Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ricky81682 (talk | contribs) at 02:19, 3 November 2014 (→Proposal to remove the topic ban of Lucia Black from Japanese entertainment topics: no consensus to overturn the topic ban). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Template:Active editnotice

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Misplaced Pages discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive367#RfC_closure_review_request_at_Talk:Rajiv_Dixit#RFC_can_we_say_he_peddaled_false_hoods_in_the_lede

(Initiated 19 days ago on 5 December 2024) - Ratnahastin (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive367#Close challenge for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus

(Initiated 11 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Requests for comment

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Mentoring process

(Initiated 222 days ago on 15 May 2024) Discussion died down quite a long time ago. I do not believe anything is actionable but a formal closure will help. Soni (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 77 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Turkey#RfC_on_massacres_and_genocides_in_the_lead

(Initiated 76 days ago on 8 October 2024) Expired tag, no new comments in more than a week. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

 Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. Also see: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard topic. Bogazicili (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Not sure if anyone is looking into this, but might be a good idea to wait for a few weeks since there is ongoing discussion. Bogazicili (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Request_for_comment:_Do_the_guidelines_in_WP:TPO_also_apply_to_archived_talk_pages?

(Initiated 68 days ago on 16 October 2024) Discussion seems to have petered out a month ago. Consensus seems unclear. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Needs admin closure imho, due to its importance (guideline page), length (101kb), and questions about neutrality of the Rfc question and what it meant. Mathglot (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

And in true Streisand effect fashion, this discussion, quiescent for six weeks, has some more responses again. Mathglot (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 57 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)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Grey_Literature

(Initiated 44 days ago on 10 November 2024) Discussion is slowing significantly. Likely no consensus, personally. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 was very clearly rejected. The closer should try to see what specific principles people in the discussion agreed upon if going with a no consensus close, because there should be a follow-up RfC after some of the details are hammered out. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... —Compassionate727  13:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: Still working on this? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Ugh… in practice, no. I'm still willing to do it, but it's in hiatus because of the three(!) pending challenges of my closures at AN, while I evaluate to what extent I need to change how I approach closures. If somebody else wants to take over this, they should feel free. —Compassionate727  22:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Taking a pause is fair. Just wanted to double check. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

asking for an update if possible. I think this RFC and previous RFCBEFORE convos were several TOMATS long at this point, so I get that this might take time. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#RFC_on_signing_RFCs

(Initiated 40 days ago on 13 November 2024) - probably gonna stay status quo, but would like a closure to point to Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Check Your Fact

(Initiated 40 days ago on 13 November 2024) RfC has elapsed, and uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 15:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#RfC Indian numbering conventions

(Initiated 38 days ago on 16 November 2024) Very wide impact, not much heat. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of fictional countries set on Earth#RfC on threshold for inclusion

(Initiated 34 days ago on 20 November 2024) TompaDompa (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (music)#RfC about the naming conventions for boy bands

(Initiated 15 days ago on 8 December 2024) No further participation in the last 7 days. Consensus is clear but I am the opener of the RfC and am not comfortable closing something I am so closely involved in, so would like somebody uninvolved to close it if they believe it to be appropriate.RachelTensions (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable closing a discussion on a guideline change this early. In any case, if the discussion continues as it has been, a formal closure won't be necessary. —Compassionate727  13:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#RfC: Should a bot be created to handle AfC submissions that haven't changed since the last time they were submitted?

(Initiated 38 days ago on 15 November 2024) This RfC expired five days ago, has an unclear consensus, I am involved, and discussion has died down. JJP_Master (she/they) 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Len_Blavatnik#RfC:_NPOV_in_the_lead

(Initiated 7 days ago on 16 December 2024) RFC is only 5 days old as of time of this posting, but overwhelming consensus approves of status quo, except for a single COI editor. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The CoI editor has now accepted that consensus is for the status quo, but I think a formal close from an uninvolved editor, summarizing the consensus would be helpful, since the issue has been coming up for a while and many editors were involved. — penultimate_supper 🚀 16:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

yes, despite multiple posts to WP:BLPN, WP:NPOVN, WP:3O, several talk page discussions, and now an RFC, I doubt the pressure to remove word oligarch from the lede of that page will stop. An appropriate close could be a useful thing to point at in the future though. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox country#Request for comment on greenhouse emissions

(Initiated 88 days ago on 27 September 2024) Lots of considered debate with good points made. See the nom's closing statement. Kowal2701 (talk) 09:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Deletion discussions

