Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom

Question about scope
Is it intended that, despite it not not being an article which has "strong ties solely to the United Kingdom, as opposed to other English-speaking countries", that this sanction is available for use against those editing Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers? 94.196.212.131 (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, these sanctions apply there, as they are directly tied to this matter, and were explicitly described in the discussion as being part of the scope. Even if they were not, however, there are already other sanctions in force at MOSNUM. RGloucester  — ☎ 23:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It didn't read that way to me. Perhaps the wording of this needs tightening and clarifying then to include such non-articles and pages such as this that do not have strong ties solely to the United Kingdom. Otherwise it may be open to misinterpretation, dispute and even ridicule. 94.196.212.131 (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

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


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

please revert your change to the agreed text. NebY (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I will not revert anything. The whole purpose of these sanctions was to apply to disruption at MOSNUM, along with unit switches. That was always the intent, and that's what the discussion says. However, the IP above seemed to have misinterpreted the sanctions text, so I made a minor clarification. The following text was always meant to include MOSNUM: "Any editor who systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another without clear consensus, who edit-wars over such a change, who disrupts talk page discussions or normal Wikipedia processes pertaining to units in UK-related articles, who engages in forum-shopping, or who otherwise disruptively edits may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator", and all participants acknowledged the importance of such an application. Nothing about this clarification lacks consensus, given that it is was the whole intent of the sanctions, and was already written into the text as such. The only point was to avoid misleading the reader, per the IP. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * RGloucester, it remains inappropriate and problematic to rewrite the text without an uninvolved closer reviewing the consensus or a fresh discussion and consensus. If you are unwilling to self-revert, will you at least let the original text stand if I revert? NebY (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing is "inappropriate", nor did I "rewrite" anything. I added a clarification. I strongly object to any change to the scope of the sanctions. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll revert the text to the original - I strongly object to any change to it without community consensus - and you are free to raise objections or requests to confirm your new text at WP:AN or WP:ANI. NebY (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with that the unauthorized change should be reverted.
 * Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, but we do need to respect certain principles in order to retain legitimacy.
 * The wording was changed substantively without authority by an involved editor who is neither an arbitrator nor an adminstrator, thus appearing to usurp powers reserved to the Community.
 * The original wording was contentious.
 * Explicit mention of WT:MOSNUM seems to have been rejected in the discussion (though it is a little unclear).
 * It is not known how participants in the discussion would have decided if a choice of different wordings (possibly including this change) had been offered.
 * In the original discussion, a number of participants were individually pinged, but participants in the very closely related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers were not (although I suggested that here); they are especially affected by the unauthorized change.
 * The subsequent change to the text extends the sanctions to all "Manual of Style-related pages" (though the link is to MOSNUM)
 * All of this, particularly the  lack of an unambiguous consensus for any wording because different participants (or non-participants) were apparently (not) voting on different understandings of the proposed intent, means that the legitimacy of these sanctions has been irretrievably compromised. It also means that editors who have made no relevant edits to articles with strong ties to the UK have already been logged without justification, (which might be regarded as disruptive if it were not for the misunderstandings regarding the actual text).
 * Because the close is "unsafe" (through no fault of the closer, ), we should probably delete this page and start again with a new proposal that specifically mentions WT:MOSNUM very prominently.
 * As the simplest method of starting this process, I would suggest that the closer,, reverse their decision and close the discussion as defective.

