User talk:HighKing/Archives/2012/February

Eamon de Valera

He was one of the dominant figures in twentieth-century Ireland and head of gov't and head of state of Ireland? Really? Or is this just me "deliberately and mischievously" alleging the potential for confusion to make a point? I can't see how you can think the intro as it reads now could be unambigious to someone not familiar with the nomenclature of the Irish state. — JonC^ॐ 08:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hadn't seen that the first pipelink was to the article on the island. But lets not forget who changed the current intro. And yes, in my opinion that would qualify as "deliberate and mischievous". Same as the Coolkeeragh power station article where you changed the article to read "United Kingdom" instead of "Northern Ireland", without bothering to check what the norm was for those articles. --HighKing (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I re-inserted content into the intro that had been recently taken out, but that I thought essential for clear understanding of the lead. You really think my changes were somehow mischievous? How would you have worded the extra information better? (I didn't link the first "Ireland" to the island -- that was already linked.) The Coolkeragh situation was an honest mistake on my part; that article is the only such page on my watchlist and I really should have looked at a few others first. Late night editing and all that. Whether or not you choose to believe me is another matter, of course. Not trying to have a go re: de Valera, just trying to avoid multiple "Ireland"s linked to different pages. — JonC^ॐ 20:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, looks like you've already taken the extra information out. Why? Now he's head of state and head of government of nothing. — JonC^ॐ 20:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I put back the previous version. His various titles are listed further in the article and not necessary in the lede. --HighKing (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

For consistency, I'll change the Elizabeth II intro, removing every state she's head of state of and simply leaving a mysterious "is the consistutional monarch" (full stop). I'll let the watchers know it's listed later on what she's the constitutional monarch of, so it should stick. I'll report back. — JonC^ॐ 09:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Knock yourself out. --HighKing (talk) 09:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Ireland

Can't remember off the top of my head when the Arbcom block on article name dispute ends, but now that China is (thank goodness!) correctly named and Taiwan appears to be on the way, let's hope we can get a rational position soon on Ireland and stop the current silliness. That will help a lot with the general atmousphere as well I suspect. Some other recent developments I've pushed for will perhaps contribute as well. Hope you concur. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That would be great, thanks James. Also relevant and interesting the discussion on the Talk page of Northern Ireland about accepting the ISO naming conventions. --HighKing (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Aalaeddin Melmasi

Hi, Please see this article talk page. Thanks.

Topic ban Review

Per your request[1] (and my undertaking to do so after 6 months[2]) I've reviewed the topic ban but not lifted it. Please consider what I'm saying, and if you have a constructive proposal I'd be happy to consider it in good faith--Cailil ^talk 14:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Review

Ban

User:HighKing is topic banned from editing in relation to the term 'British Isles' widely construed. He may still contribute to discussions on the topic as long as these comments conform to wikipedia's talk page guidelines and interaction policies.[3]

Relevant policy

WP:TBAN, WP:GS/BI

Edits for review

Restricted to mainspace edits, from 2011 to Feb 2012, as ban does not include talk page comments

Edits in breach of ban

• Feb 21 2012
• Feb 13 2012
• Jan 3 2012
• Dec 15 2011
• Nov 1 2011

These edits add {{fact}} tags to instances of the term 'British Isles'. There should be no confusion in relation to the above ban wording - “banned from editing in relation to the term 'British Isles' widely construed”. Rather than open discussion of the topic (which is allowed under the terms of the ban) you tagged the term, & it must be remembered that although these edits are not “bad” bans apply to all editing, “good” or “bad”. If this had happened once it might have been described as being a 'technicality', but 5 times is a pattern of behaviour.

