User talk:HighKing/Archives/2012/June

Topic Ban Second Review

As promised here is the first part of my review of the topic ban imposed under the British Isles Community probation. For reasons I explain below I've left the decision as "pending" until you answer two questions. I will be online sporadically over the next few days so I will get back to within 24 hours of your reply at the very most--Cailil ^talk 22:24, 31 May 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.[1]

Relevant policies

• WP:TBAN, WP:GS/BI

Edits for review

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

Edits in breach of ban

• None since last review (3 months ago)[2]

Other notes

• In my last review I noted that throughout the duration of the ban (at that point up to late February) your edits had remained focussed "on the wider topic of British & Irish naming issues [...] particularly (in artcile edits) since January". This has continued, so much so that you self-reverted[3] at Category:British Islands with the edit summary "just in case" - I assume "just in case" it was covered by this ban. Your edits have retained their concentration on the semantics of naming in articles relation to Irish & British issues (ie these diffs in mid-to-late May 2012[4], [5], [6]), even those that are mandated by the MOS (or iMOS) still give me cause for concern.
  Being specific I am worried that old behaviours will reccur, your edits to Cecil Day-Lewis (particularly this one[7] with its summary: "rv to last stable version") smack of a misunderstanding of WP:BRD (a common one within the British Irish Semantics dispute). There is *no* absolute right to revert to a "consensus" or "stable" version of a page, that is not policy - this is filibustering and is a misuse of BRD. Please note also that WP:BRD is not a policy and cannot be held over another user as legitimate cause for reverting (see Wikipedia:BRD#What_BRD_is.2C_and_is_not), its only use is to discourage edit-warring.

Decision

Pending two answers Ban lifted on user's agreement to abide by policy[8] but with notes[9]

• As I have stated and re-stated about indefinite topic bans - they cannot be waited out. Demonstrating that the banned editor has a focus outside the area of the restriction is the only way to resolve bans of this type. I can't say that this criteria has been meet in full, but on the other hand no edits in violation of the ban within 3 months have been made.
  I would like to have seen an editor go through this ban by developing more diverse interests and demonstrate that they don't need to edit in this topic area in order to work on wikipedia - that has not quite happened here. So assuming good faith I will ask 2 questions in order to determine how to proceed:

1. As User:28bytes asked previously[10] "As a practical question, HighKing, what is it that you want to do that the topic ban is preventing you from doing?"
2. Will you to agree to abide both the letter and the spirit of wikipedia's policies in full?

• As above I'll return final decision as soon as possible after you've responded--Cailil ^talk 22:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Response

• There are many editors who have a relatively narrow focus of interest on Wikipedia. My focus is generally on topics relating to Irish history and culture, with few exceptions, and I'm generally a gnomish editor trying to check facts or keep consistency across articles and some reverting of vandalism. I believe I have demonstrated I can contribute outside of the "British Isles" topic area, and that's what I've been doing (for example, I recently expanded the Jack Unterweger article). But there's little point in asking me to focus outside of Irish articles altogether because it's not my area of interest. I'm aware many Irish-related articles overlap with British-related articles, but I see these are different than looking at usage of "British Isles".
• No editor is perfect. I don't try to make mistakes, on purpose, yet I'm sure mistakes will happen. I can only promise to try to minimize mistakes, and to hold my hand up when they're pointed out and fix them.
• I answered the question posed by User:28bytes at the time. In a nutshell, the Topic Ban stops me from editing any article that mentions the term "British Isles". For example, yes, I self reverted British Islands at Category:British Islands with the edit summary "just in case" exactly because it just might be covered by this ban. The scope of the ban covers a lot of articles. Also one thing I'd like to correct is a number of articles that refer to Fauna Europaea for distribution lists of fauna that incorrectly attribute the term "Britain I." (used by Fauna Europaea to mean Great Britain Incl. Shetlands, Orkneys, Hebrides and Man Is. but excluding Northern Ireland , Republic of Ireland and Channel Islands) with British Isles. For example Anthrenus pimpinellae. Besides the fauna articles, I've no plans concerning articles relating to British Isles specifically or in general, so the impact on a day-to-day practical level means I don't always have to check in advance if the article contains the term before editing, and I can just edit.
• I have always agreed to abide by Wikipedia policies. That hasn't changed. I'm aware of the policy breaches that led up to the topic ban and I don't intend breach again.