--Boson (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This is absurd. The sanctions have always referred to MOSNUM. Nothing has changed. Furthermore, anyone can issue sanctions alerts in line with the procedure at WP:AC/DS. I followed the procedure to the letter. Where in the discussion did you determine that "explicit" mention of MOSNUM" was rejected? MOSNUM was always part of the scope of these sanctions and NOTHING has changed. This is what mentioned in the discussion. Nothing is usurped, only enforced. I will not tolerate the so-called "Wikilawyering" here. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * re: "This is absurd. The sanctions have always referred to MOSNUM. Nothing has changed."
 * I'm sorry, but the whoe text is dependent on the first line, which reads:
 * "In articles that have strong ties solely to the United Kingdom, as opposed to other English-speaking countries:"
 * "In articles" pretty clearly excludes guidelines such as WP:MOSNUM and its associated Talk page.
 * re: "Where in the discussion did you determine that "explicit" mention of MOSNUM" was rejected?"
 * I said it was unclear, but see next point. --Boson (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Just to further note, sanctions apply at MOSNUM anyway, as I've already said above to the IP, pursuant to this Arbitration decision. This changes absolutely nothing, to that effect. In other words, the editors at MOSNUM were already subject to sanctions prior to these general sanctions being established. The notices, of course, are issued to make clear that sanctions also apply on UK-related articles, and as it says in text, to any other disruption related to UK units. Therefore, Boson's concerns are bunk, and amount to a bad faith attempt to avoid his own potential for being sanctioned. This is typical of the so-called "Wikilawyering" spirit that dominates MOSNUM. I love that an IP sock, likely of one or another editor that we are all aware of, has successively used his Wikilawyering ability to advance his agenda. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * re. "Therefore, Boson's concerns are bunk, and amount to a bad faith attempt to avoid his own potential for being sanctioned":
 * It was I who personally proposed giving more prominence to WT:MOSNUM:
 * "A quick look at WT:MOSNUM, even just the relatively minor example of the current (lengthy) discussion on Wikipedia's primary use of imperial units for milk in [returnable] bottles (as opposed to milk in general or milk in other containers!), should indicate where the problems lie."
 * and
 * "Whatever the intentions or motivations of any of those involved, changing the order in which metric and imperial units are shown (or the addition of metric units to comply with WP:MOSNUM, as in the recent dispute) is objectively nothing like as disruptive as the nature of the discussions at WT:MOSNUM. What we really need is something that enables egregious sockpuppets to be blocked very quickly, and encourages constructive and brief debate of issues aimed at improving the articles and the guidelines." "
 * and
 * "The main problems with UK units are more to do with the disruption of the consensus-building process on the talk pages"
 * It was I who proposed the wording
 * ". . . any editor who disrupts talk page discussions pertaining to British units, edit-wars over the order of metric and imperial units, or who otherwise engages in disruptive editing, may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator"
 * You rejected my suggestions and your text was carried. So any suggestion of an attempt on my part "to avoid his own potential for being sanctioned" is, frankly, absolutely ridiculous. I assume your claim to that effect is a knee-jerk reaction that you will shortly correct.
 * This is also the problem at WT:MOSNUM: the lack of an efficient discussion with an unambiguous result leads to much greater problems down the line.
 * --Boson (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Boson, I do not agree that the close was unsafe. Remember the key closing stages of the discussion (and please forgive me if I don't provide diffs - I will if you need them). Wehwalt, having watched the long discussion at WP:AN and noting that various texts had been proposed and changed, suggested pinging all participants to ask whether they supported or opposed the latest boxed-quote text, that of 18 October. This was done. After some had responded with expressions of support, Kahastok suggested a further change, RGloucester made it and I reverted (after some discussion) precisely because it could stop us reaching a safe close. Fortunately no-one had expressed support or opposition between the further change and the revert. All of this was open and transparent, discussed and argued in sequence amongst the expressions of support, so there was no question of it distorting the outcome or the closer failing to be aware of it. The closer found consensus on the text of 18 October and any imposition of sanctions will rely on that text. NebY (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Except that that text is not from 18 October, as I made multiple changes after 18 October, as one can see here. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This diff shows all changes to WP:AN from Wehwalt'ssuggestion of pinging previous participants to Fram's close. You will see one change to the "18 October" boxed text. It is yours, and it wikilinks clear consensus, to which we should indeed pay attention. NebY (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * My problem is not that changes were made but that those who voiced an opinion !voted" on a particular text that did not contain a reference to WP:MOSNUM. Some, including the initiator, obviously believed this to implicitly include WP:MOSNUM. Some may have been voting on the actual text. If this is the case (and we cannot know for sure) the close was unsafe because the !voters were !voting on different (perceived) things. We cannot assume that they were approving the text with an implicit refernce to MOSNUM and we cannot assume that they were approving a text without such a reference.
