Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by OccultZone (talk | contribs) at 11:53, 15 October 2014 (→‎Requesting AWB access ( User: OccultZone ): request closure). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    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 three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

    Template:Active editnotice

    "WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Content removal.
    "WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

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

      Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Technical instructions for closers

      Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

      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

      Administrative discussions

      Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#Boomerang_topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Hcsrctu

      (Initiated 41 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      {{not done}} Ratnahastin; ANI reports that have been archived will not be closed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Restored the request because AirshipJungleman 29 has refused to clarify his above misleading response.[1] Ratnahastin (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Requests for comment

      WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

      (Initiated 73 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      • FYI this discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 439. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • As an update, it's been almost two months, the comments have died down and the discussion appears to have ended. I suggest three or more uninvolved editors step forward to do so, to reduce the responsibility and burden of a single editor. Either taking a part each or otherwise. I'm aware that's not the normal procedure, but this isn't a normal RfC and remains highly contentious. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bump nableezy - 19:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "Part 1: Israel/Palestine" has been closed by editor TrangaBellam – "part 2: antisemitism" & "part 3: hate symbol database" remain open. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC) 20:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

      (Initiated 72 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 71 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

      (Initiated 69 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Talk:Climate_change#RFC:_Food_and_health_section

      (Initiated 63 days ago on 17 April 2024) This was part of DRN process (Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_245#Climate_change). It is ready to be closed [2] [3]. Bogazicili (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Israel and apartheid#RfC: Wikilink to Weaponization of antisemitism

      (Initiated 53 days ago on 26 April 2024) Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 48 days ago on 2 May 2024) RfC template has been removed by the bot. TarnishedPathtalk 13:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      RFA2024, Phase II discussions

      Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

      Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 46 days ago on 3 May 2024) Discussion has slowed with only one !vote in the last 5 days. TarnishedPathtalk 11:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 42 days ago on 7 May 2024) Archived Request for Comment. 73.219.238.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Discussion -- New Proposal for layout of Tornadoes of YYYY articles

      (Initiated 39 days ago on 10 May 2024) RFC outcome is fairly clear (very clear majority consensus), however, a non WikiProject Weather person should close it. I was the RFC proposer, so I am classified too involved to close. There were three “points” in the RFC, and editors supported/opposed the points individually. Point one and three had 3-to-1 consensus’ and point two had a 2-to-1 consensus. Just need a non WP:Weather person to do the closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period#Early close

      (Initiated 19 days ago on 31 May 2024) Since it's an injunctive discussion, I was hoping someone could step in and close after I withdrew my own. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Genocide of Indigenous peoples#RFC: Palestinian genocide accusations

      (Initiated 0 days ago on 19 June 2024) Little activity in the past week or so. Much discussion has been had and many sources have been reviewed. A careful review of the discussion and arguments made at the RFC should allow a close. Dylanvt (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Deletion discussions

      XFD backlog
      V Mar Apr May Jun Total
      CfD 0 6 17 104 127
      TfD 0 0 2 1 3
      MfD 0 0 0 1 1
      FfD 0 0 0 0 0
      RfD 0 0 10 17 27
      AfD 0 0 0 0 0

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

      (Initiated 76 days ago on 3 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 73 days ago on 6 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 72 days ago on 7 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 67 days ago on 12 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 66 days ago on 13 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 65 days ago on 15 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

      (Initiated 51 days ago on 28 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 49 days ago on 30 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Other types of closing requests

      Talk:Anti-Normanism#Requested move 22 May 2024

      (Initiated 27 days ago on 22 May 2024). Should be closed by an uninvolved admin.--Berig (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Hi @Berig, does it really need an admin? Tom B (talk) 04:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No, that is true. However, as an involved admin and the discussion having been quite lengthy and contentious, I thought it could be appropriate.--Berig (talk) 05:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

      (Initiated 22 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Requested_move_2_June_2024

      (Initiated 17 days ago on 2 June 2024), then relisted 10 June, Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Dani Cavallaro

      (Initiated 15 days ago on 4 June 2024) A formal closure would be helpful to solidify consensus for future reference. Thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Requesting AWB access ( User: OccultZone )

      Following a complaint on ANI about 70 days ago, my AWB access was revoked by Nick after community consensus.(check [4])

      Yesterday I had asked Nick if I should request for the AWB access based on my performance since the revocation.(check [5]) I hereby request access to AWB.

      I apologize for any inconvenience I caused. I understand the concerns that were raised. During this period, I have made about 30,000 edits and avoided any mistakes. I have been involved with a few backlogs, [6] [7] [8] article creation, promotion to GA, [9] DYK.[10] [11] [12] [13]

