User talk:HighKing/Archives/2010/July

Removing phrase "British Isles" from multiple articles

I note from your contributions that you are, or appear to be, on a campaign to remove the phrase "British Isles" wherever you see it. Can you please direct me to the policy that states that it's use is no longer appropriate in the English-Language Wikipedia? If not, please clarify the basis of this campaign. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

James, I've faced down many attempts to label me anti-British by editors that know they can't argue using references and sources, and so resort to name calling, ad hominen comments, personal attacks, and stone walling. Evidence now suggests a hardcore small number of British hardliners, guilty of orchestrated sock-puppetry at a sophisticated level. So forgive me if I'm slow to rise to the bait. Maybe if you actually asked a question you'd receive an answer? --HighKing (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will repeat the question. Please direct me to the policy decision to remove all use of the phrase "British Isles" from english-language Wikipedia. I won't rise to the accusation of sockpuppetry - I can easily prove my identity offline if you or any other editor needs me to. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

And I won't rise to your anti-AGF so-called question based on your anti-AGF assumption that there is a campaign to remove all use of the phrase "British Isles". Obviously. --HighKing (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It might be GF, but it's not NPOV - if I were to count up your contribs, what percentage would be simply going from article to article deleting the phrase "British Isles" wherever it appears? I note you can't point me to the policy to support that. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If you've a problem with my edits, discuss the edit. Next time you breach WP:AGF I'll simply report it. If you can't make a constructive comment, or if you can't discuss why my edits may be factually incorrect, don't post here again. I don't need this type of harassment. --HighKing (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Dundrum

Restored and userfied to here, but I wouldn't get your hopes up! Cheers. Rodhullandemu 17:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you --HighKing (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles where you delete "British Isles"

Morning HighKing, I see there's a new wave of articles where you are deleting BI and not pre-listing these on the SE page. Given this, would it make sense to at least put a standard bit of text in each article's talk page, directing local editors to the central discussion page and explaining the background to them a little? Not something long, just a few brief points. So that way it is clear to the local page editors that it's part of a wider issue but invites them to think about it in their context. My long-term concern about this being that you clearly don't want any more to pre-publish them, and this excludes central agreement effectively and there are obvious geo-context ones being excluded, which I thought at any rate was part of the agreement. What do you think about this? Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Morning James. Please check carefully. This "new wave" of articles were all changed by a single editor, and also if you check you'll find that they were previously discussed at the SE page. The agreement extends to new articles that haven't been discussed before, until you and others get a chance to discuss. And I suspect, given that this single editor obviously looked at my contributions, the existence of the SE page is known. Feel free to equally post messages on other editors Talk pages. --HighKing (talk) 10:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification, I will look over those and have a further think about it. I also do think some kind of standard note on local article pages would be useful, if only to get local editors (if they are interested) to contribute, as I think we suffer from the loss of that perspective in the discussions. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, although in my experience, most local editors run a mile and are horrified and appalled with the minutae of our discussions. Again, if you check the WT:BISE page, you'll see very few local editors even though a lot of notices were posted. --HighKing (talk) 10:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, I thought that might be the case - let's think more about it, I will make a suggestion for some text. I am really just thinking that none of us are likely to be experts in the intricacies of for example all types of scientific and geographical bodies in these islands to always make a good judgement. With the exception of Snowded of course, who I daresay is. (joke Snowded). So we should at least offer the chance, perhaps on some new slimmed down discussion page that doesn't carry quite as much history. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Just before the last round of socks were exposed, we were rationalising some guidelines for the MOS. It would be great if you (as a relatively new pair of eyes on this subject matter) would take a look and comment. Although we'll more than likely still have some disruption (just noticed about 30 reverts by LevenBoy), I believe if we all pull together, work jointly to eliminate the disruption and encourage discussion rather than edit warring, we can make quick progress. --HighKing (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, tried to get into this in some detail before but got a bit unduly heated up (sometimes a problem with me!) - will take another look over the next while and approach with icy calm. Revert battles will make no real headway, there needs to be agreement. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Please restore my comments that you deleted on ANI with this edit. I'm assuming it was a mistake but it seems rather odd that you would delete two disjoint comments of mine. Toddst1 (talk) 09:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Confusing edit on WP:ANI