--HighKing (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• With your agreement to abide by policy I'm happy to lift this ban. However I will state without equivocation that correcting sources is original research and is not appropriate. If there is an issue with Fauna Europaea then the source needs to go to WP:RSN for a full discussion - remember:

  Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia; truth, of itself, is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement.

  I strongly suggest you take Fauna Europaea to RSN immediately rather than make any change - such changes would be highly controversial and a very bad place for someone coming off a ban to begin. Good luck with your future edits and I hope you'll take my advice FWIW--Cailil ^talk 21:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Cailil, I appreciate the effort that goes into these things.

Can you review your comments concerning "Fauna Europarea" please? I think you've the wrong end of the stick concerning my comments. I'm not saying they're wrong at all. The F.E. have defined certain areas for the purposes of "distribution of fauna", and given them codes. For example, areas like "Spanish mainland (including Alboran Island)" separate from "Balearic Is. (Incl. Mallorca I., Menorca I., and Pityuses Is. (= Ibiza I. + Formentera I.)).

What I said above is that there's a handful of articles (like Anthrenus pimpinellae) that refer to F.E. for distribution of species, but incorrectly transcribe "Britain I." as "British Isles".

This is what I was fixing when I was topic banned in the first place - you said at the time that it doesn't matter that the reference is contained as the sole reference in "External Links", but that I must at all times put the reference as an inline reference if I am to "correct" any instances like this.

If you still think I need to take this to "Fauna Europaea", let me know. --HighKing (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

That is quite convoluted HK and I would suggest that it needs to go to RSN and that Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals needs to be notified of this. If there is any interpretation or incorrect transcription of a source going on by anyone, then that needs discussion first so that a consensus on how to proceed can form--Cailil ^talk 21:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not convoluted at all - not in the slightest.

An article uses a reference. The article quotes the reference incorrectly. It's perfectly normal to fix these types of errors, is it not?

So why does it need to go to RSN? I'm not questioning the reference as a reliable source - it's perfectly adequate. Unless you feel that F.E. isn't reliable? That's not a call I was making TBH, it's used in tons of articles.

Why does a WikiProject need to be notified? I don't get that one at all. I'm not writing any content or performing major surgery on any aspect of the articles. Again, is it that you believe F.E. isn't the best reference?

Or is it because we're dealing with aspects of "British Isles" and we don't want to start any edit wars?

Please explain your reasoning. I'm keen to understand, and I'm keen to avoid any misunderstandings in the future. --HighKing (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

HK because I’m not getting into content issues I'm limitted to what you've told me. If ppl are mis-transcribing the book and can do so by making a genuine mistake ("British Is" is easily read as "British Isles") then an open discussion ending with a wide consensus for how to the community should act in this isntance across a number of articles will help, not just with this case but also with other possible mis-transcriptions from the same source, it would also show you're not engaging in OR. This is a reliability issue but *not* of the source per se but of the transcriptions of it. Letting the Wikiproject know helps prevent future mis-transcriptions and helps build awareness of the issue. Besides, in general for mass changes (changes on more than 2 or 3 articles) getting a wider consensus on the matter is always helpful--Cailil ^talk 15:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand. Thanks for explaining. I've opened a question at WikiProject Insects - lets see what comes back. --HighKing (talk) 12:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

clarification?