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

      Can you give us a summary of what you did wrong, and what you intend to do differently if we decide to give you back your AWB access? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      @Od Mishehu: I had changed dates on about 245 pages, and carried out delinking of wikilinks on articles, such edits violates rules of AWB.
      I won't be doing that again. I will be mostly using AWB for working on the backlogs as usual, like I have done before. For a name, there is a category, Category:Infobox book image param needs updating. Used to have about 15,000 previously, I had fixed 5595.[14] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose. You weren't stripped of AWB access for delinking and changing dates, and the link you provide above is rather disingenuous – this is the actual discussion that led to your being barred from AWB. Those were just two of a big stack of reasons, and the briefest glance at your recent contributions shows that the circumstances which led to it haven't been addressed. Among the things that led to your being stripped of the bit were making strings of trivial edits with no visible impact on an article – still going on as of today; and, more significantly, making rushed script assisted edits without bothering to check their edits, resulting in errors being introduced into the mainspace – [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] today alone. Yes, everybody makes mistakes and one mistake every thousand or so edits is understandable, but that's five obvious errors (in the sense that even the quickest of glances would have told you you were making a mistake) out of 28 mainspace edits today. An 18% error rate is atrocious, especially since in light of this appeal you were presumably being more careful than usual. In light of what happened to Rich Farmbrough, you're getting off lightly in that it's only AWB you're blocked from. Mogism (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      @Mogism: I have not used any scripts. I started doing the persondata backlog from today, [20] [21] are not errors. I agree that there were more than 2 concerns and also that the edits were contrary to the rules of AWB. I assure that I won't be making them. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      @OccultZone: This edit was an error. You then kindly fixed the error a few hours later. GoingBatty (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      @Mogism and OccultZone: Cleaning up backlogs is a reasonable task, even when it doesn't have a visible impact on the page. (The benefit of using AWB to make such edits is that it can also make other general fixes and typo fixes at the same time. The down side is that it takes longer to check each edit before saving.) It's great when OccultZone uses an edit summary to make it clear why the edit was being done, and suggest that OccultZone does so for every edit. I also suggest that OccultZone marks edits as minor edits when doing tasks such as adding {{Persondata}} short descriptions or {{WPBIO}} |listas= values. I wonder if this edit and this edit are correct. GoingBatty (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      @GoingBatty: About [22], check [23]. It was confirmed that Chinese, Vietnamese and Korean names are not same as the western, middle eastern and South Asian names. You can check the defaultsort, they are same. Check Hu Jintao's defaultsort for an example. [24] is also correct because "Melamparambil" is not included in his real name, many Indian names include the name of profession or region. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I happened to work on persondata for the first time ever, today. Although it is pretty obvious that I would be more careful than ever with that, it was indeed first time and I know that I wasn't perfect with it. When I used AWB, I had "Typo fixing" disabled, and later I had also disabled "auto tagging". OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I happened to work on persondata for the first time ever, today. Well, no, you chose to work on it for the first time today. It's a subtle difference, but important. What made you choose it, and what research did you do concerning persondata before working on it? I'm asking not to be picky, but because I think your answer might be valuable in showing how you decide to do mass edits, and how you check the edits you have done. Begoon talk 22:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Correct and I looked on to the short descriptions that have been used by other similar articles, before I will add some. After these all edits, I have found that best way to check edit is to re-read before submitting it. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support It is obvious that whenever you have the latest evidence of violation, you are prevented from the right. Few days ago, I had opposed the rollback right of Flyer22, however, I had to realize after seeing the closure that output is also measured by the experience, that the user has with the distinctive editing pattern. When there is almost 0 trouble, it can be appreciable. I liked [25], [26] After reading the users TP and archives I have found no issues which give me cause for concern. Noteswork (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Quoting GoingBatty: The down side is that it takes longer to check each edit before saving. Looking at the ANI discussion Mogism links, and reading Mogism's comments on recent errors even when editing manually, I think this is certainly one thing people will be concerned about. Editing at high speed needs good grasp of what is being done, and careful checking so that errors don't become a huge problem.
      • The edit rates discussed at that ANI make checking edits next to impossible. Can Occultzone tell us what they will do about this issue, so that we can have confidence they will be actually checking edits?
      • Additionally can they explain how they will deal with future concerns expressed by other editors with their automated editing? Again, reading that ANI, it seemed very difficult to get OZ to even admit they had made any errors at all. Communication, and possibly language, issues were a major stalling point in that discussion. Has there been progress there?
      • Finally, will OZ make a firm commitment that, should errors, or a series of errors, be discovered in future automated edits, they will fix the errors themselves, immediately, before moving onto anything else?
      I think answers to those questions might make folks more comfortable about this. Begoon talk 20:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • 12-17 edits every minute for hours may lead anyone to believe that I am not checking edits before clicking 'save' button. I don't deny that, I have actually worked on that by giving more time into making edits look more manual than I used to do before. Rechecking is always best way to deal with.
      • Like Nick had analyzed in the end, that I was speaking more for saving the access than recognizing the mistake, he seemed to be correct with that. It can be seen through the archives of my talk page. But since the next day(18 July), I have not tried anyone to give any chance that they would complain. Tried to improve my approach in dealing with the people. Talk page remains free of complaints.
      • Obviously and it is one of the core concept of editing that whenever you make any errors, you have to fix each of them. I am sure that I wouldn't be making in fair amount, and I will try figuring out soon. During these many edits(since revocation), I had some instances where I would make an error but fix it quickly. Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      But you didn't answer the questions at all really - by point, here's what you ignored or missed:
      • You didn't tell us how you would check edits, you just were concerned with whether it "looked like" you were checking them. This sentence worries me enormously: I have actually worked on that by giving more time into making edits look more manual than I used to do before. You've worked on making your edits "look more manual"? How about working on actually checking them?
      • I asked you how you would deal with future concerns.
      • You didn't firmly commit to fixing all of your future errors immediately, before moving on. You did say you are aware of this, and you want to improve, so that's encouraging.
      I'm sorry if you think I'm picking on you, and it's quite possible I've misinterpreted your answers, because, and here's the other problem, your English is very hard to understand. In the previous ANI you breezed past concerns about communication, raised by BrownHairedGirl and others, basically ignoring them. That worries me. I think you think your communication is better than it really is. It's actually very difficult to follow lots of what you say. I don't think it's wise to let folks who can't answer basic English queries about their actions in an understandable way use mass editing tools. Sorry if that's harsh, but there are practicalities to consider here. Begoon talk 23:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had answered that above, I had said that I re-read every edit before submitting. If I wasn't checking before submitting, I guess I would be having many of the errors and complaints during these 30,000 edits.
      • I would attempt to resolve the issue before making any other edit that is related with the issue. For example, when I had started doing the listas parameter, I had complaints on first day, but that was also the last day. It is usually better to resolve at first.
      • Yes I agree that I would fix the current issue before moving on, knowing that small amount of mistakes can take bigger form if they haven't been resolved. Just like it happened before, and it should be avoided.
      In fact, I had promoted articles to GA, DYK. It was pretty easy to collaborate other editors who were working along. There were numerous queries, but I don't see them repeating same question or concern again. I agree that it was one of the issue that I would ignore the concerns about the edits that I was making, because I thought that I was going by the policy of basic editing although it contradicted the rules of AWB about which I wasn't so aware, but that was my ignorance. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for all your answers. I'm sorry if you feel I bombarded you, but automated tools have the power to do a lot of damage, very quickly, which is difficult to fix. I'm not going to !vote either way - I think you have very good intentions, but I worry that you tend to overestimate your own language and editing knowledge and skills, which can cause problems, so that leaves me undecided, at this point. Begoon talk 00:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak support I think we can give the access back. I revoked OccultZone's access once but I think they are more experienced after this time. We can always take the right back once again if more problems occur. The last time the problems were because they used a third-party script in a large scale. I also believe that it's better if they do any changes semi-automatically and slowly than with a bot. It's true they still make mistakes, most probably due to hight edit ratio, even without AWB. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      So access has been revoked more than once? I didn't realise that. I'm still concerned - I'd certainly like to see it stipulated as a condition of any return of access that they agree to immediately fix any errors pointed out to them, before moving on, as they seem to agree above. Begoon talk 08:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose. I'd like to AGF and presume that OccultZone has "really learned a lot from {the} incident" and would benefit the project with renewed AWB access. I find i am unable to do so, however, on a couple of counts. One, i'm still concerned about communication ability; i don't really see improvement in it versus the previous incident. Two, the answers to Begoon's questions are, at best, evasive and, possibly actually deceptive; i would like to see more clear explanation from OZ of what he has learned and how he is planning to modify his behaviour. Three, the point Magioladitis raises, that AWB access has been revoked at least twice, with apparently no learning taking place the first time, at least needs to be answered before it is regranted. Cheers, LindsayHello 22:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      @LindsayH: I have answered every query, I know now better than what I used to do before that what users usually expect after they raise any concern about the mass editing, especially since the revocation I have tried giving them no chance as I have avoided objectionable edits. For the first time, like it was also noted in the ANI, it was revoked for a different reason. That time I had about 10k edits with AWB, but later, I had 85k, we can say that I had little better idea about not using AWB for the things that lead to revocation. For the 2nd time, it was due to the mass changes to wikilinks, and date/numbers. Although I realized that they are ultimately contradictory to the rules of AWB. I am also concerned with the backlogs that require attention. While most of them cannot be handled with semi-auto programs, some of them like I have named one among few others can be better handled with AWB. If we suppose that there would be similar circumstances like before, I will definitely seek consensus for the changes before making them. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support .. Starting from the end of last year, after Sati (practice) was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section, it was having many edit wars, I was informed by Mark Arsten on Indian noticeboard. My intervention was not a success, after a few days there were more doubts because one theory was not applying on other page or it's subsection that was actually relevant with the content of this page. I was kind of sure that this article would be brought to ARBcom.
        Occult has done enormous work on this article and adequately solved these disputes. It has been helpful for many other pages(e.g. Death by burning, Women in Hinduism). Bladesmulti (talk) 06:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      That's great. I'm not quite sure what it has to do with AWB access though, really. Seems to me if OZ has talents dealing with those Indian articles, something we desperately need, then he might be better off devoting more time to that, and less time to churning edits we could get bots to do, avoiding the risk of repeating the problems he's had with those. Just an idea, though, and obviously it's up to OZ how he wants to spend his time, in the end. Begoon talk 07:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for writing. My comment was more about how Occult is capable of handling situations. IMO, Occult has provided just enough evidence of an explanation that may reasonably be correct, and it will be sufficient for giving 'em enough rope. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, but read what you linked... I don't want to see a well-intentioned user like OZ "hang himself". OZ has a lot to offer, and I don't want to see him back in the same, problematic situations he has been in, since we can't afford to lose good users. Begoon talk 12:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes it was a problematic situation, I regret it. I used to think that what I could do to avoid, still do. I can affirm that I've learned, will continue to learn without causing any trouble. All in all, thanks for the kind words! OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support Per Magioladitis and per commitment not to repeat the mistake in the future. VandVictory (talk) 05:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support - If we are indeed a community that believes in second chances, and one that understands that sometimes we all err (sometimes egregiously), then it seems logical to allow access back. I see a lot of discussion of minutia and use and such, but to me, granting access is primarily based on around the individuals general understanding of policy, their willingness to accept responsibility for the actions and overall "clue". OccultZone is a good editor, and like the rest of us makes mistakes, but I'm confident he will move forward with caution after this. If not, bit stripping is free and it can be removed again. In the spirit of giving bit access to anyone willing and capable, I think we should not hoard the bits here. Dennis 2¢ 16:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support per WP:ROPE.--v/r - TP 21:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      • Support This is long overdue. To put this into perspective, current guidance is to use predominantly metric units with the few exemptions defined where the imperial unit remains the primary unit and to provide a conversion; to be clear the guidance is to use both systems. Its a sensible compromise yet we have seen the talk page held hostage by pressure groups seeking to use wikipedia to advance an agenda; they are not here to build an encyclopedia. For example, the pressure group the UK Metric Association has been advocating its members use wikipedia to advance their agenda since 2008 [28], equally guilty are the British Weights and Measures Association [29]. 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 [30] demonstrates just how much effort is diverted and wasted in dealing with utter trivia. WCMemail 23:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, but where in your UK Metric Association source do you see them asking their members to use Wikipedia to advance their agenda? All I see (on page 4 of the newsletter) is a very sensibly written piece describing what Wikipedia is, noting that there are POV policies and style guides which need to be followed, and asking readers to "correct any inaccuracies" in articles related to metrication. It's pretty much the sort of neutrally worded message one might expect to see one of our own WikiProjects addressing to completely new editors. The British Weights and Measures Association post is similar; it simply describes a good-faith clarification they made to an article, and doesn't actually advocate its members to use Wikipedia for advocacy purposes. Maybe both groups really are using Wikipedia to push their points of view, but if so, there's no evidence in the links you've provided. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak support. The situation sounds rather problematic, and the proposed solution sounds good if applied only to individual editors, as proposed herein. The field is so broad that anything beyond the limited scope herein proposed would be destructive: we mustn't go any farther. Placing sanctions on the whole field would amount to general sanctions on the entirety of the UK, which would be nutso. Nyttend (talk) 23:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      @Nyttend: I didn't mean "the whole field", I meant what you said. I apologise if I wrote something misleading. Administrators should be able to place sanctions on individual editors, as proposed above, and as you said. RGloucester — ☎ 00:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I was supporting weakly because you said "I'm open to other proposals, as well". We should not be open to other proposals, because the only other proposals that would address this specific problem would be far more wide-ranging than would be appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose. The situation in Britland isn't problematic, this appears to be a solution in search of a new way of spelling Aluminum. We really need to stop Americans using cups and spoons in recipes before tackling this. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 23:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I beg your pardon? This has nothing to do with WP:ENGVAR. This is about British people arguing amongst themselves about whether metric or imperial units should be made primary in UK-related articles, not about Americans doing anything. The idea that "the situation isn't problematic" is absurd; I recommend you take a look at WT:MOSNUM at this very moment to see why it is problematic. RGloucester — ☎ 00:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      My point is that this is a non-issue, and you know it. The vast majority of Britlandians have no issues on this subject, and the WT:MOSNUM link is a hed rerring. The 'camps' are unimportant fringe nobodies, the issue in the UK has been settled for years. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 01:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Er...I don't know if it is settled or not, but I do know that people keep bring it up, edit warring over it. All the more reason to institute sanctions, so that the vast majority of Britons needn't be plagued by petty nonsense in British-related articles. RGloucester — ☎ 01:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. It's just a time-wasting discussion. Everyone who actually lives in Britain knows that we buy fuel by the litre but every road sign shows miles. Eric Corbett 00:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support Don't forget, Eric, milk is sold in pints AND litres. Blackmane (talk) 02:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      That particular kettle of fish has been boiling for ages. RGloucester — ☎ 02:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, I know. It amused me the first time I saw it, but after living there for a while, it was something to get used to. Never ceases to amaze me how big a deal people make out of it. Blackmane (talk) 05:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support Going in pursuit of the original discussion and the statement by RGloucester. Edit war over minor units cannot be ignored. VandVictory (talk) 05:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question relating to the implication if this proposal was accepted and implemented. Would this really apply to any editor who made unit changes to any of the 10000s of articles that may be considered to be related in such a way to that UK? If so, how would this sanction be publicised and made known to every new editor who came across what they thought was a unit anomaly in such an article. It wouldn't be practical to alert each and every editor about to make such a change to each and every qualifying, would it? ProProbly (talk) 06:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • @ProProbly: If implemented like the WP:ARBPIA 1RR restriction, it would basically involve editors being notified after they made edits that changed measurement formats on British articles. After being notified, they would be blockable if they went on to violate the restriction. However, no-one should be blocked for violating 1RR if they have not been notified (although the ARBPIA page states this is possible, in practice it is not done). Number 57 09:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Number 57: Thanks, that helps clarify the likely consequences. That relies on someone who knows about this sort of thing spotting it. Would that also mean, do you think, that someone who changed a qualifying UK article to comply with their interpretation of the WP:UNITS guidelines would also be warned? ProProbly (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • @ProProbly: I wouldn't call it a warning - it's a notification that the sanctions exist. But yes, everyone who makes those kind of edits should be informed. Number 57 20:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto Seems likely this is a sockpuppet of DeFacto. WCMemail 10:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • What about height - both metric and imperial are used in the UK (imperial probably more prominent IMO) and we have {{height}} which converts from one to the other, but which should be displayed primary? GiantSnowman 09:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Height is already in WP:UNIT, but see WT:MOSNUM#Which units should be primary for the height of a UK statue of a UK politician? for an example of how much heat and how little light can be generated by such questions. NebY (talk) 09:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      And thats a perfect example of disruption, where one editor took it upon themselves to edit counter to the Manual of Style, to work through a category switching unit order. They then bragged about it offsite and invited other members of their pressure group to join in. But of course per WP:OUT I can't point this out. WCMemail 10:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I didn't know that. Good grief. We so need general sanctions. NebY (talk) 12:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      What might not have come across in Curry Monster's point was the sheer scale of the abuse - this was well over a thousand articles over the course of several months (during this period, according to their contributions, this editor did little on Wikipedia other than converting articles in this category against MOSNUM consensus). Kahastok talk 18:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. We have a workable and mainly working compromise at WP:UNITS and a general desire for peace. But long conflict has left many twitchy and it would be impossible to agree a comprehensive phrasing of WP:UNITS that would cover every possible eventuality - previous attempts to tighten the phrasing have foundered in mutual suspicion of what loopholes and interpretations the other side might seek to exploit. It remains fertile ground for extremists, particularly one who refuses to accept consensus and has no compunction about, indeed takes pleasure in, stirring and wasting the time of fellow editors. NebY (talk) 10:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • @NebY: The "compromise" does not reflect the real-life UK practice though and carries no explanation as to the reason for not so doing. It is not supported with evidence, in fact it flies in the face of the available evidence. In short it is totally biased in favour of the metric system. If we fix that, people might respect itProProbly (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      @ProProbly: I'm glad to see you engaging in civil discourse here, however, this is not the place to go on about changing MOSNUM. That discussion should take place at the MOSNUM talk page. This discussion is only about the proposed general sanctions. RGloucester — ☎ 20:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support—The immediate concern is the latest batch of DeFacto socks, and I don't think the issue would have come up here if there wasn't such a backlog at WP:SPI. We also have discretionary sanctions for WP:MOSNUM (thanks to NebY for pointing this out), but using this doesn't seem to be a good fit for blocking socks or solving the wider problem described in the proposal. If this is what it takes to get the disruption to stop, then let's do it. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 11:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I don't think Wikipedia needs punitive sanctions on discussing UK units. However, there should be some way of settling disputes over units that get out of hand and a more effective way of dealing with sockpuppets. It is crazy to fight over whether a statue was 9 feet or 2.7 metres tall. The best way to sort this out is to find out the actual height of the statue and go with that. I also think there's something wrong with a hard and fast diktat that all British heights and weights must be Imperial first when UK Rugby League, Rugby Union and Premier League put metric units first for their players. I think we all know that most milk in the UK is sold by the pint but some milk is also sold by the litre. However, MOSNUM could be read as if milk was only sold by the pint. While MOSNUM could do with some tweaking, there's no way that the general preference for miles could or should be overturned at this time. Michael Glass (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Mr Glass, whilst I do respect your opinion, this is not the place to be discussing changes to MOSNUM. That's a different pint-bottle of fish, meant to be dealt with at MOSNUM. The purpose of this proposal is to provide mechanisms for dealing with disruption in this topic area, not to quash discussion on potential changes to MOSNUM. Third-party administrators would be able to impose sanctions, as appropriate, on editors who "repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process" (copied from WP:General sanctions). RGloucester — ☎ 12:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, but much of the discussion here has been about what MOSNUM says. If the sanctions are going to apply to such things as edit warring over units of measure, fair enough, but if the sanctions are going to be applied to offences against MOSNUM, then MOSNUM had better be beyond reproach. Michael Glass (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      @Michael Glass: No, no. Not "offences against MOSNUM". MOSNUM is not and will never be infallible. Like I said, the point is not to quash discussion about changing MOSNUM, but to curtail disruptive behaviour in those discussions. Only uninvolved administrators will be able to impose sanctions, and only for the reasons that I quoted above. You needn't worry about not being able to discuss changing the current guidelines. RGloucester — ☎ 20:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Background and current situation: Currently the discretionary sanctions (DS) authorised by the Arbitration Committee in the article titles and capitalisation case apply to WT:MOSNUM. Given this comment by an arbitrator on the case's proposed decision talk page the DS likely also apply to article talk pages. If that is the case then the only place they don't apply (depending of course on how broadly you construe) is the changing the characters on articles. From my reading of this thread and of recent discussion regarding it the disruption is being driven by a small number of users and a banned user's socks (which the sanctions will do nothing to stop. My suggestion: (administrative opinion to stay uninvoved) Instead of authorising a brand new set of sanctions for this area can I suggest instead that we just go with the current discretionary sanctions and if editors side step them and only edit war over the characters in articles then they can be brought here individually for topic bans. As far as I can no one has alerted the people involved to ArbCom DS (now mostly done) or made a report to AE so the DS haven't had a chance to work. If I'm reading something incorrectly or you don't agree please feel free to reply so we can discuss. Cheers, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Relating those sanctions to this matter seems like a bit of a stretch (one arbitrator's vague words seem like a spurious link), and does not do anything about article-space edits. I see no reason why a new set of sanctions cannot be established for this matter, specifically meant for this purpose, as opposed to weaselling around with old Arb Com sanctions. As far as "a small number of users", there are recurrent editors that cause disruption, but it is certainly not limited to them. Whilst I do agree that what you said could be done, bringing editors here for topic bans, and so on, this mechanism is slow and bureaucratic, often does not work until the disruption has not gone on for ages, and really does not give the appropriate tools to administrators in this area. This is not an area where edit warring or disruption is ever appropriate. There are very few good reasons to ever edit war over units of measurement, perhaps even fewer than in other content areas. Given the history here, I believe that implementing some kind of sanction specifically for this purpose cannot hurt the situation, it can only help it. RGloucester — ☎ 13:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The diff provided is a former arbitrator replying to a current arbitrator's comment [31] that someone would "wikilawyer" DS to articles. I agree that having overlapping DS and GS in the same content area -- arguing MOSNUM and UK units in the same discussion -- would lead to unnecessary ambiguity. Given the community consensus that's forming, an explicit AC:RFAR request to extend DS to UK units seems reasonable. I lack the wikitime at this moment to fill out all the pixelwork. NE Ent 15:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I would be fine with such an amendment, but I'm not familiar enough with the hidden gears and cogs of Wikipedia to attempt to do anything of that sort. RGloucester — ☎ 16:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't quite see that overlap would be a problem and if we have sufficient consensus here, should we bother an overloaded Arbcom? After all, we're used enough to telling editors that they're in breach of multiple policies. Can't the community simply impose general sanctions identical to standard discretionary standards with the addition of 1RR on all conflict between editors regarding units of measurement in UK-related articles, wherever across en.wp such conflict takes place? That should suffice for warnings and actions alike. NebY (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      That's my thinking, NebY. ArbCom seems to make everything more complicated than it otherwise needs to be. Perhaps it is because I'm British, and in Britain courts (yes, I know ArbCom is not a court) do not have powers of legislative interpretation. I honestly believe this is a matter better suited for a new set of general sanctions. However, if those administrators who are frequently involved in general sanctions matters, such as Callanecc, believe that an amendment is better suited, I'd be happy to take that approach in the interest of compromise. RGloucester — ☎ 20:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support the principle of general sanctions in this area. What we have at WP:UNITS is basically a decent compromise. Not perfect, but probably the best we're going to get given the levels of distrust on talk.
      I would note that when the current rule has been taken to forums for UK-related articles outside MOSNUM it has generally been pretty well-supported. It's quite unusual for this to get brought up at WT:MOSNUM by non-regulars: I had a look and I found only one discussion on this topic on MOSNUM in the last year at that was not either started by a UK-Units regular (including DeFacto socks) or immediately prompted by the actions of a UK-Units regular. And POV pushers on both sides have come unstuck when they've appealed to what they thought was a silent majority consensus for their preferred system - only to find that in fact, editors were happy with the status quo.
      I would in particular broadly endorse the points that User:NebY has made. But I would note that a major part of the problem has been outside MOSNUM, with people mass-converting whole topics from one system to the other, particularly when going against MOSNUM advice, and in favour of their own POV. These editors have generally not been sanctioned in the past, and they should have been. We can get too hung up on DeFacto - he's not the only one by any means. There are plenty on the metric side as well - the main difference is that they aren't blocked or banned. Kahastok talk 18:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. I did forget to say that the problem and the fertile ground for conflict extends well beyond MOSNUM, and I didn't want to imply just one person or just one side needed to exercise or suffer more restraint. NebY (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Proposed wording/remedies