Hey there, HK. Just confused about this edit. Did you accidently remove the comments of those other editors? Basket of Puppies 09:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Shoot - I've no idea how that happened. I didn't get an edit conflict notice either. Strange. Do you want me to put them back in or will you do it? --HighKing (talk) 09:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I am headed to bed right now. Perhaps undo your edit? Basket of Puppies 09:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

ok --HighKing (talk) 09:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. --HighKing (talk) 11:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

False positive report

The other day you submitted a false positive report because you found yourself unable to edit someone's talk page. If you have not already seen, it was due to an accident in the code of a particular edit filter which was quickly fixed by the MediaWiki software itself. The code has been reverted to the last good version and this should not happen again. Thank you for bringing this to our attention, however; if people hadn't reported it we wouldn't have known there was a problem. I have removed the false positive reports as I felt it was easier to just go to the people who submitted them directly. —Soap— 23:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The showers

Changed my mind. You & LB need time away from deleting/re-adding British Isles. After 2yrs, ya need a break. GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised you've "changed your mind"... keep that spoon stirring! --HighKing (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added a comment on BlackKite's user talk page. Please, everyone be nice and stop shaking the tea! Gentle stirring is ok. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I've realized that changing my mind in the past, may have added to the BI squabbles between the pro- & anti-BI folks. Thus I revert to my support stance, for your sake & LevenBoy's. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:CLUE

Re. This is what probably what sums best up your many many failings on Wikipedia regarding the British Isles disruption, which, without your constant agitation, really would go away in an instant, without anybody ever even contemplating probations. Although unfortunately that's just an essay. In terms of content policies, if you don't even realise that 'NPOV' is the policy that you are being accused of breaching when people consistently call you a POV pusher, then there's no hope for you here at all. There are probably others, but that's the main one. As for behaviour, I don't think there is a specific policy that fits your activities precisely, I think you've probably touched on all the ones that are a little more nuanced than just 'don't be a meany'. Probably BATTLE covers it pretty well, with all your behavioural issues being probably covered by one guideline or another that ultimately stems from there. As for good faith attempts at DR, your constant whining about AGF in that respect is utterly ridiculous, not least with your rather simplistic and broad brush responses to people who simply disagree with you. It's not quite Sarah777 level in its crudity and simplicity, but the signs are there. Infact it's borderline trolling imho, and for an editor in your position, I don't think it helps your case by even a tenth of what you think it does. Anyway, I've no doubt not a single electron of this will register with you, all of this behaviour seems to be pre-existing and hard-wired, as was pretty evident in the ROI naming farce, although unlike there I don't think we are going to see you flounce off claiming a moral victory this time, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. But I wasn't doing anything right now anyway so I thought I'd give it one more go at clueing you in. MickMacNee (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Mick you really should assume good faith and try and comment on the edits NOT the editor. Bjmullan (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

And you really should not tell your auntie how to suck eggs, certainly not to one who has been here for years and made thousands of edits in hundreds of topic areas, to whom nobody has ever once proposing a topic ban on in any topic area whatsoever. When an campaigning editor like HighKing is making disputed and disruptive edits, and after repeated feedback referring to content policy, he still fails to see why they are disputed and causing disruption, then the time for AGF in its primary meaning is over, and commenting on the editor becomes well and truly appropriate. It can be made more formal if you like, but I have little patience for RFC/U when the editor is already pretty hard-wired in their beliefs and self-perceptions, as HighKing seems to be. MickMacNee (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Mick I didn't understand that if you did thousands of edits in hundreds of topic you were exempt from the five pillars. Maybe it should be six? Bjmullan (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Jack...

Re: your comment here - by stunning coincidence, today is your lucky day! HighKing, allow me to present... Jack 1314! ;-) TFOWR 16:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe in coincidences! LOL  :-) --HighKing (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions

Hello, HighKing. There have been a couple of suggestions made at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log. I wonder if you could give your thoughts on the suggestion. Cheers. I'll add a link to the proposals as there are a few post immediately after it. [1] Jack 1314 (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jack, I've responded under your suggestion. --HighKing (talk) 23:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

And thanks for fixing the link. :) Jack 1314 (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Keith Floyd, etc