A comment was raised at WikiProject Insects whereby my fixing of any transcription errors would be in breach of the lifting of the Topic Ban. Can you clarify for the benefit of Stemonitis, and anybody else that might be confused (including possibly me). --HighKing (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

My point above HK is that you need to establish that these are transcription errors HK - I can't unilaterally declare whether they are or not. FWIW, Stemonitis's point in response to your question is worth following up: "In general, [wikipedia] shouldn't be simply listing the countries in which a taxon occurs, but describing the distribution area geographically. As such, checklists are not the best sources [... and] [w]hile it may be easy to replace "British Isles" with another term, this really doesn't address the issues that the article has." What he's saying is that what is needed is a discussion on how best to list location/distribution in articles. He's also raised a valid WP:RS issue with the webiste that the wikiproject has competency to sort out if it gets enough input.
While I haven't barred you from fixing "transcription errors" I would suggest, particularly in light of Stemontis's WP:RS point (and also with an eye to currently mooted ArbCom rulings on mass changes), that it is best for everyone in these circumstances to engage with other editors (in this case ppl like Stemontis) in finding a solution as to how to deal with the wider issue, rather than just the narrow ones.
In short you aren't banned from fixing errors, but mass changes are a bad place to go after a ban without a wide consensus. Also Stemontis's points are good and worth continuing to discuss--Cailil ^talk 23:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Cailil - thanks for that. You're basically saying that Stemonitis has questioned "Flora Europaea" as a reliable source, and you have questioned if there is a transcription error. I've never heard of FE being questioned before, but Stemonitis is an expert so I'll ask for clarification. If FE is not a reliable source, then the articles shouldn't quote it to list the locations. In that case, different sources should be found and the articles redone. If it is reliable and there is a transcription error, then lets simply fix the transcription error first - if there's a bigger discussion over how articles should be standardised when stating distribution, that takes in just about every article in Flora and Fauna, and way beyond what simply fixing transcription errors (and that would definitely fall under "mass changes").

Now that you've clarified that there's no conditions on the topic ban being lifted, I'll ask Stemonitis again at the WikiProject Insects page. And I do appreciate your suggestions and advice. --HighKing (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Vandal?

It wasnt vanadalism - it was using the correct and official name in the artical. I am sorry if some don't like it, but you keep it in the same legal terms. You do not call things by unofficial terms in an official capacity. You wouldn't do it anywhere else - so we shouldnt do it in Londonderry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.81.204 (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Counties of Ireland

Come on HK, really? Are you going to join the discussion on talk or is this the extent of your contribution here? Please leave the page at its stable version for now. — JonC^ॐ 11:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

And they're all referenced on the respective county pages. — JonC^ॐ 11:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I've read the arguments on the Talk page. Not much more I can add, but I can join in if you insist. --HighKing (talk) 11:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Not insisting, but I think your revert was inappropriate. At the moment there are two editors trying to remove the Scots column (and I've still yet to see a convincing, non-just don't like it reason for doing so) and two arguing for its retention, and as the one trying to remove content from the stable version of the article the onus is on you to build consensus, which you've failed to do. — JonC^ॐ 11:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

BTW, there's also a very nasty undercurrent developing on this discussion - not picking you out in particular but this comment - I'd support the deletion of both tables detailing foreign names - really caught my eye and looks like it is solely designed to inflame other editors. You're familiar with the "sides" of the argument, so you're smart enough to know when you're deliberately provoking and insulting other editors. --HighKing (talk) 11:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

What is it you're objecting to, "foreign"? I meant it solely in the sense of a non-English language – by definition a foreign language on the English W'pedia – although maybe it wasn't the best choice of words. Or something else? — JonC^ॐ 11:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Aye, as if you didn't already know... And no, it's not a "foreign language" on English W'pedia - there's no such thing - that's a very xenophobic way of viewing the world. The terms are actually classified as "local names" (for a reason). --HighKing (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

So "Munchen" or "Espana" or "Milano" or other local names aren't words in a foreign language? "Xenophobic"? Oh, please. — JonC^ॐ 15:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

See WP:ENGLISH. --HighKing (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