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi (A)

Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion has now been relisted thrice. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 16#Category:Origin stories

(Initiated 22 days ago on 2 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727  15:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 14#Template:Support-group-stub

(Initiated 10 days ago on 14 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727  15:17, 24 December 2024 (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 90 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:LGBT history in Georgia#Proposed merge of LGBT rights in Georgia into LGBT history in Georgia

(Initiated 78 days ago on 7 October 2024) A merge + move request with RM banners that needs closure. No new comments in 20 days. —CX Zoom 20:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal: Age and health concerns regarding Trump

(Initiated 69 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Tesla Cybercab#Proposed merge of Tesla Network into Tesla Cybercab

(Initiated 67 days ago on 18 October 2024) This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. N2e (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Stadion Miejski (Białystok)#Requested move 5 November 2024

(Initiated 48 days ago on 5 November 2024) RM that has been open for over a month. Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:JTG Daugherty Racing#Requested move 22 November 2024

(Initiated 31 days ago on 22 November 2024) Pretty simple RM that just needs an uninvolved editor to close. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 17:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Williamsburg Bray School#Splitting proposal

(Initiated 27 days ago on 27 November 2024) Only two editors—the nominator and myself—have participated. That was two weeks ago. Just needs an uninvolved third party for closure. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... BusterD (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 56 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)

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

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. WCM_email 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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. WCM_email 10:07, 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. WCM_email 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)

• 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)

• 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. WCM_email 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)

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

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

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

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. WCM_email 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)

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)

• 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:

1. 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.
2. If the text about systematic changes were to remain, it should not be listed first, since the main problems are uncollaborative editing on the talk pages and edit-warring. A quick look at WT:MOSNUM, even just the relatively minor example of the current (lengthy) discussion on 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.
3. I think blocks of one year without reference to the (administrator) community (e.g. via a noticeboard) are excessive. I think a maximum ban of three months (which can be repeated if the behaviour continues) should be sufficient. Normal blocks still apply, of course, so I don't see a special need for longer blocks or bans using this mechanism.
4. I also don't see a special need to refer to the five pillars.

So how about the following suggestion:

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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

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)

• 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)

@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)

1. 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.
2. 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?
3. "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.
4. "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"?
5. Edit war does not cover your concern over people moving from one article to another systematically rearranging the order.
6. 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?
7. " bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics" what is the "topic" and what are "closely related topics"?
8. "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)

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)

• @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. WCM_email 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.

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)

(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.

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)

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)

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)

Proposal to remove the topic ban of Lucia Black from Japanese entertainment topics

Application of WP:NEWBLPBAN

Per the WP:NEWBLPBAN and the above consensus, I request an administrator take appropriate action for this edit by @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. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 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? Diego (talk) 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 WP:BLP . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 08:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, did I? What part of BLP? Diego (talk) 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). Diego (talk) 08:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Response against your BLP violations are fully covered by the existing WP:NEWBLPBAN, the above consensus regarding gamergate simply further identifies your edit as problematic and as deserving action. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 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. Diego (talk) 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. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I quite disagree that any "matters of style" allow us to read WP:BLP 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

. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I was going to ask it TRPoD's filing of this thread was the basis for a WP:BOOMERANG on Campaign to drive away productive contributors, but in this instance I won't pursue it further. Doom, in the future please try to keep content disputes to the talk page. Diego (talk) 09:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

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.... Hasteur (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The edit in question 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 WP:TONE to justify slanting the article by describing the claim without explaining that it is known to be false. TRPoD's request is valid. Johnuniq (talk) 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. AQFK (talk) 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? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 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 Anita Sarkeesian (cf. ,). In my experience, though, he has generally been willing to work out the problems they introduce.--Cúchullain /c 13:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• Not seeing the problem here. The claims are false. The article says they are false. WP:BLP doesn't mean that every sentence of the article has to reiterate that they're false. I'd suggest this gets closed before it turns into yet another wall of text re GamerGate. GoldenRing (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

RFC Problem at Macedonia (ancient kingdom)

There has been a lot of disruptive editing at Macedonia (ancient kingdom). The RFC process has been disrupted.

There is an open Request for Closure as follows:

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)#Request for comment (initiated 25 August 2014) and Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)#Request for Comment 2 (initiated 31 August 2014)? The opening poster for the first discussion wrote: "Should this article be redirected to Ancient Macedonians?" The opening poster for the second discussion wrote:

Should the lead sentence of this article call the ancient Macedonian kingdom a "kingdom", without further specification, or a "Greek kingdom"?