I take the view that you made the edit in good faith, believing it to be most likely non-controversial in any way. Clearly we were both wrong! In future, could I suggest that you post at WT:BISE first, wait for a short period (say 30 minutes), and then make the edit? It'll help avoid any surprises. TFOWR 20:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Why 30 minutes? Why not something more reasonable like 24 hours, to give editors time to respond? We are not talking about 24-hour editors here, other than perhaps one or two. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, 24 hours would seem reasonable. I was also surprised that the Floyd edit was controversial, but clearly it is (unlike the BS1363 one), so I would suggest that the best way of avoid any further issues would be to follow this plan. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was basing it on the length of time it took for the storm to blow up on this occasion. I've raised this at WT:BISE, so if editors there feel that this is the only occasion they're likely to respond so quickly, they'll be aware of my proposal, and - as you have - comment accordingly, and we can tailor the "waiting period" to suit. Note that it isn't necessary for every editor to monitor WT:BISE 24 hours a day: it seems that there are multiple editors, and I assume they don't all edit at the same time. TFOWR 20:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks BK - 24 hours is what HK and I originally discussed and is fine with most editors around these articles I believe. Advance notice on both BISE and the article affected is needed, as so many times local editor knowledge turns out to trump the centralised BI-wallahs. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

In response to your last point TFOWR, the longer time is needed to allow local article editors to take a look. Sometimes, HK has made inexpert deletes which local editors could easily have disproved. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The WT:BISE page is totally voluntary. Black Kite - it was partly your idea, and I agreed but on the basis that you help police it. And it was right after I went to your page to report (yet) another breach of *your* rules when you "retired". So, you cried off that task. But I stuck with it, despite the abuse and stonewalling (and the army of socks). Things have now changed. It was very telling on these last two occasions when I went to AN/I to report breaches of policy. The first time, you blocked me for edit warring - 5 reverts over 3 different articles over 3 days. Still no explanation, and no admittance of any wrong-doing on your part. I used to believe that you're a good admin, but you got it very wrong there. The second was the recent AN/I when LevenBoy reverted all my edits without discussion. I hadn't edit warred, the articles were all listed at WT:BISE, and what was your reaction? You turned it into a content dispute over British Isles, when it was a simple breach of behavioral policy, and called for a topic ban. I asked for reasons (what policies had I breached, what articles were edit warred?), and got none. It was advertised over British topic pages, and we ended up with a wall of editors, who didn't bother reviewing the disruption in detail, all baying for a ban. And now we've come to your recent intervention on a content matter and you've reverted a completely incorrect pipelinking of "Britain and Ireland" to "British Isles". This clearly shows the 6 locations, and *nowhere* is it correct to pipelink a Title of a book or TV series, which distinctly stated "Britain and Ireland" to "British Isles". Just about every editor from "the other side" say that the WT:BISE is meaningless. So what function is it serving only as my original fear - it's a censorship list. And two articles that are obviously incorrect get comments from editors saying the corrections were wrong. That's what happens, I suppose, when an admin allows the mob to be whipped up into a frenzy. I see no reason to participate at WT:BISE any longer and reverting to normal practices of simply editing articles, and providing justification and sourcing at the relevant article Talk page, appears to be the only way to get back to normal. --HighKing (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Well this is all very interesting HK. I must say, I had a bit more confidence in you as an editor willing to work to policies than this. Are you serious about all this? If so, I would say this is all pretty much over. There clearly can't be any rational, structured process with this type of reaction as the consequence. I am now clear that your conduct is not to be trusted and I give up trying to work with you - unless you immediately retract the above, especially your statements that BISE is purely voluntary and that I am a member of a "mob". Over to you. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is some very clear undertakings, none of which are unreasonable:

1. All editors agree to participate at WT:BISE and by doing so, agree to adhere to WP:AGF and strict civility. It moves from voluntary to mandatory for the working lifetime of the Task Force.
2. Consensus agreed there will bind the editors participating there. Local editors on local article Talk pages, obviously won't know about this page, but should be encouraged to participate there also should they chose to.
3. Discussions must be based on WP:V and WP:RS and follow already established MOS guidelines where applicable.
4. The page will be policed by admins on a voluntary basis. Those admins will primarily review behaviour to ensure adherence to agreements and policies. They will not tar all editors with the same brush. They may also make sensible suggestions to break any impasses or deadlocks.
5. Editors that breach the above, will be temporarily blocked from future participation and (potential) consensus-forming discussions. Subsequent breaches will result in longer blocks.