And are you going to self-revert? — JonC^ॐ 11:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Eh...no. This is on the edge of WP:FRINGE to me. If we add a dialect of English, next we'll start adding Shelta names and probably even Hiberno English and we'll see Stab city and Big Smoke and stuff. I don't think so. --HighKing (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know Shelta or Hiberno-English were an official language/dialect/whatever anywhere in Ireland. Anyway, regardless of your personal feelings, you're still edit-warring. You've been here long enough and know how these things are supposed to work, so I won't bother linking to BRD or the rest. Poor form. — JonC^ॐ 15:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I revert once and it's edit-warring? Please. If Ulster Scots was classified as a language and had recognition as an official language in the republic, you'd have a point. --HighKing (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

edits

Hi HK, you asked me about a series of edits, I'll answer as best I can. For the benefit of anyone else reading this, let me be clear I don't have a position on content but due to the terms of the probation I need to assess whether changes are in fact source based.
First, re the 1727 and Janet Horne articles - a cursory googling contradicts your removal of the term. A book search too upholds the use of "British Isles"[11]. HK, it is NOT appropriate to cherry pick sources. That Horne was the last witch executed *both* in Scotland and the British Isles is entirely possible. In such instances one should attribute both sources, NOT delete ones that one may disagree with (because that would be original research by exclusion and/or could be seen by some as civil pov pushing).
On the matter of William Annyas while yes I see a lot of webistes using the British Isles I only see Ireland in the book search. However again it is absolutely possible both should be listed (the historical period was 1555). Ask yourself the question does such information aid the reader. From the outside position I can say, yes it does.
As regards your edits to The Lizard Lifeboat Station, Lloydia serotina and Franck Cammas these look like straight forward and appropriate changes to unsourced text or misrepresented sources.
HK there is no problem fixing these latter instances where any term is unsourced or any source misrepresented - the problem is with edits where one is either leaving out a term that sources DO use, or that is obvious.
Again it is entirely more encyclopedic to include two reliable sources (for example, Janet Horne is both the last Witch executed in Scotalnd , according to soure A and in the British Isles, acording to source B). Excluding one or the other is bad for the reader and frankly borders on the tendentious. This type of edit falls into a whole seperate category to fixing misrepresentations or mis-transcriptions.
I do see the IP stalking these edits too and will look into it when I can--Cailil ^talk 13:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reviews Cailil.

Regarding Janet Horne - it's unclear from your comments above and it can be read that I changed this article. Note that I did not change the main subject article "Janet Horne" or change any of the sources. The main article already had two sources. The 1727 article had a single (common) source too. The sources used either quoted "Britain" or "Great Britain". The 1727 article used "British Isles" but no referenced source used that term. I performed a reasonable search mainly in Google books as these usually turn out to be the most authoritative, but also websites and especially ones like the BBC, etc.

Google books returns approx 137 to 180 results for "Janet Horne" and "witch". After the first 25 results, we start getting works of fiction. Of those (trivial or incidental mentions in brackets):

• Fiction: 3 (Scotland) 4 (Unknown No Preview)
• Scotland: 15 (2)
• Britain/Great Britain: 2
• United Kingdom 1
• British Isles: (1)*
• Unknown (no preview): 2

The most numerous claim is that she was the last witch burned in Scotland. But there's also reliable sources for "Britain" and "Great Britain". There's none for "British Isles" (see below). Therefore I saw no reason to change to "Scotland" and merely fixed the transcription error using the sources already in use.

As you've pointed out - there is one source for "British Isles" - it's a book entitled Llewellyn's Complete Book of Names: For Pagans, Wiccans, Druids, Heathens, Mages, Shamans & Independent Thinkers of All Sorts Who Are Curious about Names. This isn't a reference that deals directly with the subject matter (unlike the books dealing with "Witches Trials" and various Witch-related Enclopedia). It mentions Janet Horne in passing and doesn't deal directly with the subject matter.