Please consider the later related discussions Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)#Request for CONSENSUS which respects history, reliable sources and common sense and Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)#REQUEST FOR A TRULY NEUTRAL CONSENSUS in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 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 Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)/Archive 7. 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 User:Luxure, 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 WP:ARBMAC, and sanctions may need to be considered. Robert McClenon (talk) 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. --Taivo (talk) 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. Luxure (talk) 06:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Move "Howrse Online" to Howrse

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

The article Howrse was protected for some reason (I failed to find out the reason for this protection). Somebody created Howrse Online instead, this article should be moved to Howrse as Howrseonline is not the correct name for the page.

Scarvia (talk) 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 WP:PROD 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.Hasteur (talk) 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.

Scarvia (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Baha'i article on Misplaced Pages

Hi, I would like to share a concern I have with the editors of this article (i.e. Baha'i). 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 Jesus Christ 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 :) 85.218.103.97 (talk) 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. Lankiveil 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. Nyttend (talk) 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 Talk:Bahá'í Faith. Lankiveil 12:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC).

To end an iBan

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

And I'm calling it "iBan" cause I think that's cute. Skyring (aka "Pete") and HiLo48 became subject to an interaction ban here, after a proposal by 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 Misplaced Pages:Banning policy 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. Drmies (talk) 23:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• Aye, as it would remove the potential of blocks, for either editor. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Dennis - 2¢ 23:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support --John (talk) 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. Nyttend (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • 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. Nyttend (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Which I was driving a red Mustang along Route 66 week before last, but I'm home again now. In Canberra. --Pete (talk) 00:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Hmm, never mind then...Nyttend (talk) 01:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• Aye - HiLo48 (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• Yea --Pete (talk) 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. Chillum 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. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support since none of them has a problem interacting with the other.--Ymblanter (talk) 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. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 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. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• Thank you all, and thank you Salvidrim! for closing. Skyring and HiLo48 have been following this anxiously so I don't have to ping them; I wish them both the best. Drmies (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Backlog at Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old

Fyi, there is a backlog at Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.--Rockfang (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Backlog breaking transclusions

Hi,

Theres a large backlog at WP:UAA thats breaking transclusions of the {{admin_dashboard}} template. Is there anyone willing to take a look at clearing some entries, there are currently 91 reports there. Amortias (T)(C) 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 {{admin_dashboard}}. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• This is quite boring. Where's Daniel Case when you need them? Drmies (talk) 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 New York State Barge Canal properly noted in about 20 separate lists. Daniel Case (talk) 04:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Just as I thought, off improving the encyclopedia instead of... never mind :)--S Philbrick(Talk) 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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.72.48.133 (talk) 10:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Apparently the image you pointed out File:Somalia-national-university-logo.jpg, was included on our Somali National University 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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 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, Middayexpress (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

UAA backlog

In response to the request above, I've handled a bunch of WP:UAA 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. User:Bgoriygbodrbhodrubhrduobhdoubdrhoduboudubdorbieosbeosiphp 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. Nyttend (talk) 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. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

There used to be code in MediaWiki:Titleblacklist 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 this discussion. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour 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. Daniel Case (talk) 04:55, 27 October 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:

• 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. .

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 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)

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:

1. "My basic point remains unchanged, that the name of the Islamic State is dynamic and debatable and should be discussed by interested editors."
2. "This is all to say that I was bringing new sources to an active topic and advocating my interpretation of those sources"
3. "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 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 admins 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)

Blanking of archived AfD discussion as "defamatory"

I have twice restored the content of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Laique Rehman here ] and ] following blanking of the whole article by Engine997 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.  Velella    17:03, 26 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 WP:CBLANK. Of course, I would be curious about which search engines are returning AfD discussions—AfDs are flagged to not be indexed (WP:NOINDEX), and neither Google nor the default Misplaced Pages search box will return this page when searching on the individual's name. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I have courtesy blanked and added {{xfd-privacy}} to the page. There is no reason it has to be visible. GB fan 17:33, 26 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. Sam Walton (talk) 17:36, 26 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. GB fan 17:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

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 "hidden", I think we should err towards making that largely cosmetic change. Abecedare (talk) 17:52, 26 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.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:02, 26 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. Sam Walton (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I do agree with User:TenOfAllTrades 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. Lankiveil 00:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC).

I think that, in general, closed and archived discussions should be left as they are and not edited further. Reyk _YO! 01:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

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? NE Ent 02:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

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. Lankiveil 06:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC).