James, you're not one of the mob (no frenzy). But you already knew that. But until WT:BISE gets moved onto a formal footing, it serves no purpose, and it becomes a simple matter (as has happened numerous times in the past) for editors to claim it has no real footing and therefore consensus formed at that page has no weight. --HighKing (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You'd probably best go back to the ANI admins and ask them if they accept your revisions to their policy decisions as in the para above. In the meantime, I take it you reject this entire process, as in your earlier statement last night? So you reject the 24 hours wait and pre-announce on BISE and local article? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

@James, you're frustrated. I'm frustrated. But I'm trying to get this to work, and I'm sure you are too. I've posted the reasons for my position below, and the reasons why the SE page needs to be moved to an "official" footing. Without it, down the road, if admins retire, we'll be back here again, and I don't think we want to do that. --HighKing (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I was surprised to find that the Floyd change was controversial - at first glance I thought it was clearly correct, as I said at the time at WT:GS/BI - but since it clearly was then it needs to be discussed, and since no-one involved wanted to BRD because they were worried about being seen as edit-warring, then I reverted myself - and now we can have the discussion. Having said that, I would be completely happy for most of the changes you suggest to BISE to be implemented. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I take the view that:

1. The process is mandatory (but, as previously noted, I'll defer to Black Kite's experience and Ncmvocalist's counsel...)
2. Local editors must be advised about WT:BISE whenever it starts to affect them, i.e. if an article is raised at WT:BISE a note should be posted on the relevant article's talkpage (obviously this is a new rule I've just made up, but it seems sensible (the usual disclaimer about me and sense applies here...))
3. All relevant WP policies apply, and certainly WP:V and WP:RS. Guidelines should be followed wherever possible.
4. Black Kite and myself (and, I'd hope, other admins) will be following the process carefully and intervening where necessary and/or appropriate.
5. I disagree with blocks, at least at first. Editors who breach the above should - in the first instance - be listed at Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log. Blocks would then follow if they breached the topic ban. This means that any editors mentioned in the original ANI report, or blocked prior to the closure of that report, start with a "clean slate". I agree that subsequent blocks should be of increasing duration (though, given my recent conversations with one editor at Talk:Northern Ireland I'd refer you back to my clean-slate comment: I believe everyone involved starts now (well, yesterday) with a clean-slate: an editor who has been blocked prior to the start of this formal process would not receive a longer block post-topic ban).

As always, I regard myself as very much the "junior partner" in this process, and I defer to Black Kite's experience and Ncmvocalist's counsel. And if either of these two editors cease to be involved, I'll defer to whoever steps in as a replacement: I'm not suggesting that Black Kite or Ncmvocalist have to remain involved forever ;-)

Thinking about it, I should probably post this at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log - which I will do now ;-)

TFOWR 09:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm encouraged that there seems to be an implicit understanding that the SE page, and the process, has some legitimacy. In reality though, this could be challenged since it doesn't. And I'll admit that I'm frustrated at what has happened over the past 7 months, and the lack of support. I'm not going to be the only editor to adhere to a practice that has no precedence on WP and which is currently totally and utterly one-sided. It's obvious to me from some recent comments at AN/I (and I'll leave it to you to match the person with the comment) how the SE page is viewed:

• there is a campaign page somewhere where this is all organised and rubber stamped, but the level of participation and intellectual rgiour that that page provides is seriously deficient. I know of three specific incidents where articles were 'fixed' to adhere to HighKing's rather obscure POV of the term's acceptable usage on WP
• And give it some legitimacy so you can make the ludicrous claim it is the expression of site wide consensus? Hell no. If you get your Founding Principles into something resembling reality, and on specific example cases actually start to listen to people who disagree with you, I might reconsider, but as it is framed now, and how it operates now, particularly and inseperably related to how you choose to contribute to it, and some of the nonsense garbage edits it does produce, that page is just a rubber stamping exercise for an illegitimate campaign of POV editing on a massive scale.
• through this issue at multiple articles as mystified users reinserted the expression and were directed to some obscure discussion page with which a consensus claim was asserted if anyone objected.
• such articles should've been dealt with on a case-by-case basis. But nobody would heed my wisdom.
• No, the record of BISE acting as a venue that produces garbage edits, has little or no participation and as such is not and never will be an expression of consensus or policy cluefulness, and little or no awareness of what NPOV actually is or how it works, is what is already established.