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

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

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

      Can we add that any reference to suggestions that we base unit order on the source used ie source based units is disruptive? Its just as bad from a disruption POV as the edit warring and unit changes. WCMemail 17:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The point of general sanctions is not to stifle discussion, but to discourage disruptive editing and behaviour. Such an addition would be completely inappropriate. If an uninvolved administrator believes that someone is editing disruptively, then they can be sanctioned. RGloucester — ☎ 17:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      You mention the UK: what about the ROI, as well as ambiguous situations such as Man, the Channel Islands, and the various remaining colonies such as Anguilla, BIOT, or Tristan da Cunha? I'm not pressing for such sanctions or attempting to opposing them: I simply wonder how you'd accounted for them, whether "we should include them", "we should not include them", or "the precise boundaries ought to be left to the enforcing administrator". Nyttend (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      There is no ambiguity in Ireland. It is completely metric, at this point. As far as I'm aware, there has never been a dispute over units at articles relating to the places you mention, and hence I do not think it is necessary to specifically include them in the scope. They are such minor cases that I doubt it will ever be a concern. RGloucester — ☎ 19:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      In other words, the scope should mirror the MOSNUM guidelines, which specify "the United Kingdom". RGloucester — ☎ 19:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Ahem. Kahastok talk 19:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Given that the Falkland Islands are a British Overseas Territory, it is quite obvious that that article has "strong ties" to the UK. RGloucester — ☎ 19:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, I agree entirely. I only brought it up because there seemed to be some question and there was a suggestion that it hadn't come up - after all, the FI have the same status as Anguilla, the BIOT, St. Helena/Ascension/Tristan da Cunha et al. Kahastok talk 20:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      What I meant was that I don't think there is a need to specify that these sanctions apply to the "British Indian Ocean Territory", or whatever. That seems like overkill. RGloucester — ☎ 20:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      It's late and I'm still buzzing from an extraordinary poetry reading (capacity crowd on its feet), but I can still see how to drive several coaches and horses through and around that phrasing, and I'm sure more alert and less buzzing minds will thoroughly enjoy thinking of more. Maybe patch in "or who edit-wars over such a change, or otherwise engages in disruptive behaviour regarding units of measurement in such articles, may be sanctioned..." Or just look at how DS like WP:ARBPIA are phrased and talk of editors editing in the area of units of measurement in UK-related articles. NebY (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Fewer word proposal:

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

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

      I'm of the opinion that it is important that procedure be clear, and I think that your version leaves out a good deal of the procedure. I based my proposal off the British Isles sanctions and the Syrian Civil War sanctions. I believe it is important that we make note that sanctions require notifications and must be logged. I'm also not sure why the 1RR was left out. RGloucester — ☎ 23:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with the logging, I missed that on the copy paste and have updated. The proposal says after being notified of the existence of the British units general sanctions, I believe that is sufficient. Additionally, as a too long veteran of the dispute resolution boards, the more language present the more violating editors will seize as an argument for why they were done wrong: But I wasn't adequately counseled! I think it best to keep it short and sweet. NE Ent 23:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I can support the version you've just edited, though it needs a bit of copyediting. RGloucester — ☎ 00:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm concerned that this version will be gamed to push source-based units over the top of MOSNUM rules because of the reference to "clear sourcing".
      Source-based units - that is, a system whereby you use the same units as primary as the specific source used to justify the information (regardless of any other consideration) - has long been used by POV pushers as an excuse to impose their personal preference in this area (because they choose the sources that use the units they prefer). MOSNUM has never preferred source-based units - in fact source-based units have been repeatedly rejected (for the same reasons as would apply to source-based spellings) at WT:MOSNUM when they have been advocated by those same POV pushers - but it has in the past contained wordings that those editors claimed allowed them to override the rest of the guideline in favour of source-based units. The justification claimed for the mass-conversion of articles described here was source-based units.
      We should be very careful to avoid wordings that might be similarly exploited. Kahastok talk 08:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

      Adding to this post-edit-conflict. I would endorse Curry Monster's point here. Kahastok talk 13:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      You fellows are getting something wrong here, as did PBS below. The point of these sanctions is NOT to enforce the compliance of articles with MOSNUM. It is to stop disruptive systematic editing. Someone systematically "enforcing" MOSNUM could be just as disruptive as someone doing otherwise. Changes of units of measurement in British articles should be done through talk page discussion, and these sanctions are meant to facilitate that. They are supposed to stop disruptive editing, stop edit-warring, and so forth. The fact that you fellows are attacking the motives of Michael Glass here is entirely inappropriate. This is not a place for that. This is only meant for the discussion of the potential sanctions. Please take your off-topic comments about MOSNUM and Michael Glass elsewhere. RGloucester — ☎ 15:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Anyway, I've removed "sourcing", and left "clear justification", as I believe that makes it clear enough without delving into over specification. RGloucester — ☎ 15:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The wording including the reference to sources it appears to me leaves us open to the argument that this does not count as systematic mass-conversion of articles because it's based on sources (because it applies source-based units). Michael appears to endorse this idea. The wording of sanctions should clearly not undermine the MOS, and there is strong potential for this to do so. Kahastok talk 15:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      It does not "undermine" the MOS, nor does it "support" the MOS. It has nothing to do with the MOS. It has to do with disruptive editing. Regardless, it no longer says anything about "sourcing". RGloucester — ☎ 15:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The fact that this dispute has poured over onto this page is proof of why we need these sanctions, regardless. RGloucester — ☎ 16:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, let's try a new proposal meant to address concerns below:

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

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

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

      Support/Opposition

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

      The devil is in the detail. Why just Britain?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      I think you've misconstructed the purpose of these sanctions. In no way does this intend to make "MOSNUM an enforceable policy". Many articles don't even comply with MOSNUM. Even on one of those articles, if someone goes around switching units (perhaps to "comply" with MOSNUM), gets reverted, and then keeps switching units, that would be an instance where these sanctions would apply. There do not apply to normal editors making changes, and discussing and attaining consensus for unit changes on the talk pages of articles, nor do they apply to those who discuss changing the guidelines at MOSNUM. They only apply to those who switch units constantly with no good reason, and edit disruptively as such. Read the "British Isles" sanctions. This is similar to that. It isn't like there would be a ban on switching units, and it does mention "with clear justification". Merely it would force discussion on the talk page, as opposed to having systematic changes of units across articles, like the proposals specify. RGloucester — ☎ 14:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Any such disruption would be equally true for any article so why single out a specific set of articles? -- PBS (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The point of general sanctions is to allow administrators to deal with disruptive editing swiftly in specific areas of conflict. Edit-warring and disputes over units in UK-related articles have caused innumerable problems and inordinate time-wasting. Systematic changing of units in many UK-related articles, as has been done many times by various people, is disruptive. I don't think there has ever been a conflict over American units, Australian units, or whatever. That's because those countries all essentially have one set of units, more or less. In Britain, this is not the case, and that's why we see constant conflict over units. Units in Britain are politically charged in a way that they are not in America, Ireland, or Australia, and that's why they've caused endless conflict here. That's why general sanctions are appropriate. They grant administrators the tools they need to deal with conflict that otherwise isn't being dealt with. The status quo is to let disputes fester for months, leading to all sorts of nonsense like sock-puppetry, disruptive editing, &c. It simply does not work. RGloucester — ☎ 20:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Ah! You haven't followed the conflict, then. All articles have both metric and imperial measures, or at least they are supposed to. The area of conflict is whether metric or imperial measures should appear first ("primary"). It may sound minor, but it causes 10 tonnes (9+4⁄5 long tons) worth of headaches. That's exactly why it is needed, the same as with the British Isles sanctions, which are most similar to this proposal. It causes inordinate disruption. UK-related articles refers to articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom, the same way "strong ties" works for ENGVAR and date formats. I don't think a strict definition is necessary. If it wasn't necessary for date formats or ENGVAR, I don't see why it would be here. That's up for article talk pages to decide, and in the case of sanctions, for the uninvolved administrator to decide. RGloucester — ☎ 15:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      In British English both day month and month day are used. Your are talking to one of of those who was involved in early over ENGVAR :-) ENGVAR is fine vague definition for a guideline because it is an exception to the rule of it an article started out in one version of English do not change to another, and people in good faith can debate on the talk page if a particular page falls in or outside a particular ENGVAR. If you want to use it for sanctions (where by definition good faith is lacking) then you ought to come up with a precise definition of what you mean. I have given lots of examples above of the problem of scope. So what is your clear definition for enforcement of sanctions? --PBS (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I take your points above about advertising this more widely and agree that would go better with some more preparatory work on the wording. But I don't think that wording should be extremely tight and fear the first proposal placed too much emphasis on disruption within articles by unit-switching. This proposal's here and meeting with such general support because we've seen so much wikilawyering, so much playing merry hell with the details and so much delight in finding new tactics and battlegrounds. Looking at Wikipedia:General sanctions#Sanctions placed by the Wikipedia community, I'm attracted to the brevity of "Men's Rights / Men's Rights Movements" and "All pages about social groups" and would favour simply "Units of measurement in UK-related articles". If "UK-related articles" seems too broad, we can probably find a tighter phrasing such as "articles primarily concerning UK subjects". I don't think it's necessary to be explicit that this includes talk pages and project pages and the like, any more than it is for MR/MRM and social-groups sanctions. NebY (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with NebY, here. However, I see nothing wrong with "articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom". This is a standard definition used here on Wikipedia, and is used for MOSNUM purposes. I don't see how this definition is inappropriate. In articles without strong ties to the UK or US, metric is favoured by MOSNUM, though it says that changes should not be made without discussion. In those cases, any dispute would fall outside these sanctions. This only applies to UK articles, like, for example, Bristol Temple Meads railway station. RGloucester — ☎ 17:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. I'm hesitant about the "strong ties" phrasing only because it might encompass articles which also had strong or stronger ties to other places - I'm not sure quite which, maybe soccer or World War Two or some such. Still, maybe we can make progress by looking at Wikipedia:General sanctions#Sanctions placed by the Wikipedia community and considering how we'd fill in the columns along similar lines, for example:
      • Applicable area: "Units of measurement in articles primarily concerning UK subjects", "Units of measurement in articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom"
      • Type: "1RR and discretionary topic bans or blocks"
      • Sanctions: "Explicitly including but not restricted to switching units, forum-shopping, tendentious editing and disputation, being boring" - could probably be trimmed further, though it is tempting to paste in Boson's list. NebY (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