 * To be clear: I am personally strongly in favour of an explicit reference to WT:MOSNUM, as I hope I made clear in the discussion. It is a question of fairness, corrrect procedure, and, above all, legitimacy. I would apply the same principles to the Scottish referendum if someone later argued that a vote for one text was  an implicit vote for a different text (whether the text is later changed explicitly or not). --Boson (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter. MOSNUM is already under sanctions. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I hope my analogy with similar (but more consequential) processes helped to make it clear that subsequently changing the text is unacceptable and that ensuring the legitimacy of a vote (or !vote) is not a mere technicality, though it may seem like that to the person who is organizing it and getting flak. --Boson (talk) 02:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't vote here, we are not a bureaucracy here, and we can do whatever we need to do to advance the project's goals. I will do what I need to, and I hardly give a damn what anyone says is "unacceptable". RGloucester  — ☎ 03:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester Wikipedia is not a battle ground, and to build a consensus one has to "give a dam" what others say. -- PBS (talk) 12:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Problems with the consensus and problems with the wording
There was not a clear consensus to bring in these sanctions as very few editors took part in the discussion which enabled them. The RfC I started in the hope of engaging with a larger pool of editors (Administrators' noticeboard/Archive266) was shut down by RGloucester, and the other issues that I raised were not addressed: -- PBS (talk) 12:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) United Kingdom is not clearly defined. There have been at least 2 UKs (and possibly three--depending on the interpretation of the name of Kingdom of Great Britain). It is not made clear if UK includes the nations that existed before the UK came into existence. So the scope of these general sanctions are not defined. For example the proposal sates "solely to the United Kingdom, as opposed to other English-speaking countries", is the height of the Duke of Wellington covered by this article as he was born in Ireland. Is Bonnie Prince Charlie covered by this definition? What about British India (is it no because India is involved and is an English speaking nation?), or British rule in Burma (is is yes because Myanmar is not English speaking or is it no because it was a  Province of British India?). What about the Battle of Waterloo (1815)?  What about the Second Battle of El Alamein (1941), as there were divisions from other Commonwealth nations involved in the battle. There are 100,000 of articles which could or could not be interpreted as having "strong ties solely to the United Kingdom" depending on how the UK is defined and what solely means. -- It would be much simpler and far less confusing if the two clauses were removed completely and the sanctions started with "Any editor who systematically..."
 * 2) RGloucester states in AN (archive 266) "The point of these sanctions is NOT to enforce the compliance of articles with MOSNUM". If the MOS is to be ignored then it makes a mockery of the wording "clear consensus" because a clear consensus also involves the wider consensus as expressed in policies and guidelines.
 * 3) "any editor who systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another without clear consensus" See the previous point on consensus. However this is not the main issue in this sentence. From reading the conversation in AN (archive 266), it is not the changing of values from one system of measurement to another but changing the ordering so that instead of "imperial (metric)" an editor changes the ordering to "metric (imperial)" -- or vice versa. So the wording of this general sanction is not addressing the issue for which it was created, as it is quit possible to change the ordering without changing the values. -- "Any editor who systematically reorders imperial and metric measurements without a clear consensus to do so"
 * 4) "who edit-wars over such a change, who disrupts talk page discussions or normal Wikipedia processes pertaining to units in UK-related articles, who engages in forum-shopping, or who otherwise disruptively edits" This is far to broad and besides is clearly coved by usual guidelines and policies already.
 * 5) "Sanctions can be imposed if, after being notified of the existence of these sanctions" This can be seen as interfering with normal administrative actions, as those who have been blocked for "otherwise disruptively edits" argue that they were not notified.
 * 6) "bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics" what is the "topic" and what are "closely related topics"?
 * 7) "Notifications must be logged at the general sanctions page to be effective." This is a very bad idea, because unless everyone who ever edits any of the affected pages are notified then notification becomes a warning system to warn of possible sanctions, and as such editors who do not think that they deserve a warning object to being listed in that way. If there has to be a central logging system the "notifications" should only be logged by uninvolved admins and calling a spade a spade be listed as warnings. (see my comments and others at Discretionary sanctions discussions).