Other notes

• While up until Feb 21 2012 you had stayed away from edit wars about the term British Isles you've remained focussed on the wider topic of British & Irish naming issues HK, particularly (in artcile edits) since January:[4][5][6][7]
• The conflict with Stemonitis was the proximate cause of the "spill-over" of edits from one area to another. You engaged again with a series of reverts with Stemonitis (in January 2012) on Crabs of the British Isles in relation to a dispute about the naming of Britain & Irleand, and the WP:iMOS. While this is not an editwar there was no engagement with Stemonitis in the talk space.

My decision

Topic bans of indefinite duration by definition can't be waited out. Demonstrating that a user has a wider focus, and can edit (and interact), beyond one hot-button topic is the only way to resolve bans of this type. I'm very glad HK that you see your behaviour pre-August 2011 as being, in your words “pedantic”. However how those set of actions are qualitively different from the ones that were being taken for example during January 2012 at Cecil Day-Lewis is hard for an uninvolved editor to see. I recognize that others are also involved but you are serving a topic ban for this behaviour already. In the case where other editors who are/were also under a topic ban I may be warning them too (depending on the contexts of their bans).
While I sympathize that you may feel this ban is a "cloud hanging over you", I'm afraid I can't see a reason to lift it at this time. I've given this review a number of days and significant thought, but the ban is explicit in its restricting you from editing in relation to the term 'British Isles'. There are no exceptions here – if these instances where you {{fact}} tagged are unsourced you could have mentioned this on the talk page, but you didn't.
I would suggest staying away from the whole British-Irish names area HighKing. Focussing on the same conflict in a different area of semantics (county names, historical names of states etc) is not showing the community that you have interests outside the British-Irish naming conflict.
That said, if you can demonstarte productive editting elsewhere on site (as you have with the Irish businesses: brewerys, cheeses etc) for a concerted period of 3 months, then I'd be happy to take a look at this again at the end of May (2012)--Cailil ^talk 14:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, I would note that the last breach of the ban was less than a week ago – you're being let off with a warning. But if further breaches occur the ban will be enforced by block if necessary--Cailil ^talk 14:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Quite literally, I am stunned. I'd like this reviewed please. Let me know what I need to do. It is clear that the goalposts seem to have moved, and very unfairly.

• WP:GS/BI states Any editor who systematically adds or removes the term "British Isles" from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification, or who edit-wars over such addition or removal, may be added to the list of topic-banned editors. I have not done this.
• The terms of the topic ban TB01 states: User is banned from adding or removing the term "British Isles" on a Wikipedia wide basis. The user may still participate in related discussions so long as they engage in appropriate conduct, and do not add or remove the term.' I have not done this.
• Your own notice on my Talk page informing me of the topic ban states: I'm forced to topic ban this account from all insertions, removals, or alterations of the term "British Isles" on a Wikipedia, widely construed. You may still participate in related discussions but may not add or remove the term. Again, I have not done this.

You have said there should be no confusion as to the scope of the topic ban. I believe the topic ban is crystal clear and I have not breached the topic ban. Editting Ireland-related articles is not related to the usage of "British Isles", and it doesn't help to conflate the issues. You say Focussing on the same conflict in a different area of semantics (county names, historical names of states etc) is not showing the community that you have interests outside the British-Irish naming conflict. - I was not aware that this was part of the purpose of WP:GS/BI. None of the other editors who served a TB01 were treated in this manner, and I am mystified as to why this draconian interpretation is being taken here and now. It is out of proportion with other editor's topic bans, and your interpretation appears designed to remove me from all Ireland related topics completely. --HighKing (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

HK you can ask at WP:AN if you like - I have no problem with a review of my opinion. But frankly the ban wording above is "User:HighKing is topic banned from editing in relation to the term 'British Isles' widely construed", & the fact is you edited 5 articles in relation to the term British Isles - tagging it variously with {{dubious}} and {{fact}} - how you see this as being allowed while you are topic banned from editing this term is beyond me.
This is not out of proportion with anyone else sanctioned under WP:GS/BI - the bans of LevenBoy and TritonRocker still stand (after 18 months) because they have not demonstrated that the bans are now unnecessary. By showing the community that you have interests beyond the hot-button British-Irish naming dispute this indef topic ban would become unnecessary, by showing the contrary (and by breaching that ban anyway) you do the reverse--Cailil ^talk 13:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