      Er, the wording says "who otherwise disruptively edits" and "who does not adhere to the five pillars". This is fairly standard for general sanctions. It doesn't specify every particular behaviour, merely "disruption". If an uninvolved administrator believes that something is extremely disruptive, he can sanction that editor. RGloucester — ☎ 17:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The problem is the enumeration
      1. any editor who systematically changes values from metric units to imperial units or vice-versa without clear justification,
      2. who edit-wars over such a change,
      3. or who otherwise disruptively edits.
      The main problems with UK units are more to do with the disruption of the consensus-building process on the talk pages, but the "otherwise" is intuitively understood to mean "disruption of a similar nature", which would probably suggest edits to articles similar to edit-warring. This would target editors "guilty" of one type of potentially disruptive editing and give ammunition to other editors who are actually causing the problem. Similar problems come up in law; I'm not sure if it's covered by the principle inclusio unius est exclusio alteriu. So if we are to have an enumeration, we should probably include both types of disruption, specifically referring first to talk page disruption, and something like the Ninth Amendment ("the enumeration of certain types of disruption shall not exclude any other types of disruption"). --Boson (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't accept that the described issues are the key problems on talk. If those issues exist at all, they arise primarily through exasperation when the same editors make the same arguments for the same changes over and over again, which certainly does happen. In some cases they've been making the same case for years on end, it's been rejected at every turn, and the reasons provided for rejecting the case have been ignored the next time. Editors should not be expected to counter the same argument the 50th time an editor has raised it in the same way as they countered it the first time; to expect them to is to expect an inhuman degree of patience.
      I would also note that the difficult nature of talk page argument is to a major degree driven by the backdrop of experience of disruption caused by mass-conversion of articles - particularly when this arises through Wikilawyering the guideline. It is much harder to get consensus when there is no trust, and that backdrop means that there is very little trust. It is this that, ultimately, is a major cause of the problems on talk. If we could be sure that such mass-conversion would no longer take place, I believe that would make discussion at MOSNUM talk easier. Not necessarily always easy - you have people who demand 100% metric and people who demand 100% imperial and it's going to be hard to reconcile them regardless - but easier. Kahastok talk 19:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      We should remember what started the current flair-up: the discussion WT:MOSNUM#Which units should be primary for the height of a UK statue of a UK politician? started by an egregious sockmaster after this edit] changed the non-compliant "a nine-foot bronze statue" to " a 2.7-metre (9 ft) bronze statue" to make it comply with WP:MOSNUM, which requires that metric units also be specified. --Boson (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I've been pointing this out. If we could get to a stage where people did not use DeFacto socks as an excuse to escalate this, but rather did what we really should be doing - closing the discussions started by DeFacto socks and letting sleeping dogs lie - then this would also reduce the problems at talk. There are ways in which we reduce the arguments here, but they require everyone's cooperation and we don't have it. Kahastok talk 20:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The problem at WT:MOSNUM is not that some people want all metric and others want all imperial. Excluding the contribution of the DeFacto sockpuppets, the disputed issues (as I understand them) are relatively minor:
      • whether to refer editors to "The Times" style guide
      • what to do about sports where metric measurements are often used by the relevant associations (and The Times style guide says that metric measurements are preferred for sports) but the text of WP:MOSNUM (excluding the reference to The Times style guide) prescribes imperial measurements
      • what to do about milk, beer, and cider (where the guideline (arguably?) deviates from legislation and usage).
      The problem is that the situation is repeatedly misrepresented and disrupted in the way described above.--Boson (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      If that's how you've understood the issues here, then I believe you've misunderstood them in general. We do have editors who argue 100% metrication and we have editors who argue 100% imperial. Not all of them are asking for it all at once, but it's clear that that's the desired final result. A major argument in the present dispute, for example, is that change would make the guideline more metric and that that would be desirable in and of itself - which misses the point entirely (as Wikipedia is not allowed to express such a POV).
      But as I say, one of the major issues is the history of some editors Wikilawyering the rules to push their preferred system. If we could be sure that this will stop, then I believe that this would assist in resolving things by generating trust. I know I would be far more willing to trust that people are not going to systematically abuse the MOS if I was confident they would be sanctioned for doing so. Kahastok talk 20:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Re your last point, that's why I used "including but not restricted to" phrasing above. NebY (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      That goes a long way to alleviating my concerns and is a good basis for further discussion, but the wording probably still needs a bit of tweaking. --Boson (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Certainly. Do you want to suggest tweaks, or talk about what's missing or off so that we can find a brief phrase for it? NebY (talk) 06:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, I don't think we can leave in the bit about "being boring", though it is tempting. Perhaps an explicit reference to talk pages and some links to relevant guidelines that include WP:IDHT] etc. would be sufficient. --Boson (talk) 10:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm quite prepared to sacrifice "being boring" - it was more of a placeholder. I had hoped "disputation" covered talk pages and edit comments - maybe that can be made clearer by extending the examples of behaviours as you suggest, as in this draft: "Explicitly including but not restricted to systematically switching units of measurement without consensus and forum-shopping, disruptive, tendentious and time-wasting editing and disputation concerning units of measurement". Mmm - that's verging on too lengthy. Thoughts, anyone? NebY (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

      I'm sorry, but I don't see how a "precise definition" is necessary. This strike me as splitting hairs. Like I said, I would use the exact same "definition" used by MOSNUM, that is, articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom. RGloucester — ☎ 15:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm puzzled too at the implication that we would need a detailed definition of the United Kingdom. WP:MOSNUM#Choice of units itself has "In non-scientific articles relating to the United States... In non-scientific articles relating to the United Kingdom... UK engineering-related articles...". Looking for similar scope issues, I find WP:ENGVAR#Strong national ties to a topic has "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation". Sanctions are no more precise than those policies, which wouldn't surprise anyone who's seen bounds tested: "related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted", "Articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted", "Explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal." and more. There isn't a great deal to choose between RGloucester's phrasing and mine; mine is intentionally slightly more restrictive.
      I saw your list of possible grey areas above. They are always with us. Editors have been applying their interpretations of WP:MOSNUM#Units in many surprising ways and arguing fiercely about many possible interpretations. Conflict over use of imperial or metric units has extended to articles very similar to the ones you mention, maybe even to some of those very articles - I haven't checked. Those conflicts can be bitter and fierce, long and draining. We're proposing to damp down those conflicts through sanctions and, I'm glad to say, we actually have strong general consensus among the combatants for this effort - if we can find a suitably balanced phrasing. NebY (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Would anyone care to propose a new wording that incorporates the concerns of other editors here? RGloucester — ☎ 18:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      @NebY and @RGloucester When did the UK you want to use in this these sanctions come into existence? -- PBS (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      ???? This is not necessary. Any article with strong ties to the United Kingdom. That means that it includes articles like The Protectorate, as that event is historically tied to what is now the UK. It really doesn't matter when the "UK came into existence". As it says at the MOS for ENGVAR, the Great Fire of London is written in British English because it has strong ties to Britain, even though Britain did not exist in the modern sense at the time of the fire. We don't write that article in Early Modern English, but British English. RGloucester — ☎ 23:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Proposing community ban on Bigshowandkane64

      Bigshowandkane64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been edit warring on several articles pertaining to Disney, wrestling and children's television-related articles since his indef block back in 2013, and has also been adding unsourced information in several BLPs. More recently, he appeared as MickeyMouseTheCoolGuy46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and has continued the same pattern of edits like the previous accounts ([32], [33], [34]). This editor has shown that, despite being given one last chance after another, he is a net negative to the project. This last round of sock puppetry is the final straw. I would like to propose that we should place an indefinite community ban on this individual.

      • Support as nominator. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support site ban. VandVictory (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support site ban. User has no desire to change which can easily be seen in his edit summaries of his most recent sock. AcidSnow (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Partial support. I support a ban of Bigshownandkane, but not an indefinite one. It's rather easy to tell that this individual is young and immature, so I propose that we issue a 1-2 year ban to allow him to gain some maturity and give him a chance to become a constructive contributor. However, if he violates the ban, perhaps we could look into extending it to indefinite. --Writing Enthusiast (talk | contribs) 04:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support per WritingEnthusiast. Although after a read of their contributions, I would say a ban of no shorter than 5 years with no recourse to appealing the ban for at least 2 years. However, continued socking from the close of this proposal would receive my support for an indefinite ban. Blackmane (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      How to handle the user described on the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP page

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

      It appears to be a case of either a) the guy is banned, or b) he does exactly as he pleases on Wikipedia, where no rules applies to him whatsoever. He gets blocked for something, and he immediately comes back using a different IP. He currently has two blocks outstanding, yet is still editing. He freely claims that we "cannot prevent him from editing" [35]. His editing is (mostly) fine, until someone disagrees with him or reverts him, then there's reverting with no discussion and eventually, unacceptable levels of personal abuse. I don't believe Wikipedia benefits from his presence, and I only know of one editor who appreciates him, among the large number who find him to be disruptive. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bretonbanquet, I'm getting kind of tired of seeing the same unhelpful argument rehashed. Their edits are improvements, pure and simple. If you revert them until abuse starts, then for all I know you're baiting them into using foul language. I'd be pissed too. Reverting these positive edits (there's a laundry list on my talk page, User_talk:Drmies#Seeking_your_opnion) makes no sense and only leads to frustration, admin involvement, LTA, cases, mass rollback--in short, needless drama. What do I care who makes this edit? It's a good edit. And now Zambelo (who's always on the look to get something on me) feels the need to join the fray, with this well-explained edit, in which a 2008 source which doesn't mention the subject is made to announce something in 2012 (go look for "Beta" in that article). Bravo. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh yes, I exist but for that very reason /s. Seriously, you need to stop with the personal attacks. But I'll be sure to bring this up when I bring your conduct to arbitration. Zambelo; talk 02:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      As I have said, his editing is mostly fine – mostly. Not all of it. And immediately you assume that he is being reverted ad infinitum and goaded into using bad language. I really don't know why you would come to that conclusion. Do you have any proof of it? I have not reverted him on a systematic basis, only where I feel there is a problem with his edit. I do not necessarily advocate reversion of all of his edits. The point is that any reversion of his edits results in an edit war, refusal to discuss and eventual abuse. He effectively bullies others into accepting his edits. I have never been able to question a single edit of his, or even start a discussion, without a major struggle and being called names. And I'm far from being alone. I do not understand why you would support someone who makes a few minor improvements to the project when the trade-off is regular abuse and an open admission to gaming the system. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      He has been blocked repeatedly and feels no need to address the reasons for the blocks: vile personal attacks, edit warring, etc. So long as he is allowed to edit -- for whatever reason -- why would he do anything to conform to community standards? He won't, as his recent actions confirm[36][37] He then is shocked that anyone would dare to claim he is editing in defiance of a block[38] despite (as noted) repeatedly saying he is -- and will continue to -- evade all attempts to block him. Drmies asks to what end we would enforce a block. In this particular case, to get rid of an abusive editor. In a larger sense, so that we can meaningfully claim to block disruptive editors. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      I have not reverted him on a systematic basis, only where I feel there is a problem with his edit.
      [39],[40],[41],[42],[43],[44],[45],[46],[47],[48],[49],[50]
      Why lie? 186.37.203.196 (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Who's lying? Those are the edits I had a problem with. Some of your work I reinstated. Some of my reverts were reverted by other editors who thought your edits were OK, and I left them. Dozens and dozens of your edits I checked, and left as acceptable. Why don't you list those? I've already said that mostly your editing is fine, but it's not your editing that's in question here. You're evading two blocks by posting here. The fact is, you can do whatever you want here and you basically do, by your own admission. The rest of us are not free to challenge you without fear of edit wars and abuse. Right or wrong? Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      More lies - no surprise. I guess you do it because you get away with it. That was just a small sample of the many edits that you have reverted on a systematic basis, without regard to the content. If you genuinely had some kind of problem with an edit such as moving a reference to a sensible place, you would a) have been wrong, b) been obliged by the conventions of the encyclopaedia to explain what your problem actually was, and c) not moved the reference again yourself. And why don't I list the edits of mine that you have personally approved? Either you're just trolling, again, or you seriously don't realise that no-one but you can possibly know which edits those might be. Either way, it's more cause for concern about you. 186.37.203.122 (talk) 17:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Can you engage in a discussion at all without accusing someone of lying and trolling? I restored that part of your edit which I felt was acceptable, yet that's not good enough for you either? As for all the edits of yours that I felt were acceptable, how about all of those from your last two or three IPs that I didn't revert? I checked all of them. You have no need for concern about me. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I think it's possible we're getting off topic here. From my perspective, if we conclude the user is banned, then as far as I'm concerned, reverting his edits in accordance with WP:BAN would be permissible. PhilKnight (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I have never been banned. Once you acknowledge that, I'm sure you'll have words with User:SummerPhD about the idiocy of making false claims just for the purpose of destroying substantial amounts of hard work. 186.37.203.122 (talk) 17:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • In my view, the question of whether the person behind the various IP has been banned is moot. The edits in question improved the encyclopedia, and even though mass reversion of such edits might be permissible if s/he has been banned, I believe that even then, it's a textbook example for why WP:IAR exists. Are we here to enforce rules to the detriment of encyclopedic content? Or are we here to improve this encyclopedia? Those are the questions at the crux of this, in my opinion. LHMask me a question 17:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        A note on "best known for": while I don't agree with blind mass reversion of the IP's edits, his crusade against "best known for" seems wrong-headed to me. It's a common phrase, used even in scholarly works. Here is just one example of it being used in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. There are many more such examples. LHMask me a question 17:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Banning is an extreme measure. I've looked at the long-term abuse page and at some examples; I've reinstated one edit in the list the IP gives above, and compromised on another. This is a long-running case and I see some mellowing: for one thing, the IP is apparently focusing less narrowly on the particularly contentious issue of whether "best known for" is a legitimate formulation in the lede of an article, or a sloppy piece of OR; for another, they seem to be using fewer of the nasty edit summaries, and I do see them carefully describing their reasoning in the initial edits. On the other hand I'm seeing numerous cases where the first revert gave no specific reason. Maybe my sample is poor; I admit I am utterly unable to judge which particular actors are in fact best known for one or two roles, and inclined to think the IP's right: it's usually more neutral to omit that, and where it isn't, it should be specifically referenced in the article. Because people's careers evolve. I'm getting the feeling this IP's career has evolved a bit too. IP, can we get you to undertake to clean up your mouth, realising that people of all sorts of backgrounds read these edit summaries, and calling someone a moron or even a twat (which like the other word for the female pudenda has differential force in different parts of the world, and neither particularly endears someone to a female editor like me) is just going to get you treated like a hoodlum? More use of article talk pages would also help: it's a place to record your reasoning. Others: shall we have a formal ban discussion, or can anyone find one that has happened? Or can we step back and avoid that in this case - partly by endeavouring to give a reason for the revert, just in case one time it isn't a banned editor? Since the banning offences in this case are apparently the behaviour after the first revert, I believe we may have a way out of that situation if we can keep things on the level of AGF and reasoned disagreement. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would suggest two courses of action. First, a series of filters to make this editor go away. Second, systematically remove the phrase "best known for" from every Wikipedia article. As disruptive as this guy is, that doesn't forgive this chronic piece of original research. We generally have no idea what someone is "best known for", and I can't envision a source that could make reliable statements about that for us to rely upon.—Kww(talk) 17:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your first course of action will make our articles worse, so I disagree. I have a solution, but he doesn't want to play along: if he gets an account then, I have no doubt, all this will go away. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think if he got an account then yes, largely it might go away. He would at least then be bound by the same rules as the rest of us, which currently he is not. Why does he not want to register? It would be a demonstration of good faith on his part. If he then actually discussed matters when challenged, in a civil way, then compromises could be reached. With regard to the "best known for" phrasing, I think in some cases he is right to remove it, but in others the subject only passes the notability criteria for one thing, and it's not really a stretch of OR to say that's what they're best known for. Including some small guidance on a subject's most notable achievements seems encyclopedic to me, particularly if reliably sourced (like any other statement). Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • You'll note above that in this very discussion, he has accused me of lying and trolling. The fact is that this guy appears incapable of being civil. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was asked to comment on my experience but I can't add much beyond what I've put at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP#Comments from Wee Curry Monster. The guy's edits are mostly constructive and a lot are reverted by named accounts who should know better. Its those occasions where the edit doesn't improve the article, which are most troubling, since he doesn't engage with editors he simply resorts to the same foul mouthed abuse. I don't believe he responds like that out of frustration, I think that is a fig leaf he is hiding behind as it was supplied by editors defending him. The truth is as he admits himself, he enjoys being abusive to other editors. He doesn't fundamentally add to the encyclopaedia, you'll not see him producing content, simply a few quick grammar tweaks. To be blunt about it, if this were a named account who labelled everyone who disagreed with them a dopey C**T, they'd have had a series of escalating blocks leading to a permanent site ban long. As he IP hops he has been able to evade such sanctions. WCMemail 18:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      So far in this discussion, three edits from three IPs in defiance of a supposed block and the following: "Why lie?...More lies - no surprise. I guess you do it because you get away with it....Either you're just trolling, again,...I have never been banned.... the idiocy of making false claims just for the purpose of destroying substantial amounts of hard work." Is this editor blocked? In theory, yes. In practice, no. "Wikipedia, the encyclopedia where personal attacks are just fine and blocks are meaningless." - SummerPhD (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Indeed. I've got a blocked editor, known for incivility, calling me a liar and a serial troll on an admin page with no admonishment whatsoever. Something he's done in countless other places to countless editors. And I'm actually starting to feel as if some people think I'm in the wrong here or making this stuff up. It'd be a joke if it were actually funny. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      It is said that the editor is banned. Are they? If they're not, calling them "banned" is, well, a kind of untruth, call it what you will. But I don't think anything is going to come out of this. Tempers are going to get more inflamed, even though, WCM, the c-word hasn't fallen in a long time (as far as I know), nor does he say that to "everyone who disagrees with him". In fact, I restored one of their "known for"s since I was able to source that it was accurate. They didn't call me anything. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Personally, I don't know if the guy is banned as it all started way before I encountered him. I haven't used the word "banned"; I use "blocked" because that much is demonstrably true. As for the c-word, I don't consider it much more problematic than being called a liar and a troll, something which doesn't seem to bother you. These are still flagrant personal attacks, right here on an admin page. At the risk of sounding petty, he's hardly likely to call you names as you have supported him in the past. You even called him one of your favourite editors on your talk page. If he were to stop calling people any kind of names, c-word, twat, moron, liar, troll, anything like that – that would be a hell of a start. But if he can call me a liar and a troll here and escape any kind of sanction, then what's to prevent him doing it anywhere else? If he is to be considered some kind of untouchable editor, to whom rules don't apply, then well let's just admit it so we know where we all stand. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      You even called him one of your favourite editors on your talk page
      Yeah, I really, really doubt that was meant seriously.