I looked at this and took it into consideration along with the first thirty or so books returned by Google Books. I don't consider it "cherry picking" to disregard a book on a tangential subject that uses a term none of the "expert" books used (as per WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS).

It occurs to me that there's a simple test to weigh the edit. Putting the shoe on the other foot - if I had inserted "British Isles" into an article based on the reference that included "British Isles", would that be seen as a reasonable interpretation of a good source, or I would expect to be sanctioned/warned under WP:GS/BI? Also, be aware that I won't edit war over these edits. If someone reverts and can provide reasonable rationale on the Talk page, no problem.

• On the matter of William Annyas - I thought the sources I found were pretty authoritative. There are some websites that make the claim for the "British Isles" but none that disclosed their source or that could be considered authoritative in their own right, and some that acknowledge they copied the facts from Wikipedia. If you found one that you feel I missed, let me know, but I looked and didn't. As for the historical period being 1555 - I don't understand the point. The phrase "British Isles" hadn't even been invented yet (another 20 years later) and even then took a while to catch on. The kingdoms were all separate - the Kingdom of Ireland, Kingdom of Scotland, etc. Also, you ask that I should consider "Does the information help the reader". I've learned the hard way that the only way to ensure that policy is being followed is to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and to pay attention to what sources say and the quality of those sources. If even a single quality source uses "British Isles", I won't make any changes although I might query the usage on the Talk page. If we apply the same test and I inserted "British Isles" based on what you've said above, I would expect to fall foul of the sanctions for inserting the term without being reliably sourced as per WP:GS/BI.

I know that there's an extra onus on me to me extra diligent if I'm going to make any changes. I am not going to embark on making wholesale changes. I believe my edits were reasonable - by that I mean within all policies and not cherrypicking sources or tendentious. So I'm very concerned at the tone above, and reading between the lines it sounds as if you were considering these edits as grounds for some future action relating to WP:GS/BI.

Question: Do I have reason to fear that the edits we're discussing could be used against me in any way for a future action relating to [[WP:GS/BI]? Saying that my edits in the instance of 1727 bordered on the tendentious because I didn't include a book on witches names doesn't sit right with me. Similarly, saying that William Annyas should be mentioned as the first mayor in the British Isles as it is "informative".