• 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! Andrew Gray (talk) 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. DGG ( talk ) 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. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• We've always done courtesy blanking with good cause and a reasonable request. We are pretty lax on what qualifies, for good reason, as blanking an AFD really doesn't cost anything in usability and having that info public can be embarrassing to real world people. If someone blanks one and you think it shouldn't be blanked, you can always drop it by WP:AN for review, before reverting. Dennis - 2¢ 00:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• We should always be free with courtesy blankings of stuff that affects real people, and of course that applies to AfD's. It doesn't have to be "defamatory" content, it's quite enough that it's disagreeable for an actual person to have it immortalized on the Internet. Bishonen | talk 01:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC).

Revoke sanctions pertaining to Singaporean election

These general sanctions 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: "Vivian Balakrishnan, Tin Pei Ling, Teo Ser Luck, Vincent Wijeysingha and Singaporean general election, 2011 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. RGloucester — ☎ 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. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 16:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• Suspend, but not revoke Per Next Singaporean general election, 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. Hasteur (talk) 18:55, 27 October 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. RGloucester — ☎ 18:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• Remove. I think that's what "support" means. The "these general sanctions" link goes to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/La goutte de pluie, 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. Nyttend (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's the page that is presently linked at WP:General sanctions. 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. RGloucester — ☎ 22:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester: Here's the linkage: Singaporean general election, 2011 -> 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. Hasteur (talk) 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 WP:CRYSTAL. They are not being used, and have never been used. If they are needed in the future, they should be created in the future. RGloucester — ☎ 22:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Support. If there are problems during the next election, we can re-instate the sanctions. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Support removal of sanctions. Elections are contentious times of the year. It may be worthwhile having these sorts of sanctions automatically come into force whenever an election is held. A simple notification on AN/ANI that such sanctions are being enacted would suffice I believe. Blackmane (talk) 03:03, 30 October 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)

Question for clarification

Here I am told that «Last month was the second time there have been zero admins selected (the first was last September) and it looks like this month will be the third time. Additionally the project is losing admins at a rate much faster than can be replaced and the workload that remains is both increasing and causing the existing admins to become more stressed and more abusive to regular editors.»

What areas would do we need more help with now? And can this problem please — if not already — have a space dedicated to documenting it, such as at WP:Maintenance?

After some more time, I figured out that this contributor (the one I'm quoting above) is blocked. Are these claims accurate? I had initially assumed yes. —Gryllida (talk) 07:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The first claim looks correct according to User:WereSpielChequers/RFA by month. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It's true that we are short of admins, there are currently 1386 admins, of which 458 have performed an admin action during the month of October. Only 227 admins have performed 10 or more admin actions in the last month. The vast majority of the admin tool use is performed by a small group. Please see stats. Areas where we are currently chronically short of admins include WP:SPI, WP:PUF, WP:FFD, WP:NFCR, WP:RFPP (on weekends), and image deletions of all kinds. WP:UAA recently got so backlogged that the admin dashboard broke from exceeding the transclusion limit. I'm sure there's more problem areas that I haven't thought of. We need more admins, and we need more admins actively using the tools. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:CFD is also a big problem - we havediscussions from early August still open there, and the lkist of pages with open discussions tends to get longer and longer. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Except that those who'd want the tools can't have them and we often fail RFA candidates on tiny things often irrelevant to having the tools. The issue isn't that we lack people wanting to be admins but that the system we use hasn't adapted to how the wiki itself has changed, it's still very much an old admin's club, often a gruelling selection process and decided by a select few and on irrelevant information. tutterMouse (talk) 07:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:SPI backlog

Hello admins! Posting here in an attempt to draw attention to the backlog currently at WP:SPI. There seem to have been a wave of reports over the last few days, and there are some now having sat open for nearly a month (one going back as far as September 4). Many just need archiving. I know you probably get notifications about this anyway but if any of you are interested, please take a look. Ivanvector (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a toxic editor

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

I read James Well's speech recently in London in Wikimania and he stressed "Toxic editors" that they may as well leave and make Misplaced Pages a harmonious medium to work with. But look at the talks generated by this editor- http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:ChamithN I would suggest that he has to leave wikipedia and find a way to vent his anger- not here. He is unconstructive, immature, unreceptive and acts on impulse because he is busy..? that's the right answer if it is..but why ask for a talk when he cannot talk... he is stupidly stupid.. and has to immediately be penalized and his editing be extremely limited and be phased out in the wikipedia world. Thanks. 124.104.182.35 (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