      Sorry, Drmies, it's a bit too simplistic to claim that "Their edits are improvements, pure and simple". While this may be the case in some/most of their edits, it certainly isn't correct to say they are all improvements. To suggest that this edit deals with "copyright infringement" shows a lack of understanding with what "copyright infringement" is. When this was reverted—on a good faith basis—the insults started, and the editor started edit warring against three other editors. The IP initially refused to go to the talk page when requested; when they finally started on the talk page, the editor edit warred there as well, deleting other people's comments (six times in all!), and referring to me as a "fucking retarded little cunt." When this was taken to ANI, the IP edit warred there – again and again and again. To then avoid all the possible censure by jumping to another IP (while leaving a "goodbye message of "rm all the lies of idiots, cunts, retards and wankers" if NOT improving the encyclopaedia in any way, shape or form.

      This incident did not start because it was a problematic editor being harassed, or because they had been identified and their edits reverted as part of a WP:BAN action, but because the editor did not understand what they were talking about and did not improve the article. It was their reaction at that point that was the problem. It is pointless to dismiss this problem by blithely claiming that "They're improving articles" so their behaviour can be overlooked. It is not always the case, and even the slightest interaction—even with the poorest of edits—will lead to a ridiculous backlash and foul-mouthed tirade. That isn't helpful, isn't constructive, and doesn't do anything to improve the encyclopaedia. – SchroCat (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      I don't want to pile on you Drmies but as SchroCat shows he was dropping the C Word recently. Can I just make one quick point though, if he didn't react as he did it would be a lot easier for admins to deal with the named accounts who revert constructive edits by IP editors. That is one aspect of wikipedia I think we can both agree on that does need to be addressed. However, remember that when I came across this guy I did explain myself to him, which has never stopped him falsely claiming I reverted him solely because he was an IP. WCMemail 22:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Wee Curry Monster, you yourself dropped the c-bomb a couple of times (I suppose--some edit summaries were oversighted), quite recently: August of this year. No one, including me, is calling for you to be banned. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Drmies you know that I did that on purpose to prove a point. This guy has done it hundreds of times and block evades, I did it once and immediately I'm warned, quite rightly, with an escalating series of blocks being the next step. A named account would be blocked but he has got away with it literally for years. BTW did you notice something, I haven't suggested that he is banned either and I also made a positive suggestion why the abusive responses need to stop. WCMemail 22:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      I recommend reading the just published Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning_Policy/Proposed_decision#Proposed_principles. My understanding is, if the editor is banned any is entitled to revert the edits, but others can -- quoting the committee "rarely and with extreme caution" restore them if they feel it benefits the encyclopedia and take responsibility for the edit. And editors are generally given leeway to manage their talk pages themselves. NE Ent 23:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Bretonbanquet, I called you a liar because you were lying. You claimed that you had never systematically reverted my edits; I posted diffs showing that that was exactly what you had been doing. I called you a troll because you appeared to be trolling; how do you think it looks when you ask me to post diffs of the edits of mine that you had decided you approved of?
      As for "including some small guidance on a subject's most notable achievements", I recall that over a long period of time you have refused to understand that "X did Y" does exactly that, bizarrely preferring to edit war to force in a subjective, unverifiable and verbose claim that "X is best known for doing Y".
      More falsehoods from "Wee Curry Monster", as has been his habit over the years. The first time I came across him, it was when he blanket reverted an edit I had made to Falklands War, an article on which he was subject to editing restrictions and clearly was trying to claim ownership of. He then stalked my edits to another article that he had shown no previous interest it, and reverted me there with the edit summary "rv IP edits". And now he has the gall to claim "I did explain myself to him", trying to pretend that he had a reason for that revert.
      And SchroCat... Ah SchroCat. He of the famous "described in the UK press as being best known for starring". Enough said I think.
      Here's the simple truth. I make edits to improve the encyclopaedia. They are utterly uncontroversial, and it's really not hard to see that they improve it, unless you're not very good with the English language. Indeed, back in the early days, no-one would have dreamt of kicking up a fuss about them. Until roughly 2006, I had never had any issue. Then the problem of people reverting without looking at edits began. Until about 2009 it gradually escalated, and people even began reverting with false accusations of vandalism. This began to get extremely offensive and irritating. In around 2009 this behaviour really began to take off, and ever since then I've found that you simply cannot edit with an IP address without being accused of vandalism. And indeed, you will get blocked for complaining about getting accused of vandalism. And then being extremely angry about such a ridiculous block is claimed as justification for the block.
      These days it's just an endless Kafka-esque joke. Ever since the creation of the attack page, people have been using it as a reason in and of itself to block me. My efforts to improve the encyclopaedia are met with the likes of BretonBanquet, who runs off to admins requesting that I be blocked any time he sees edits that he suspects I have made. The admins are only too happy to oblige, presumably on the grounds that if an attack page against me exists, I must thoroughly deserve all the attacks.
      To cut a long story short, don't revert for no good reason and we can all get along fine. Don't lie about me. And don't ever, ever accuse me of vandalism. That's really all there is to it. If you want an in depth explanation of why "best known for" is almost invariably wrong, that's a discussion for another place. If you really need it explaining to you that copying and pasting instead of writing your own words is not acceptable, even if you tell everyone where you copied and pasted from, again, that's for elsewhere. Don't revert for no good reason and we can all get along fine.
      Question: Does the term "vandalism" apply if the edit is acceptable, but the edit summary is not - ie contains abuse, foul language and attacks on other editors? What is the accepted course of action in such a case? That seems to be an important consideration here - while many edits from the IP are acceptable, their tone and language in the edit summaries are a different topic of conversation. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Personal attacks are unacceptable and lead to a block. Avoiding the block to come back with more personal attacks, though, seems to be up for debate. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      IP, one of the problems I have here is summed up by what you've written. I have not come across a perfect editor on Wiki. ALL of us err at times, and when that is pointed out we react in different ways, but the majority of the time we take it on the chin and at least let the matter drop, if not apologise and put the matter right. You don't. You have a WP:BATTLE mentality on pretty much any disagreement with your edit – good or not. As soon as you are reverted, the red mist rolls in and you revert, edit war, insult and attempt to belittle or bully others. I read your post above and at no point have you expressed any sentiment that suggests you see any problem at all in what you have done. Quite the reverse, in fact: according to what you have written, everyone else is the problem and you are the victim. That's some way from the truth of the matter. You continually dismiss the valid complaints of others (and yes, there are some invalid complaints too) and act like you've never made a poor edit in your life. Although you may have modified your behaviour recently (a moot point) there is still evidence of that disruptive editor just below the surface: that's not helpful or constructive in any way, shape or form. - SchroCat (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • SchroCat, if the IP has cleaned up his act recently, that is a far from moot point. Bretonbanquet, I don't see any good reason for this revert--that "years ago" was simply in the wrong place, and if you disagreed with the "verglas" thing you should have reverted only that part, and at the very least you should have explained. Yngvadottir's sample, of reverts without explanation, is highly representative. Perhaps the IP has a battleground mentality, but they're not the only one. Being reverted without explanation makes me angry too. Someone linked a diff about quotes and plagiarism--well, I disagree with the editor on that point, and one of the diffs in that long list on my talk page was one of those as well, and I didn't reinstate it. But that doesn't take away from the fact that all but a handful of those diffs were improvements. Of course I don't agree with their removal of a talk page post--but that was in March. I didn't see anything like that in recent edits (though I admit I do not look for or follow this editor), and I can't help but think that an invitation to discussion (on Talk:Ian Gow has something to do with it. Being taken seriously has surprising effects on someone's state of mind.

