Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:01, 11 November 2014

United Kingdom Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Question about scope

Is it intended that, despite it not not being an article which has "strong ties solely to the United Kingdom, as opposed to other English-speaking countries", that this sanction is available for use against those editing Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers? 94.196.212.131 (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, these sanctions apply there, as they are directly tied to this matter, and were explicitly described in the discussion as being part of the scope. Even if they were not, however, there are already other sanctions in force at MOSNUM. RGloucester — ☎ 23:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It didn't read that way to me. Perhaps the wording of this needs tightening and clarifying then to include such non-articles and pages such as this that do not have strong ties solely to the United Kingdom. Otherwise it may be open to misinterpretation, dispute and even ridicule. 94.196.212.131 (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Change to text of agreed general sanctions

The text of these sanctions was arrived at by community consensus as determined by the closer Fram on 5 November 2014, "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.". The closer placed the text in Misplaced Pages:General sanctions#Community-authorised sanctions and RGloucester copied it to Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom. RGloucester has now changed the text here and when I reverted that change, reverted me in turn with the edit comment "There is no change in scope. This is merely a clarification of what said in the discussion. We all knew it applied to MOSNUM. Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy."

• It is particularly inappropriate for a heavily involved editor to unilaterally override the close of such a discussion, asserting a new consensus and rewriting the outcome - see WP:CLOSE and WP:CCC.
• This pre-emptive "clarification" is almost certainly superfluous, given that the Manual of Style is already subject to discretionary sanctions, as various editors including RGloucester have been explicitly notified. Indeed, by this unilateral rewording RGloucester jeopardises any imposition of sanctions for behaviour at WP:MOSNUM or WT:MOSNUM that might rely on a rewording that lacked consensus rather than on the actual text or on the existing discretionary sanctions.
• Arguments that "Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy" do not provide a sound basis for rewriting consensus in any case, but are particularly inappropriate when discussing a page which is solely concerned with recording consensus, notifications and sanctions, a piece of bureacracy in which RGloucester has otherwise been assiduous.
  

@RGloucester: please revert your change to the agreed text. NebY (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I will not revert anything. The whole purpose of these sanctions was to apply to disruption at MOSNUM, along with unit switches. That was always the intent, and that's what the discussion says. However, the IP above seemed to have misinterpreted the sanctions text, so I made a minor clarification. The following text was always meant to include MOSNUM: "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", and all participants acknowledged the importance of such an application. Nothing about this clarification lacks consensus, given that it is was the whole intent of the sanctions, and was already written into the text as such. The only point was to avoid misleading the reader, per the IP. RGloucester — ☎ 17:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

RGloucester, it remains inappropriate and problematic to rewrite the text without an uninvolved closer reviewing the consensus or a fresh discussion and consensus. If you are unwilling to self-revert, will you at least let the original text stand if I revert? NebY (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Nothing is "inappropriate", nor did I "rewrite" anything. I added a clarification. I strongly object to any change to the scope of the sanctions. RGloucester — ☎ 18:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)OK, I'll revert the text to the original - I strongly object to any change to it without community consensus - and you are free to raise objections or requests to confirm your new text at WP:AN or WP:ANI. NebY (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with NebY that the unauthorized change should be reverted.

Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy, but we do need to respect certain principles in order to retain legitimacy.

• The wording was changed substantively without authority by an involved editor who is neither an arbitrator nor an adminstrator, thus appearing to usurp powers reserved to the Community.
• The original wording was contentious.
• Explicit mention of WT:MOSNUM seems to have been rejected in the discussion (though it is a little unclear).
• It is not known how participants in the discussion would have decided if a choice of different wordings (possibly including this change) had been offered.
• In the original discussion, a number of participants were individually pinged, but participants in the very closely related discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#What is the basis for the bias towards metric for UK related articles? were not (although I suggested that here); they are especially affected by the unauthorized change.
• The subsequent change to the text extends the sanctions to all "Manual of Style-related pages" (though the link is to Misplaced Pages:MOSNUM)

All of this, particularly the lack of an unambiguous consensus for any wording because different participants (or non-participants) were apparently (not) voting on different understandings of the proposed intent, means that the legitimacy of these sanctions has been irretrievably compromised. It also means that editors who have made no relevant edits to articles with strong ties to the UK have already been logged without justification, (which might be regarded as disruptive if it were not for the misunderstandings regarding the actual text).

Because the close is "unsafe" (through no fault of the closer, Fram), we should probably delete this page and start again with a new proposal that specifically mentions WT:MOSNUM very prominently.

As the simplest method of starting this process, I would suggest that the closer, Fram, reverse their decision and close the discussion as defective.