1. You need to notify editors when you bring them up here or at ANI.
2. You need to give specific links to specific comments made by the editor, and also show that you've made any sort of effort to solve your problem yourself.
3. In theory, this sort of request is more appropriate for WP:ANI. I say "in theory" because I've interacted with this editor before, and I don't believe they're anywhere near to indefinite block/ban level. Sergecross73 msg me 21:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Notification of a TFA nomination

In the past, there have been requests that discussions about potentially controversial TFAs are brought to the attention of more than just those who have WP:TFAR on their watchlist. With that in mind: Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties has been nominated for an appearance as Today's Featured Article. If you have any views, please comment at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Mass-deletion script

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

Does anyone have a script to mass-delete pages? I'd like to have the following pages U1-speedied, but I don't feel like loading 94 pages, hitting the "delete" tab 94 times, picking U1 94 times, and clicking "delete" 94 times.

Of course, if no script is available, I'm willing to do it of course; no need for someone else to do it manually. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done (I just used twinkle.) Mike V • Talk 23:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Please fix archiving at "Talk:2014 Hong Kong protests"

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

Please delete the erroneous archive pages for Talk:2014 Hong Kong protests. I messed up, and started the counter at 3 instead of 1, which screwed up {{archivebox}}, etc. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I've renumbered them. Please see my edit summary. Graham87 05:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

All fixed. Thanks for your help, Jax 0677! Graham87 05:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Unusual user page deletion

User:Unbuttered Parsnip nominated his/her pages for Mfd, but it's not necessary to go to discussion... it's not an article in progress, but just a few words, so I applied the db-nonsense template, because it seemed to be the next best choice. If this isn't the right approach, what is? Thanks!

• User:Unbuttered Parsnip/sandbox/abbr diff for Mfd to db-nonsense
• User:Unbuttered Parsnip/sandbox/unlink diff for Mfd to db-nonsense

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You should have used {{db-user}}. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! When I tried to use db-user, I got an error, since I'm not the user. But, I did post that on the user's page. Thanks so much for taking care of the deletion!--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

What kind of error was produced? The template itself doesn't object on such grounds, which is good because legitimate alternate accounts are allowed to mark their main accounts' pages for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 12:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it's just a warning, not an error, telling the deleting admin to double-check to make sure that someone isn't trying to get someone else's page deleted maliciously. --ais523 13:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I see. I was wrong about "the template itself doesn't object"; there's a big red warning the width of the template. This warning was just added two months ago; it's not a longstanding component of the design. Nyttend (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This warnong is designed to prevent U1-taggiong vandalism. However, if there is clearly a request by the user to delete it, I doubt any admin would decline the request. Whenm in doubt, leave a mention of the location of the request in the edit summary when tagging, as an admin should look there before declining the deletion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Watchlist notice request

Hi! I'd like to request a watchlist notice for this weekend, to run from Friday 31st October, 11:00 UTC (not before) until Sunday 2nd November, with the proposed text,

This weekend, help find 10,000 maps in scans from 13,000 books. See project latest status.

Ideally, the message would look similar to the current WP:Geonotices, and run immediately below them.

More information about the campaign can be found in this draft article for the Signpost this week.

I first suggested this at WP:Geonotice, but that usually runs more tightly-focussed meetup notices, so felt a wider community view was needed as to whether this would be appropriate. I started a thread at WP:VPP to try to gauge opinion, but got no comments. So, since watchlist notices need an admin to put in place, I thought I should bring it here.

Wider participation will be make-or-break for whether this effort works. Is the notice above something that people feel would be appropriate to find above their watchlists? Jheald (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean — are you asking that we add your message to MediaWiki:Watchlist-details? Nyttend (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Yes -- or authorise WP:Geonotice to add it with worldwide visibility. (One of the Geonotice maintainers will be at the event in London tomorrow). But basically I just wanted a view from a straw poll of administrators as to whether this would be appropriate.

(My apologies if it is in the wrong place, and it should have been at MediaWiki:Watchlist-details, but I have left a note on the talk page there of this discussion). Jheald (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Jheald, what (if anything) did you learn in London today? I held off responding because of that. Since he's responded to a lot of requests Misplaced Pages:Geonotice, I was going to ask Andrew Gray for help, but then I saw that he was concerned about something. Would you summarise his concerns, if it be appropriate to mention them in a public forum? Nyttend (talk) 23:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Yes, I talked to @Andrew Gray: for a couple of minutes about this (in amongst a great day, with some good talks, lots of maps tagged, and some very fine 'GingerDead men'). He says he's had pushback before when he's posted messages that people feel are off-wiki activities, or aren't related to core discussions happening on wiki. Also, that people haven't exactly been rushing to comment, either one way or the other, neither in the previous thread at VP/Misc nor here. So in view of that he was going to hold off, and wasn't prepared to put up a worldwide geonotice.