        Explanation is not necessarily justification. They got blocked for edit warring etc. on Wind wave, and for dropping some cusswords. It is not my job to defend every single one of the IP's edits, and I don't agree with all of them; one could say their actions led to the block. But these actions didn't come out of nowhere: it is worthwhile noting that all of that started when three of their productive edits, with laudable edit summaries, were reverted in one fell swoop, with no more justification than "Restore to version before editing by known edit warrior". But this by a user who has a user box saying "This user is against IP editing", so I suppose that makes it alright. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      • Drmies, if you notice, I subsequently restored that exact part of his edit that you describe. He admitted as much in one of his posts above. The "verglas" thing was a typically needless edit, and he made that part of the edit with no reasoning attached. It is extremely rare that I revert good faith edits without an explanation (check my 48,000+ edits), and in this case a) I was under the impression that this guy was already banned and blank reverts were allowed (I now understand that this guy was seemingly not banned, so fair enough), but b) in the past, when I reverted him with a full reason in the edit summary, all I got was a revert back, usually with abuse. I don't think you would find any other editor on Wikipedia who would happily call me a liar or a troll. In fact I know you wouldn't. Yet he repeats it every time he posts. I have disagreements sometimes, but who doesn't? Incidentally, I've never accused him of vandalism, if anyone's wondering. He's very uncivil and thoroughly disruptive, but he's not a vandal. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was the revert that was needless. Can you give me one good reason why the content of their edit warranted an unexplained revert? Is there any good reason to have a reference between "275,000" and "years ago"? Without such a reason, without an edit summary, with nothing but the apparently automated m, why would they assume any kind of good faith? At least Summer took the time to give an edit summary--I disagree with it, but it's something. I'm not calling you anything, I'm sure lots of others wouldn't call you anything. But anyone who gets reverted like this, apparently on sight, with no consideration at all for the content of the edit--what are they supposed to do, say "yes I'm just an IP who knows nothing" and move on? This has been going on for years. The frustration is theirs, not yours. Being called a troll or a liar is not nothing, but listed on my talk page are 44 edits which were all reverted, most of which were clear improvements, some of which we can discuss, but none of them were vandalism or personal attacks or whatever. Drmies (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Drmies, I reverted both edits in one go, which I shouldn't have done, I accept that. I should have undone the verglas edit and left the other one rather than revert both and restore one. But you're assuming that's how I've always treated this IP – not true. I've spent a lot of time in the past on talk pages trying to talk to this guy, and I've made a number of compromise edits instead of reverting him, like this recent example. My revert, with reasoning: [51], and then I made a compromise on my own initiative [52]. Any multiple reverting with no edit summary that you're seeing in the past week is the result of a long, drawn-out process, not the beginning or even the middle. I always treated this guy's edits with respect, despite the abuse, until I lost my patience with him. In no way whatsoever have I always treated this guy in an offhand way, and I resent the implication that I did. Yet I always received the same grief I am currently still receiving from him. The frustration is also mine, however much he may be frustrated too. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The liars just can't stop lying, can they?
      Stricken. My mistake. A mistake, you understand, not a lie. How many times do you plan to call me a liar on this page? Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      You just accidentally said something that wasn't true in a way that appeared to be intended to discredit me? Sure. As for how many times I plan to call you a liar, well, just as many times as I see you saying blatantly untrue things about me. I'm not going to leave them uncorrected, am I? I find your insinuations regarding our edits to Thin Lizzy verging on dishonest as well. You said My revert, with reasoning: [53], but there was no reasoning at all there. rv to long-standing wording, please establish a consensus on the talk page if you want to change it does not explain anything, does it?. And then you "always received the same grief", you claim. But what happened after you made your edit? Tell it how you see it, please. 186.37.203.227 (talk) 04:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      [54] An edit I made in reply to the IP in November 2013, that explains why I reverted a few of many edits by this IP editor two years earlier in November 2011. Fast forward three years later and he is still falsely alleging I reverted him solely because he was an IP editor by taking one diff out of context. This demonstrates his love of confrontration for its own sake and his WP:BATTLE mentality with anyone who gets in his way. WCMemail 14:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Your edit summary "rv IP edits" was, unfortunately for you, entirely unambiguous. 186.37.203.227 (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Drmies, I used the word "may" deliberately here – I have not followed their edits and have no wish to: I prefer to create content rather than haunt the dramah boards or go looking for trouble. Reading through the threads I see the IP has accused others of lying and trolling, so my AGF in saying "may" could be misplaced. I also suspect that the red mist isn't far below the surface, and the next set of reverts—even justifiable ones—will be greeted with the same toxic response as the others. I'm stepping away from this now: I have no axe to grind and hate spending time on the boards, but if the IP manages to wriggle out of the situation and is equally disruptive in the future, I hope there's a big pile of bricks to drop on him somewhere. - SchroCat (talk) 17:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Proposal to ban the user described on the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP page

      It is proposed that we ban the user described on the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP page due to long term disruption.

      • Support site ban - I appreciate other approaches could be considered - requiring him to get an account, and not make logged out edits, but he seems unwilling to go along with this. Consequently, banning him, although perhaps somewhat harsh, is the simplest solution. PhilKnight (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Seriously unbelievable. Never did I think that anyone would take the bizarre crusade against article quality to such a level. 186.37.203.53 (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support site ban – I can and have worked with many troublesome editors on here, and many IPs, some of which were ultimately blocked indefinitely by admins, but I always found common ground and a way to compromise. Always. Except this guy. It's always been his way or the highway, and that can never work on Wikipedia. The whole 'all my edits are wonderful improvements, so any disagreement with that is harassment from idiots' vibe, as displayed above. If he refuses to show good faith and register, or work co-operatively with others, I see no other alternative. It's simply unworkable to have an editor who refuses to abide by the rules that the rest of us must follow. His decent edits can still be kept, as no doubt he will continue to edit regardless of what happens here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you want to keep the guy's decent edits, don't revert them. Simple. "His way or the highway" is belied by the RfC on Talk:Ian Gow and the fact that he has abided by the community consensus there, which didn't go his way. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • See, that's a big part of the problem here. Any disagreement I might have with one of his edits cannot possibly be justified, in his eyes and also, apparently, yours. And you appear to have chosen one example that contrasts with many, many others. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Bretonbanquet, I don't get it. If you support a site ban for this editor, you are asking for any and all of his edits to be reverted on sight. They cannot be kept; as Arbcom just clarified, in rare cases another editor is permitted to reinstate an edit by a banned user. But banned precisely means blanket reverting; that's the basis on which some have been blanket reverting this guy. We can't have it both ways. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yngvadottir, as usual, I probably missed something, but when did ArbCom clarify the policy (the policy itself has not changed and allows for not reverting at all and reinstating a banned user's edit - WP:BANREVERT)? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • Not a change, but clarified as part of the decision that appears lower down this page: rarely, and with extreme caution, we can choose to reinstate an edit by a banned user. Whereas the option to keep it, or revert wholly or in part on the merits, is what we have now, after he's banned his edits should be reverted on sight, and will be by someone else even if one decides to let one stand. (Or at least that's how I read it when I clicked to see what I'd missed.) Yngvadottir (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Thanks for the link. Interesting procedural point, though. Do we comply with a decision by ArbCom or do we comply with policy? My understanding is that only the community makes policy, not ArbCom. Thus, to the extent the decision conflicts with policy, I'm not sure we have to follow it. Of course, the community can change the current policy to conform to the decision's language.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, if that is what has been decided, then so be it. I understood that his good edits could later be restored, but if that is not allowed, then it's worth it if such a uniquely disruptive, abusive and uncompromising editor is removed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support site ban - While I do understand and support the fact anyone can edit Wikipedia, this kind of behaviour shouldn't be allowed. It's the fact he is acting in an uncivil manner and the fact he is block evading. I've looked over things... the fact he has been doing this for years concerns me. I think it's time something was done, if he can't be trusted to work (and civilly) with other editors, it's time. I hope everyone understands. Updating, the users opposing have brought up good points. I just don't think insulting others should be tolerated this way. Either way, I hope this gets concluded soon. Kanashimi Hyoketsu 20:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • It couldn't since he's not vandalizing anything. So no, I don't understand. On my talk page are 44 edits he made, all of which were reverted. Please go through the list, as I have, and identify any of them as vandalism. If you can't find any, please withdraw your second sentence. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • don't revert for no good reason and we can all get along fine. Don't lie about me. And don't ever, ever accuse me of vandalism. And in response to that, what do we have? A false accusation of vandalism. And from someone with whom, to the best of my recollection, I've never interacted with. striking out after the user clarified that their words had been misunderstood. 186.37.203.227 (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • You misunderstand. I realize he's not vandalizing anything, that's why it is written as 'vandalizing'. I am supporting based on his being uncivil and ban evasions. However, I have removed that sentence as requested as it is causing confusion. --Kanashimi Hyoketsu 20:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose site ban. For one thing, it's quite likely other copyeditors will decide to lop a few of the "best known for"s - they are low-hanging fruit. For another, the abuse has declined and to my mind never rose to the level of ban-worthiness; banning is the nuclear option and is and should be reserved for the few most incorrigible and disruptive editors. At worst, we should continue to block IPs that cross the line on edit warring and incivility; and as always, there's judgement involved in defining that line. At best, we keep a diligent and able copyeditor, one of many kinds of contributions the project has always valued, without requiring registration or any other kind of self-identification, which it's always been our policy not to require. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. User uses an IP. User makes positive edits. User gets routinely reverted for no good reason at all. User loses patience and uses cusswords. User gets blocked (does anyone even know when, or why, or how?), and this "originary block" initiates a cycle of supposed block evasion which is enough warranty for user's edits to be blindly reverted as if they were already a "banned" user. It is indeed a self-perpetuating process; the real surprise is that it took so long for this to find its way to AN. The amount of distrust here, the lack of desire to even attempt communication, the automated fashion of rolling back: I'm trying to bite my tongue, as the IP clearly didn't, though even his opponents seem to have noticed that he has been cussing much less--you see, it does not help to improve your behavior. Let's just say I don't have any good words for all of this. Anyone whose edits get reverted in this fashion, as a matter of routine, would lose their cool. I'm quite embarrassed, and the only bright spot is that Yngvadottir is against banning this editor; I hope there are more who study the matter carefully. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose site ban After reading through this thread and the evidence presented over time, I just don't see how the IP's behavior warrants a site ban. I largely agree with the analyses of Yngvadottir and Drmies. I am One of Many (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question. Forgive me if the answer is buried somewhere, but all this is new to me. Can anyone tell me what the first block of this person was for, its duration, and when? If I understand properly, the person was blocked at some point and then during the block edited using a different IP, thereby evading the block. This phenomenon then cascaded so the person could never escape their original "sin" (whatever that was). Please correct me if I'm wrong about this. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bbb23, I'm obviously not seen as neutral here, but here goes, take it as you will. It's extremely hard to pinpoint the first block as the number of IPs he has used is probably over 100. He has been blocked several times over the past few years, but it's hard to know exactly how many times, for the same reason – we just don't know all the IPs he has used. As far as I can see, each time he is blocked, he simply switches IPs and keeps editing (he has admitted this), to the extent that blocks are essentially meaningless, whether they are for disruption or incivility, or simply for block evasion. I think all the blocks in the past month are for block evasion. Any of us here would have been indeffed years ago for this, with SPI cases coming out of our ears, but somehow this guy is still around. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support site ban - User completely ignores that there is any problem with edit warring and personal attacks, both of which are supposedly blockable offenses, though we seem to be reluctant to actually have the blocks mean anything. Editing in defiance of a block typically leads to extension of the block. We've counted 38 deliberate switches and the editor claims we miss most of them. After 10 or more trips through AN/I, 3RR and Sock, we're still at the point where we started: "Dear IP editor ignoring blocks for personal attacks and edit warring, If you continue to edit war and make personal attacks, we'll make you restart your router to continue editing. Please stop. Sincerely, 'fucking retarded little cunt'." At some point, whether or not he has made constructive edits ceases to matter. He is deliberately disruptive and divisive. Then again, I'm just some "fucking cunt", so what do I know? - SummerPhD (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Summer, you are no C* of any kind, as far as I'm concerned: you're a level-headed, highly productive, and net-assety editor, and I have loved you dearly for many years now. If the IP called you that, they ought to apologize. (I know they called others that, and I don't agree with it.) And, of course, they're an asshole. But is it worth a ban? Drmies (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      No, a personal attack is not worth a ban. However, repeated personal attacks and edit warring leading to a block, editing in defiance of that block, being blocked again for personal attacks and edit warring and repeating the s.ame behavior while crying "Boo hoo, I'm only trying to make the encyclopedia better, you fucking retarded cunt"? Yeah, that's worth a ban. To repeat, he sees nothing wrong with his behavior and does not intend to stop. I don't particularly care what this twerp calls me. The editor is question, though, had no way of knowing that. Personal attacks drive editors away. No one is irreplaceable on Wikipedia, including this lout. You think he's softening up. I say you're putting a coat and tie on a boar, offering him a seat at the table and wonder why the china is in pieces on the floor. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Given that you already reverted hours of my work with the false claim that I was banned, it's no surprise that you support a ban to retrospectively justify your strange campaign. I think my favourite one of your destructive edits was this one. Not once, not twice, but three times, you restored the article to a severely, obviously deficient state. Not once did you bother to leave an edit summary. Certainly you were just trying to provoke me. In fact, my only recollection of interactions with you is when you've undone my work for no reason. If people get angry when their work is undone for no reason, do you think it's better to a) ban them for getting angry, or b) not revert for no reason? 186.37.203.227 (talk) 04:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support site ban vaguely based on the disparity between edits, edit summaries, and an unwillingness to accept that they may be incorrect, but also based on block evasion, which nobody else seems to consider important in this issue. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support site ban. Disruptive editor who blatantly sockpuppets. Not here to contribute collaboratively. -- Calidum 03:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      False claims, once again. By virtue of the fact that I've never had an account, it is obvious that I have never engaged in sock puppetry, blatant or otherwise. 186.37.203.227 (talk) 04:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Proposal for sanctions against disruptive users

      False accusations of vandalism in response to obviously productive edits are extremely damaging to the project and yet are widespread. Due to the inherent extreme anti-IP prejudice which prevails in Wikipedia culture, a false accusation of vandalism against an IP normally leads to a block, no matter how obviously sensible the edit it. Anyone making an obviously false accusation of vandalism should be banned from editing for one week. 186.37.203.53 (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Strictly speaking, my question above has not been answered. Is an edit that is in itself acceptable, but contains an unacceptable edit summary classed as vandalism? If so, then regardless of the content of such edits, they're vandalism. If not, then can somebody please clarify what the response should actually be to such edits?
      I note that reading through this section the IP editor has made no mention of his edit summaries - pray tell what was his justification for using such edit summaries - and then evading blocks by unplugging and resetting his router as a result?[55]

      Backlog

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

      Blacklog mostly cleared thanks to some admins but we really could do with some more regular admins clerking there so please feel free to muck in from time to time. tutterMouse (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      This is a perennial problem on the weekends, when fewer admins are around. It's back up to over 20 unanswered cases as of right now. Handy link: WP:RFPP -- Diannaa (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      What should Wikimedia do to protect their editors against real-life threats?