 * I share several of these concerns. This whole thing seems like an attempt at shutting down discussion by people who will not lose an argument. In circumstances where we have editors openly calling for those with whom they disagree to be banned, this seems to me like it could have a chilling effect. I worry that editors who find the UK units mess on MOSNUM problematic will not feel able to raise objections without fear of being sanctioned. It's not like the status quo leaves us unable to deal with people who are obviously not here to improve the encyclopedia, such as DeFacto. So I'm left wondering who is meant to be threatened by these sanctions. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You have no reason to feel threatened, as you've never been disruptive, even if you're persistent (you may remember Edinburgh Trams). Editors can only be sanctioned if they do something worthy of being sanctioned. Discussing whatever is not a reason to be sanctioned. What's more, only an uninvolved administrator can sanction you, meaning that you needn't worry about people with vested interests, so-to-speak. RGloucester  — ☎ 00:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to help deter blatant gaming of the rules
If I catch an editor systematically changing values from one system of measurement to another without clear consensus, in clear contravention of the terms of this sanction, what should I do about it?

I ask because after looking through some of the recent edit histories of editors who had been involved in the creation of this sanction and have already had warnings about the existence of this sanction placed on their talkpages, I found that Archon 2488 (the very first entry in the warning log overleaf) had been doing just that, even recently since he had been given the warning. I did revert him (under my previously allocated ip of 94.196.236.140), but then another editor (Lesser Cartographies) who was also involved in the creation and who is now also on the log, reverted it back again.

It seems to me that Archon 2488 is editing Wikipedia with the sole intention of making metric units primary in every article and certainly without achieving consensus first. He has been doing this for months, if not years, and continues even now after receiving the warning. Sure he is interspersing other trivial edits (punctuation changes, etc.) and is covering his tracks more carefully recently and using such ploys as marking his edits as "minor", and using misleading edit summaries, or burying the unit order swap amongst other changes such as here, here (the flip on the 170 acres measure) and here. This is nevertheless gratuitous gaming of the rules.

I would like to propose that a clause be added to this sanction to the effect that unit swaps or flips should, at least, be clearly described in the edit summary and that such edits such not be marked as minor. That way, if no discussion was attempted, at least it would be clearer to watchers what was going on. 94.196.239.148 (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You should not revert anything. If someone violates a remedy, you should report it at WP:AN/I. Editors cannot enforce sanctions, only uninvolved administrators can. Engaging in edit-warring over units is also subject to sanctions. Regardless, you must let uninvolved administrators evaluate your concerns and see if they have merit. RGloucester  — ☎ 00:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * All the edits in question are clearly in line with the UK units section of the MOS, as I am sure our anonymous guest understands. I do not believe there is any disruptive behaviour here, except perhaps from a certain IP address. Archon 2488 (talk) 00:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not where we evaluate such things. An uninvolved administrator must make that determination. My personal view is that you are right, Archon. However, my view hardly matters. RGloucester  — ☎ 00:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of gaming of the rules
This struck me as slightly - well, extremely - POINTY; the relevant editing history is at Penny-farthing. Given that, when I look, I find DeFacto's history in this area extends to a topic ban, this strikes me as a pretty blatant attempt to lock in their preferred version by attempting to bludgeon me with a spurious threat of sanctions, something which is rather vexing when I just went to sort out a page by putting in some convert templates and thought carefully about which way round they should be.

I guess there are some uninvolved administrators watching this who might care to comment. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * And switching those units was probably a bad idea. Of course the situation is far from ideal, but we have had major disruption in this area and so it is probably unwise to switch the order of units on any UK-related article without getting a clear consensus first.


 * Reality is that there are lots of UK-related articles out there that break WP:UNITS, in large part because of the industrial-scale abuse that motivated the sanctions in the first place. Kahastok talk 21:22, 7 October 2018 (UTC)