Previously a sysop stated to me:

• You need to understand that due to WP:BOLD nobody is, or can be, forced to use the BI SE page - until it has a standing in policy or through dispute resolution. For it to have such a standing a formal system of dispute resolution would need to be attempted (ie mediation, or ArbCom).

This isn't an attempt by me to dodge the SE page or the various conditions - au contraire I welcome them. But right now, at this point in time, the SE page is viewed as a simple mechanism (as has been stated) to limit HK's disruption and make sure his relentless campaign of removing British Isles is stopped. It's also not good enough to rely on unofficial support from admins. I've been stung before. Subsequently, the official line from a sysop was:

• Apologies for the length of my reply but allow me to clarify HighKing, there is no policy for that 1RR because there is no ruling or dispute resolution that can be reviewed and enforced by multiple outside admins. This is down to Black Kite - who left without instructing anyone in how to carry on, or with the what where and why of his remedy. Because BK did not formalize that remedy nobody knows how to enforce it or when to. Thus I consider enforcing it unsafe.

Maybe you've a better insight now into where I'm coming from. Question is, how can we "legitimize" what we are doing and the processes? --HighKing (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Me? A better insight?! I really doubt that ;-)

My view is that the community has, through ANI, expressed a will that a topic-ban mechanism be put in place, and that that gives us a mechanism for addressing many of the prior concerns. WT:BISE is now part of that mechanism - an editor who gives me cause to think they are acting outwith the bounds set by the community is going to be directed to WT:BISE. If they ignore that, they'll be listed at Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log. This doesn't impede WP:BOLD: a new editor can enter the arena, boldly add or remove "BI" from an article or two, and then I'll steer them towards WT:BISE. TFOWR 12:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable and good. So, for my own clarity, would you say the SE page has legitimacy (and therefore the comments above and future challenges to it are not reasonable), and that it will survive (and the sanctions, etc) even if BK or yourself aren't around to explain? If my understanding is accurate, my enthusiasm for participation at the SE will have returned. --HighKing (talk) 12:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the legitimacy is implicit, based on the community's decision at ANI. I suppose it's possible that another admin could argue for an alternative venue, but as WT:BISE was frequently referred to in the ANI discussion I think that a little unlikely. I'd also assume that a hypothetical future admin would find it easier to follow the existing process, i.e. the process we're following now. TFOWR 12:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Implicit is a problem, as has happened in the past. If an editor decided to simply follow WP:BOLD, WP:BRD and only discuss and agree to consensus on Article Talk pages, where would we be? We can't force participation, and the editor could argue (again, as has happened in the past) that consensus anywhere other than on the Article Talk page is, really, not a consensus at all. --HighKing (talk) 12:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I accept that that could be a problem in the future (i.e. after Black Kite and myself get knocked over by the metaphorical bus...) but right now I'd take the view that the hypothetical editor was ignoring the express will of the community, and I'd add them to the list, i.e. they would be topic-banned. The community has strongly indicated that we are expected to discuss BI additions/removals, and the community has also long held the view that consensus within a large group overrides any consensus in a smaller group, so I'd say WT:BISE trumps article talkpages, for example (though we should, of course, notify editors at article talkpages). Going forward, I believe - I hope - that any work we do now will help establish beyond doubt the legitimacy of WT:BISE as the venue for achieving consensus around BI additions/removals. TFOWR 12:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Although the overwhelming feeling I have is that I've been here before, several times, I don't see an alternative unless we go to Arbcom and make it official. Given my record for trying to "do the right thing" but being helpless to avoid the boomerang, that may also be as spectacularly disasterous as the recent AN/I. I'd also hate to piss away the goodwill of many of the contributers.

Since my concerns have largely been addressed, and since it's really the only game in town, I'll re-engage at the SE page and follow the 24hour period. The MOS guidelines are key. --HighKing (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that BK or TFOWR are watching this page: The 24hours suggestion doesn't appear to have made it anywhere else but this Talk page - is this part of the agreement or not? I'm happy to agree as I've indicated above. --HighKing (talk) 23:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in replying - internet connection has been sporadic for a few days (hopefully resolved now, though it seems a bit up-and-down...)

I assumed it was, I'll look into it.

TFOWR 15:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)