      I raised this issue in the recent India conference (Oct 4-5, Bangalore) that our works in Wikipedia sometimes bring real-life threats. Mr. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) told me during 3 Oct's dinner conversation that they don't have any special section till now to handle these issues. Currently, Sitush is facing some serious threats. Here he told, some spammers lodged a false complaint agains one of his domains. In a personal email, he told me, he is now living in a different city. My question is clear and simple— what should Wikimedia do to protect their editors against real-life threats and harassment? --Tito☸Dutta 20:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      It's a little more nuanced than that, but let me summon my colleague Philippe who can describe what WMF can do better than I can. Ijon (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a little more nuanced than that — Mr. Bartov, I can not understand it fully, but, yes, you gave some wonderful explanation that day. What I am trying to highlight, (most probably) we do not have any organized procedure here. In a recent email Sitush wrote to me that WMF is not properly communicating with him. --Tito☸Dutta 21:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tito has slightly overstated things that I've said/have been said about me but but underlying query is valid and his concern is appreciated. FWIW, Philippe did contact me on Friday and expects to do so again this coming week. I doubt that there is much that he or anyone else at WMF could say in public regarding the specific case. Who was it that said something like "the wheels grind exceedingly slow, but exceedingly fine"? - Sitush (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, that section only works in one direction: I've had my clean block log spoiled because of a drive-by admin who did not realise context of both on- and off-wiki harassment. I then had to swallow follow-up comments from others that claimed I "recanted" or "retracted" my original (revdel'd) statement, which I did not because in context it was not a threat and indeed the real problem was the obvious poking from someone who has a record of such snide tactics. I've also had to endure in silence the repeated reference to that event by another drama-seeker who has opted to keep stirring disingenuously when all that was needed was for them to ask any admin "did the revdel'd content mention me?"

        Anyways, people with some history here might recall PMDrive1061 (talk · contribs), a good admin who was forced to quit due to real-life harassment that he said the WMF were useless at handling; Qwyrxian (talk · contribs) is another who went the same way, although in that case I am less certain whether the WMF were involved. I suspect the problem is that we can write whatever we want into policy/guidance but ultimately each case will be different and the ability to deal with such situations will vary accordingly. In my case, for example, I am already massively out of pocket due to the ongoing situation but I'm not expecting anyone to reimburse me because it would set a dangerous precedent; Qwyrxian, on the other hand, was able to extricate themselves to avoid being out of pocket, albeit at the cost of not participating here at all. - Sitush (talk) 08:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      • This raises a number of critical issues. As Sitush says, I'm limited in what I can say - not because i'm trying to be opaque but because I don't want to prejudice potential strategy by talking about it publicly. I've been in contact with Sitush a couple of times (and, for the record, with PMDrive a NUMBER of times, and we just finished up a situation on nl.wiki that made significant waves). We're in the process of developing a strategy that we hope will ultimately be useful here. However, when we're dealing with off-wiki harassment, the truth is that our options are limited. That doesn't mean we don't have options, though. For instance, we have the Legal Fees Assistance Program, which is helpful if the harassment goes that far (and we pray that it doesn't), and we have been open, historically, to providing other support (using vehicles such as the Defense of Contributors fund) when it makes sense. We worry - a lot - about triggering the Streisand effect and actually acting as a magnet for the attention, making things worse. As far as fleshing out the policy and guideline pages, it's difficult to list what our response will be, because it's situational: we evaluate each one independently. Generally speaking, we try very hard to do whatever we can to support editors. We liaise with law enforcement where necessary and useful, and we have provided legal support when that made sense. No one should be harassed for giving of their time and knowledge to help make the encyclopedia, and therefore the world, a better place. We attempt to help out in virtually every case that we've heard of. Sometimes, our role is necessarily very quiet and background. But don't ever think we don't care and aren't tracking these situations - we do care, and we are tracking. And please, if you ever see one that you're not sure we're aware of... send me a note at philippe@wikimedia.org, and let me know about it. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 10:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:Philippe (WMF), that's wonderful. Would you please add some of these info in our Wikipedia help page Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment (no one will read this AN discussion, everyone will go there). Neither financial help, nor legal help, it will be very helpful for our editors if they get a clear way to get "suggestions" from "anti-abuse team".
        Sitush Sir, email sent to your "custom domain" email address is bouncing back. --Tito☸Dutta 17:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's because the India Against Corruption sock/meat farm have got my domain taken down on the false charge that it was being used for Nigerian 419 scamming. I'm struggling to work out how to get the issue sorted because the registrar seem to be blanking me and thus far no-one here has been able to come up with a solution. If anyone can make a false charge of 419 scamming and it is accepted by the registrar seemingly without investigation then there isn't much hope for the internet, is there? Hm, I could get wikipedia.org taken down in a matter of days by doing that. Food for thought? - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whoa! Wonderful. It is too much. WMF should help you here. --Tito☸Dutta 17:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Philippe knows about it. I don't think there is anything that the WMF can do. - Sitush (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      It may take the Foundation a few months even within their system. My user pages were protected quickly.[56] But not til 2012 did they finally stop the thousand odd explicit death threats passed through their email system to me from long term abuser JarlaxleArtemis. (Though I hope he doesn't see this message, just in case!!) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      It never ceases to amaze me how Carolmooredc turns everything into a comment about herself. But I'm gone now, so it is someone else's problem. - 94.13.184.237 (talk) 09:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • From another direction: Philippe, the IAC sock/meatfarm would very much like to get information from the WMF about editors who have added what they call "wrong content about us": "As you noted the individual editors are responsible for the content uploaded to Wikipedia and WMF bears no liability. In these circumstances is WMF prepared to provide the actual names and addresses of the editors who added wrong content about us so IAC could hold them responsible ?"[57] Putatively, they want information about users in order to hold them legally responsible, but actually it also seems to be for the purpose of harassing and threatening them in any way that they can. There are many examples, but a recent very serious one is the way they got Sitush's domain taken down by making malicious and unfounded accusations. (It's extraordinary that a mere driveby unevidenced accusation by an enemy had that effect — as Sitush says, are any domains safe if that's how it works? But anyway.) Note that I'm not suggesting the WMF gave IAC any of the info that made it possible for them to locate Sitush's domain — I'm pretty sure you didn't — but can the rest of us feel sure that if we don't ourselves inadvertently give IAC information, the WMF won't either? Me, for example: while I haven't added wrong, or any, content about the IAF, I think I have disobliged them in other ways. I'm glad to say the WMF knows very little about me, but I presume they do know, or can get, my IP and user agent. So, will you resist giving anybody that, short of being ordered to by a court of law? I would assume yes, but I'd like to have it unequivocally stated. Bishonen | talk 12:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
      Yes. We do not comply with any requests for user info that are not ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you. Bishonen | talk 15:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
      • Spammers are united, fighters are lonely. Frankly speaking, I was advised by a couple of WP India editors to stay away from these IAC articles, I directly come under their "area of activity and jurisdiction." and I was attacked once or twice by their men. Iam calling more attacks for me by rejoining these discussions.
        Sitush is retired and is looking for legal advices. Who should give it? Me or WMF? Thanks Bishonen for replying. --Tito☸Dutta 12:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Heh. Given I was harassed to the point of having to leave university by a then-sitting member of Arbcom abusing his position there, which was then taken up by others off-Wikipedia for years, I think the WMF aren't only useless, they can easily be part of the problem. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      As a senior member of India Against Corruption "IAC", who is outraged by the lies and canards against our body being spread by a small cabal of ill-informed Western editors of Wikipedia, I say the issues here are actually as follows:-

      1. That the article on IAC is factually incorrect
      2. That members of IAC have used almost every Dispute Resolution forum of Wikipedia to enforce WMF's legally binding Terms of Use which govern the international use of domain names and websites.
      3. That IAC cannot be compelled to follow the self-written (and legally foolish) policies of the English language Wikipedia community which is controlled by cabals of racist editors living in their self constructed dreamworlds where they act out their role playing fantasies.
      4. That IAC, as a body, reserves the right to take on individual editors of Wikipedia in the real world for any factually incorrect statements published on Wikipedia projects.
      5. That IAC stands for Openness, transparency, FLOSS, Free Speech etc. which is why IAC has given a very long rope to the English Wikipedia community to self regulate themselves, and has always communicated civilly with WMF's senior officers in this process.
      6. That it was User:Sitush who walked out of "En.Wikipedia"'s mediation after IAC produced numerous reliable sources to trash his article on IAC (and refused to rejoin despite being pinged by the mediator) directly on the pre-agreed issues for mediation.
      7. That IAC is holding written communications (shared with WMF) from (a) Prof Meera Nanda (b) Prof Ramachandra Guha (c) Prof Alison Brysk, all objecting to the misuse of their books in the IAC article which have been inserted by this user.
      8. That the WMF's users (editors) should be aware that it is not only US laws which apply in cyber space.
      9. That if anybody has been "harassed", it is the IAC and its subscribers by such systematically constructed falsehoods about it which constitutes "cyber impersonation".
      10. That WMF should immediately appoint a Grievance Officer as mandated under Indian cyber law and directed by the High Court of Judicature at Delhi, exclusively for aggrieved Indians to get their content disputes (including the reporting of child pornography) resolved without having to interact with Wikipedia's users / uploaders directly. X the hamster (talk) 04:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • @User:Bishonen: It ought to be a really serious concern for WMF if Admins "with so many checkusers in their pocket" [58] are not on their records :-) X the hamster (talk) 06:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Is this a legal threat? It looks like it, so X the hamster should be blocked:
      • "That IAC, as a body, reserves the right to take on individual editors of Wikipedia in the real world for any factually incorrect statements published on Wikipedia projects."
      There are other legal threats i there. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      It was not a legal threat, but an extract / summary from WMF's "Terms of Use" X the hamster (talk) 07:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Full version : "You are responsible for your own actions: You are legally responsible for your edits and contributions on Wikimedia Projects, so for your own protection you should exercise caution and avoid contributing any content that may result in criminal or civil liability under any applicable laws. For clarity, applicable law includes at least the laws of the United States of America. Although we may not agree with such actions, we warn editors and contributors that authorities may seek to apply other country laws to you, including local laws where you live or where you view or edit content. WMF generally cannot offer any protection, guarantee, immunity or indemnification." X the hamster (talk) 07:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I believe that X the hamster is indeed making legal (or quasi-legal) threats in order to exert a chilling effect on other editors. Someone please block him/her indefinitely. Cardamon (talk) 07:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      X the hamster, you may or may not have some type of legal right to sue an editor here, but under Wikipedia policy, you are not allowed to intimidate or make legal threats against another editor. Period. That's a VERY blockable offense. There is a difference between legal rights outside of Wikipedia, and our policy against legal threats here. You have crossed that line very clearly. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      IAC is here after being repeatedly INVITED by WMF and OTRS to resolve the matter with the "community". Any legal actions initiated have been done so by individual person/s who Sitush posted abusive emails to from those domains. These are not IAC actions, and "I" have never initiated any legal action or made any legal threat. AND whether you like it or not, these are real world criminal offences (in both USA and India) against which WP community policies are no legal defence whatosever. SOMEBODY may be penalised for them and at some point of time its for WMF to take the call on either shielding their user or entering into a very public spat with a prominent Indian entity who stands for the same values WMF claims, and who have availed each and every DR process offered to them as OUTSIDERs. X the hamster (talk) 07:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The IAC would certainly like to share our experiences about how our "guest" editors were harassed and abused by cartels of Wikipedia's "community" of editors and Admins. Accordingly, we say that WMF can and should do absolutely nothing to protect such rogue editors, and let them face the music on their own in such cases of flagrant abuse. X the hamster (talk) 07:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, this thread is not on "IAC content dispute". It is on "Editors' real-life security" issue, that was discussed in a recent conference as well. User:Sitush's event is a part of it. --Tito☸Dutta 08:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I see that X, who continues to claim no legal threats have been made - a statement that IMHO is wrong - has been indefinitely blocked. Dougweller (talk) 08:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      XHamster, Xhamster.com, and 'X the Hamster'- our beloved mascot, are registered trademarks of Hammy Media Ltd, Cyprus. You are hereby asked to CEASE AND DESIST such cyber impersonation immediately as they are being done in violation of the law. Failure to do so will result in legal action taken against "India Against Corruption" registered at B-59 Defence Colony, New Delhi 110024, India.