I think that's a pity. There's currently very little of the world getting any sort of geonotice at all; and work has been continuing -- there's another 3% been done overnight, though that seems to be down entirely to one French editor, one Australian, and one editor with insomnia from today's tagathon. So I can only wonder how much more we could be achieving with more of a global push. People may see the Signpost piece and have a look, but a watchlist message would surely attract more, even if only to have a look around to see what's in the index. -- Jheald (talk) 07:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Gamergate controversy

This page could use more administrator eyes. General sanctions are in force there, but tendentious editing seems to be continuing at a rapid rate. RGloucester — ☎ 20:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Need an administrator to check a deleted article

There is a new article Christopher Drew Ingle and with it a oddly named disambiguation page Christopher Drew Ingle (disambiguation). I tried to rename the disamb page as Christopher Drew, but it was protected from creation by a now-retired administrator. Now I suspect that Christopher Drew Ingle is a re-creation of the deleted page that led to protection. I could use an administrator to check this and help clean it up. Please ping me when replying. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

They are unrelated, User:Oiyarbepsy. Previous deletions at Christopher Drew have been articles about a wrestler, and about a school principal, not a musician. Paul Erik 04:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you please rename the odd disambiguation page to that title? There are two bona-fide articles for Christopher Drew, this musician and an American football player. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec) It looks like Ingle styles himself as "Christofer Drew" according to the article about the band, so maybe that's where the article should live. I have unprotected Christopher Drew so that you can set things up as you see fit. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I've moved Christopher Drew Ingle to Christofer Drew, which appears to be the appropriate title. Paul Erik 04:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Massive copyright violations

After reviewing the contributions of Patrick O'Canada (talk · contribs), they have uploaded many image files (e.g. last 500 contributions) sourced from http://stuffled.com that constitute copyright infringement, which need to be deleted. I have nominated many files for speedy deletion using Twinkle (see my CSD log) which resulted in their deletion, but this is going to take a significant amount of time and days using this method due to the high volume of problematic files.

Per the bottom of stuffled.com pages: "Stuffled does not claim copyright or ownership of the submissions, which remain the sole property of the original artist. All trademarks and registered trademarks are the property of their respective owners." Per Misplaced Pages's WP:COPYLINK, part of Misplaced Pages's Misplaced Pages:Copyrights page, "Images, video and sound files on the internet need to be licensed directly from the copyright holder or someone able to license on their behalf"

Perhaps some administrators can review this user's contributions and delete image files that are sourced from Stuffled.com on the spot, without having other users go through the speedy deletion nomination process, which again, appears to be a task that will take several days or even weeks to perform. Also, while this user may not be aware of the copyright infringement inherent in these uploads (they haven't responded on their talk page yet to my speedy nominations and per their User contributions page have not contributed since 25 October 2014), the user may need to be blocked for the time being to prevent further copyvios from occurring and due to the extensive nature of the occurrences. NorthAmerica 13:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Am I missing something? All the ones that I checked were logos marked as non-free. I don't see a problem with those, as long as their use is otherwise NFCC-compliant. The uploader has merely been using that third-party website as a source, but wasn't citing it as an alleged copyright holder. Using third-party sources for non-free items may or may not be okay in terms of factual reliability (depends on the site), but does't present a copyright issue as long as it's clearly understood that the copyright belongs to the organization in question, not the third-party site. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Fut.Perf.: An inherent problem is that http://stuffled.com does not state having permission to host such content. Per WP:NFCCP, criteria #4 (part of the WP:NFCC page), "Non-free content must be a work which has been published or publicly displayed outside Misplaced Pages by (or with permission from) the copyright holder, or a derivative of such a work created by a Misplaced Pages editor" (underline emphasis mine). This creates problems of Contributory liability, in which Misplaced Pages is potentially contributing to the infringing acts of others, particularly because Stuffled does not claim copyright or ownership of the images and does not state that it has permission to host them. Additionally, pinging User:Diannaa to this discussion, as I notice they have been deleting the files en masse (see log file for this user). NorthAmerica 15:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Northamerica1000, and that's why I started deleting the files. It's no different from linking to copvio YouTube videos. I will stop for now pending further input. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually there could be a serious problem. The latest contributions appear to be SVGs, which present the (yet-resolved by case law) problem of both the image being copyrighted and the SVG (an extension of XML) code being copyrighted, which could be different. In case, a spot check of the contributions show many of the SVGs images would fail US's threshold of originality, but the SVG used to create that may not be. If these same logos were recreated by a WP user as SVG, they would clearly be PD-logo free, but whomever made the original SVG likely holds the copyright on the SVG part of the code. (To note: it is believed from law that the SVG code behind an image is a unique copyright over the image itself, though it's also unclear because most people do not write out SVG by hand but as a mechanical interpretation of the drawing from their program of choice (eg no new creativity in making the SVG file), though it is completely possible do hand code SVG.). I would definitely think that most of these should be removed to allow WP editors like at the GL recreate them instead or otherwise just use JPG/PNG.