And for clarity HK. The topic ban explanation given to you includes alterations of the term 'British Isles' & was never limited to insertion and removal: this was formalized as any "editing in relation to the term 'British Isles' widely construed".
And while GS/BI allows for the application of sanctions where a user has been involved in insertions and removals - those actions being the cause of the ban - but the bans themselves are not limited to insertion/removal: TB02 and 03 are a bans "from editing in naming disputes relating to Britain, Ireland, the British Isles naming topics widely construed."--Cailil ^talk 13:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I cannot understand how you can interpret Alterations of the term "British Isles" with relation to tagging - it is not altering the term. My understanding - and I am sure the common understanding of the topic ban - is that it doesn't prevent me from editing articles, just from adding/deleting/altering the term. If I thought tagging was banned under the terms of the topic ban, I wouldn't have done it. I've been tagging articles since the start of the topic ban. I tagged an article a week after the topic ban with Cow-calf operation. And on the 26th August with Access (credit card). Your phrasing of my topic ban is not mutually exclusive of the formal wording of TB01, but I was not aware that you intended to expand it beyond the formal wording, and I would have challenged that at the time if it had been made clear that your wording had to be interpreted differently that the formal wording. Nor have I abused tagging by going on a spree and tagging indiscriminately. Nor was I given to understand that I needed to stay away from British/Irish articles. I'm dumbfounded and confounded at the severity of your interpretation, especially given that I believe I am a good contributor with a good editing history. --HighKing (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

HK the formal wording is the one given to you on your talk page that says "topic banned from editing in relation to the term 'British Isles' widely construed". And to be clear HK I've stated this a number of different ways above - staying away from British-Irish naming disputes is what I'm advocating. Given that these naming disputes (two of which I listed above in the review) are the same broad conflict showing that you have interests beyond that conflict would be a good idea (and these disputes do not encompass all Ireland related articles or other articles and naming issues is in fact a narrow field to be banned from). I'm not laying this down as a definite precondition for removal of the ban - but as you are focussed on that conflict and have breached the ban - it is worthy of note (hence its inclusion in the notes section above not anywhere else).
There is nothing severe about this - your edits attempted to ignore or circumvent the restriction you are under: to my mind lifting the ban in light of that would be improper. You can appeal at WP:AN if you wish, or as above you can make a constructive proposal and I am very willing to listen--Cailil ^talk 16:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe we've got different opinions on what the topic ban was about. I know you said "topic banned from editing in relation to the term 'British Isles' widely construed". But how was I supposed to interpret "editing in relation" in any way outside of the wording at WP:GS/BI and what you provided on my Talk page - specifically "I'm forced to topic ban this account from all insertions, removals, or alterations of the term "British Isles" on a Wikipedia, widely construed". And I don't believe conflating the "British Isles" usage with the "Republic of Ireland/Ireland" issues is helpful or appropriate - and I don't believe I've ever edit-warred or even been warned on any Troubles-related or Ireland-naming dispute related topics. Okay. Let's agree to differ. What about we get another pair of eyes on this - no point in us banging heads. Specifically, I'd like an opinion on the following:

• The length of the ban given that it was a first offense under WP:GS/BI
• The length of the ban served to date (6 months) compared to the TB01 norm
• Whether tagging is in breach of the TB01 ban or WP:GS/BI in general
• Taking into consideration that I have been involved in other areas
• Whether it is appropriate to include other renaming topics, especially given that I have in no way, whatsoever, caused any disruption in those other areas?

A potential 9 month Topic Ban, given the actual lack of actual disruption, is too severe. What about asking MWG for an opinion since she looked last time? --HighKing (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)