      Santa Fünke, Hamster Defend IPE (talk) 09:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      • Another block is in order most probably for legal threat.I won't be surprised if it is the same user/meatpuppet. --Tito☸Dutta 09:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I blocked them for legal threats, no idea whether it is the same or not. May by semi-proteaction of this page for a day would be in order.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Pretty clearly a joke account, intended to poke fun at X the hamster's comments above. Still, technically those are legal threats, and joke accounts like this really don't help matters - good block. Yunshui 雲水 09:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Looking to nom for RfA

      We have only had a single successful RFA since the 4th of July. That's 1 successful RFA in 3 months. I would like to nominate someone but the two noms I had in mind are either AWOL or no longer a suitable candidates. If anyone would like to receive a nom, or at least a review to see if they even stand a chance, feel free to email me. I would like to possibly help a female editor pass RfA if any are interested as part of fighting the gender gap, but I am willing to nominate anyone and multiple candidates if I feel they are ready. I will be around most of the day and can be contacted via IRC or email.--v/r - TP 21:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      • I just wanted to add that I am not opposed to nominating male editors, happy to do so. I would like to encourage more females to run and am happy to support them as well. For inclusivity sake, I am willing to nom anyone of any gender.--v/r - TP 02:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:TParis, I am not a female editor, but I'd like to be nominated, see User:Moonriddengirl/Coaching too. I need to talk to MRG here. --Tito☸Dutta 21:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm too inexperienced right now, but I might be ready in a few months. I'm not really in a rush, though. --Writing Enthusiast (talk | contribs) 00:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm pretty sure I'm male, but wouldn't mind being able to deal with housekeeping matters (SPA, UAA, AIV) without filing reports. That said, it's entirely possible some of my behavior during content disputes could be a black mark on me (though I'll note that it's always the other guy who gets blocked, banned, or told to drop it). I am not confident that I'm qualified to officially handle disputes between users, but have little to no interest in doing so (as an admin), so that shouldn't be a problem on my end. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • After seeing some of the downright cruel and vicious character assassinations in recent RfAs, I don't think anyone in their right mind would put their hand up. The toxic atmosphere at RfA would need to clear up before I'd even consider it. Reyk YO! 00:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd be open to at least a review as to whether I'd stand a chance. A glance between my legs suggests that I'm not a female, alas. To be honest, I'm not sure how having spiffy Admin powers would necessarily enhance my or anyone else's Wikipedia experience...but if I had concrete ideas about that, and a suitable case of masochism, I likely would have nominated myself some time ago. DonIago (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am a female but I really don't think there's much to be garnered in preferring one gender; It's understandable why you're doing it, sure encouraging more females to run would be a good way to stop the gender gap. But female doesn't always equal a 'good' admin. RfA also doesn't simply dorn an easier crowd because of what you have between your legs. They'll still be as reckless and as strident as with any nominee. Nonetheless, glad that you're taking a stand against the lack of successful RfAs by offering to nominate someone. Tutelary (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ever since I hit 5k edits and 1k undeleted mainspace edits (don't remember which came first), I've wanted to run a RfA just to see what people say - very little chance of passing, honestly, since most of those mainspace edits are either gnoming or adding/removing AfD tags (among other issues), so I wouldn't suggest nominating me unless you're either a sadist or masochist, depending on your point of view. As far as gender, since we seem to be making a big deal of that for no reason here (I remember a discussion on WT:RfA where it was established that there are proportionally more self-declared female admins in the admin corps than self-declared female editors on en-wiki), I prefer not to say on the internets (minus Facebook, where it's practically impossible), but given some comments I've made and the fact that I prefer to be referred to in the masculine, you can probably infer anyways. (Side note, I've been on IRC once, it's honestly quite boring. I expected something exciting and possibly scandalous considering how people talk about it here, but there was...nothing...) ansh666 02:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • While I would like to at some point, right now no because like Reyk says it's not worth the type of character assassination a typical RfA has for supposedly being "no big deal". Perhaps when it was coined in 2006 it wasn't because all you had to do was write enough GAs to gain the tools but now, it's a mess. Sometimes I think of it as an unbalanced beast priding itself on factors which admins don't require (why do you need to have a long history of content creation to use tools which don't require content creation skills?) and generally self-selecting based on a full cavity search of your history and deciding what blemishes to ignore or blow out of proportion, usually because one editor disliked it and many others just agreeing. To say I'm displeased with how RfA is run is an understatement, why anyone would bother with something more difficult and emotionally rigorous than a job interview for a few extra buttons baffles me. tutterMouse (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I completely agree with TutterMouse's sentiments. It's just not worth it. JMHamo (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:Doniago and User:Ian.thomson have both commented above and said they would think about adminship. The two of them have some experience and have never been blocked. I'd encourage both to think more about the possibility. You both have commented at ANI or other boards quite a bit, and if you run you'd expect to get some questions about your work there. Both of you should consider doing more content work. I'm less familiar with User:Titodutta but a nomination is possible there as well. The conversation at User:Moonriddengirl/Coaching is going in the right direction but your chances at RfA would be better if MRG agreed to support your candidacy. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Correction: I've been blocked once, many years ago, for reverting once too often. I've held back since and have only received one unofficial reminder to my knowledge. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      You'd make a good admin in my opinion, Ian. Bishonen | talk 12:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
      I agree with Bish. Also, having been on the receiving end of a block (albeit historical) is not necessarily a bad thing. It probably makes one more wary of using the right as an admin. Pedro :  Chat  12:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll be glad to make you even more wary, Pedro--after all, I need to get my quota for today or I don't get my check. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      We told you not to mention the money. Pedro :  Chat  21:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Is it true that admins who block 50 or more editors get a toaster oven? DonIago (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      A great idea but unfortunately we do not. (Or, at least, I have not been sent one to me when I blocked my 50th editor. May be they only sent ovens inside the US, and I do not qualify).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I've never been blocked (unless it was so traumatizing that I blocked it out of my memory...ha ha). I don't know whether it could really be said that I've done "work" at ANI, unless opening cases, getting frustrated with the occasional perception that admins are less willing to step up to the plate than IMO they should be (not that I was in any way biased...) and providing a half-assed interpretation of events on rare occasion counts...does that count? :p As for content work...for better or worse, I've generally tried to limit my interactions with Wikipedia to "Wikipedia editing is what I do when it's slow at work". I'm both willing and able to check up on things otherwise, but I've resisted becoming much more involved, which I'll freely admit is a reason I may not be a good choice for an admin...though I imagine there are ways in which admins can be of use that don't necessarily require a heightened presence. Anyway, thanks for your thoughts Ed! My apologies if I'm being overly-glib here...I think if I contemplated the possibility of WP adminship seriously at this stage rationality might get the best of me and I'd run screaming into the night (he said at 10 am). DonIago (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Category:Vandalism-only accounts

      I was considering nominating Category:Vandalism-only accounts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion but I thought it'd be worth getting some other opinions in case I'm missing something obvious. I can't see a reason to document and list every vandalism only account which has been blocked on Wikipedia but I wanted to get some other opinions. In terms of statistics gathering, the category is only used when {{uw-vaublock}} or {{uw-voablock}} are placed on the talk page, which isn't always (as {{uw-block}} or {{uw-vblock}} are sometimes used with |indef=yes) so the category isn't a true representation of vandal only accounts, would be better to have a bot search through the block log with set criteria. As I said just wanted to get some more opinions before nominating. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      I personally just add {{indefblocked}} to the talk page, and add that it is a vandalism-only account in the edit summary. So, yes, I do not see this category as repsentative.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree. We shouldn't give a badge of honor - RBI and DENY are more important. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I would be in favor of categorising all VOAs, but since the current contents are far from comprehensive and since there's no way to ensure that future VOA blocks will always be included in this category, I don't see how this category is going to help us. The bot idea is probably the only way to do it. Nyttend (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I somewhat agree with this: categorization can be beneficial, for instance, to run statistical analyses. Of course, as Callanecc points out, the category at present is rather noisy. Furthermore, there's going to be a lot of missing accounts in this whose userpages were deleted back in the days of CAT:TEMP. It's possible that there's a better method for tracking VOA and other block types, though. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Media Viewer RfC

      Notice: Media Viewer RfC. I am posting here because this RfC has special need for broad participation, and because it may require special administrator action if it passes. Alsee (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Request to remove page protection - politics in India problem

      Sorry - I put this in the wrong place. I moved my issue to the page protection board.

      Resolved

      Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Delete button

      The actual button that does the deed, not the one at the top that takes you to the delete screen. I've been away for a few days, and I don't remember the button being at the left hand side before. I seem to remember it being central. This is in Monobook. Has someone moved it, and if so, why? I can't see the point of a change and would prefer it to be central. Peridon (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Yeah, I can confirm it's different. Definitely unintentional, I've filed bugzilla:72041 for it. Legoktm (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. I was getting worried... Peridon (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      AIV Backlog

      Could someone please look at the AIV reports... Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Adding no source information!

      Hi.

      PersianFire (talk · contribs) add no source information in some articles about Iran-Iraq War ([59] - [60] - [61]) and delete some reliable information from some anothers! ([62] - [63])

      I tried explain for him in edit summaries and my talk page, but he doesn't care and revert my edits. Please take care of these sensitive articles.Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      William M. Connolley on List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

      I had raised some issues with the article in question. Basically its about the lede, which refers to so called "main conclusions", which are sourced with various 2001 IPCC statements. I asked for the background of the choice of this "main conclusions" and for an update to 2014 status. See Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Multiple_issues_in_a_nutshell and previous edits I have as well tagged the site in question.

      User:William M. Connolley reverted the tags twice, first time with a reference to a "WP:WASTEOFTIME" policy I am not aware of. [64][65] [66] further revert to the tagged version by User:Lithistman

      The article is under Discretionary sanctions, he should be aware of but neverthless I put a warning tag on his user page and informed him formally about the Noteboard section. Point is, the article is using outdated material AND the choice of that material is not based on evidence.

      There is an ongoing discussion about what the article stands for: See Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Steven_E._Koonin where other users, namely User:Jonathan Lane Studeman question what the article is about. (So therefore my question remains, if such reputable minority-view scientists are not to be found listed here, then what exactly is the nature and purpose of the current list?)

      That said, I assume that the base of the article is being discussed not only by me and its worth while to have a closer look on it. Therefor the tags, the new section on the talk page and my questions. I would expect the article should be updated to state of 2014 and to be along WP policy. Connolley has not contributed to the talk page but reverted twice. I would prefer that the claims and issues were dealt with properly. Serten (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment by NAEG - Disclaimer, I used to frequent the article in question (but de-watchlisted it months ago).

      WP:BOOMERANG might apply here.

      NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment: I am uninvolved in this other than having re-added the tags once when WMC removed them. He removed them with no discussion at talk, no attempt at modifying article content to fix the concerns expressed by the initial placer of the tags, and with unhelpful edit summaries. Unless I have missed something policy-wise, WMC has earned himself a block for edit-warring, given that there are not policy exceptions for not liking tags placed on an article. LHMask me a question 23:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Before I went here, I have been repeatedly accused of WP:SOAPBOXing, Gish galloping, drive-by tagging, not knowing about science nor scepticism and so forth. Now is some discussion ongoing on the article now and it seems, at least some got the notion that this list (and its inclusion criteria) are outdated and need some cleanup.NewsAndEventsGuy is among them.strikeout inserted by me NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC) The discussion is still controversial with regard to the inclusion criteria, the most probable source for the current ones is a two page common press release of science academies for the 2005 31st G8 summit. It contains various other statements and appeals, which are not being included, for whatever reason. Serten (talk) 04:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC) PS.: My Hobby horse polo is on DYK and WMC] tries to get "funny" as well. I count that as childish and offensive. Serten (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      It's not "outdated". It could be more clearly presented, but outdated? Uh-uh. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Agree some updating can be done but it wasn't outdated and I removed the POV tag because he didn't show or discuss any POV content. I believe Serten has been pushing a fringe POV on the climate change topics. He is unable to accept consensus, for instance on these flags he says "If you need a source to assess changes between the different ARs, Oppenheimer provides one. If you continue with OR, ok, the article stays tagged. Its rather simple". I am getting tired of his long spiels with references to just authors or whole books without saying exactly what he is using to substantiate anything, and when something is pinned down it turns out to be wrong or a misquoted bit they probably got from a targeted Google search. Dmcq (talk) 10:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      And when I said the tags would be removed when there was a consensus the points were dealt with satisfactorily he said "I'd say WP rules, e.g. on OR offset consensus. Right?" A general consensus can override a local one but I believe this shows the basic problem they have with cooperating with others. Dmcq (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      I've never understood why we've allowed that article to exist on here. Lists of dissenters from a mainstream viewpoint is one of the major propoganda techniques used to support a minority view. See A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, for instance. And, while referencing the many mainstream sources discussing the problems with such lists there... and then we turn around and make our own version of one for global warming. The page shouldn't exist; other arguments about it are fairly irrelevant. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Ill copy out from the talk page there what I said to another editor who thinks Wikipedia should be doing things and taking a position:
      You seem to think that Wikipedia articles should do something other than being an encyclopedia with summaries of what reliable sources have said about notable things. This article is here because the topic became notable when a number of organizations set up lists of scientists who disputed global warming was happening. Perhaps a list of scientists who don't think fossil fuel use reduction might be useful - but it has no notability as a topic so there is no Wikipedia article about it. This is summarized in the first pillar of WP:5P, and WP:POLICY has a nice one-liner "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practices, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia" The goal is a free reliable encyclopedia.
      Personally I think a bit more about such lists in perhaps the article climate change denial would be a good idea. As to the list article I understand the concern that giving a list of such scientists might help climate change denial but people really are interested in having a good reliable list of such people as is shown by it being a notable topic. Dmcq (talk) 11:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Such notable lists are notable, and, indeed, we have an article on the Oregon Petition, and it is highly reliably sourced - and makes it clear it's propoganda. It does not repeat the propoganda list. A reliable encyclopedia may well report on such propoganda techniques. What it does NOT do is create its own. Our goal here is a reliable encyclopedia - and List of scientists, etc. has no place in a reliable encyclopedia. This is a hijacking of Wikipedia. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The idea of "starve the terrorist and the hijacker of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend" simply doesn't work. Wikipedia is in the job of informing people in the hope that good information will win over dogma and stupidity. The list is not a straight copy, the entries are vetted by BLP to check the entries really are scientists and that they really do oppose the mainstream view and that chops the number down very considerably indeed. Dmcq (talk) 11:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=629701360"