I will say if these were JPG and PNG and the site was just hosting the images, and we could easily find the original images from elsewhere, ideally on the respective company's website, deleting the images due to being sourced to stuffled is not really appropriate since the issue can be fixed. --MASEM (t) 15:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Some of the articles he/she added images to already had valid images present, and they're still available on the WP servers, but obviously the image usage bot will start tagging them and then deleting them. Perhaps a bot run to replace the status quo image before this user added their version would be a good first move, and save a lot of duplicate work. - X201 (talk) 15:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, we need to fix this in a hurry. Not only does this leave a trail of missing logos, but there's now a danger of the valid logos starting to get tagged and removed as orphan non-free images. This seems very unlikely to be a copyright problem in the first place. I'm still working through whether this is a NFCC problem, as the issue appears to have been discussed extensively on WP on various pages already. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The missing logos can be recovered by following the user's contributions. I found one instance, Xero (software), where the user removed a free-to-use image from the Commons and replaced it with a non-free image. Another article, Urbanspoon, did not have a logo when the user arrived. I have uploaded a png image for that one. The step we need to do first is to decide whether or not the svgs from Stuffled.com need to be deleted, and then we can move on to the second step of adding logos to the involved articles. The user uploaded 1,317 images altogether, according to X!'s Tools. I will be out most of the day and will check back here when I can so that I can get involved in the clean-up. - Diannaa (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, most of the discussions I found about the appropriateness of SVG were pre-2010, and were on other issues such as the misguided notion that SVG should be avoided because it is scalable creates the impression of being higher in quality than a PNG (a matter contradicted by the wording of WP:IUP. The few that address whether an SVG obtained from a third party site could have a separate copyright as a derivative work were inconclusive. There isn't a whole lot of support in the archives I looked through for the proposition that logos obtained from repositories are rejected on the basis that those sites are not from the copyright owner. Logos don't follow the same logic as copyrighted images, art, music, etc., where there is a single source for each work. Presumably all of these logos come from the brand owner in one way or another. Any decision to start deleting old logos based on a new NFCC theory would need a more thorough discussion and then a workable process to implement. However, in this case it's a user who recently (over the past month or two) made a bunch of mass edits to replace old png logos with new SVG logos, apparently found on a site somewhere. It's reasonable to ask them to stop. The next steps, logically, would be to have a discussion about it, and then decide whether to roll all of this back or not. Has the user been notified of this discussion? I don't see any actual human-generated prose on their talk page about this issue, just a bunch of templates and bot-generated notices (which they appear to have unwisely ignored). - Wikidemon (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The uploader of the images was notified about this discussion at 13:13, 31 October 2014, one minute after the discussion herein was created. (diff). NorthAmerica 16:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A computer font may be copyrightable in the United States as computer software, see Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc. An SVG file seems to be similar to a computer font in many aspects and may therefore presumably also be copyrighted as computer software. The software aspects of the SVG file need to be creative in some way in order to meet the threshold of originality. I am not sure how to figure out if any given SVG file meets the threshold of originality as computer software. An SVG file is also a text document, and there may also be things in the source code which are separately copyrighted as text. As it is not well documented on Misplaced Pages how to determine if an SVG file meets the threshold of originality as computer software or not, it may be better to list such files at WP:PUF instead of speedying them as F9.