--Boson (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

This is absurd. The sanctions have always referred to MOSNUM. Nothing has changed. Furthermore, anyone can issue sanctions alerts in line with the procedure at WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts. I followed the procedure to the letter. Where in the discussion did you determine that "explicit" mention of MOSNUM" was rejected? MOSNUM was always part of the scope of these sanctions and NOTHING has changed. This is what mentioned in the discussion. Nothing is usurped, only enforced. I will not tolerate the so-called "Wikilawyering" here. RGloucester — ☎ 18:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

re: "This is absurd. The sanctions have always referred to MOSNUM. Nothing has changed."

I'm sorry, but the whoe text is dependent on the first line, which reads:

• "In articles that have strong ties solely to the United Kingdom, as opposed to other English-speaking countries:"

"In articles" pretty clearly excludes guidelines such as WP:MOSNUM and its associated Talk page.

re: "Where in the discussion did you determine that "explicit" mention of MOSNUM" was rejected?"

I said it was unclear, but see next point. --Boson (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to further note, sanctions apply at MOSNUM anyway, as I've already said above to the IP, pursuant to this Arbitration decision. This changes absolutely nothing, to that effect. In other words, the editors at MOSNUM were already subject to sanctions prior to these general sanctions being established. The notices, of course, are issued to make clear that sanctions also apply on UK-related articles, and as it says in text, to any other disruption related to UK units. Therefore, Boson's concerns are bunk, and amount to a bad faith attempt to avoid his own potential for being sanctioned. This is typical of the so-called "Wikilawyering" spirit that dominates MOSNUM. I love that an IP sock, likely of one or another editor that we are all aware of, has successively used his Wikilawyering ability to advance his agenda. RGloucester — ☎ 19:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

re. "Therefore, Boson's concerns are bunk, and amount to a bad faith attempt to avoid his own potential for being sanctioned":

It was I who personally proposed giving more prominence to WT:MOSNUM:

• "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."

and

• "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." "

and

• "The main problems with UK units are more to do with the disruption of the consensus-building process on the talk pages"

It was I who proposed the wording

• ". . . 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"

You rejected my suggestions and your text was carried. So any suggestion of an attempt on my part "to avoid his own potential for being sanctioned" is, frankly, absolutely ridiculous. I assume your claim to that effect is a knee-jerk reaction that you will shortly correct.

This is also the problem at WT:MOSNUM: the lack of an efficient discussion with an unambiguous result leads to much greater problems down the line.

--Boson (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Boson, I do not agree that the close was unsafe. Remember the key closing stages of the discussion (and please forgive me if I don't provide diffs - I will if you need them). Wehwalt, having watched the long discussion at WP:AN and noting that various texts had been proposed and changed, suggested pinging all participants to ask whether they supported or opposed the latest boxed-quote text, that of 18 October. This was done. After some had responded with expressions of support, Kahastok suggested a further change, RGloucester made it and I reverted (after some discussion) precisely because it could stop us reaching a safe close. Fortunately no-one had expressed support or opposition between the further change and the revert. All of this was open and transparent, discussed and argued in sequence amongst the expressions of support, so there was no question of it distorting the outcome or the closer failing to be aware of it. The closer found consensus on the text of 18 October and any imposition of sanctions will rely on that text. NebY (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Except that that text is not from 18 October, as I made multiple changes after 18 October, as one can see here. RGloucester — ☎ 20:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

This diff shows all changes to WP:AN from Wehwalt'ssuggestion of pinging previous participants to Fram's close. You will see one change to the "18 October" boxed text. It is yours, and it wikilinks clear consensus, to which we should indeed pay attention. NebY (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

My problem is not that changes were made but that those who voiced an opinion !voted" on a particular text that did not contain a reference to WP:MOSNUM. Some, including the initiator, obviously believed this to implicitly include WP:MOSNUM. Some may have been voting on the actual text. If this is the case (and we cannot know for sure) the close was unsafe because the !voters were !voting on different (perceived) things. We cannot assume that they were approving the text with an implicit refernce to MOSNUM and we cannot assume that they were approving a text without such a reference.

To be clear: I am personally strongly in favour of an explicit reference to WT:MOSNUM, as I hope I made clear in the discussion. It is a question of fairness, corrrect procedure, and, above all, legitimacy. I would apply the same principles to the Scottish referendum if someone later argued that a vote for one text was an implicit vote for a different text (whether the text is later changed explicitly or not). --Boson (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. MOSNUM is already under sanctions. RGloucester — ☎ 01:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I hope my analogy with similar (but more consequential) processes helped to make it clear that subsequently changing the text is unacceptable and that ensuring the legitimacy of a vote (or !vote) is not a mere technicality, though it may seem like that to the person who is organizing it and getting flak. --Boson (talk) 02:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

We don't vote here, we are not a bureaucracy here, and we can do whatever we need to do to advance the project's goals. I will do what I need to, and I hardly give a damn what anyone says is "unacceptable". RGloucester — ☎ 03:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Project-Class United Kingdom pages
• NA-importance United Kingdom pages
• WikiProject United Kingdom articles