I'd appreciate if you could clarify whether my understanding and reasoning above is correct and reasonable, or if I'm in danger of once again falling foul of WP:GS/BI with (specifically) those edits. --HighKing (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• HK as I have stated numerous times I wont get into discussions of content with you (or anyone else) in this subject area, I am only reviewing edits in so far as the probation requires it.
  You were not justified (under the terms of the British Isles topic probation) in removing the term 'British Isles' at 1727. Its use is indeed sourced & the information is different from other sources. Furthermore nowhere in WP:NPOV does that allow for removal - in fact quite the reverse. As I stated above it is entirely possible for Janet Horne to be the last Witch executed in Scotland, Britain, & the British Isles (and if it were the case Europe and/or the world). HK you need to be clear that attempting to justify such removals as you have above will be treated as wikilawyering.
  Your points about the above about the general issue are beginning to worry me that you still aren't hearing the point. Rewriting articles all through this site around the use of a term (any term) is contrary to site policy and frankly borders on using wikipedia to make a point. We write articles here using the best sourcing for the article subjects not in regard to whether they use one term or another.
  Look HK you're reading a meaning into my above post that is not there. My tone above is appropriate - the edit to 1727 has breached teh probation but if I or any other sysop had found these edits sufficient for sanction you'd have heard about it already. You're not. As regards these particular edits vis-a-vis sanction: if in a hypothetical situation they formed part of a future pattern of edits then yes of course they will be considered, but as it stands now I'd be happy that if you learn from this to let it go. But I'll expect that same mistake wont be made again--Cailil ^talk 20:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Don't get me wrong here. I'm genuinely trying to understand. Above, I'm simply trying to explain and justify my edits. You say you're not going to get into discussions of content, fair enough. But on the other hand (if I understand you correctly) this implies that content has no bearing on applying WP:GS/BI? In effect, if you don't get into content, it implies that *I* can't/shouldn't evaluate the quality of content/sources when editing as this is not taken into consideration in terms of applying WP:GS/BI. To put it in simple terms - in effect, *any* source is ... a source. Please don't take this as wikilawyering - it's difficult to understand. But I can without a shadow of doubt say that I *get* the point that it's plain wrong to rewrite articles around the use of a term. And I also *get* the point that you can't cherry pick sources. And I *get* the point that I have to provide references if I'm making a change. And I'm worried that I've a different idea of what is considered a "good" edit, and what might be considered sanctionable (even in terms of a long-term pattern). Or realistically - is there really any such thing as a "good" edit if it's seen that there's a pattern of editing around a term (such as British Isles) in lots of different articles regardless of whether it is "good" or not. --HighKing (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• HK, as an uninvolved sysop I am precluded from getting involved in content issues - I did not say that "content has no bearing on applying WP:GS/BI" - that is a total misreading of my post. My posts do not imply anything of the sort re you evaluating sources.
  Look this is very simple, in an area under probation policy is enforced more rigorously than elsewhere due to persistent problems etc etc. In the case of WP:GS/BI the probation is there to prevent unjustified insertions or removals of the term 'British Isles'; edit-warring about it; and other tendentious or disruptive behaviour. In this case your removal of the term British Isles in 1727 has on examination seen to have breached the above probation.
  HK I have to say, at times in this thread you seem to be looking at editing in this area through the lens of old practices generated by a small group of editors in this topic, rather than from an objective stand point. For the most part over th last 10 months you've shown that you understand that these old practices are at odds with site policy and appropriate encyclopedic writing, but your insistence here in justifying what are mistakes, or what is not justifiable, is what worries me. If a total outsider was coming to the Janet Horne subject they would after proper research include *both* Scotland and the British Isles (and again if appropriate the Europe etc) because that's what the sources say. Removing one or the other would always be controversial where both are sourced or sourcable.
  Going forward, take this as a rule of thumb, when in doubt either leave it alone or (where there are sources for both) as I advised above attribute sources that say different things. The simplest policy on WP is WP:Preserve, which advises: "Do not remove good information solely because it is poorly presented; instead, improve the presentation by rewriting the passage". In some cases under WP:GS/BI that would mean finding sources for the use of the term British Isles rather than simply removing it (I listed the 3 cases above where you were correct in altering/removing the term in my first post). The matter requires both discretion and competence to differentiate between these situations and I know you have both. Again see my suggested rule of thumb when in doubt.
  On the matter of mass changes or long standing patterns of behaviour, it would fair to say the community's opinion is well expressed in the the ruling on the GoodDay RFAR--Cailil ^talk 00:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for responding Cailil - truly appreciate it. I believe I understand (or a micron away). I wasn't trying to misinterpret or misread what you were saying. By not previously commenting on whether the source was good or bad (and I can understand why you don't want to get into an argument or discussion on the quality of a source), I mistook that to mean that you weren't considering sources at all. You say that I'm looking at this through the lens of practices generated by a group of editors in this topic area. Perhaps you're right, because I've no idea how to translate that statement into specifics. I believe that's why when I try to look specifically at the Janet Horne edit, it seems like wikilawyering when all I'm trying to really do is identify a specific flaw in what I did wrong - either in process or in reasoning. Specifically for me, the single source (even though it's a book) isn't a reliable source due to the reasons I gave above. I'm not saying the source is wrong, or the fact is wrong. I'm not saying that Janet Horne *wasn't* the last witch to be burned in the British Isles. I'm saying that I can't find a reliable source to back it up and in the absence.... And now I get it! Yup. OK, I get it. And I get the "lens" thing too. Jeez - thanks for bearing with me on this. --HighKing (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)