If you find a copyrighted computer software stored in some other vector format (say, EPS or TTF), then you may not simply convert the file to SVG format as this is then a derivative work of the original computer software. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Notifying User:RHaworth about this discussion, since they deleted File:ABS-CBN News and Current Affairs Logo.svg, a file I nominated for speedy deletion, along with others uploaded by the user. NorthAmerica 16:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, the legal arguments seem rather overwrought. For slavish copies of company logos fair use would seem likely to apply regardless of the origin or SVG issues. That said, I agree that NFCC seems to require that the images either come directly from the original copyright holder or be derivations "created by a Misplaced Pages editor" (and not versions created by a random third-party on the internet). In a case like this that restriction probably isn't required legally, but it isn't totally irrational from a precautionary perspective either. So yeah, it seems as though removing these logos is the right course of action under existing NFCC policy. Dragons flight (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm with Future Perfect. The logos have been "published" by the holder, thus NFCC is satisfied - they have literally made known to the world what their logo is. The appearance issue of whether it is in fact what the logo looks like is not an NfCC issue. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Just a note that Diannaa went on and mass deleted a large number of logos, even if they were used under fair-use criteria or even ineligible for copyright protection, not waiting for the outcome of this discussion. This action has forced many editors to waste time correcting the resulting redlinks, reuploading and re-tagging logos, etc. A few folks (including me) have expressed displeasure over this on Diannaa's usertalk page. Please would let someone address his/her overzealousness? kashmiri 20:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You have mistaken the sequence of events. The deletions were underway when the discussion started. As soon as I realized there was an objection to what I was doing, I stopped. I will restore logos to all the affected articles, whether the decision is to restore the svg files or to seek out and use the logos that were previously in use on the articles before Patrick O'Canada started replacing logos. Either way, I apologise for undertaking the work hastily and without seeking advice before beginning. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks :) kashmiri 20:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me like the strongest policy-based reasoning so far is that the files should not be hosted on this wiki. One more point: I wonder why the uploader's exclusive interest on this wiki is to upload logos from this one website. Is he trying to drive traffic to that site? In other words, it it a subtle form of link spam? I won't be deleting any more of his uploads for the time being, but I am going to start restoring the png files that were in previously place on the affected articles, if no one posts any objections. -- Diannaa (talk) 12:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC) Actually, I've decided to go ahead and get started on this. We can always restore the svg files later if that's what people decide is the best course of action. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC) I've found quite a few instances where he removed free-to-use logos from the Commons and replaced them with his own file. Some of his corporate logos were out-of-date. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

List of wealthiest historical figures

Someone (anonymous IP 77.96.230.11) is trying to censor material info about the Rothschild dynasty which is all properly sourced. He/she is desperate and now makes unfounded (personal) attacks of "antisemitism" (sic.) This person has lost the "battle" of arguments now he/she is trying and this is forbidden on Misplaced Pages. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1205:505C:7320:4CAF:9492:D2F6:1DB1 (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Is it me, or does it look like you are the only one that wants that material included, and two editors have reverted you? Per WP:BRD, the burden is on YOU to go to the talk page and present your case for inclusion, then get a consensus to include the material. Or if you can't, live with it as is. Dennis - 2¢ 00:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• This has been handled elsewhere, thus can be closed. Dennis - 2¢ 17:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually it seems is the one controversial editor who is trying to edit the stable version, as can be found here... and he/she has been reverted REPEATEDLY here,here and again here. You got it backwards! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1205:505C:7320:B1D6:2EE5:F1C4:FE5D (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

After looking at it rather more closely than I intended, I've discussed it on the talk page under the existing thread Talk:List of wealthiest historical figures#Request for protection and deleted the paragraph. I understand why editors have restored an apparently sourced paragraph in the face of such brief claims of antisemitism, but the objections are valid. I hope we can discuss what if anything of that paragraph should be retained on the talk page rather than in edit comments. NebY (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Backlog breaking transclusions

Hi,

Massive backlog at WP:SPEEDY. Can we get some mops applied please. Amortias (T)(C) 10:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

It's business as usual at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Thanks Amortias, but could you possibly be more specific about what's breaking transclusions? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Same as previous post further up the page(probably should have referenced it). When some of these get backlogged it breaks the transclusions of the admin dashboard template. Amortias (T)(C)

Note: 10.68.16.32 soft-blocked

Following discussion at WP:BOWN, this address has been temporarily soft-blocked. Should this block cause any issues that are more impacting than were being caused please revert without consultation, and leave a note at WP:BOWN. Thank you, — xaosflux 22:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done This issue has been resolved, ip block removed. — xaosflux 22:53, 2 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)

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).

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog