the history of some editors Wikilawyering the rules to push their preferred system. If we could be sure that this will stop, then I believe that this would assist in resolving things by generating trust. I know I would be far more willing to trust that people are not going to systematically abuse the MOS if I was confident they would be sanctioned for doing so. Kahastok talk 20:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- 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)
- Re your last point, that's why I used "including but not restricted to" phrasing above. NebY (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- That goes a long way to alleviating my concerns and is a good basis for further discussion, but the wording probably still needs a bit of tweaking. --Boson (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Certainly. Do you want to suggest tweaks, or talk about what's missing or off so that we can find a brief phrase for it? NebY (talk) 06:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I don't think we can leave in the bit about "being boring", though it is tempting. Perhaps an explicit reference to talk pages and some links to relevant guidelines that include WP:IDHT] etc. would be sufficient. --Boson (talk) 10:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm quite prepared to sacrifice "being boring" - it was more of a placeholder. I had hoped "disputation" covered talk pages and edit comments - maybe that can be made clearer by extending the examples of behaviours as you suggest, as in this draft: "Explicitly including but not restricted to systematically switching units of measurement without consensus and forum-shopping, disruptive, tendentious and time-wasting editing and disputation concerning units of measurement". Mmm - that's verging on too lengthy. Thoughts, anyone? NebY (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I don't think we can leave in the bit about "being boring", though it is tempting. Perhaps an explicit reference to talk pages and some links to relevant guidelines that include WP:IDHT] etc. would be sufficient. --Boson (talk) 10:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Certainly. Do you want to suggest tweaks, or talk about what's missing or off so that we can find a brief phrase for it? NebY (talk) 06:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- That goes a long way to alleviating my concerns and is a good basis for further discussion, but the wording probably still needs a bit of tweaking. --Boson (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- 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)
@NebY and @RGloucester What does "primarily concerning UK subjects" mean? What precise is the definition of UK/United Kingdom that you are using? -- PBS (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I don't see how a "precise definition" is necessary. This strike me as splitting hairs. Like I said, I would use the exact same "definition" used by MOSNUM, that is, articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom. RGloucester — ☎ 15:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm puzzled too at the implication that we would need a detailed definition of the United Kingdom. WP:MOSNUM#Choice of units itself has
"In non-scientific articles relating to the United States... In non-scientific articles relating to the United Kingdom... UK engineering-related articles..."
. Looking for similar scope issues, I find WP:ENGVAR#Strong national ties to a topic has"An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation"
. Sanctions are no more precise than those policies, which wouldn't surprise anyone who's seen bounds tested:"related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted"
,"Articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted"
,"Explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal."
and more. There isn't a great deal to choose between RGloucester's phrasing and mine; mine is intentionally slightly more restrictive. - I saw your list of possible grey areas above. They are always with us. Editors have been applying their interpretations of WP:MOSNUM#Units in many surprising ways and arguing fiercely about many possible interpretations. Conflict over use of imperial or metric units has extended to articles very similar to the ones you mention, maybe even to some of those very articles - I haven't checked. Those conflicts can be bitter and fierce, long and draining. We're proposing to damp down those conflicts through sanctions and, I'm glad to say, we actually have strong general consensus among the combatants for this effort - if we can find a suitably balanced phrasing. NebY (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Would anyone care to propose a new wording that incorporates the concerns of other editors here? RGloucester — ☎ 18:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- @NebY and @RGloucester When did the UK you want to use in this these sanctions come into existence? -- PBS (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- ???? This is not necessary. Any article with strong ties to the United Kingdom. That means that it includes articles like The Protectorate, as that event is historically tied to what is now the UK. It really doesn't matter when the "UK came into existence". As it says at the MOS for ENGVAR, the Great Fire of London is written in British English because it has strong ties to Britain, even though Britain did not exist in the modern sense at the time of the fire. We don't write that article in Early Modern English, but British English. RGloucester — ☎ 23:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- I've made another proposal above, if you care to take a look and see if it addresses your concerns. RGloucester — ☎ 04:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- ???? This is not necessary. Any article with strong ties to the United Kingdom. That means that it includes articles like The Protectorate, as that event is historically tied to what is now the UK. It really doesn't matter when the "UK came into existence". As it says at the MOS for ENGVAR, the Great Fire of London is written in British English because it has strong ties to Britain, even though Britain did not exist in the modern sense at the time of the fire. We don't write that article in Early Modern English, but British English. RGloucester — ☎ 23:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- @NebY and @RGloucester When did the UK you want to use in this these sanctions come into existence? -- PBS (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Would anyone care to propose a new wording that incorporates the concerns of other editors here? RGloucester — ☎ 18:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Arbitrary break
@NebY do you agree with RGloucester's assesment of what UK means ? -- PBS (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- My "assesment of what UK means" is irrelevant. If these sanctions are applied, no-one is going to call me up and ask me what UK means, or consult this discussion for my assessment. NebY (talk) 08:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- @NebY so you are supporting a proposal in which you think there is no agreed definition as to scope. Why? -- PBS (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- @PBS:That's not what I said and it doesn't follow from what I said. I've supported the suggestion of sanctions. I haven't supported RGloucester's wording, which I have tried to discuss with them, and I have floated an alternative approach to a formal wording. I now despair. I'm staying away from the latest WT:MOSNUM monster and have only come back here when you've pinged me. NebY (talk) 12:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- @NebY so you are supporting a proposal in which you think there is no agreed definition as to scope. Why? -- PBS (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
@RGloucester I am not sure which proposal you are referring (what is the time stamp on it). If you do not mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland then you should not link to it. Instead you need to define what you mean by the UK. Do the proposed sanctions include articles about the 26 counties of Ireland that were part of the United Kingdom? -- 20:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not going to play what I presume is a game. It is fairly obvious what it means, and that's why it is used already for the sake of ENGVAR and date formats. "Strong ties" to a particular country, as opposed to others. Ireland is outside the scope of these sanctions, as they are totally metric, and as has been explained above. Sadly, I feel that you fail to realise that the Great Fire of London has strong ties to the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" despite the fact that that state did not exist at the time of the fire. That's because the territory where that fire took place is part of the modern United Kingdom, and hence the history of that territory has "strong ties to the United Kingdom" as opposed to other states. The history of southern Ireland does not have strong ties to the modern UK as opposed to other states, as the state that it has the most strong ties to is Ireland. Is that that difficult to understand? My proposal is in the "propose remedies" section. RGloucester — ☎ 20:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- @RGloucester It is incorrect and therefore misleading to say that Ireland is totally metric. It is far from it. It is very similar to the UK, with TV and newspapers using non-metric, and people mostly using non-metric in everyday life. The only difference from the UK is that the Irish government has changed speed limits to kph, but people still have mph speedometers and speak in terms of mph. Ireland should have a section for articles with strong ties to Ireland being required to use the same units as the Irish do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.215.35 (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not going to play what I presume is a game. It is fairly obvious what it means, and that's why it is used already for the sake of ENGVAR and date formats. "Strong ties" to a particular country, as opposed to others. Ireland is outside the scope of these sanctions, as they are totally metric, and as has been explained above. Sadly, I feel that you fail to realise that the Great Fire of London has strong ties to the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" despite the fact that that state did not exist at the time of the fire. That's because the territory where that fire took place is part of the modern United Kingdom, and hence the history of that territory has "strong ties to the United Kingdom" as opposed to other states. The history of southern Ireland does not have strong ties to the modern UK as opposed to other states, as the state that it has the most strong ties to is Ireland. Is that that difficult to understand? My proposal is in the "propose remedies" section. RGloucester — ☎ 20:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose in Strongest Possible Terms largely for the reasons enunciated by PBS. Further, what does "strong ties" to the UK mean? What system of units would be used for Capture of USS Chesapeake? DocumentError (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- These sanctions are not about determining what units are used where. That's already determined by the MoS (WP:UNIT). Please actually read the MoS and its section on "strong ties" before commenting. RGloucester — ☎ 12:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- @RGloucester: but you have to "play that game" because you are proposing to put into place sanctions that can have editors banned for a year. For a start you give the example of the "Great Fire of London" but it can be argued that is because London is within the country of England and the country of England is where the English Nation resides (strong national ties to the English). That does not mean that there is a strong national tie between the the state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, it depends on whether one sees the state of the (UK) as encompassing four nations or just one -- a very topical political argument. -- PBS (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- The point about WP:ENGVAR is it is an exception to a rule (of no changing spellings etc from the initial spellings), but there has to be a consensus to apply it in any given context. It is from a guideline and "guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts" (WP:POLICY) and if there is an article written in a different dialect of English then consensus has to be obtained before a change takes place. This means that even if in your opinion an article has close ties to Britain, if it is written in another dialect then British English does not apply (EG War of 1812). If the initial author had written that in British English then it would still be in British English. But according to what I understand you are suggesting that even if an article is not written in British English if the subject has strong ties to the United Kingdom then such an article would be subject to the proposed sanctions. -- PBS (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- You stated above that in you opinion it applies to The Protectorate but it does not apply to the 26 counties. Then what about the Siege of Drogheda? I raised this problem of scope in the Discretionary sanctions discussions of 2013. -- PBS (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- I also strongly object to the idea that there should be a sanctions warning/information page, you will also find those arguments in Discretionary sanctions discussions of 2013. -- PBS (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment If editors want to bring in sanctions on changing measurement types why not make it universal instead of trying to defined it to a poorly defined subset of articles? -- PBS (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- This is only a problem with British units, that's why. There is no reason to apply sanctions in areas outside the dispute. You are talking about discretionary sanctions, but these are general sanctions. There must be a page to coordinate and log sanctions issued so that administrators can be held accountable. I'm sorry, but I have little tolerance for this odd nonsense about the "nation of England". Can we please have even the smallest semblance of common sense on this page? "Strong ties to the United Kingdom" is an established phrase in Misplaced Pages jargon. There is nothing unclear about it. As I've said, and as it says at the page I piped it to, strong ties means "strong ties to one country as opposed to others", meaning that in areas where multiple countries have strong ties, it does not apply. I do not take kindly to one editor stonewalling what is overall a broad consensus of many editors above. I'm happy to work to create a good wording, but this is just taking it to another level. RGloucester — ☎ 13:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- ""Strong ties to the United Kingdom" is an established phrase in Misplaced Pages jargon." Where? -- PBS (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- @PBS: MOS:TIES and MOS:DATE TIES. RGloucester — ☎ 01:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- I guess I don't understand why you care about this in the first place. When I suggested using an internationalized form for the United States you said "In English, American means "AMERICAN". Do you think I cater to the whims of foreigners? Please, go to "the Hispanosphere" Misplaced Pages, where they can indulge you in stupidity." Since the majority of this master Anglophone race are in the USA and they use imperial units why are we catering to the whims of the dirty foreigners? I thought you were against that? DocumentError (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Please take your irrelevant and entirely off-topic vitriol elsewhere. RGloucester — ☎ 03:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hmmmm ... okay. DocumentError (talk) 07:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Please take your irrelevant and entirely off-topic vitriol elsewhere. RGloucester — ☎ 03:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- I guess I don't understand why you care about this in the first place. When I suggested using an internationalized form for the United States you said "In English, American means "AMERICAN". Do you think I cater to the whims of foreigners? Please, go to "the Hispanosphere" Misplaced Pages, where they can indulge you in stupidity." Since the majority of this master Anglophone race are in the USA and they use imperial units why are we catering to the whims of the dirty foreigners? I thought you were against that? DocumentError (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- @PBS: MOS:TIES and MOS:DATE TIES. RGloucester — ☎ 01:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- ""Strong ties to the United Kingdom" is an established phrase in Misplaced Pages jargon." Where? -- PBS (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- This is only a problem with British units, that's why. There is no reason to apply sanctions in areas outside the dispute. You are talking about discretionary sanctions, but these are general sanctions. There must be a page to coordinate and log sanctions issued so that administrators can be held accountable. I'm sorry, but I have little tolerance for this odd nonsense about the "nation of England". Can we please have even the smallest semblance of common sense on this page? "Strong ties to the United Kingdom" is an established phrase in Misplaced Pages jargon. There is nothing unclear about it. As I've said, and as it says at the page I piped it to, strong ties means "strong ties to one country as opposed to others", meaning that in areas where multiple countries have strong ties, it does not apply. I do not take kindly to one editor stonewalling what is overall a broad consensus of many editors above. I'm happy to work to create a good wording, but this is just taking it to another level. RGloucester — ☎ 13:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Moving forward
- It is about time we moved this forward. There is no reason to allow this proposal, like so many others, to flounder. There is broad community consensus that something must be done about the present circumstances, and I intend to get these sanctions up and running. Let me propose another wording, using the basic general sanctions format. This wording should address the concerns of PBS and NebY above.
In articles that have strong ties solely to the United Kingdom, as opposed to other English-speaking countries, any editor who systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another without clear consensus, who edit-wars over such a change, who disrupts talk page discussions or normal Misplaced Pages processes pertaining to units in UK-related articles, who engages in forum-shopping, or who otherwise disruptively edits may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator. Sanctions can be imposed if, after being notified of the existence of these sanctions, the editor repeatedly repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or normal editorial processes. Sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages, bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviours, or any other measures that the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Notifications must be logged at the general sanctions page to be effective. Sanctions may be appealed at the administrators' noticeboard.
- This is my attempt at clarity. Let's not let bureaucracy destroy something that has the potential to abate disruption. RGloucester — ☎ 22:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Re:"any editor who systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another without clear justification". What would constitute "clear justification"? Assertion of common use? Assertion that official UK bodies do it that way? Cited reference style? I changed them weeks ago and nobody noticed until now? A "sock" changed it first? Never mind what common usage might be, modern civil engineering uses those units?94.196.212.246 (talk) 06:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
@RGloucester I object to the name of this section it is not "moving forward" (which is a biased title) it is "arbitrary break (2)" (or whatever number is appropriate).
I asked ""Strong ties to the United Kingdom" is an established phrase in Misplaced Pages jargon." Where? You replied MOS:TIES and MOS:DATE TIES but neither of those do mention the phrase instead they state "a particular English-speaking nation" and as such there is no need to define if the English speaking nation is England or the UK. So I am not sure why you write I'm sorry, but I have little tolerance for this odd nonsense about the "nation of England". Can we please have even the smallest semblance of common sense on this page?". So the MOS does not give you a definition for what the UK means, further you are putting in a claim for national ownership on articles which is expressly forbidden in the sentence "This guideline should not be used to claim national ownership of any article".
In you latest version you write ou to talk about "strong ties solely to the United Kingdom" but you are unable to define what the United Kingdom and claim it includes articles like the Protectorate, or in you latest draft are you excluding historical article before 1922 as the United Kingdom before 1922 included Ireland?
You say "This is only a problem with British units, that's why. There is no reason to apply sanctions in areas outside the dispute." but by removing the scope of the UK it would simplify the wording, making it much easier to understand as there would be no debatable pages on the borders.
"any editor who systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another without clear consensus", but from what you wrote earlier "The area of conflict is whether metric or imperial measures should appear first" then it is not a "changes values from one system of measurement to another" but a rearrangement of the ordering of one system of measurement with another.
Higher up the page you said "The point of these sanctions is NOT to enforce the compliance of articles with MOSNUM." then what does "systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another without clear consensus" mean because consensus usually includes the wider community view as expressed in policies and guidelines, explained in WP:CONLIMITED.
In this section you state "There is broad community consensus that something must be done" I see no such consensus particularly as this suggestion has no been put to an Rfc, that has been widely advertised.
Also the whole issue according to this posting to this page was started by an editor adding metric to a page that did not have a metric measurement. Presumably some people objected to the metre before feet measurement, but I do not see why the MOS has to micro manage something like that (first come first serve unless there is a consensus to change it just like ).
Something else that editors to this section do not seem to have not considered it that the the verity of English that an article is written in defines the ENGVAR not the subject of the topic, this means that the advise given in MOS:UNITS is not very useful because ever article is written in a National variety of English and it is the language an article is written in not primarily the subject of the article the should determine any quirks in measurements, although there will be cases where the units used will be tailored via common usage in reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- PBS, if you want to change MOSNUM, be my guest. I don't like the current guidance either, and have submitted numerous proposals over the past year as such, whenever this problem comes up. England/Scotland/UK, what's the difference? There isn't any England. It was subsumed into the UK, and anyway, they use the same units. I don't understand what you are talking about with national ownership. I never said any such thing. Merely that I am mimicking the existing guideline at MOSNUM, which specifies that articles with strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use that nation's system of units. Rearranging the ordering is changing the values. "Clear consensus" means what it always means, which is that the appropriate usage should be decided through talk page discussion. MOSNUM itself says in a footnote that in the event of a dispute over units, talk page discussions should decide what units to display where, and that the existing guidance at MOSNUM is not a hard and fast rule. This suggestion does not need to be put to an RfC. Misplaced Pages is not bureaucracy, and all existing general sanctions were not created through RfCs. If you'd like me to remove the "scope of UK", fine. I'll do it, if you'll support it. However, I don't see why that's appropriate. The point of general sanctions is to remedy a dispute. If there is no dispute, there is no need for sanctions. Given that there is no dispute outside UK-related articles, I don't see why the scope should be expanded as such.
- A "biased title"? There is nothing biased about it. I'm merely trying to move forward. What the heck could be biased about that? My break wasn't "arbitrary". I put it there for a reason. PBS, I'm starting to think that your only intent is in stonewalling this proposal. You have shown no willingness to compromise, and have continually nit-picked over things that are utterly absurd and trivial. You are raising issues that have nothing to do with this proposal. You are acting with a clear bad faith attitude towards me, and it is seeping into myself as well. Please explain, PBS, what exactly it is that you want me to do to make this proposal work? If there isn't anything I can do, then there is no point in continuing this discourse. As it is now, it seems as if you are trying to make me write a legalistic document that specifies every potential technicality in existence. No other general sanctions outfit does this, and I don't see why it is necessary here. The administrator in question has discretion in interpreting the basic framework, as he does with all general sanctions. He is held to account by the logging of sanctions, and by the ability of those sanctioned to appeal. There is no need whatsoever to write a constitution here. RGloucester — ☎ 21:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Another question for PBS. It is quite clear you don't like my general sanctions proposal. However, there is a widely acknowledged problem with units of measurement in UK-related articles. This problem needs solving, and has caused inordinate disruption. I am trying to remedy that situation, and so far, no one else has visibly tried or succeeded in doing so. Given that you have a great distaste for my proposal, what is your proposal to deal with these problems? If you haven't got one, that says something. There is no reason to allow this disruption to continue. I don't care how it is curtailed, but it needs to be settled. RGloucester — ☎ 23:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- I am sorry but I am rather busy at the moment, but I will answer some of your points in detail in about 18 hours or so. In the mean time I would like you to consider the article Berlin Victory Column which is written in British English, but has yet to have imperial measurements on it. I would also like you to consider articles on the Allied bombing in world War II and how to decide which metric conversions to use when the article says 100 tons of bombs were dropped, but the secondary sources do not make if clear if they mean short or long tons. -- PBS (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- I don't care about that. None of that matters with regard to these sanctions. That's to be determined by MOSNUM. I don't understand why you are bringing up inconsequential stuff here. This is not about MOSNUM, or what conversions to use. No article is forced to comply with MOSNUM, anyway. It is just a guideline. The only purpose of these sanctions is to sanction disruptive editors. What units we use where is inconsequential to this proposal. RGloucester — ☎ 22:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- I am sorry but I am rather busy at the moment, but I will answer some of your points in detail in about 18 hours or so. In the mean time I would like you to consider the article Berlin Victory Column which is written in British English, but has yet to have imperial measurements on it. I would also like you to consider articles on the Allied bombing in world War II and how to decide which metric conversions to use when the article says 100 tons of bombs were dropped, but the secondary sources do not make if clear if they mean short or long tons. -- PBS (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- That's not how the present guidelines are arranged, PBS. At present, if one is writing an article that is not related to the United Kingdom in British English, the guidelines specify that one should use solely metric. Regardless, PBS, this has nothing to do with the sanctions. If you'd like to change the guidelines at MOSNUM, as I've said, please do. I don't like the existing guidance. These sanctions, however, have nothing to do with what units are used where. If you'd like to change the guidelines, go to WT:MOSNUM and contribute a proposal there. In the mean-time, however, I'd like you to respond to my question. That is, what exactly can I do to make this proposal work, and if I can't, what is your proposal to solve this disruption? RGloucester — ☎ 17:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- @RGloucester "if one is writing an article that is not related to the United Kingdom in British English, the guidelines specify that one should use solely metric" where? -- PBS (talk) 09:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- That's not how the present guidelines are arranged, PBS. At present, if one is writing an article that is not related to the United Kingdom in British English, the guidelines specify that one should use solely metric. Regardless, PBS, this has nothing to do with the sanctions. If you'd like to change the guidelines at MOSNUM, as I've said, please do. I don't like the existing guidance. These sanctions, however, have nothing to do with what units are used where. If you'd like to change the guidelines, go to WT:MOSNUM and contribute a proposal there. In the mean-time, however, I'd like you to respond to my question. That is, what exactly can I do to make this proposal work, and if I can't, what is your proposal to solve this disruption? RGloucester — ☎ 17:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose - existing procedures cover such issues perfectly well; experienced users are well aware of the need to discuss edits that are contested by others. When people don't discuss them and cause disruption, they can be appropriately warned/blocked etc.
- A great many new (and new-ish) users are likely to have strong feelings about metric/imperial measurement in the UK. Blasting them with discretionary sanctions without giving them a fair opportunity (and appropriate reminders/warnings) is not conducive to the goal of attracting editors.
- This would be creeping bureaucracy, increasing rules and complexity which discourages participation from people outside regular editors.
- Certain users are always going to edit-war over what many consider the most trivial of entries; adding further rules about the specific areas does nothing to resolve that problem - in fact it is likely to cause further wasted time arguing over the nuance of the specific rules.
- Let people discuss the issue as much as they wish, in an appropriate and cordial manner - indeed encourage such discussion. Use appropriate existing measures to stop edit-wars and deal with those who cause disruption across articles in an appropriate manner.
- In general, admins can be too keen to stomp on anything that causes them work; they would do well to remember that the purpose of Misplaced Pages is to present knowledge, and while it is important to prevent disruption it is not to prevent reasonable discussion.
- There are over 9000 similarly 'trivial' topics of frequent and heated discussion, and discretionary sanctions should be reserved for use only when absolutely necessary to prevent disruption.
- This sounds like a measure proposed to stop the actions of one (or perhaps a few) disruptive and persistent individuals - I can appreciate that it may make it easier to deal with those specific cases, but I fear it is at the cost of imposing unnecessarily draconian laws upon a great many other users. 88.104.22.153 (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Point of order - is there any admin action still being requested? If not, this discussion should be closed. Discussing changes to policy/guidelines can take place in the appropriate places; AN isn't one of them. 88.104.22.153 (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- You do realise, firstly, that general sanctions are always established at AN. This has nothing to do with policy or guidelines, so please stop. No one will get "smacked with discretionary sanctions" unless they behave disruptively. Give that you're a likely sock, I don't think it is really worth engaging with you further. RGloucester — ☎ 22:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- I wish that personal attacks such as that were actually dealt with appropriately. Sir, if you think I'm a sock, you know how to deal with such a matter - SPI or GTFO.
- I know that general sanctions can be established at AN. Is there still a request for such, or have we moved on now to a discussion of policy/guidelines? If it's the latter, it no longer belongs on AN - I hope you'll agree. I believe, at this point, this discussion is unlikely to result in any admin action; if there is an admin action requested, perhaps it could be clearly stated and !voted upon. 88.104.22.153 (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- No "admin action", whatever that is, was ever requested. We don't need an administrator to set-up these sanctions. I couldn't give a damn about the policy or guidelines. This is not a request. Presuming that the discussion is closed in favour of establishing these sanctions, they will be established. Said "action" was endorsed by a great many users above. The only dispute has been over the wording itself as proposed. RGloucester — ☎ 02:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Any process needs a well advertised RfC to show that there is a consensus for the process. This is not a well watched page and the score of editors who have expressed an opinion to date can easily be described as "a limited group of editors, at one place and time" (WP:CONLIMITED) -- PBS (talk) 09:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- @PBS:, in response to your first question, WP:UNIT says that articles that do not have strong ties to the United Kingdom or the United States should be written entirely in metric. No "RFC" is required. Why is it that no other general sanctions were established by RfC? Why is it that they were all established at this noticeboard? Why is it that this proposal is somehow an exception to the norm? Why is it that something that does not affect everyday editors is considered so significant? RGloucester — ☎ 15:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- If there is a real consensus for such sanctions then that will be reflected in the outcome of a widely advertised RfC. Quite frankly it concerns me that "a limited group of editors, at one place and time" can bring in sanctions which may then get a person banned for a year. I would suggest that all such sanction proposals should be subject to a widely advertised RfC. This one in particular is badly defined and potentially affects 100,000s of articles and hence could involved almost every editor unless they restrict their editing to a very narrow field of topics
- I can not find anything that says "articles that do not have strong ties to the United Kingdom or the United States should be written entirely in metric" please quote the sentence in WP:UNIT. I think you are misunderstanding the first two sentences of the guideline. Because if it were true then for example the box at the start of the article on France need to have the imperial measurements removed, as does the article on the Republic of Ireland. I also think that it opens up an interesting consideration, in that if the language is in a national verity of English why would one switch units depending on locaiton? Do Americans suddenly understand the metric system when reading about the weight of a Frenchman but fail to understand a weight expressed that way for an American? -- PBS (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- PBS, if you want to force RfCs for all general sanctions, please go gain consensus for creating such a policy. It does not exist at present. No one will "banned for a year" unless they cause such severe disruption that they would've been blocked for a year anyway without the sanctions. The uninvolved administrators that can issue sanctions are held to account by logging and by appeals to WP:AN. It doesn't affect any editor that does not systematically change units or disrupt unit-related discussions. That's a very small niche of editors, and even then, they must first be notified that the sanctions exist before having to worry about sanctions. If you read WP:UNIT, you will see that metric is specified as primary in instances of articles not related to the UK or US. I think you're misinterpreting my words, anyway, because conversions are always given in such cases, as it says at MOS:CONVERSIONS. The dispute has never been over whether to use metric or imperial without conversions. Conversions are a separate part of the guidelines, MOS:CONVERSIONS. The dispute is over what unit is primary. In articles not related to the UK or US, metric is primary. The guidelines are clear. RGloucester — ☎ 17:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- @PBS:, in response to your first question, WP:UNIT says that articles that do not have strong ties to the United Kingdom or the United States should be written entirely in metric. No "RFC" is required. Why is it that no other general sanctions were established by RfC? Why is it that they were all established at this noticeboard? Why is it that this proposal is somehow an exception to the norm? Why is it that something that does not affect everyday editors is considered so significant? RGloucester — ☎ 15:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Any process needs a well advertised RfC to show that there is a consensus for the process. This is not a well watched page and the score of editors who have expressed an opinion to date can easily be described as "a limited group of editors, at one place and time" (WP:CONLIMITED) -- PBS (talk) 09:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- No "admin action", whatever that is, was ever requested. We don't need an administrator to set-up these sanctions. I couldn't give a damn about the policy or guidelines. This is not a request. Presuming that the discussion is closed in favour of establishing these sanctions, they will be established. Said "action" was endorsed by a great many users above. The only dispute has been over the wording itself as proposed. RGloucester — ☎ 02:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- You do realise, firstly, that general sanctions are always established at AN. This has nothing to do with policy or guidelines, so please stop. No one will get "smacked with discretionary sanctions" unless they behave disruptively. Give that you're a likely sock, I don't think it is really worth engaging with you further. RGloucester — ☎ 22:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
@RGloucester If one person proposes general sanctions on an issue on this page, and no-objects then would you say that a consensus exists for those sanctions? -- PBS (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Of course not. That's not what has happened here. RGloucester — ☎ 20:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Then how many editors do you think make a quorum? -- PBS (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- @PBS: I don't think we have "quorums" here. We have discussions. If, in the course of a discussion on a public noticeboard, the majority of editors who participate support the enacting of some proposal with adequate justification in policy and guidelines, that proposal should be enacted. It isn't really that complicated, and is how practically everything on Misplaced Pages works. If you'd like to establish a rule on "quorums", please go do so. There is no such rule, and I've never seen a case where some abstract notion of a "quorum" was required for anything on Misplaced Pages. I also do not understand how this affects the proposal I've made. Instead of dealing in the abstract, please explain, as I've asked, how I can make this proposal work for you, or, if you have another proposal, please tell us. I'm being quite generous, here. RGloucester — ☎ 16:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- But you have just agreed that one is not enough so you do believe in the concept of a quorum, and the number of editors who have commented here is very small given the number of pages that are involved.
- You have not been able to define the scope as you seem incapable of defining what the UK means, this is particularly problematic for articles on history. For example does it include British India? Does it involve the American and Australian colonies before independence/dominion status? Does it apply to the Duke of Wellington as he was born in Ireland before the act of Union, does it apply to the Battle of Waterloo?
- "any editor who systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another without clear consensus" You have said that it is not about changing the values from one system of measurement to another, but about altering the sequence in which they are presented.
- "any editor who systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another without clear consensus" You have said this is nothing to do with the MOS, yet if it is not to do with the MOS then how does one defined a "clear consensus" Usually changing articles to comply with the MOS is seen as following consensus broadly defined, so what is your definition for "clear consensus"?
- Edit war does not cover your concern over people moving from one article to another systematically rearranging the order.
- uninvolved administrator, as nearly every British editor and many other editors will have edited the "topic area" (as defined in WP:UNINVOLVED who exactly do you think are going to be the administrators to enforce these sanctions?
- " bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics" what is the "topic" and what are "closely related topics"?
- "Notifications must be logged at the general sanctions page to be effective." What does "Notifications" mean?
- At a practical level there must be at least 100,000 biographies about British people on the system, 10s of thousands of articles about places, I can not even guess how many history pages, who is going work out to which talk pages to add templates? You can not use British English templates that already exist because they do not relate to the UK (eg Berlin Victory Column). If there is no warning template presumably the sanctions do not apply.
- -- PBS (talk) 13:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- No talk templates would be necessary. Notifications would be issued to editors who change units from value to the other in UK-related issues. These notifications would be the same as for any other general sanctions, no different. I know you are familiar with them, as you've issued them before. The process of notification is described at WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts. The notification would be logged. Then, if they caused disruption as specified by the sanctions, an administrator could sanction them. "Consensus" refers to talk page consensus, which the MoS defers to in matters of units. If you took the time read the MoS section on units, you'd see that talk page consensus is more important than the guidelines. In the event of a dispute over what units to make primary, it says in a footnote, discussion on the talk page should decide what units are appropriate. The "topic" is units of measurement in the United Kingdom. I'm fairly certain that you're aware than at "uninvolved administrator" is one that did not partake in the dispute, and there are plenty of administrators who do not systematically flip units around. In fact, I've never met one that did. The scope is clear. Articles with strong ties solely to the United Kingdom, as opposed to other English-speaking countries. That means that articles that only have strong ties to the UK, such as Edinburgh, would be covered. Altering the sequence is changing the values. RGloucester — ☎ 14:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- @PBS: I don't think we have "quorums" here. We have discussions. If, in the course of a discussion on a public noticeboard, the majority of editors who participate support the enacting of some proposal with adequate justification in policy and guidelines, that proposal should be enacted. It isn't really that complicated, and is how practically everything on Misplaced Pages works. If you'd like to establish a rule on "quorums", please go do so. There is no such rule, and I've never seen a case where some abstract notion of a "quorum" was required for anything on Misplaced Pages. I also do not understand how this affects the proposal I've made. Instead of dealing in the abstract, please explain, as I've asked, how I can make this proposal work for you, or, if you have another proposal, please tell us. I'm being quite generous, here. RGloucester — ☎ 16:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Then how many editors do you think make a quorum? -- PBS (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Of course not. That's not what has happened here. RGloucester — ☎ 20:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm giving some thought to closing this thread, simply because it has gone on at length and I don't see what is going on at that requires continued discussion at this page. Perhaps participants could move it elsewhere voluntarily? Or show why it absolutely has to be here?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- General sanctions are always established at WP:AN. RGloucester — ☎ 16:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- I know, but the best that can be said on that score is "no consensus" at present. You need to build some support, and that's not obviously present right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- How can you say that? The only person that is vehement opposed is PBS. Otherwise, there is a well of support. Are you going to allow PBS a filibuster on this proposal? I've tried working with him, as you can see above. RGloucester — ☎ 17:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Then perhaps one idea is for you to ping them, and the others who have expressed support or oppose to various versions, to come back and re-engage to see if there is consensus on your most recent language. I think it needs to be seen that there is broad agreement to the same thing. Because some of those !votes are three weeks old, and a lot of discussion has passed since then.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- How can you say that? The only person that is vehement opposed is PBS. Otherwise, there is a well of support. Are you going to allow PBS a filibuster on this proposal? I've tried working with him, as you can see above. RGloucester — ☎ 17:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- I know, but the best that can be said on that score is "no consensus" at present. You need to build some support, and that's not obviously present right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- General sanctions are always established at WP:AN. RGloucester — ☎ 16:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Wee Curry Monster:@Nyttend:@Roxy the dog:@Blackmane:@Eric Corbett:@VandVictory:@NebY:@Lesser Cartographies:@Michael Glass:@NE Ent:@Kahastok:@Sjones23:@The Rambling Man:@Waggers: Per Wehwalt's suggestion above, I am pinging all editors that have participated here. Please evaluate the newest wording proposal, at the top of this section. RGloucester — ☎ 19:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- New ping per above: @Callanecc:@Psychonaut:@Boson: RGloucester — ☎ 13:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support—The value (in my opinion) lies not in how many tendentious editors will be blocked, but rather in putting up a big, red, rotating sign that says "Danger, don't poke here." Perfect language to do this doesn't exist; the current proposal is more than adequate to communicate what needs to be communicated. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support Its one editor who has not experienced the particular frustration of being in the middle of two warring parties who has spun out what was a clear consensus for this. There has been a desperate need for some measure to stop the nuisance of constant battles over trivia. Long overdue. WCMemail 21:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- I basically agree with Lesser Cartographies and Curry Monster, but would make further comments.
- I think that PBS does raise some good points. In most circumstances we would consider aligning an article with the MOS to be editing with the global consensus. While RGloucester is right that the MOS does encourage talk page discussion and deliberately leaves room for exceptions where there are genuinely good reasons for them, there is the question of what happens where there are not, and whether we should just freeze those inconsistencies in time (and note that this is an open question - some have advocated this independently of these sanctions). I also think that a specific reference to switching the order of units may be useful as this is primarily what we mean when we say "changes values from one system of measurement to another". Most measurements in most cases should have a conversion regardless.
- But in other areas I think PBS is not right. Strong national ties is a fairly standard description, and ultimately what matters is what rule is being applied. If the UK rule is being applied, then the sanctions may apply. If consensus is that the UK rule does not apply, then normal editing conditions apply. If people are disputing as to whether the UK rule applies or not, then we can apply sanctions if they are judged to be appropriate. Sanctions are not going to be applied by bots but by admins who (we would hope) can tell if/when somebody is deliberately interpreting this point too broadly or too narrowly. Worst comes to the worst, we can discuss the individual case here.
- All in all, so long as we are clear that "changes values from one system of measurement to another" includes switching the order of units, I feel that my concerns are outweighed by the benefits of the proposal and thus I would support. Kahastok talk 21:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think it is fairly clear that "changes values from one system of measurement to another" means switching the order. I can't think of any better way to word it, and I think it is clear. If you have a concise alternative wording for that phrase, feel free to propose it. RGloucester — ☎ 22:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support There's just too much being invested by disruptive editors in such a small matter as this. Having lived in the UK, I've found that most people will use one or the other simply through familiarity, personally I learnt to convert between various imperial and metric systems out of courtesy to others even though by trade I deal with metric measurements. Misplaced Pages should be catering to all readers regardless of their preferences. Blackmane (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support NE Ent 23:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support That wording is fine, good job RGloucester. WaggersTALK 08:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support VandVictory (talk) 04:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support Sanctions are needed, as discussed above. The wording is adequate and viable. NebY (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support as long as it is clear that swapping the order per User:Kahastok is covered. MilborneOne (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- I've been thinking about this. Would it be a good idea to put the words "(including switching the displayed primary unit with the conversion)" or something to that effect after "systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another"? It makes it a bit longer and I think it's understood now that it's included but I think it's worth making it explicit. Kahastok talk 11:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps any editor who changes the order of presentation or systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another without ... - as an aside we keep using primary and secondary which I think signals the wrong impression, the MoS also has the same issue. MilborneOne (talk) 11:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think recent changes to the MOS have actually made those words a bit more prominent, and I think you may have a point about them. I would be happy with your wording - but do we need to get ensure that "systematically" applies to changing the order of presentation as well? Kahastok talk 12:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- You're making it more complicated than is necessary. This is clearly what the existing text refers to. Remember, it is not the editor's interpretation of the text that matters, but the uninvolved administrator's. There is no chance for Wiki-lawyering, and anyone can refer to this discussion to confirm it if it necessary. The text of this discussion becomes the "community decision" that authorises the sanctions. There is nothing unclear about the present wording. Please don't get further bogged down in details. RGloucester — ☎ 15:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with RGloucester but I'd put it more strongly; if we carry on re-drafting, we will never have these sorely needed sanctions. The current wording is adequate for the task. It's futile to seek perfection; other sanctions aren't perfectly worded either, but they work nevertheless. NebY (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- If there is one thing I have learnt on this topic, and in observing other sanctions dealing with editors liable to Wikilawyer, it is that it is very unusual for there to be genuinely "no chance for Wiki-lawyering". It helps if things are tied down and it helps if admins wanting to enforce the sanction don't have to wade through this much text.
- I think recent changes to the MOS have actually made those words a bit more prominent, and I think you may have a point about them. I would be happy with your wording - but do we need to get ensure that "systematically" applies to changing the order of presentation as well? Kahastok talk 12:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- If there is this much resistance to a change in the wording, perhaps an alternative would be for the closer - if they find consensus for the point and if they find that this interpretation has consensus (and no-one has objected to it so far) - to mention the point explicitly in the close? Kahastok talk 17:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Kahastok: There is resistance for a few reasons. Firstly, it will make the wording extremely complicated and clunky for no good reason. Secondly, we are not writing a constitution here. We should mirror what other sanctions use. There is no need specify every little thing. Thirdly, such "re-draughting" is only likely to result in further delays. Fourthly, it is quite clear what the existing phrasing means. There is absolutely no ambiguity. However, I somehow managed to think of a clearer wording that might satisfy you, and have implemented it. It is "who systematically changes the system of measurement used to present a value without clear consensus". How's that? RGloucester — ☎ 17:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- @RGloucester: please restore your post of 18 October 2014 to its original state. It is that wording which others have discussed and for which they've expressed their support or opposition. Changing it now makes parts of the subsequent discussion incomprehensible and renders it difficult if not impossible for any closing admin to evaluate the expressions of support and whether they are still applicable. NebY (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- The text has undergone many changes, and has been evolving constantly. There is no change in meaning with my edit, but it merely clarifies something that multiple editors have asked for clarification on. The text must be able to evolve. I've been making incremental changes since the start of this discussion, to bring it in line with the ideas that people have brought to the table. I don't even remember what this text look liked on 18 October. I'm sure it looked very different. RGloucester — ☎ 18:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- @RGloucester: you had made no changes to that text since you pinged editors on 28 October 2014 except for wikilinking "consensus". You have been here long enough to know that you should not refactor discussions. Kahastok's suggestion for the close is a good one; let it be. NebY (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- I posted it first on 18 October (not "28 October"), and have made multiple minor changes since, as far as I'm aware. If you want me to go through the edit history and find them, fine. I don't even know what "refactoring" means. If you'd like to revert it, go ahead. I don't particularly care, one way or the other, because they both mean the same exact thing. I'm getting fed up with this bureaucratic nonsense, however. Editors need to be more flexible and pragmatic. RGloucester — ☎ 18:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Done. I checked from 28 October because that's when you pinged editors to respond per Wehwalt's suggestion and they began to respond. Do read WP:REFACTOR. NebY (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- I posted it first on 18 October (not "28 October"), and have made multiple minor changes since, as far as I'm aware. If you want me to go through the edit history and find them, fine. I don't even know what "refactoring" means. If you'd like to revert it, go ahead. I don't particularly care, one way or the other, because they both mean the same exact thing. I'm getting fed up with this bureaucratic nonsense, however. Editors need to be more flexible and pragmatic. RGloucester — ☎ 18:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- @RGloucester: you had made no changes to that text since you pinged editors on 28 October 2014 except for wikilinking "consensus". You have been here long enough to know that you should not refactor discussions. Kahastok's suggestion for the close is a good one; let it be. NebY (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- The text has undergone many changes, and has been evolving constantly. There is no change in meaning with my edit, but it merely clarifies something that multiple editors have asked for clarification on. The text must be able to evolve. I've been making incremental changes since the start of this discussion, to bring it in line with the ideas that people have brought to the table. I don't even remember what this text look liked on 18 October. I'm sure it looked very different. RGloucester — ☎ 18:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- (ec with both above) TBH it still reads to me like it could be Wikilawyered as excluding switching the order of units. I've seen it insisted before that nothing in policy or guidelines - including in WP:RETAIN and at the top of WP:MOSNUM - suggests, implies or otherwise indicates that there is any problem at all with switching order of units on UK-related articles on an industrial scale solely for reasons of personal preference, so I am particularly concerned about this. You have to expect Wikilawyering in this area and pin the wording down to prevent it. Now, we all know that this is the behaviour we're talking about, but an admin not familiar with the ins and outs of MOSNUM might not, which is why I suggest that a reword or a comment in the close might be of benefit. Note that no redrafting is required for a comment in the close.
- @RGloucester: please restore your post of 18 October 2014 to its original state. It is that wording which others have discussed and for which they've expressed their support or opposition. Changing it now makes parts of the subsequent discussion incomprehensible and renders it difficult if not impossible for any closing admin to evaluate the expressions of support and whether they are still applicable. NebY (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Kahastok: There is resistance for a few reasons. Firstly, it will make the wording extremely complicated and clunky for no good reason. Secondly, we are not writing a constitution here. We should mirror what other sanctions use. There is no need specify every little thing. Thirdly, such "re-draughting" is only likely to result in further delays. Fourthly, it is quite clear what the existing phrasing means. There is absolutely no ambiguity. However, I somehow managed to think of a clearer wording that might satisfy you, and have implemented it. It is "who systematically changes the system of measurement used to present a value without clear consensus". How's that? RGloucester — ☎ 17:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- If there is this much resistance to a change in the wording, perhaps an alternative would be for the closer - if they find consensus for the point and if they find that this interpretation has consensus (and no-one has objected to it so far) - to mention the point explicitly in the close? Kahastok talk 17:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Part of the reason I mention the closer is because in a previous - particularly poisonous - discussion where I felt the result was going to be Wikilawyered, I asked a set of questions for the closer which were duly answered in the close. With the answers right there, at the top of the discussion, anyone looking at the consensus could see what had been agreed, and that it was quite different to what the Wikilawyer-in-chief was already claiming that it was. This gave me a lot more confidence that the result would be robust and harder to Wikilawyer. As it happens, touch wood, we've never revisited that discussion. How much this is to do with the questions answered in the close and how much to do with the indefinite block of said Wikilawyer-in-chief a month later is impossible to say. I suspect the latter, but the greater confidence that the close gave us was still welcome. Kahastok talk 18:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'll be honest in saying that I see a bit of (perhaps warranted) paranoia in your replies here. There is no perfect wording. No one will confuse this. It is very clear that any disruption of this kind would be sanctionable. As I said before, though, what MOSNUM says is quite irrelevant. This is not about enforcing MOSNUM, but about stopping disruptive behaviour. Consensus here has determined that such systematic changes are disruptive, and hence sanctionable. I'm fine with the idea that closer should mention this. If you'd like me to revert to the old wording, I'll do it. Regardless, even if this was somehow portrayed as "not referring to switching unit order", it would still be sanctionable under the "who otherwise disruptively edits". The only way to appeal such a sanction would be at WP:AN, where it would be easy to make clear whether whatever such an editor did was disruptive or not. There is literally no room for whatever "Wikilawyering" is. There are too many protections in place, such as the necessity for an WP:AN appeal, and the clauses about "general disruption". RGloucester — ☎ 18:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- I am OK with not changing the proposed words. MilborneOne (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'll be honest in saying that I see a bit of (perhaps warranted) paranoia in your replies here. There is no perfect wording. No one will confuse this. It is very clear that any disruption of this kind would be sanctionable. As I said before, though, what MOSNUM says is quite irrelevant. This is not about enforcing MOSNUM, but about stopping disruptive behaviour. Consensus here has determined that such systematic changes are disruptive, and hence sanctionable. I'm fine with the idea that closer should mention this. If you'd like me to revert to the old wording, I'll do it. Regardless, even if this was somehow portrayed as "not referring to switching unit order", it would still be sanctionable under the "who otherwise disruptively edits". The only way to appeal such a sanction would be at WP:AN, where it would be easy to make clear whether whatever such an editor did was disruptive or not. There is literally no room for whatever "Wikilawyering" is. There are too many protections in place, such as the necessity for an WP:AN appeal, and the clauses about "general disruption". RGloucester — ☎ 18:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Part of the reason I mention the closer is because in a previous - particularly poisonous - discussion where I felt the result was going to be Wikilawyered, I asked a set of questions for the closer which were duly answered in the close. With the answers right there, at the top of the discussion, anyone looking at the consensus could see what had been agreed, and that it was quite different to what the Wikilawyer-in-chief was already claiming that it was. This gave me a lot more confidence that the result would be robust and harder to Wikilawyer. As it happens, touch wood, we've never revisited that discussion. How much this is to do with the questions answered in the close and how much to do with the indefinite block of said Wikilawyer-in-chief a month later is impossible to say. I suspect the latter, but the greater confidence that the close gave us was still welcome. Kahastok talk 18:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Process
- Comment as this section is fairly short I have turned this into an RfC so that a wider community consensus can be sought. I have done this rather than start a new section for a RfC as it is unreasonable to ask those that have expressed an opinion within the last 24 hours to do so again. -- PBS (talk) 10:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- I strongly oppose this unilateral action by you, PBS, to turn my wording into an RfC. I've removed the template. RGloucester — ☎ 12:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
From the history of the page:
- 13:31, 29 October 2014 PBS (→Moving forward: Second Try for an RfC)
- 13:40, 29 October 2014 RGloucester (Make your own section if you want an RfC. I don't.)
I don't believer that this section belongs to you! So under what right are you reverting edits made by me? If I create another section for an RfC, opinions will be split over two different sections. This is not fair on people who have already made their opinions clear, and needlessly complicates the RfC, but if you insist I will create a section below this one. -- PBS (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- You are adding an RfC template in conjunction with my words, in a way that would be misleading. It implies that I support this so-called "RfC". I have repeatedly said I do not. In fact, I believe that any opening of an RfC at this stage would be disruptive. No RfC is necessary. The only one that seems to think so is you, and furthermore, no other general sanctions ever were established by RfC. If you want to start an RfC, you should draft a proposal. Do not use my proposal for your RfC. RGloucester — ☎ 15:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- @RGloucester For someone who is seeking the consensus of the community to bring in some general sanctions, I find it extraordinary that you would not want to include as many people as possible in building that consensus and are trying to block an RfC on the issue!
- The RfC does not in any way alter what you have said. It does not imply that you support the RfC, and that is not the issue. Your have twice removed an RfC what the RfC process says is "If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template. Do not close the RfC just because you think the wording is biased. An RfC tag generally remains on the page until removed by the RfC bot or the originator." My emphasis. You are free to state under the RfC that you do not support the RfC if you so wish but you are not free to removed it for that reason.
- If you will not let me place the RfC banner at the top of this section then I will create a new one at the bottom and I will use you proposed wording because that is for which you are seeking to gain consensus. As I have said it will be inconvenient for those who have already expressed an opinion in this straw poll and could easily lead to confusion, hence the reason I think it better to convert this section into a RfC. -- PBS (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- In fact, it shows bad faith on your part. It singles my proposal out amongst all other general sanctions proposals, and puts a bureaucratic block in front of it. Not because of any particular policy or guideline, but because of one editor's opposition. You do not have a right to filibuster this proposal, nor do you have a right to unilaterally force bureaucratic measures on it. I will not allow you to use my wording for any RfC of yours. If you'd like to make a proposal, write one up and then start an RfC. My wording is not going to be used in any RfCs requested unilaterally by you. I will follow the established procedure for general sanctions proposals. I will not be made to jump through hoops at your behest. If you continue to disrupt this proposal, I will be forced to open a thread at WP:AN/I. RGloucester — ☎ 18:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- You are adding an RfC template in conjunction with my words, in a way that would be misleading. It implies that I support this so-called "RfC". I have repeatedly said I do not. In fact, I believe that any opening of an RfC at this stage would be disruptive. No RfC is necessary. The only one that seems to think so is you, and furthermore, no other general sanctions ever were established by RfC. If you want to start an RfC, you should draft a proposal. Do not use my proposal for your RfC. RGloucester — ☎ 15:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I have posted an ANI over the issue of an RfC. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Denial of an RfC on proposed General Sanctions -- PBS (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I do not think that there has been enough participation in this process (only about a dozen users have commented on the most recent wording). I wanted the RfC to encompass the opinions already expressed, but unfortunately RGloucester is opposed to that, so I have started an RfC in the hope that it attracts many more participants, so that if these sanctions are to be imposed that it is clear that they are broadly supported by the editing community. See below:
-- PBS (talk) 10:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Unfortunately RGloucester has now unilaterally closed the RfC I opened in a new section, having already twice closed the RfC when I opened it in this section. I have ask an uninvolved administrator at ANI to revert the close as I do not want to edit war over this issue. I am disappointed with this behaviour and I am not at all sure why RGloucester is so hostile the seeking a broader consensus (either for or against this proposal), however I would ask anyone considering closing this section to consider if the actions of RGloucester are in the spirit of consensus building and do not conclude that the views previously expressed here necessarily reflect a wider consensus that might be generated by the Rfc. -- PBS (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- You're really pushing it, aren't you? No general sanctions have ever been established by RfC. No RfC is needed to establish general sanctions. The proper procedure is a discussion at WP:AN, and that's what we've done here. I've spent weeks engaging in "consensus building" and modifying the proposal as appropriate. I've spent weeks asking you for things I could do to resolve whatever concerns you have. You've not aided me in that regard, and instead have started forum-shopping and filibustering this proposal, going on and and on about "wider consensus". No "wider consensus" is necessary. This is a public noticeboard, and the standard one used for establishing general sanctions as it says at the guidelines on such matters. Your personal desire for a "wider consensus" does not override the existing guidelines, nor the existing procedures that exist to establish general sanctions. You have no engaged in consensus-building, only bulldozering. Every time I attempted to work with you, you failed to work with me or others to address your concerns. You have no ground to stand on. RGloucester — ☎ 21:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- The closure of the RfC has been endorsed, praise God, by an uninvolved administrator. Now we can all get on with our lives, sans the incessant disruption of a one Mr PBS. RGloucester — ☎ 03:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- You're really pushing it, aren't you? No general sanctions have ever been established by RfC. No RfC is needed to establish general sanctions. The proper procedure is a discussion at WP:AN, and that's what we've done here. I've spent weeks engaging in "consensus building" and modifying the proposal as appropriate. I've spent weeks asking you for things I could do to resolve whatever concerns you have. You've not aided me in that regard, and instead have started forum-shopping and filibustering this proposal, going on and and on about "wider consensus". No "wider consensus" is necessary. This is a public noticeboard, and the standard one used for establishing general sanctions as it says at the guidelines on such matters. Your personal desire for a "wider consensus" does not override the existing guidelines, nor the existing procedures that exist to establish general sanctions. You have no engaged in consensus-building, only bulldozering. Every time I attempted to work with you, you failed to work with me or others to address your concerns. You have no ground to stand on. RGloucester — ☎ 21:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Unfortunately RGloucester has now unilaterally closed the RfC I opened in a new section, having already twice closed the RfC when I opened it in this section. I have ask an uninvolved administrator at ANI to revert the close as I do not want to edit war over this issue. I am disappointed with this behaviour and I am not at all sure why RGloucester is so hostile the seeking a broader consensus (either for or against this proposal), however I would ask anyone considering closing this section to consider if the actions of RGloucester are in the spirit of consensus building and do not conclude that the views previously expressed here necessarily reflect a wider consensus that might be generated by the Rfc. -- PBS (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support The extraordinary wall of text above, as an example of what goes on, makes the need for sanctions in this area fairly clear. GoldenRing (talk) 03:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- @GoldenRing: Please move your comment to the above section, with the other comments on the proposal. This section is only for process-related stuff. You can delete my comment when you move it. RGloucester — ☎ 04:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Proposal to remove the topic ban of Lucia Black from Japanese entertainment topics
No consensus for change. Topic ban remains in place. Drop the stick. Whether or not anyone believes there should be a topic ban, there is the perception of one and perception is reality in this case as violating that will be enforced. The ban was instated in August and more than two months later, absent small editing at Secrets of Rætikon (admittedly for a serious GA review), there's been drama about the prior drama. It's been a two-month status quo so I don't see how that's creating additional sanctions. Again, it wasn't that the editing at the Japanese entertainment articles that was problematic but that the editing about the Japanese entertainment articles created problems. There are very few people that cause disruption no matter what they do, it's usually a particular topic. Now, there is a distinct difference between arguing about the topic ban and accepting it to argue to remove it. If Lucia Black wants to argue the former, there's always ARBCOM but I'd put odds on being blocked entirely to prevent further disruption if we go that route. There are more than four and a half million articles here. Find something else to work on. If Lucia Black wants to argue the later, it seems like fairly reasonable editors ask to see that there is editing outside the topic in an adult manner and an acknowledgement about the prior problems. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264#Excessive topic-ban, a topic ban of User:Lucia Black from Japanese entertainment topics was enacted. I'd like to propose that the topic ban be rescinded, leaving in place Lucia Black's topic ban from Ghost in the Shell and related articles, the prohibition on Lucia Black starting threads at AN/ANI without permission, and any other previously existing topic bans on Lucia Black that might be in place. I have not consulted with Lucia Black on this, but was reminded of that discussion because Lucia Black mentioned me on Jimbo Wales' talk page (and then posted on my talk page as I started writing this).
I want to acknowledge that I do think Lucia Black was disruptive at AN/ANI (including in the thread where the Japanese entertainment topic ban was enacted), and also that I think the topic ban from Ghost in the Shell and related articles was well deserved. I also acknowledge that Lucia Black seems to think that a group of editors are out to get her, and doesn't seem to understand that she actually has been annoying and disruptive in AN/ANI discussions. I thought that the proposal for a full site ban on Lucia Black was reasonable (even though I probably would have voted against a site ban had I voted).
Despite that, I feel the topic ban on Lucia Black should be removed for the following reasons:
1. Lucia Black was in general working productively with other editors on Japanese entertainment related subjects. For example, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_61#We_need_to_make_reforms_.28MOSAM_fix_proposal_2.0.29 and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_61#We_need_another_FA_article, from just before the topic ban was enacted. Because Lucia Black was already working productively in the area from which she was topic banned, the topic ban doesn't seem to serve any useful purpose. Suggesting that Lucia Black should show good work elsewhere before the topic ban is overturned also doesn't make sense to me, as again, she was already doing good work. The only areas where she was really causing problems were Ghost in the Shell and AN/ANI, and she already had separate topic bans for those areas. While she was continuing to be disruptive in those specific areas, topic banning her from other places where she wasn't being disruptive just makes no sense.
2. While I'm not entirely sure what subject area everyone edits in, the impression I got was that the people in favor of both a site ban and a topic ban were primarily people who have interacted with Lucia Black at AN/ANI, and that people who have interacted with Lucia Black on Japanese entertainment articles were mostly opposed to any sort of further sanctions. It seems nonsensical to me for her to be topic banned from Japanese entertainment when the people who work in that subject area don't want her topic banned.
3. Because a topic ban was proposed as more of an aside and not as the main subject of the discussion (which was instead for a full site ban), I think many people didn't mention that they were against it when they otherwise would have. For myself at least, had I realized that that a topic ban was a possible outcome of the discussion, I would have probably participated and voted against a topic ban. I think the consensus of the discussion likely would have been different had a topic ban been proposed directly, separate from the discussion of a site ban.
I want to apologize for taking up any more of anyone's time with this discussion. I know some users (e.g., Hasteur, Robert McClenon, and Salvidrim!) expressed frustration with how much time has been wasted on issues related to Japanese entertainment and Lucia Black specifically. I want to remind everyone that you don't have to respond to this thread (or any thread on Lucia Black, anime, or whatever) if you think your time could be more productively spent elsewhere. I've created this discussion because I personally think that Lucia Black was making good contributions, and that those contributions outweigh any time wasted on AN/ANI. I ask that anyone responding here please consider first and foremost whether the topic ban is useful for the subject to which it applies, Japanese entertainment, rather than focusing on AN/ANI. Calathan (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose - Her drama wasted too much time of constructive editors, and until the very end, she refused to concede any sort of responsibility towards her actions. Zero awareness of the issues. As far as she's ever let on, she attributes her topic ban 100% to "people out to get her", and "0% her combative and disruptive edits". I can't support repealing it with that sort of attitude. Sergecross73 msg me 21:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- But what does any of that have to do with Japanese entertainment? I agree that Lucia has wasted tons of time of people here at AN/ANI, and been really rude to people here, and doesn't acknowledge that she has been wrong here, but again, I don't understand why she would be topic banned from Japanese entertainment articles because of it. Calathan (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Because that's where all the disruption happens. I don't see what's not to get. Sergecross73 msg me 22:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- But the disruption doesn't happen there, it happens here, at AN/ANI. I've had WT:ANIME on my watch list for many years, and I can't remember ever seeing her be disruptive there. Likewise, I can't remember ever seeing her be disruptive on any anime-related article I've had watchlisted (though obviously she was disruptive on Ghost in the Shell, which isn't one I've watchlisted). Calathan (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm guessing you don't spend much time at WP:VG then? She was disruptive with countless video game articles. I'm pretty sure a discussion at WP:VG that spurred the topic ban discussions. Couple all that with her endless issues with the Ghost in the Shell anime/manga articles, and it's pretty easy how they came up with a "Japanese Entertainment" description - the issues occur with Japanese video games, manga, and anime. Unless there's a fourth kind of Japanese entertainment she wants to edit, that this topic ban is impeding on, the end decision made a lot of sense. Sergecross73 msg me 23:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- I don't spend time at WP:VG, so I wouldn't be aware of any disruption there. Ghost in the Shell was an exception to her normal behavior from what I personally witnessed. If there was a lot of disruption talking place elsewhere, then I admit the topic ban makes more sense. Calathan (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm honestly rather surprised you're going through such lengths to change her topic ban. Your account of her actions is more scathing than some of the people who wish to have her topic banned. Sergecross73 msg me 02:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- I don't spend time at WP:VG, so I wouldn't be aware of any disruption there. Ghost in the Shell was an exception to her normal behavior from what I personally witnessed. If there was a lot of disruption talking place elsewhere, then I admit the topic ban makes more sense. Calathan (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm guessing you don't spend much time at WP:VG then? She was disruptive with countless video game articles. I'm pretty sure a discussion at WP:VG that spurred the topic ban discussions. Couple all that with her endless issues with the Ghost in the Shell anime/manga articles, and it's pretty easy how they came up with a "Japanese Entertainment" description - the issues occur with Japanese video games, manga, and anime. Unless there's a fourth kind of Japanese entertainment she wants to edit, that this topic ban is impeding on, the end decision made a lot of sense. Sergecross73 msg me 23:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- But the disruption doesn't happen there, it happens here, at AN/ANI. I've had WT:ANIME on my watch list for many years, and I can't remember ever seeing her be disruptive there. Likewise, I can't remember ever seeing her be disruptive on any anime-related article I've had watchlisted (though obviously she was disruptive on Ghost in the Shell, which isn't one I've watchlisted). Calathan (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Because that's where all the disruption happens. I don't see what's not to get. Sergecross73 msg me 22:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- But what does any of that have to do with Japanese entertainment? I agree that Lucia has wasted tons of time of people here at AN/ANI, and been really rude to people here, and doesn't acknowledge that she has been wrong here, but again, I don't understand why she would be topic banned from Japanese entertainment articles because of it. Calathan (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- I've notified Lucia Black of this discussion per the page instructions, though I told her I personally don't think she should post here. However, I was wondering if it would be appropriate for me to notify WikiProject Anime and manga and WikiProject Video games. My thought is that would be appropriate since they are subject areas to which this pertains, as long as the notices are worded in a neutral fashion, but I wanted to make sure first. Calathan (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose removal of TBAN altogether, because Lucia hasn't provided any evidence that she even acknolwedges her problems, and has made no effort whatsoever to reassure the community that she will not continue the same behaviour. Propose narrowing/clarification of scope from "I also wish to thank Sergecross73 for letting me know I had been mentioned on AN, because Calathan certainly failed to do so. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)Japanese entertainment
" to "Japanese anime and manga, broadly construed
", because I think it maintains the usefulness of the scope, while providing a somewhat clearer guideline.
- Salvidrim!, I'm sorry for not notifying you. I initially had your name and the other names I listed linked so that the notification system would automatically alert you that you had been mentioned. However, then I thought that might be rude, since I was specifically mentioning you because I thought you had felt this subject was a waste of time. I didn't want to seem like I was intentionally wasting your time, so I removed the wikilinks. It seems clear that you felt it was rude not to notify you, so I'm sorry for doing that. Calathan (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
| Extended content |
|---|
|
- Revised: Support return to previous status quo (TBAN from GiTS, IBAN with Chris, BAN from AN/ANI, probation enabling pagebans when necessary); the last time she appealed this, then I let myself get carried away by the mob and proposed a siteban without any additional justification other than a feeling of wasted time fueled by my own lack of neutrality. That discussion resulted in the intermediate "result" of the current broad TBAN, and while I think the consensus could've been read either way (I'm not faulting the closer), I do know the discussion wasn't started with a constructive intention and that my own lack of detachment inevitably swayed the community's feel and doomed Lucia unfairly. I apologize for previously acting highly dismissive of Lucia, who, despite everything else, does remain a dedicated (if passionate) contributor. I don't think the current broad TBAN is preventing disruption. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict × 4)Oppose at this time. This request seems to challenge the validity of the topic ban on several grounds, such as that those supporting sanctions were too far removed from Lucia Black's encyclopedia work to cogently evaluate the situation (essentially the opposite logic in WP:INVOLVED), and that the topic ban is too broad (though Calathan also seems to state that the siteban proposal was reasonable, even if he/she would not have supported it). Honestly, I don't find these arguments convincing. If Lucia Black is editing productively in another area and the topic ban had outlived its usefulness, some rolling back of the editing restrictions could be considered. But a facial challenge to the validity of the ban just doesn't seem right. What I find disturbing is the suggestion that AN/ANI regulars should just ignore Lucia Black's disruption of those fora in recognition of her positive contributions, rather than call for sanctions. This ignores the critical problem of unseen disruption—nascent editors who just stop editing when they encounter difficulties. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- I do agree strongly that working well with other editors is important, and in general think it is more important than writing good content. If I thought Lucia Black was scaring away editors from Japanese entertainment articles, I would be in favor of topic banning her from there. However, I instead think Lucia Black is working well with other people on Japanese entertainment articles, which is why I don't think she should be topic banned from there (I do however, think strongly that she should be topic banned from AN/ANI). Calathan (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict x 2) Weak support. I didn't think she deserved to be banned from this stuff in the first place, and back then I voted accordingly, but her behavior wasn't flawless and she hasn't demonstrated any willingness to correct the problems there were. Tezero (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support- I thought the topic ban was unnecessarily harsh, overly broad in scope, and vindictive. It's been several months without disruption so the ban is clearly not accomplishing anything useful now, if it ever did, which I doubt. Reyk YO! 00:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- The bans purpose was to end her all excessively combative arguments. There haven't been any Lucia incidents since it was enacted. How can you say it accomplished nothing? Sergecross73 msg me 00:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- On the overwhelming majority of articles she's banned from, there was never a problem in the first place. The ban is unnecessarily broad and given the, I'll be blunt, sneaky way it was enacted I do not think it should stand. Reyk YO! 01:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- I agree, we are talking about a large swath of articles here. to compare its like being blocked from editing all articles related to sports because bad choices were made on a superbowl article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- On the overwhelming majority of articles she's banned from, there was never a problem in the first place. The ban is unnecessarily broad and given the, I'll be blunt, sneaky way it was enacted I do not think it should stand. Reyk YO! 01:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- The bans purpose was to end her all excessively combative arguments. There haven't been any Lucia incidents since it was enacted. How can you say it accomplished nothing? Sergecross73 msg me 00:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support This support is coming from someone who works on anime/manga related articles, I feel that Lucia had already upset a certain group of editors and an excuse was looked for to drive the final nail in. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support Even if this is going to end up with clear oppose, no consensus, I have a thought that she has been changed. Knowing what type of discussion these editors had, she could have been blocked forever, may be she has learned something from the topic ban. She is eager to make useful contributions to this topic and so, the topic ban can be removed. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Support- I was the original proposer of the topic-ban, as a "compromise" between a warning and a site-ban. I see no evidence that she has learned her lesson, to stop creating drama. However, she has served time that, for her, amounts almost to a site-ban. I am willing to see her topic-ban lifted on two conditions. First, it should be understood that any further public quarreling with other editors, at which she is a champion, will result in a two-month to six-month block. Second, since we don't know whether she has learned that lesson, she should continue to be topic-banned from any filings at WP:AN or WP:ANI. She doesn't acknowledge that she has learned her lesson, but WP:ROPE applies. If she doesn't know that she can hang herself with 14 feet of rope, we don't need to protect her. Lift the ban for now. Leave the ban on drama board filings in place.Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)- Neutral - Lucia: When you are in a hole, quit digging. When you are in a tunnel, quit accusing others of tunnel vision. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment @Robert McClennon: Are you personally offended by the idea of someone having tunnel vision? its not a crazy accusation or anything. It only suggest that someone is far too focused on a single goal that it impairs them to see other perspectives.
- Can you clarify what you mean when you say "any further public quarreling with other editors, at which she is a champion"? Debates are a part of Misplaced Pages. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Procedural oppose. Bans should be appealed by the user that is banned, not by a third party. Until we actually hear from Lucia Black here, I don't think this request is actionable. — Mr. Stradivarius 03:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Is it a written rule though? Lucia is currently barred from posting on the admin boards so I do not see how she can appeal her case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - There is a simultaneous discussion going on at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 176#I need some help that others may be interested in reviewing. For myself I stick by my original point. Despite Lucia Black's protestations to the contrary, I am highly skeptical that she is unable to edit in other areas to demonstrate her capacity to collaborate with other editors in a WP:CIVIL manner. I'm neither for nor against the current ban, but I understand why it was placed and I don't think bans should be treated lightly. Unfortunately I also can't agree with Calathan's description of Lucia Black's past problematic behavior as being restricted to the GitS articles and AN/ANI. I'd love to see her prove herself elsewhere for a period to allow the community to see a positive record of her conflict-free editing. If she can participate productively in an area she hasn't worked before that would seriously undermine the claims that she is nothing but a hardened WikiWarrior. Again I am quite doubtful that she is actually incapable of editing other areas. It worries me that she seems much more bent on getting her sanctions lifted as if they were a mistake or an unwarranted abuse of power rather than acknowledging and addressing her own behavioral problems. -Thibbs (talk) 04:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Procedural oppose until a request is lodged by Lucia. I'd be leaning oppose anyway but a persuasive statement and understanding of the issues involved from Lucia would be appreciated. Nick (talk) 10:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support If anything shows a battleground mentality, it was the repeated calls for a site ban every time Lucia Black came up on AN/I. The only reason those individuals settled for the broad topic ban because the topic ban was effectively a soft site ban. Given that Lucia's area of interest and expertise was in Japanese-related media, they knew that she had almost no chance of having the ban repealed. Second, as Calathan has pointed out, the editors who most worked with Lucia unemphaticly opposed the topic ban. Third, the topic ban was entirely the result of Lucia appealing her previous topic ban, which she felt was unfairly placed. If an editor asks for a review or appeal of a sanction, additional sanctions should not be put in placed. And finally, why are Lucia's biggest harassers complaining that they weren't notified? Think about it for a moment because that exemplifies their battleground mentality. So not only do I support the lifting of the topic ban, but also propose an IBan/topic ban on Sergecross73 and Salvidrim! on all topics involving Lucia Black. —Farix (t | c) 11:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- "
effectively a soft site ban
" - I told you this before, TheFarix, but I find this sort of comment to be frankly harmful to Lucia Black. Why tell an editor that collaboration with others in an area outside of her comfort zone is impossible for her? Honestly this line of argument strikes me as completely lacking in credibility. It's an attack on Lucia's capacity to locate and judge 3rd party sources for reliability and on her capacity to conduct research to learn about topics she is not already familiar with ab origine. The sad thing is that she herself is susceptible to believing these slanders against her. How about a little encouragement for a friend rather than undermining her? -Thibbs (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC) - Salv was just upset that he was mentioned by name but not pinged. Valid complaint at AN/ANI. I didn't complain about not being pinged at all. All I've done is comment. I have not started any discussions, or done any sanctions against her, ever. I may be in support of the topic ban, but I've done nothing out of line to warrant an interaction ban. (Nor has Salv for that matter.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- "
- Obvious oppose A removal of a topic ban requires 2 things: proof of extensive positive and drama-free work outside the topic area, and proof that the editor has a "method" of avoiding the problems that led to the topic ban in the future. Yes, someone else can show the former, but only the bannee can convince the community of the latter. the panda ₯’ 11:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. Per above. This has been stated several times throughout this but it seem like few really care/noticed. AcidSnow (talk) 12:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. When we reject unban requests, unblock requests, and the like, the failed request is often seen as a negative thing for the affected editor, and if failed requests are repeated frequently enough, we'll say "no more". Should this unban request fail, we mustn't see it as a stain against Lucia, since she didn't originate it. Nyttend (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- I generally concur, but with a caveat. This request is not so much an unban request but a challenge to the original ban discussion's closure (as well as, in part, a relitigation of the same issues that were handled by the prior discussion). I think a subsequent request based on the same rationale should turn on the outcome of this discussion, regardless of who brings it. Evaluating the original ban discussion closure does not require the same degree of scrutiny, care, or involvement of the banned party that a normal unban request does. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 23:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support (by being the subject) per Nick's Mr. Stradivarius desire to hear my opinion. I would definitely wish this topic-ban to be appealed. What i want to say more or less is mostly on TheFarix's has been saying and Calathan's opening statement. I believe that the community in WP:ANIME are far more informed on the situation than those who know me only through AN / ANI. After all, we're talking about the subject in which i am currently banned indefinitely from and the community dedicated to improving it.
- A lot of times i'm being asked for change. And to be brutally honest...i dont think the ones asking for it will ever see it regardless. The only way i think people will genuinely see change is if they And i'm here to tell you that, i was showing those signs before the additional sanctions were added. Even during the proposal of the additional sanctions, i treated Salvidrim with respect, and didn't attack him or used battleground-like words shown in Talk:Uzumaki#Interview verification. So as you can see, i have definitely been improving, even with pressure of additional sanctions on top of me. But if we all see this objectively and treat this as any other case, you might be surprised to see the glaring holes, as other members have noticed. I believe a lot of this is tunnel vision.
- In response of @Mendaliv:, DangerousPanda and AcidSnow. Allow me to inform you in the situation. Initially, I only asked to lessen the topic ban of all Ghost in the Shell to just the article in question (not remove it entirely) according to where the disruption happened and was given permission by an administrator to bring it up in AN and ANI. As years of dispute would have lead to be unresolved, i believed that consensus by having every one else banned from the article except one person would be deemed harmful for the article when the time came to get true consensus would be asked.
- However Salvidrim, Sergecross73, and Hasteur were editors who pushed heavily for a site-ban over the same grounds. There was clearly no agreement with it, and had more or less stated that a topic ban would be most appropriate instead. But there was already a topic ban. So, i think if we ask ourselves or at least attempt to answer the question: What merited additional sanctions?
- Overall, If we treat this as a discussion and less like a vote, i think that there will be less room for tunnel vision and will be able to consider all points, even previous points that were missed in the past. I believe, regardless of consensus, there was no new grounds for additional sanctions. Lucia Black (talk) 02:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Arbitrary break
- Again, I have not "gamed the system" or "stonewalled" anything. People keep bringing Lucia to AN/ANI, and I comment. I don't start the discussions, propose the sanctions, or enact the statements. I comment in discussions. This is just Lucia trying to push the blame rather than take responsibility for her actions. Sergecross73 msg me 10:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Ok Sergecross, if you feel that way, can you please tell everyone under what new grounds was necessary to ban me from Japanese Entertainment indefinitely? Lucia Black (talk) 10:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Whet do you mean if you feel that way? Do you see my name in your block log? At the place where we log bans? At the top of these proposals? No, you don't. It's not feeling, I objectively didn't do those things. Sergecross73 msg me 11:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Ok Sergecross, if you feel that way, can you please tell everyone under what new grounds was necessary to ban me from Japanese Entertainment indefinitely? Lucia Black (talk) 10:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Let's look for the hallmarks of a Lucia Black disruptive thread:
- White knights attempting to intercede for LB
Y - LB passing the buck on any responsibility that they may have had in the previous threads Y
- LB tendentiously nitpicking apart opposition viewpoints (See 02:54 post and 10:47 post) Y
- No plan for how LB indends to prevent the previous incidents from reoccuring Y
- Request for complete removal of sanctions rather than narrowing the existing sanctions Y
- Claiming a conspiracy by editors to prevent her from editing Y
- White knights attempting to intercede for LB
- No we've already given many editor-years and megabytes of argument to "How can Lucia Black return back to editing her preferred subject area?". Start the request over clean. Avoid the hallmarks that I've pointed out, and there might be a chance of success. As I recall I suggested Japanese entertainment as the scope of the topic ban is because the line between Anime/Manga/Video Games/Actors is so thin that arguments that start in one line of media riot over into the other media with very little encouragement (See also the "Ghost in the Shell" split/merge riot). Cutting off the entire topic area to prevent disruption around/with Lucia Black is not us punishing her, it's us protecting ourselves from disruption Hasteur (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Sergecross73 I don't want to argue about word choice. But i don't believe you are simply casting a vote. After all, you have responded heavily in the discussion and its not even trying to be a consistent argument. But i don't want to fight. I asked a genuine question. What did i do to deserve more sanctions? Can you please answer me this? And this isn't just for Sergecross. I think if we get this answered, we'll have our true consensus. What exactly did i do to deserve more sanctions regarding Japanese related media?
Hasteur Most of it is unnecessary to argue about or even a point against me. but the most important points, i will say that are heavily inaccurate. I originally did ask for narrowing existing sanctions (not removing them completely) but the result was more sanctions on top of it over no new disruption within Japanese entertainment. So i rather have the new sanctions removed.
Conspiracy is a strong word, but i will say this to clarify. I don't believe in a secret underground anti-Lucia Black organization where they have a meeting every sunday and find ways to bother me. What i do believe is a group of editors that are human and just as imperfect as the next who have a case of tunnel vision. And for the record, other editors have felt far more strongly about it then i have recently. So if you don't want to prove it to me, prove it to the other well-intending editors who believe it. Lucia Black (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- So, you want to pass the blame, take no accountability for your actions, make accusations at others while not answering any questions directed towards yourself, and then tack on a little "but I'm not here to argue" in there to make it all okay? This sort of behavior is what keeps getting you all these topics bans at AN/ANI and Japanese media related areas - and now you're using it as your approach to get un-topic banned? You may want to re-think this approach. Some of your supporters were contingent on you understanding what happened, taking responsibility for it, and providing a plan for keeping problems from happening again. You don't seem to understand any of this. Sergecross73 msg me 16:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- In response to Lucia: I do admit that I am human, that I am imperfect, and that my judgement may not be detached and neutral about this. I do feel tired of the drama surrounding the discussions about you, and that's probably a less-than-ideal POV from which to approach the discussion. I don't hate you specifically but I've reached my limit of how much idle ranting I'm able to respond to constructively. I admit my own shortcomings (I wish you would do the same!) and I hope that whatever closing admin will treat my opinion with the appropriate weight considering my serious involvement. I won't be surprised or disappointed if the full topic-ban is rescinded, and hope that if consensus does end up leaning that way, that you will be able to resume editing constructively, and hopefully never end up at AN/I again. It is an annoyance for me, but I can't begin to imagine how hard it must be for you to deal with this and if anything, I admire your dedication and persistence. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Sergecross73: I'm only reiterating what TheFarix and Calathan have been saying that there was no additional grounds to add more sanctions on top of the ones that were established within hours. And i have taken accountability for my actions. I never denied that i was disruptive in the article in question. And that was taken accountability from the start when i originally only asked to narrow the Topic Ban, not remove it entirely. If you want to hear my full thoughts on it: i feel bad about it and thought it was a good idea to take a break from that specific article Ghost in the Shell until i was confident that i can tackle the article again. However, to be brutally honest, i don't know exactly what to do when it comes to that specific article to avoid issues other than avoiding edit wars, especially with only two (now one) member involved. Of course i'll think twice and maybe thrice before even getting involved, but i'm not sure i can do it all and still reach a consensus. Not alone at least. The issue has always been lack of consensus for that specific article (not blaming lack of consensus, its just a factor that keeps me frustrated). And that's what worried me when i was banned from the other articles as well. Regardless, my main concern at the moment is the Topic Ban from "ALL" Japanese media related articles.
- @Salvidrim!: it does indeed take a lot to say what you have said, and i thank and respect you for it. I personally do take into consideration of my own actions as well. And that's what i have been trying to say before, but i guess to a few other editors and myself believe it evolved into something else when additional sanctions were being asked. The others who support the appeal (and myself) don't know what additional disruption i did in order to elevate the sanctions for Japanese media related articles. So when i'm asked what i can do to prevent this, i'm heavily unsure on what "it" is exactly. If we're talking about Japanese-related articles, i assure you i know how to handle myself the majority of the time. My Achilles' heel is based more on a specific article and specific editor involved. So avoiding that specific article and that specific editor combined will help me focus on editing other articles.
- If we're talking about AN and ANI, i am trying my best at the moment to present myself in the best that i can, regardless if anyone agrees with me. And i apologize ahead of time for anything i have said to offend you. And it is taking me a much longer process to respond because i'm taking consideration as much as i can peoples feelings. Lucia Black (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- If there was any doubt that you had learned from previous incidents you've completely destroyed it. Again with the TL:DR rants and nitpicking apart the opposition. Kindly show yourself to a room with no exit because I (and I would assume many others) are tired of threads involving you and creating much heat for the amount of light we gain from them. Hasteur (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- I dont think its too long to be read, but then again. A lot of what i'm saying is by repeat, with some new light. If the problem is that my comments are too long, perhaps dont get involved. And i'm trying my best to show you respect, i ask you to do the same. Lucia Black (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think the "if you don't want to read everything I say then get out" mentality is precisely the wrong one for this discussion. We have a responsibility to make arguments concise and accessible as part of the consensus-making process. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 20:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Its more that if you don't want to, you don't have to. But don't hold it against the discussion. WP:TLDR#Maintain civility which suggest that it is a fallacy of ad hominem, Appeal to ridicule, Thought-terminating cliché. There was a much better way to do so. And overall, an argument shouldn't be dismissed simply because it was too long. You can ask me for a more concise version without using TL;DR. So basically, i'm being respectful, please give me the same courtesy. Lucia Black (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think the "if you don't want to read everything I say then get out" mentality is precisely the wrong one for this discussion. We have a responsibility to make arguments concise and accessible as part of the consensus-making process. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 20:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- If we're talking about AN and ANI, i am trying my best at the moment to present myself in the best that i can, regardless if anyone agrees with me. And i apologize ahead of time for anything i have said to offend you. And it is taking me a much longer process to respond because i'm taking consideration as much as i can peoples feelings. Lucia Black (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Too stressful
I personally am far too stressed of a lot of whats being said here. I believe perfection is expected out of me by a community who don't teach by example. And i rather be able to present my points neutrally without someone trying to look for a flaw in word choice. I also believe that this is toxic, and i dont think anything i say to the community will be happy about it.
Its a stressful time. So i'm going to request for Arbitration. I think i'll be able to get far more fairer treatment there. Is it possible to request for arbitration instead? Lucia Black (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- "
I believe perfection is expected out of me by a community who don't teach by example.
" - This stings, and rightly so in my opinion. I'm not happy about the way you have been (and are being) treated. I apologize for literally bashing you (although perhaps never very openly) and being generally dismissive of you. I let myself get carried away in the mob and I'm angry at myself for that. I'm not sure exactly why this discussion has "opened my eyes", but damn... you don't deserve to be dismissed this way. However: ArbCom is definitely not the way forward. It's my candid opinion that you would end up digging your own hole deeper; I hope you will not submit yourself to that. I doubt ArbCom would accept the case anyhoe, as I don't think this is something "the community has proven unable to handle". ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)- Thank you for your kind words. And i apologize ahead of time if i said that a little too strongly. i think i'm going to give up. I'll probably wait another year or so if someone believes i deserve to get it appealed again. Lucia Black (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Go ahead. Appeal to ArbCom, they'll decline you for forum shoping in addition to this still being solvable in the community (and since you used Appeal to Jimbo while this thread was going in in violation of WP:FORUMSHOP) your sanction will stick. It took a consensus of editors that saw significant problems with your editing to impose the ban, a consensus of editors that saw that your actions during the discussion of the imposition of the ban as problematic and upheld your topic ban, a mixed bag of consensus here indicates that your actions have yet to demonstrate that your editing will not be less problematic. Please follow the advice that I and others gave above: 1. Keep clear of all drama (including discussing your ban) 2. Come up with a way to show that previous reasons for the ban are no longer relevant (i.e. No disruptive posting/editing, brief (~200 words) and to the point statements outlining your view when you're in dispute with annother editor) 3. Accept responsibility for your actions previously 4. Do not make any accusations about other editors that caused your editing misbehavior. Hasteur (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- After a good nights sleep and relaxation from the stress, i didn't want to come back. however if you are going to reference other discussions, i suggest you double check and make sure your conclusion is accurate. I originally requested Jimbo Wales to review the previous discussion under beliefs that there is a fundamental flaw on how an oversight lead to the appeal to consensus over whether there was any action warranted. There is indeed a mix crowd but not because the determination of my editing will be less problematic or not. If that was true, clearly this involves WP:ANIME more than the AN community or any Japanese-media related community. Basically, you would've heard them out more.
- The truth of the matter is that there are different priorities with the opposers and supporters. The strong supporters note that i am indeed beneficial to the Japanese related articles, and there is proof and witnesses provided. Not only that, but they don't understand what warranted additional sanctions in the first place. That's important. The strong opposers from the previous discussion that originally wanted the topic ban aren't prioritizing that (not an accusation, it's just an objective observation). This isn't about whether i can or can't edit with the Japanese media-related community without disruption (because there's plenty of proof that i can. And there has not been a single counter against these points). But common points within the strong opposers are never connected to the disruption within Japanese media article. The common points is how much annoyed, tired, or at their limit one is during the AN and ANI discussions when it involves me. And the other light opposers are simply opposing out of procedure but if they knew the previous AN discussion was out of procedure, they would possibly be interested in knowing more on why. (and this is said among the supporters)
- Basically, this key question needs to be answered: what new actions have I done at all to merit additional sanctions regarding Japanese media related articles? I didn't break the previous sanctions, only requested it to be narrowed and that was given permission by an administrator (so at least i had some ground to do it). And if this long refusal to answer is based on the intention of making a point regarding "she hasn't learned her lesson", than that is just an even more Battleground behavior because answering this will help move things along smoothly without calling it drama or anything. In fact, you would be helping an editor see their flaws. If that's not the case, then i'm sure you will be happy to answer that question. Because not only will you be making a stronger point, but you will also be helping another editor improve. Lucia Black (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I think I'm going to opt for arbitration committee and these are the reasons why: 1) I genuinely do not believe this can be solved by the community. Especially when its split between editors in WP:ANIME, editors who know me only through WP:AN and other editors who don't know of the matter. Regardless if i had valid ground to make an argument, its still under the basis that the previous AN and ANI discussion was not done adequately, adequately. And i don't think the administrators or the community will be willing to even consider that idea except for the ones who were part of it. 2) Its far too stressful to see how certain editors have no discretion when it comes to the things they are saying, but find and twist my words. There's a history of dismissing me, ignoring key questions, and over all Appeal to ridicule. Nothing i have asked has been answered, and none of my points have been countered. The only thing that has been done so far by the opposers is pick my words apart and refuse to answer.
I genuinely believe what i'm saying will receive more consideration there than here. Lucia Black (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Have you considered changing the scope of your request? For example, rather than requesting a complete removal of the restriction, requesting for your restriction to be relaxed in respect of say 3 specified articles (and their talk pages) from the topic. I'd be more open to considering support for that type of request as it would mean if you are doing good work, it would be recognised when you later request for a further relaxation after a month or two, but if there were still issues, the scope of any disruption is reduced also. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Ncmvocalist Can you give me a reason why i shouldn't ask for it to be removed entirely? Keep in mind, i'm only asking to remove the additional sanctions that have has no basis other than obscure consensus. There will still be sanctions. But right now, the sanctions that are in question are under no basis.
- Why would you not support removing those sanctions? Lucia Black (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- This discussion is more or less based on whether there was any grounds in the first place to add additional sanctions on top of the ones already implemented? Not whether i am a good editor. Everyone here knows i'm a good editor. those who don't only know me through WP:AN or ANI. and no one will ever go in AN and ANI for how "good" they are. so how can the opposers know how beneficial i am if they will only see the AN and ANI discussion, and not follow me elsewhere? Lucia Black (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- You're probably not making any progress with this angle because two editors already reviewed the close, and said it was a reasonable conclusion to come to. Sergecross73 msg me 19:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- The conclusion based on an obscure consensus. All I asked for was to reduce the original sanctions. So i ask again...for the sake of of being fair to me. Under what new actions did i do to cause to be banned from Japanese related media? All i asked for was it to be reduced and i was given permission by an administrator to do so. Refusing to answer this question is just WP:BATTLEGROUND because i'm going to be banned and not even know what i did to deserve it...Which seems to be against policy. Lucia Black (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- You're probably not making any progress with this angle because two editors already reviewed the close, and said it was a reasonable conclusion to come to. Sergecross73 msg me 19:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- This discussion is more or less based on whether there was any grounds in the first place to add additional sanctions on top of the ones already implemented? Not whether i am a good editor. Everyone here knows i'm a good editor. those who don't only know me through WP:AN or ANI. and no one will ever go in AN and ANI for how "good" they are. so how can the opposers know how beneficial i am if they will only see the AN and ANI discussion, and not follow me elsewhere? Lucia Black (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Like i said, ARBCOM is the only way to go, at this point. NO one is willing to answer this important question. And to me, it will forever look like "your topic banned because there was a consensus for it". I think in ARBCOM, the question will have to be answered, because its no longer about whether consensus controls any action, ARBCOM will be the consensus. SO it will rely more on which one has the more relevant point. Lucia Black (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Another arbitrary break
At this point, rather than pursue the same path and arguments that happened in the original topic ban discussion, I propose that we hear from a broader base of members from WP:ANIME and WP:VG. In the previous discussion (after looking back) I, perhaps somewhat hastily, proposed the wider anime/VG ban in addition to the GITS ban but ultimately only supported the GITS ban. I'm sure parties to the current discussion will want to wade in here, but rather than seeing the same old names rehash the same arguments, I think fresh eyes need to be brought in. Lucia, I highly recommend against starting any discussion here, not because I want to muzzle you, but I sincerely want to see what others, apart from the regulars here, have to say. Blackmane (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Anytime a discussion involves an edit Lucia dislikes or when she proposes a policy change, there is always an endless debate. While having been out of the loop and skipping most of the discussion, I believe Sergecross and Hasteur analyzed Lucia's behavior quite accurately. However, I think Lucia should receive different sanctions instead of the topic ban, mainly due to her edits on articles no other editors are taking up. My suggestions for sanctions would be: 1) Lucia should not start discussions on policy, MosS, and whatever changes that could be made. 2) Aside from vandalism or something that goes against the MoS, she should consult with an editor who will discuss the edits in her place (or turn her down on her request for a discussion). Her having two consistent consultant editors in WP:Anime and WP:VG would be sufficient. That should settle the Lucia Black disruptive thread syndrome unless I forgot something. Course, it'd be up to Lucia to accept those terms or not. If this does go to Arbcom, I can only imagine a complete ban for her. Excuse my grammar and derailment of thought here, it has been a long day for me. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 11:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- I cannot make this decision for the community, but I will say:
- Misplaced Pages is not about User:Lucia Black.
- An article is calling for help.
- 84.127.82.127 (talk) 08:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Having a question about sources at an obscure and largely unimportant article is hardly a reason for or against anyone's topic ban. It's truly mind-boggling to think that you thought this would matter in this discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 01:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Appeal of broadly construed three month topic ban
On the 8th of October I was topic banned for three months from Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and broadly related pages by the user PBS for being "disruptive"; the two justifying diffs were supplied as this and this. Note that the latter entry appears to have a refactoring of another's comments but that was dealt with and recognized later as a mistake. As evidenced by PBS's template and subsequent text he deemed that my disruption was created by not acknowledging or abiding by a unilateral moratorium on a topical discussion he suggested on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Subsequent to the objection of myself and several other involved third parties, as evidenced across talk pages, PBS stated that my three month topic ban was timed to coincide with his concocted moratorium which he deemed was to last until "the New Year".
I understand how ArbCom rulings work. I understand what disruptive editing looks like. I even try to consciously remind myself not to be melodramatic in the face of perceived slights or injustices. Nonetheless, this topic ban is not only undue in it's very inception but the length is arbitrary, unjust, and far outside the normal parameters associated with this ArbCom ruling. In fact, the length of this already unjustified topic ban seems to be entirely the product of an arbitrary timeline for a topical discussion PBS unilaterally decided upon instead of any logic based upon my actions here or my overall editing history.
My basic point remains unchanged, that the name of the Islamic State is dynamic and debatable and should be discussed by interested editors. That PBS would interject his own whims upon a non-pointy discussion (without any actual main space article changes) and then topic ban a user in good standing for not "abiding by" what was put forward as a "suggested moratorium" is quite outside the normal prerogatives we give to our admins. I would ask for a total rescinding of the topic ban without any prejudice. The ban is unjust and the underlying points of the discussion I was engaged in are perfectly legitimate in light of not only our naming conventions but the application of core policy. GraniteSand (talk) 05:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Looks like an odd ban to me. The admin placed a moratorium on name changes for ISIL, which, I think, shouldn't be done. (consensus is what make or breaks change , not by admin fiat ), and the two posts he pointed to were not disruptive, nor incivil. It was normal conversation on the page regarding the name. I'd say that ban needs to be shot down, and the admin needs to be , at the very least, counseled that he cannot rule by fiat the way he's attempting to do on that page. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I initially suggested a moratorium when closing the RM on the page (Revision as of 19:12, 3 October 2014). When that was ignored, I posted a more explicit message (Revision as of 18:10, 7 October 2014) Warning that it was no longer a suggestion and was now a warning by an uninvolved administrator under the general sanctions that apply to that talk page.
Revisions to User talk:GraniteSand
- Revision as of 19:11, 7 October 2014 (diff) — Sanctions notification specifically mentioning new sections initiated by GraniteSand since the last RM. Includes the line "If you have any questions about this post then feel free to ask me."
- Revision as of 22:20, 7 October 2014 (diff) GraniteSand removes Sanctions notification (prof or reading).
- Revision as of 10:28, 8 October 2014 (diff) Topic Ban
- Revision as of 23:47, 8 October 2014 (diff) In response to a posting by GraniteSand on my talk page Revision as of 21:22, 8 October 2014 (diff). This explanation includes the diffs mentioned above by GraniteSand note that the Rabbit line is incidental, one has to look at the bottom of the diff to see its relevance to this topic ban.
The reason for the ban is fundamentally a case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT. As I outline in the last bulleted diff presented I had been quite clear on this issue, but the two edits made by GraniteSand to the article talk page (see initial diff 1 and diff 2) shows that GraniteSand had either not understood, or was wilfully ignoring my disruptive posting. GraniteSand made no attempt to ask me for clarification either on the talk page (where GraniteSand made the two postings below my "moritorium/disruptive" statement) or on my talk page.
The length of the moratorium is three months this is customarily recognised as the minimum time between RMs whenthe participants of an RM have discussed the issue thoroughly--and with four RMs in the proceeding 2 months + a host of other sections on the talk page about moves had discussed the issue thoroughly and exhausted the RM process. The length of the topic ban on GraniteSand ties in with the next date that there will most probably be discussion on moving the page so that GraniteSand can participate in that discussion.
This is not a user account block or a general ban, GraniteSand still has literally millions of other pages to edit during the topic ban. -- PBS (talk) 11:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- The sanctions don't say anywhere that a discussion changing or move the page to a different name ( no comment on whether or not the name suggested has merit) is part of them. Once again, admins cannot rule by fiat. There's literally only ONE time that anything that even remotely looking like a fiat can be used, and that's WP:OFFICE actions, and that's rarely ever done. So, by admission you:
- The sanctions don't say anywhere that a discussion changing or move the page to a different name ( no comment on whether or not the name suggested has merit) is part of them. Once again, admins cannot rule by fiat. There's literally only ONE time that anything that even remotely looking like a fiat can be used, and that's WP:OFFICE actions, and that's rarely ever done. So, by admission you:
- Made a suggestion, that no one took you up on
- Made that suggestion a rule. With nothing else except your status as an admin to back it up
- Then proceeded to block someone for not being incvil, but rather for violating the rule you added in
That's an bad block and it needs to be reverted. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 13:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- I don't want to rehash the debate PBS wasn't involved in (until he suspended it) but here's some background on my edits in response to new and more explicit accusations of disruptive editing. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is predicated on the assumption that the parameters of the discussion and the accompanying justification have mostly not changed, that you're just beating a dead horse. When it comes to naming conventions surrounding the Islamic State, there is an active and robust discussion going on in academic and journalistic circles. In the days leading up to my topic ban there had been an empirical shift in what these independent reliable sources had to say on the topic, as I demonstrated on the discussion page by compiling a list of entirely new sources on the topic, some less than a day old at the time. Additionally, most naming convention discussions had taken place prior to ISIS changing their name to Islamic State and had therefor largely been a matter of semantics between ISIS and ISIL and not a discussion on whether the new IS was preferred over the previously settled upon ISIL. This is all to say that I was bringing new sources to an active topic and advocating my interpretation of those sources. That is nothing to be discouraged, much less topic banned for, and is not a case of disruptive behavior, even if some editors didn't like it or disagreed with my interpretation. GraniteSand (talk) 23:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- The user refused to consider consensus and was very combative against PBS and other involved users. He seemed to be looking for a fight. Legacypac (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
This appeal has now gone unaddressed for long enough that I've had to unarchive it. GraniteSand (talk) 07:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- User:KoshVorlon, you say "The sanctions don't say anywhere that a discussion changing or move the page to a different name ( no comment on whether or not the name suggested has merit) is part of them" - no of course they don't, they were never meant to be that specific. They are about behaviour, in this case behaviour in that discussion. Dougweller (talk) 11:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Dougweller That sentance (mine ) could have been written better, but yes, you're correct. General Sanctions, as well as Discretionary Sanctions are meant to be specific per General Sanction guidelines. They state:
When general sanctions are employed, they are specifically detailed instructions by which community consensus or Arbcom motion has empowered administrators to act single-handedly to sanction editors who are not complying with general behavioral or editorial guidelines and policies. .
- Dougweller That sentance (mine ) could have been written better, but yes, you're correct. General Sanctions, as well as Discretionary Sanctions are meant to be specific per General Sanction guidelines. They state:
- In this case, a suggestion was made that was not instituted as General Sanctions of any kind, it was merely a suggestion. A suggestion can be taken or not, with no penalty to refusing. In this case, the suggestion was not taken, and the user was blocked for it. It looks, to me, like the admin overstepped his bounds, and I still believe the ban needs to be reversed. Not to be a dick or anything, but if the sanction had already been in place, and then violated, Granite Sand would have no leg to stand on, but that didn't happen, again, he didn't take a suggestion given to him, that's all. Reverse the topic ban and do what's right. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, User:KoshVorlon, take a look at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions#Active sanctions and tell me how this sanction is basically any different, and what details instructions are lacking in it that are present one of our most frequently violated sanctions, those on Israeli-Palestine articles. That sanction says "Any uninvolved administrator may impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process (full text)." The Syrian civil war sanction says (Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant "Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." Identical because this sanction is meant to mimic ARBPIA sanctions. I don't know what you mean by "if the sanction had been in place". Dougweller (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Certainly Dougweller. Yes, I agree with you that there are indeed sanctions on this page, and yes they mirror ARBPIA, but none of those restrictions show anything about starting a discussion, they state the article is under 1RR except for obvious vandalism. Yes, Granite sand was warned about those same sanctions here however, please note , again that those sanctions do not include starting new discussions about changing the name. That was a suggestion made by the blocking admin [here , and note this was a suggestion not a sanction, just a suggestion that was in no way covered by discretionary sanctions at all. After this suggestion was made, it was not accepted ( note the discussions below concerning changing the name ).
Now, we all can make suggestions, if they're not accepted, it's pretty well known that it's poor form to try to force that change through. Or said another way, if I had been the one to post the suggestion "Hey let's not talk about renaming ISIL again until next year" and no one took me up on it, and I decided to take action by deleting anything that mentioned such a rename and pointed back to that suggestion, I'd be in some hot water, and it would be well deserved. That's just what this admin did. His suggestion wasn't taken, consensus went against him, so he decided to try to force it through | here as "Discretionary Sanctions", but note, that Discretionary sanctions don't cover this, it's not a blank check for the admin to push his way through and ignore consensus, which is just what he did.
Unban him, it's just that simple. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC) yeah, I know, TL/DR, sorry about that ! KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
User:KoshVorlon - Sorry, you're still confused. Sanctions and 1RR are separate things. The sanctions have no specific restrictions, they are about behavior:"if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process". Behavior can be in article space, on the article's talk page, or in fact elsewhere if it concerns the subject covered by the sanction. The fact that it involved a move discussion is immaterial. To repeat myself, they cover any discussion relevant to the sanctions. Dougweller (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think the sanctions are pretty clear: "Sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages within the scope of these sanctions, bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. RGloucester — ☎ 02:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
To reiterate, my appeal has nothing to do with the scope of an uninvolved administrator's prerogative in using discretionary sanctions in the instance of what is perceived as disruptive behavior. My appeal is based on the facts and circumstances of PBS's judgment in invoking that prerogative in this particular instance. I maintain that my behavior was not disruptive, that PBS lacked the consensus he asserted here, that his behavior was unwise and unilateral, that the scope of my editing doesn't warrant a topical ban, and that the term of my topic ban is far outside the normal parameters of such bans. I'm disturbed that no administrator has yet taken this up. I appreciate Dougweller's and RGloucester's discussions on the finer points of ArbCom rulings but they're not relevant to my appeal. Also, RGlouceseter is rather involved in the subject at hand. GraniteSand (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- @GraniteSand: Well, I what I meant by the bolding of that piece of text was that you should focus your argument on whether PBS's use of these measures was "reasonably necessary". He doesn't need "consensus", because community sanctions give him power as an uninvolved administrator to unilaterally take "any measures reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project". The question here is not whether PBS had the authority to do what he did, but whether it was "reasonable". You'll have a much more effective argument if you take-up that angle. Why do you think it was "unreasonable" for him to issue the moratorium? Following that, why do you think it was "unreasonable" for him to impose a three month topic ban? Answer these two questions, and you'll be in better shape. RGloucester — ☎ 17:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Not consensus on the application of the topic ban but an assertion that there was a universal agreement other than myself on his "moratorium on discussion", which was not the case. I thought he made the assertion here but, upon review, he did not. I'll try to find the diff but the larger issue of my appeal doesn't hinge on the assertion of consensus for the moratorium because it clearly doesn't exist anyway, as has already been demonstrated. Nobody asked for it and when he "suggested it" nobody took him up on it. I think that I've already made clear that my edits were not disruptive and that others on the article talk page were not only involved in discussing my position in a constructive manner but then went on to say that they found PBS's unsolicited moratorium unnecessary and my topic ban excessive and inappropriate. It would appear that instead of PBS issuing a topic ban to prevent the disruption of the project he issued a moratorium on discussion and then banned me simply because he had decided what he thought was the right answer to the topic at hand and was tired of seeing it come up, regardless of changes in the form and content of reliable sources on the subject. I would also think that my appeal inherently infers PBS demonstrated unreasonable behavior. Bringing up brand new reliable sources making assertions about a dynamic topic of frequent and substantive discussion and talking about how our policies relate to what those sources say is not disruptive. Then, aside from the application of the ban, the length is an unreasonable outlier all on its own. The other topical bans issued under this set of sanctions last for days not months. His topic ban lasts for the length of his unsolicited and ill-formed moratorium when topical bans should be reflective of the scope and severity of the "disruptive" behavior. Regardless, there should have been a substantive response made to this appeal by uninvovled admins some time ago. I know there is a reasonable hesitancy to overturn other admins decisions but this seems rather clear cut to me. After all, I know most admins aren't afraid of saying "no" if they truly feel that's the right answer. GraniteSand (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- I suppose the question is, then, do you plan to abide by the moratorium in the event that your topic ban is lifted? Or, on the other hand, do you plan to challenge the moratorium as well? RGloucester — ☎ 20:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm of the opinion that the moratorium itself is unreasonable, which is why I asked for this decision to be overturned "without prejudice". I'm sorry if that wasn't clear; it's rather wikilawyer-ish and an old bad habit of mine. Were the topic to be totally stale, which is to say the subject wasn't fluid and the body of reliable sources not changing, then community consensus alone would be enough to simply refer new queries to previous discussions, making a moratorium superfluous. The reality, though, is the opposite, which makes the moratorium unwise and stifling to the nature of the project. How can we disallow the discussion of a relevant topic in a fast changing subject? It's antithetical to what we do here. Now, of course, if my appeal is overturned and the unilateral moratorium not then I won't disregard it, that would be belligerent and unwise. The moratorium should be overturned, though, and I'll pursue it as an independent topic of discussion, here or elsewhere. GraniteSand (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Personally, I think it is best to do the following. Firstly, separate the matter of your topic ban and the moratorium. Secondly, agree to abide by the moratorium until it is overturned or expires in return for the lifting of the topic ban. Thirdly, if you'd still like to continue your suit to appeal the moratorium, open a new thread at this noticeboard after the topic ban has been lifted. I believe that this is the best way forward. If you are willing to follow this route, I will support lifting topic ban. This thread here should only deal with the matter of your topic ban. RGloucester — ☎ 20:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm of the opinion that the moratorium itself is unreasonable, which is why I asked for this decision to be overturned "without prejudice". I'm sorry if that wasn't clear; it's rather wikilawyer-ish and an old bad habit of mine. Were the topic to be totally stale, which is to say the subject wasn't fluid and the body of reliable sources not changing, then community consensus alone would be enough to simply refer new queries to previous discussions, making a moratorium superfluous. The reality, though, is the opposite, which makes the moratorium unwise and stifling to the nature of the project. How can we disallow the discussion of a relevant topic in a fast changing subject? It's antithetical to what we do here. Now, of course, if my appeal is overturned and the unilateral moratorium not then I won't disregard it, that would be belligerent and unwise. The moratorium should be overturned, though, and I'll pursue it as an independent topic of discussion, here or elsewhere. GraniteSand (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- I suppose the question is, then, do you plan to abide by the moratorium in the event that your topic ban is lifted? Or, on the other hand, do you plan to challenge the moratorium as well? RGloucester — ☎ 20:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Not consensus on the application of the topic ban but an assertion that there was a universal agreement other than myself on his "moratorium on discussion", which was not the case. I thought he made the assertion here but, upon review, he did not. I'll try to find the diff but the larger issue of my appeal doesn't hinge on the assertion of consensus for the moratorium because it clearly doesn't exist anyway, as has already been demonstrated. Nobody asked for it and when he "suggested it" nobody took him up on it. I think that I've already made clear that my edits were not disruptive and that others on the article talk page were not only involved in discussing my position in a constructive manner but then went on to say that they found PBS's unsolicited moratorium unnecessary and my topic ban excessive and inappropriate. It would appear that instead of PBS issuing a topic ban to prevent the disruption of the project he issued a moratorium on discussion and then banned me simply because he had decided what he thought was the right answer to the topic at hand and was tired of seeing it come up, regardless of changes in the form and content of reliable sources on the subject. I would also think that my appeal inherently infers PBS demonstrated unreasonable behavior. Bringing up brand new reliable sources making assertions about a dynamic topic of frequent and substantive discussion and talking about how our policies relate to what those sources say is not disruptive. Then, aside from the application of the ban, the length is an unreasonable outlier all on its own. The other topical bans issued under this set of sanctions last for days not months. His topic ban lasts for the length of his unsolicited and ill-formed moratorium when topical bans should be reflective of the scope and severity of the "disruptive" behavior. Regardless, there should have been a substantive response made to this appeal by uninvovled admins some time ago. I know there is a reasonable hesitancy to overturn other admins decisions but this seems rather clear cut to me. After all, I know most admins aren't afraid of saying "no" if they truly feel that's the right answer. GraniteSand (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- @GraniteSand: Well, I what I meant by the bolding of that piece of text was that you should focus your argument on whether PBS's use of these measures was "reasonably necessary". He doesn't need "consensus", because community sanctions give him power as an uninvolved administrator to unilaterally take "any measures reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project". The question here is not whether PBS had the authority to do what he did, but whether it was "reasonable". You'll have a much more effective argument if you take-up that angle. Why do you think it was "unreasonable" for him to issue the moratorium? Following that, why do you think it was "unreasonable" for him to impose a three month topic ban? Answer these two questions, and you'll be in better shape. RGloucester — ☎ 17:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I think that's entirely reasonable. GraniteSand (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- @PBS: – As you were the sanctioning administrator, would you consider lifting the topic ban in line with the procedure I outlined above? I think this is a good compromise. First of all, it will confirm whether the moratorium is justified in a new thread, and secondly, it will allow for that moratorium to be abided by in the mean-time. It strikes me as being better to try and resolve these disputes, rather than to let them languish, and I do believe that GraniteSand has no particular ill-intent that is so worthy of a three month topic ban. RGloucester — ☎ 22:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
| A list of 9 sections on the talk page about the page name over the month before the moratorium |
|---|
|
- All those sections were on the talk page at the time I imposed the moratorium. It has long been accepted practice for RM processes to draw a line under move discussions, for a time between discussions, to stop endless discussion.
- GraniteSand has written in this section:
- "My basic point remains unchanged, that the name of the Islamic State is dynamic and debatable and should be discussed by interested editors."
- "This is all to say that I was bringing new sources to an active topic and advocating my interpretation of those sources"
- "The moratorium should be overturned, though, and I'll pursue it as an independent topic of discussion, here or elsewhere".
- This is a continuation of the behaviour for which GraniteSand's topic ban was imposed.
- It is quite common administrators who close RMs to put time limits on when the next one can be held, so my actions were not unusual; and limits on RMs can also be found applied by administrators under various sanctions (eg Talk:Liancourt Rocks).
- RGloucester you write "I think this is a good compromise" is a rhetoric construct, as it implies that there is a compromise to he had and that this is a good one (it also implies that you are a neutral actor -- you are not "No. Please stop. There is no need to be constantly debating the title. Leave it well alone. We've had enough move requests already." written by you directly before my moratorium statement ). It is also no compromise at all because it allows GraniteSand to fill the talk page with debates about the moratorium and "that it should be overturned because..." Something GraniteSand has made clear (s)he will do in this section.
- Instead here is an alternative proposal: that there will be an RfC with a simple statement "It is proposed the moratorium of page moves should be lifted immediately" (similar to Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Propose moratorium on pagemove discussion -- the difference being that was proposing to create one this is to lift it); and if there is a consensus that the moratorium should be lifted the topic ban on GraniteSand will also end, otherwise the topic ban stays in place until the moratorium ends. -- PBS (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- PBS, there is no reason to attack me. You're well aware that I support the moratorium, as evidenced by comments. I never said otherwise. However, I do not support the topic ban. I believe these matters are separate. GraniteSand has agreed to abide by the moratorium until it is overturned or expires. That means he won't be "filling the talk page with debates about the moratorium", because, as I said, he would pursue an overturn of the moratorium in a new thread here at WP:AN, as is appropriate for review of administrative actions. The idea that his topic ban will only end if the moratorium ends is draconian, to say the least. RGloucester — ☎ 14:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- So, by your post above, 6 users asked for a move discussion. You state that this occured after you suggested that no move occur until next year. It appears consensus was against you. I understand you're aggravated, however, by calling your suggestion and discretionary sanction, you've given the appearance of ignoring consensus and forcing your will in. Therefore, in a show of good will, I suggest you drop the ban. As my contribution history shows, I haven't posted on that page at all, and have no stake in whatever name consensus decides, so it's not like I have a side I'm on here (as far as naming goes ). KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- PBS, there is no reason to attack me. You're well aware that I support the moratorium, as evidenced by comments. I never said otherwise. However, I do not support the topic ban. I believe these matters are separate. GraniteSand has agreed to abide by the moratorium until it is overturned or expires. That means he won't be "filling the talk page with debates about the moratorium", because, as I said, he would pursue an overturn of the moratorium in a new thread here at WP:AN, as is appropriate for review of administrative actions. The idea that his topic ban will only end if the moratorium ends is draconian, to say the least. RGloucester — ☎ 14:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
PBS has seemed to have gone through a daily edit cycle without responding to either KoshVorlon or RGloucester. While I very much appreciate the input of admins and editors so far, an entire week has gone by and no uninvoloved admin has rendered a judgement or opinion here. This is ridiculous. Therefor I'm going to take the rather unorthodox step of reaching out and requesting the input of three admins whose opinions and judgement I greatly respect, even though I've often found myself in disagreement with them at various points. These editors are @DGG:, @Acalamari: and @BrownHairedGirl:. This could very much be viewed as canvassing but all three are of independent mind and I don't expect any particular result. At this point any result would be adequate, even if it's "no". I just want some resolution here so I can move on to the next step, one way or another. GraniteSand (talk) 12:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- I did not respond to KoshVorlon because the time stamps on my post do not support the assertion. I did not respond to RGloucester because I think that I have already answered the points RGloucester raised. I have started an RfC on the Moratorium on the talk page of the article (See here) -- PBS (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- I was asked for an opinion. As I see it. the disruption is the continued focus on the pagename of the article. Such repeated discussions are in my opinion not conducive to editing articles, which is what an encyclopedia should be doing. I support unblock if he is willing to accept not discussing renaming of this article anywhere on WP until the end of the moratorium, and not bringing an RfC on the matter or encouraging one. (If on is brought by someone else in good faith, I think one brief comment there would be allowable, but I very strongly advise that nobody open such a RfC--it is counterproductive to the concept of the moratorium.) I think the moratorium was a very good idea. I would in fact be very much in favor of a considerably longer one, except that the actual situation in the RW is itself unstable. DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- @DGG:, as I said before, I'll abide by the moratorium until it is lifted. It seems like PBS has decided to start an RfC. I'm assuming that nobody has a problem with me participating there in a concise manner. As far as lifting my topic ban, should another uninvoled editor agree in addition to you would you be comfortable making an affirmative action there? I know that both you can RGloucester have made conditional statements of support there but RGloucester is involved and I wouldn't feel good about it without the input of one more admin. GraniteSand (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- You cannot participate in the RfC whilst topic-banned. That would lead to a block. RGloucester — ☎ 23:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Which is why, after
two adminsthe only admin to participate so far has conditionally supported the lifting of my ban, I suspect @PBS: has put the cart before the horse and stared the RfC now. I would guess he sees the potential for my topic ban being lifted so he's trying to have this done without my participation. Unless I'm wrong, and he, as the blocking admin, wouldn't mind my participation there. GraniteSand (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)- this is of course an absurd situation: this sort of circular dilemma is a violation of one of our basic principles, NOT BURO. I am not familiar with the working of arb enforcement & how to word things there. Will someone who is please enter the appropriate modification there. Enough is enough. (I can say from everything I've seen here that I will very strongly support continuing the moratorium.) DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- I initiated the RfC on the moratorium, to counter the the argument presented here that is is an arbitrary action with no support. I would prefer to unilaterally lift the sanctions on GraniteSand, but GraniteSand you have to give a clear indication that you will not only follow DGG's requirement " is willing to accept not discussing renaming of this article anywhere on WP until the end of the moratorium, and not bringing an RfC on the matter or encouraging one." but in addition agree not to discuss the Moratorium anywhere on WP (or participate in the current RfC on the Moratorium -- If you wish to have your opposition to the moratorium noted in the Open RfC I will do that for you). -- PBS (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- {@PBS: The alternative option, PBS, is to change the topic ban. You can very easily narrow it to "discussing changes to the title of the ISIL article for xxxxx", as opposed banning him from ISIL all together. RGloucester — ☎ 12:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Lifting my topic ban while insisting that I not participate in the only subject I was an active in the topic isn't lifting the topic ban at all. You've started an RfC on your unsolicited moratorium, poorly advertised it and then insisted that my dissenting voice not be allowed to participate in it, all to prove its broad support. That's ridiculous. Your RfC needs not just the dissenting voices that initially objected to it but a wider consensus from outside the article page which has become somewhat of an echo chamber on the issue between two or three editors. I fully agree to RGloucester's conditions and but you've already nullified DGG's terms by starting an RfC. GraniteSand (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Where else would you like the RfC advertised? -- PBS (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- The bevy of previous editors who have brought up the topic should be advised and it should be advertised in relevant WikiProjects such as MILHIST, IRAQ, SYRIA, and TERRORISM. I'd also expand the RfC subject classification. GraniteSand (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Where else would you like the RfC advertised? -- PBS (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Lifting my topic ban while insisting that I not participate in the only subject I was an active in the topic isn't lifting the topic ban at all. You've started an RfC on your unsolicited moratorium, poorly advertised it and then insisted that my dissenting voice not be allowed to participate in it, all to prove its broad support. That's ridiculous. Your RfC needs not just the dissenting voices that initially objected to it but a wider consensus from outside the article page which has become somewhat of an echo chamber on the issue between two or three editors. I fully agree to RGloucester's conditions and but you've already nullified DGG's terms by starting an RfC. GraniteSand (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- this is of course an absurd situation: this sort of circular dilemma is a violation of one of our basic principles, NOT BURO. I am not familiar with the working of arb enforcement & how to word things there. Will someone who is please enter the appropriate modification there. Enough is enough. (I can say from everything I've seen here that I will very strongly support continuing the moratorium.) DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Which is why, after
- You cannot participate in the RfC whilst topic-banned. That would lead to a block. RGloucester — ☎ 23:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- @DGG:, as I said before, I'll abide by the moratorium until it is lifted. It seems like PBS has decided to start an RfC. I'm assuming that nobody has a problem with me participating there in a concise manner. As far as lifting my topic ban, should another uninvoled editor agree in addition to you would you be comfortable making an affirmative action there? I know that both you can RGloucester have made conditional statements of support there but RGloucester is involved and I wouldn't feel good about it without the input of one more admin. GraniteSand (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- My view of it, for what it is worth, is that the topic ban was correctly added. There was a request to change the name, there was a consensus in opposition to changing the name, and GraniteSand continued to make edits changing the name and insisting on brining up the issue right away. That violates WP:CCC: "proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive." Given this was under discretionary sanctions PBS was free to institute the topic ban as an uninvolved admin. That said an exactly 3 month moratorium shouldn't be done without consensus (which the RfC seems to be providing from what I have seen of it so far). But GraniteSand was not waiting even close to a reasonable time before proposing to see of consensus had changed, and that's disruptive even without an explicit moratorium. That said I would support limiting the scope of the topic ban to "discussing changes to the title of the ISIL article" until the RfC for the moratorium closes and then for the length of any moratorium, outside of a single vote and a maximum 300 word reason in the RfC on the moratorium. --Obsidi (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Your view is worth a lot, thanks for taking the plunge and participating. Now, for what my two cents is worth, I'd like to point out that the consensus you sight was merely a snapshot. If there was a consensus to not reexamine naming conventions then the page wouldn't be seeing a flood of requests to do so. The consensus you're talking about consists of two, at best three, editors who are heavily involved in the article space. Not that I'd say it constitutes ownership but it's definitely some what of an echo chamber where those few editors quickly band together to shoot down new voices concerned about naming conventions. COncerns pop up, these couple of editors play off each other to shoot it down, rinse and repeat. It was for this reason which I wanted to put together a well advertised RfC on the subject, so as to establish an actual consensus, which I was topic banned for suggesting. Also consider that much of the "old history" used to justify this moratorium was based on the semantic argument between ISIL and ISIS, one that I agree has been resolved. My concerns are about the recent renaming of the group to Islamic State, which is only a few weeks old and has so has a much shorter history. I also introduced brand new sources on the topic which has only broken in the past two weeks, thereby demonstrating that what independent reliable sources had to say on the matter had shifted. GraniteSand (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Bot issues
It seems to be a bot been editing while logged out or some technical issue. Special:Contributions/10.68.16.32. I will post this up on VPT as well. ///EuroCarGT 03:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Possibly ClueBot 3 according to recent contributions to own user page. --///EuroCarGT 03:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Discussion active on WP:BOWN, not blocking at this time. — xaosflux 03:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks Xaosflux. ///EuroCarGT 04:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Blocked, see notice at the bottom of this board, and more details at WP:BOWN. — xaosflux 22:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Done Issue resolved, block cleared. — xaosflux 22:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: You should never block RFC1918 IPs, because it causes problems for users behind trusted XFF proxies. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- I did soft block it only, so logged in users should have been fine, I also watched for auto blocks and none appeared while being observed. — xaosflux 22:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: You should never block RFC1918 IPs, because it causes problems for users behind trusted XFF proxies. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Blocked, see notice at the bottom of this board, and more details at WP:BOWN. — xaosflux 22:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Banned from IRC?
Apparently my IRC nick (GeorgeEdwardC) has been banned from numerous IRC channels. I'd like to question this, since I did absolutely nothing. I'm banned from #wikipedia , #cvn-wp-en , #wikidata , and I'm not sure why. It could be my IRC provider, and it might not be. George.Edward.C – Talk – Contributions 17:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages has nothing to do with IRC, we have no authority there and it isn't under the control of the Foundation. You would need to talk to someone there. I know, that might not seem obvious, but really, we aren't affiliated in any way. Dennis - 2¢ 17:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- So... Where can I contact said people? It appears I'm only banned from WMF channels, except #cvn-simplewikis, strangely. George.Edward.C – Talk – Contributions 17:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- You are not banned from IRC. The IRC client you were connecting with has been banned from our channels due to it repeatedly being used abusively by others. If you connect with another client, you should be fine. For future reference, however, questions about IRC bans, etc should be asked on the #wikimedia-ops channel on IRC. You're much more likely to find someone who's able to answer your question there than on a noticeboard onwiki. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hi George, Rjd0060 has set you a ban exemption for your NickServ account for the #wikipedia channel and I have just set you one for the #wikidata channel. If you identify to your NickServ account, you should be able to join both these channels. If you can't join, poke either Rjd (RD on freenode) for #wikipedia or if you can't join #wikidata, poke me (JohnLewis on freenode) and we'll resolve it for you. Thanks, John F. Lewis (talk) 19:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! George.Edward.C – Talk – Contributions 08:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Authority to topic ban?
An admin can topic ban a user at their own discretion if and only if discretionary sanctions have been authorized for the topic; see the banning policy's section "Authority to ban". If there are no DS, topic bans can only be done via consensus on AN/ANI, which is in practice pretty difficult to achieve, even in cases where … well, never mind, forgot what I was going to say. Anyway.
I bring this up in relation to a situation where I have blocked a user for two weeks for personal attacks and battleground editing on and around a certain article. The user has requested unblock and unambiguously offered to stay away from the topic for six months in return for being unblocked to work in other areas: "I would like to be unblocked on the condition that I stay away from and related pages (for at least 6 months)." My whole TLDR block rationale and all details can be found here and the complete unblock request here, but they don't really matter, as this is a question of principle. I would like to comply with the request, but I would need to be sure of the status of such a topic ban. I need it to be as tight as a T-ban as defined at WP:TBAN; the user's proposal is made in good faith, no doubt, but I still don't want to end up with an unenforceable ban. Can the user's own offer give me the authority to topic ban them, which I don't otherwise have per WP:BAN? I hope so; it would presumably make the user happy, and me also. In any case I'm not going to request a community topic ban, it's too much of a hassle and timesink and would make far fewer people happy. Bishonen | talk 20:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC).
- In theory, no, in practice, it's not that uncommon for a user to accept an informal ban in order to get unblocked. Given the user has suggested the condition, I don't think community ban discussion would be that big a deal -- don't see why anyone would oppose it. NE Ent 21:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- From my experience, any sanction given as a condition of unblock is an enforceable sanction, as long as the user agrees to it before being unblocked. Because they are voluntarily accepting it, you are just acting on behalf of the community by inacting it Like all admin actions, it would be subject to review and the community could override or revert your decision, but again, that is true of everything you do as admin. This would be a self-imposed sanction in lieu of remaining blocked. If you KNOW the community would accept it, then there is no controversy and you are just saving the time of the community. Just as when you block a vandal, you know the community would vote to block them. While it isn't written down in policy this plainly, the spirit of policy supports it, so WP:IAR backs you. It isn't extremely common, but it is done somewhat regularly for serial edit warring and the like. I would log it like any other tban. Dennis - 2¢ 21:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- While I agree with NE Ent above (technically no, in practice yes), I bet we can get community consensus that any topic ban voluntarily accepted as a condition of being unblocked is authorized by the community (maybe with some maximum time limit). That would solve it in theory as well going forward. --obsidi (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think this is tested frequently enough to be confident that the analysis by Dennis would always apply—my feeling is that a wikilawyer could justifiably say that an unblock cannot include a logged topic ban. However, it's a model unblock request and I recommend simply accepting it with a request that the user follow their offer to stay away from the topic for six months. There is no need to point out there would probably be a bad outcome if there were a future problem regarding the topic in less than six months. That is, a voluntary offer accepted with an unblock is as good as a topic ban in practice. Johnuniq (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Bishonen should not worry that much about an unenforceable ban. What if Elvey happens to make a positive contribution to that topic? The user may be playing with fire, but it is possible; would an administrator block because of positive contributions? Let the user make a disruptive edit and the decision will be easier. 84.127.82.127 (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
As a practical matter you can warn an editor not to do X, because you are afraid that if they do X, they will get themselves into trouble. If the editor then does X in a harmless way, you ignore it, but if they do anything slightly malicious, you can be very strict. Effectively, this functions like a topic ban, but I recommend not calling that or you'll get people riled. Jehochman 01:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Bishonen unblock away. The agreement isn't going to be binding as a topic ban though. Blocks are for short term disruption. "Promising to end the disruption by staying away from the topic area" is an unnecessary added condition to just "promising to end the disruption." On it's face, it appears that the editor is offering more but in reality is offering less ("I won't edit war or personal attack in that Topic Area"). Really, the unblock should happen on a general promise to stop disruption and the bar for reblock would be very low for the behavior, not the topic. Don't even bother with the topic area as it's really just a reason to appeal a future block for the same behavior in a different area. I like the idea of the conditional topic ban offer and it should be tracked so that future disruption is a very low hurdle but in the end it's a simple block for disruption. --DHeyward (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- DHeyward, the user offered to stay away altogether from the topic area for at least six months. The other things they wrote — I'll AGF, I'll be civil, etc — clearly referred to their future editing elsewhere. (The small topic area we're talking about is far from being the user's only interest on Misplaced Pages). Anyway, I've offered them an unblock on the conditions they themselves suggested. Thank you all for your input, it was helpful. Going to bed now. Bishonen | talk 01:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC).
- As an alternative take on this; admins were elected to represent the disciplinary will of the community. When an editor makes an offer of a voluntary topic ban and the admin chooses to accept the offer and unblock based on the strength of that commitment, it should be viewed as a community endorsement of the topic ban and that violations of said topic ban should be dealt with in the usual way. Blackmane (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- This unblock request has a negotiable, voluntary covenant. The user has agreed to a set of conditions for their unblock. If they violate the conditions, the unblock is void by their own agreement. There's no harm in returning the block when they violate their own agreement. No one is making them agree to the terms; they're quite allowed to just stay blocked. Doubly so when they proposed the conditions of the covenant themselves. Unblock, and if they violate their own proposed terms, block them back again. Simple as that. --Jayron32 01:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- No, that is not right. I have seen time and again editors violating their bans with some absent-minded gnomish and trivial change. To say that the editor has voluntarily agreed to a set of conditions for their unblock fails to recognise that it is under duress. It just becomes an end run around the restrictions on placing bans. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
How to disengage?
This is related to the Gamergate controversy but I am not looking to bring up any other individuals' behavioral issues directly as none of them to me can be qualified as admin actions, only my own participation and behavior. I have been struggling to keep the article in what I feel is the right neutral tone that meets WP's standards but been getting stonewalled. In terms of dispute resolution there is currently an ArbCom case, but the likely result presently is going to be them denying the case until sanctions have had a chance to be tested, so at most in a couple of weeks until the case will be reopened.
In the meantime, I am finding myself to a degree consumed by trying to keep the talk page discussion going about neutrality and facing multiple editors that simply aren't going to change their mind (but otherwise doing nothing that is ANI-worthy behavior at this point). I'm at a point that I feel I just want to disengage myself from the discussion at least until the ArbCom case can be reopened, but I need help disengaging as I feel if I look away, the article is going to get much less neutral than it should be. I need advice how to do this (arguably I could just unwatch the pages) or any other recommended steps or advice. --MASEM (t) 03:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- As you already stated, you could just unwatch the articles. You would probably need to unwatch a lot of the dispute resolution forums (such as AN/I and WP:BLPN). If you don't think that's enough to force you to disengage, would you be willing to accept a topic ban? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Disengaged is all you can do. If I had followed that advice in the past? I never would've gotten my 13-month forced vacation. GoodDay (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Just give up, abandon the article completely. It is not worth stressing yourself out by endlessly arguing against entrenched viewpoints on a talk page. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- I've found myself having to do the same before, unwatch the page and anything remotely linked to it, including some user's pages. Quit cold turkey, then limp away. It is very possible to care too much, about the right things, and have a desire to do good things, yet have it consume you so much it can bring out the worst in you over time. It is discouraging at the time, but often the best solution for everyone involved, including yourself. Dennis - 2¢ 16:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sad to say this (because of the specific topic), but I agree with the others - just unwatch and leave. Unlike most, you understand that there is nothing that can be done there - and I'll add further that several of the most problematic users there have gained a bit of immunity, so there is nothing that can be done here either (or, well, more specifically at ANI). So, bad as this sounds, accept the inevitable and drop it before you get into trouble, and go clear some of those admin backlogs that are inevitably piling up elsewhere. ansh666 20:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
| Off topic comment was redacted, apologized for, apologized for again. Requested this be collapsed. |
|---|
|
- Consider it like being in love with a female, who isn't in love with you & considers you only a friend. What's best is to walk away. Don't do anything for her, unless she does things with you. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Is this an actual fucking joke? Protonk (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- A touch of light humour from RL experiences. But, if you wish it deleted, I will oblige. GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Is this an actual fucking joke? Protonk (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
RfC: General actions over systematic changes of values from one system of measurement to another
Closed as duplicate. Please comment at the original discussion above. RGloucester — ☎ 14:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should general sanctions based on the following quotation be enabled? -- PBS (talk) 09:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
In articles that have strong ties solely to the United Kingdom, as opposed to other English-speaking countries, any editor who systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another without clear consensus, who edit-wars over such a change, who disrupts talk page discussions or normal Misplaced Pages processes pertaining to units in UK-related articles, who engages in forum-shopping, or who otherwise disruptively edits may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator. Sanctions can be imposed if, after being notified of the existence of these sanctions, the editor repeatedly repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the the purpose of Misplaced Pages, 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.
- Comment see previous discussion: #General sanctions for matters pertaining to units of measurement in Britain -- PBS (talk) 09:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Request that this RfC be closed immediately – I explicitly told PBS not to use my words, or my text, for any RfC that he wants to start. He made an AN/I thread on this matter, and no one supported his bad faith behaviour. Now he comes back here, takes the words I told him not to use, and tries to start a farcical "RfC". This is a joke, a duplicate of an existing discussion, and a attempt to stymie something that has consensus. I've followed the normal process, but that's not good enough for PBS. Instead, he has to badger me, separating the proposal I wrote from its authors, staring RfCs without my consent. I believe that PBS should be sanctioned for such behaviour, but I'll deal with that at WP:AN/I. RGloucester — ☎ 13:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- If there are differing views on the wording, it would seem appropriate to offer several alternatives and ask the community to choose one (or none) of those, especially when dealling with a topic where "ownership" of the rules may be one of the major issues. --Boson (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- PBS doesn't have a "differing view on wording", and PBS hasn't presented an alternative wording. He has presented the wording I PROPOSED in a parallel process, as an attempt to discredit my proposal above. I've spent weeks proposing various alternatives, asking or feedback, and the results are up above at the appropriate thread. This is just a diversionary attempt at forcing a bureaucratic process onto this proposal. General sanctions are not established by RfC. They are established through discusion at WP:AN. Close this thread. RGloucester — ☎ 16:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- *Close this there's already one running here on a this same board above us. Though we don't own our words on Misplaced Pages (nothing's copyrighted), it's a bit unusual, to say the least , to have two RFC's on the same thing running. Close this one and let the other one continue on. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- I believe it is an ethnical obligation, rather than a legal one. RGloucester — ☎ 17:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- The other proposal is explicitly NOT an RfC, RGloucester objected to using the RfC process for his proposal (which is his right to do), and so the other one is not an RfC. --Obsidi (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- *Close this there's already one running here on a this same board above us. Though we don't own our words on Misplaced Pages (nothing's copyrighted), it's a bit unusual, to say the least , to have two RFC's on the same thing running. Close this one and let the other one continue on. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Close as duplicate—While this was a good-faith effort to broaden discussion, there are far better ways of accomplishing that. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- "What are the far better ways of accomplishing "? -- PBS (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I don't see the problem, if he wants a larger audience to come here and comment on it, it doesn't stop or prevent the previous proposals from continuing, and does not stop them from reaching consensus just as they normally would. (although if/when the other proposal gets consensus this would probably be closed at the same time as moot). The only problem I can see is potentially fractured conversation on the topic, but given the RfC has different procedures and a different audience I don't think its that big of a deal. --Obsidi (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- He doesn't have the right to force this proposal through an RfC. No where in policy or guidelines is he given the right to do that. RGloucester — ☎ 20:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- He is free to request an RfC on anything he wants to. That doesn't force your proposal to only go through an RfC (they can operate independently).--Obsidi (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- No, because this RfC is my proposal. He's taken my proposal, moved it around, screwed up the existing discussion and caused what can only be described as WP:Forumshopping. RGloucester — ☎ 20:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- If he is proposing that regardless of whatever consensus occurs in your thread, the RfC will reverse that, I would agree with you, that would be WP:Forumshopping. Forum shopping is like going to one admin, getting the answer "no", going to a second admin to try get a different answer (and so on). Using the second one to override the answer given in the first. But I see this request differently, he is not proposing that whatever consensus you come up with be overridden by the RfC. He is proposing his own process (using an RfC), that may get consensus before yours does. For instance yours might end in "no consensus" but the RfC would continue collecting input for the rest of the month and might get a consensus at the end of that. Its very rare to have something like this occur and should usually be avoided so that we can have a unified discussion, but it isn't contrary to any policy that I am aware of. --Obsidi (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- My first proposal was to convert the section you named "moving on" into an RfC you refused to allow that. So I do not think you ought not complain that it is "WP:Forumshopping" if I I have started the RfC else where. I am surprised and disappointed that you did not and do not agree to see what the broader community thought of this proposal. -- PBS (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- If he is proposing that regardless of whatever consensus occurs in your thread, the RfC will reverse that, I would agree with you, that would be WP:Forumshopping. Forum shopping is like going to one admin, getting the answer "no", going to a second admin to try get a different answer (and so on). Using the second one to override the answer given in the first. But I see this request differently, he is not proposing that whatever consensus you come up with be overridden by the RfC. He is proposing his own process (using an RfC), that may get consensus before yours does. For instance yours might end in "no consensus" but the RfC would continue collecting input for the rest of the month and might get a consensus at the end of that. Its very rare to have something like this occur and should usually be avoided so that we can have a unified discussion, but it isn't contrary to any policy that I am aware of. --Obsidi (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- No, because this RfC is my proposal. He's taken my proposal, moved it around, screwed up the existing discussion and caused what can only be described as WP:Forumshopping. RGloucester — ☎ 20:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- He is free to request an RfC on anything he wants to. That doesn't force your proposal to only go through an RfC (they can operate independently).--Obsidi (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- He doesn't have the right to force this proposal through an RfC. No where in policy or guidelines is he given the right to do that. RGloucester — ☎ 20:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. This noticeboard is clearly labelled as for "information and issues that affect administrators". Any RfC on general sanctions clearly affects non-administrators too. Accordingly, regardless of other issues concerning the appropriateness or otherwise of the RfC, I would have to suggest that it is inappropriate to hold it here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that the prior thread on this page about "General sanctions for matters pertaining to units of measurement in Britain" should also not be done on this page? (otherwise I don't see how an RfC is any different) --Obsidi (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- No, because community-authorised general sanctions are always established at WP:AN per Misplaced Pages:General sanctions. That's how it has always been done. No "RfC" is required. RGloucester — ☎ 20:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with that, AN is the right place for this (and that a RfC is not required, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible). --Obsidi (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- No, because community-authorised general sanctions are always established at WP:AN per Misplaced Pages:General sanctions. That's how it has always been done. No "RfC" is required. RGloucester — ☎ 20:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that the prior thread on this page about "General sanctions for matters pertaining to units of measurement in Britain" should also not be done on this page? (otherwise I don't see how an RfC is any different) --Obsidi (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose to the current wording because topic is very narrow (like "British Isles") and could be defined more succinctly as "edit-wars over the order of metric and imperial units", and the scope is unnecessary and makes it too complex. In more detail:
- United Kingdom is not clearly defined. There have been at least 2 UKs (and possibly three--depending on the interpretation of the name of Kingdom of Great Britain). It is not made clear if UK includes the nations that existed before the UK came into existence. So the scope of these general sanctions are not defined. For example the proposal sates "solely to the United Kingdom, as opposed to other English-speaking countries", is the height of the Duke of Wellington covered by this article as he was born in Ireland. Is Bonnie Prince Charlie covered by this definition? What about British India (is it no because India is involved and is an English speaking nation?), or British rule in Burma (is is yes because Myanmar is not English speaking or is it no because it was a Province of British India?). What about the Battle of Waterloo (1815)? What about the Second Battle of El Alamein (1941), as there were divisions from other Commonwealth nations involved in the battle. There are 100,000 of articles which could or could not be interpreted as having "strong ties solely to the United Kingdom" depending on how the UK is defined and what solely means. -- It would be much simpler and far less confusing if the two clauses were removed completely and the sanctions started with "Any editor who systematically..."
- RGloucester states above "The point of these sanctions is NOT to enforce the compliance of articles with MOSNUM". If the MOS is to be ignored then it makes a mockery of the wording "clear consensus" because a clear consensus also involves the wider consensus as expressed in policies and guidelines.
- "any editor who systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another without clear consensus" See the previous point on consensus. However this is not the main issue in this sentence. From reading the conversation above, it is not the changing of values from one system of measurement to another but changing the ordering so that instead of "imperial (metric)" an editor changes the ordering to "metric (imperial)" -- or vice versa. So the wording of this proposed general sanction is not addressing the issue for which it was created, as it is quit possible to change the ordering without changing the values. -- "Any editor who systematically reorders imperial and metric measurements without a clear consensus to do so"
- " who edit-wars over such a change, who disrupts talk page discussions or normal Misplaced Pages processes pertaining to units in UK-related articles, who engages in forum-shopping, or who otherwise disruptively edits " This is far to broad and besides is clearly coved by usual guidelines and policies already.
- "Sanctions can be imposed if, after being notified of the existence of these sanctions" This can be seen as interfering with normal administrative actions, as those who have been blocked for "otherwise disruptively edits" argue that they were not notified.
- "bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics" what is the "topic" and what are "closely related topics"?
- "Notifications must be logged at the general sanctions page to be effective." This is a very bad idea, because unless everyone who ever edits any of the affected pages are notified then notification becomes a warning system to warn of possible sanctions, and as such editors who do not think that they deserve a warning object to being listed in that way. If there has to be a central logging system the "notifications" should only be logged by uninvolved admins and calling a spade a spade be listed as warnings. (see my comments and others at Discretionary sanctions discussions).
- -- PBS (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- PBS you've already expressed your opinion fifty thousand times. Please stop this forum-shopping nonsense. I will pursue action against you, if you keep this up. RGloucester — ☎ 14:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The page title "Cross-country skiing (sport)" restricted to administrators
Per the discussion on the Cross-country skiing article's talk page we wish to create a new article about the FIS-sanctioned sport using text from this sandbox. When I try to create Cross-country_skiing_(sport) I get the page titled "Permission error" with the text "The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators...." I'd be grateful if an admin could lift this restriction. I based the titling on examples like Swimming and Swimming_(sport) but if someone knows of another convention I'm open to suggestions. --Cornellier (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- That title is not protected, nor has it ever existed. Are you sure you have the correct casing? §FreeRangeFrog 23:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- I just created Cross-country skiing (sport) for you, so go ahead and edit it as you please. If it was actually not the correct title, let us know and we'll check it out for you (and redirect/delete the title I just created). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Cornellier: Something doesn't seem right here. It sounds like the message you saw was MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-forbidden-edit, which appears when a page matches the title blacklist. However, there's nothing on the title blacklist that matches that title. Also, it looks like you were able to create Cross-country_skiing_(sport) yourself, since the first revision is yours. Are you sure that was the same page that gave you the error, or was there a slight difference in the title? Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- I just created Cross-country skiing (sport) for you, so go ahead and edit it as you please. If it was actually not the correct title, let us know and we'll check it out for you (and redirect/delete the title I just created). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Help with file deletions
Here's three files that I can't delete, because I was the nominator. If another admin could have a look please and delete if they check out ok? Thanks in advance. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
_-_Final_Path.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Just as a point of procedure, you can perfectly well delete those yourself too. It's not an XfD but a speedy procedure, which by definition means that a single admin can do the whole process. The prior tagging is also not a "nomination" but a mere notification regarding the grace period. The only case where processing it oneself is not advisable is if a substantial objection was raised in the meantime. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Okay thanks, I did not realize that. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Complaint re. Drmies & Dennis Brown
| Sockpuppet complaint. Blocked. Courcelles 04:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
|
I'd like to formally complain about these two administrators. As advised by Drmies, I'll try to keep this short, but if you want the full picture of what happened, it's at the Guy Fawkes Night and Requests for page protection pages. 1. Drmies protected Guy Fawkes Night (5 Nov) today (3 Nov) until 10 Nov There's lots more evasive and abusive crap that I've had to deal from them and others than detailed above, but I'm keeping it short. So, let's be clear - I'm not hear for justice, I'm not here for punishment. But I am here for redress. People are perfectly free to feel differently for their own reasons (of which several were put forward), but policy is policy - I have as much right to edit that article as anyone else as long as it is not being actively vandalised. I should not be expected to have to beg or persuade or convince anyone that the edits I planned to make were worthy before I even made them. "Why did you not follow the wording of the policy?" is as simple a question as can be asked of an administrator. I should not have to ask multiple administrators the same questions multiple times without getting a straight answer to a straight question. Not following the protection policy is as good a reason as you can get for lifting a protection. No administrator should be supplanting clear policy based reasoning with supposed community expectations without offering any proof that they even exist, and certainly not when the claim is being made by an administrator who so clearly ignored the evidence put before them for review. What I seek is simple - if these two administrators have not followed community expectations as I think is the case, then I very much want them to admit that here. I won't ask for an apology. If however they are doing the community's bidding and the policy is just a complete pile of horseshit (on this one specific issue anyway), then I'd appreciate that being made clear here with some actual evidence, and then I'd appreciate someone immediately modifying the wording so that nobody has to go through this frustrating experience ever again. Firework bob (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
|
Proposed deletions backlog
I'd be grateful if someone could look at the proposed deletions starting with the current oldest category from 25 October. Thanks. Lugnuts 13:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- I've actioned the entries from the 25th, but there's still plenty from the 26th and 27th that need looking at. Lankiveil 13:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC).
- Thank you. Lugnuts 14:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
WP:SPEEDY
It comes and goes. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Over 100 request for WP:SPEEDY, can we get some eyes over there please. Amortias (T)(C) 18:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- {{CSD-categories}} says 58 now. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Closure review of RfC on general sanctions
Do we need someone uninvolved to bless the closure of a duplicate section? Because I'll do that. The duplicate section is closed. As is this one. Go comment on the original section. Protonk (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a request to review the close at RfC: General actions over systematic changes of values from one system of measurement to another. I discussed this with the closer here.
Closure requires an uninvolved editor per WP:Closing discussions, in this case the editor who closed, RGloucester, is clearly involved (and so far does not dispute that). Instead he has invoked Ignore All Rules to claim the ability to close this RfC. I believe this closure to be invalid and ask that it be reopened. --Obsidi (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- See also WP:ANI#Premature close of the RfC -- PBS (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't close any "RfC". There was no "RfC". There was farce, and I merely marked it as such. Any attempt to re-open this so-called "RfC" would be endorsing the disruptive actions of PBS, of his forum-shopping, of his bad-faith, of his filibustering, of his bulldozering, and of his inability to work with other editors to come to consensus. RGloucester — ☎ 23:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC closed
The Media Viewer RfC arbitration case is closed following a suspension period of 60 days. The following considerations were taken by the Committee:
- The WMF has introduced a new staff user account policy, prohibiting the use of the same account for both work and non-work purposes. With effect from 15 September 2014, staff are required to segregate their work and non-work activities into separate work and non-work accounts, with the work accounts containing the identifier '(WMF)' in the account name.
- Eloquence (talk · contribs) has resigned as an administrator on the English Misplaced Pages. While this does not prevent him holding staff administrative rights on a designated work account, it does mean that as he resigned the tools while an arbitration case was pending, he may only regain administrative rights on his personal non-work account via a successful request for adminship.
- The WMF has announced a number of initiatives aimed at improving working practices. This includes a new software implementation protocol which provides for incremental roll-outs of upgrades and new features.
For the Arbitration Committee, → Call me Hahc21 00:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Reflinks error
When I try to access Reflinks, I get "Internal error: The URI you have requested, /fengtools/reflinks/, appears to be non-functional at this time." --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Categories: