User talk:HighKing/Archives/2013/June

Question

Is this still active? Doc talk 14:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yes. --RA (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, "systematically removing" the term has been going on again. It attracts the socks, don't ya know. first edit to that article, and all subsequent edits to it, indicate that "old habits die hard". If HighKing is off probation for these antics, it's time to explain what's up. Doc talk 15:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

What's your problem with the edits exactly? It clearly says "from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification". In the past, there were a number of editors (who have since all been proven to be a single editor, a big sock farm or two, although I maintain it is a single sock farm). And it's extremely notable that the *only* trouble in recent months/years have been from socks (check out Hackneyhounds latest block logs). I saw your comment at the AN/I related to a completely different issue, the Greg Bahnsen article, but I wasn't sure what point you were making TBH. Anyway, unless, as I've said above, you've spotted a problem with the actual edits, I also can't see the point you're trying to make here. But I'm happy to discuss, as always. --HighKing (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

From Cailil's page

You posted@ HighKing, I've been involved in this for years. Mostly prosecuting the other side (LevenBoy et. al). If you don't remove the term, there is no fuel for the fire. It's a cause and effect thing with the socks. It makes no sense to target the term anyway, as there are tens of thousands of instances of "British Isles" on Wikipedia. I have never approved of the guerrilla socking tactics, but the language is quite clear regarding adding or removing the term. I have nothing against you, and I'm not trying to get you punished; but the solution seems clear to me. Doc talk 02:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

You say If you don't remove the term, there is no fuel for the fire. You say It makes no sense to target the term anyway, as there are tens of thousands of instances of "British Isles" on Wikipedia. You make it sound like I'm doing something wrong.

You then say the language is quite clear regarding adding or removing the term. I'm very clear on the language - both the original, and the amended and updated.

You finish up by saying I have nothing against you, and I'm not trying to get you punished; but the solution seems clear to me. That's not what it looks like from here. I've reread your original comment at AN/I, your follow-up on this page, and your first post to Cailil's Talk page. It sure doesn't come across as a calm, logic-oriented, professional editor. Especially the omnious "but the solution seems clear to me". Most reasonable editors will call it as they see it. You're gunning for the editor regardless of the edits, or policy. Actually, you're doing exactly what the stalker wants.

Not once have you actually mentioned anything about any of the edits other than Races and factions of Warcraft. You appear to be solely focused on my "proudly" reporting the stalker to stop them from harassing me, and that my "old habits die hard", and you've even gone so far as to blame my editing with this beauty This stalker would not react if he did not remove the damned term. You should reread what you've written over the last couple of days.

Here's the thing. If I was an anonymous editor (like my stalker friend), none of my edits I've made recently would have raised an eyebrow or even a comment. All policies followed, references checked and corrected and added where necessary, etc, etc. I'm a fricking expert at this stage cos I know that one day, Cailil or another admin will follow through on my editing, so I've gotta be pretty much hitting the nail (and the wording) on the head. --HighKing (talk) 12:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, this is a lot to reply to, but I'll try to keep it brief. Again, over the years I have worked on the cases of LevenBoy, Triton Rocker, MidnightBlueMan, Hackneyhound, etc. Those are the ones I "gun" for: blatantly disruptive socks (and vandals). Not you. I have been on your side for quite some time. You are being harassed, and that sucks. I do not condone what they are doing at all.

However, you cannot say that sock attacks are not drastically increased when you remove the term, as has occurred over the recent months. And a lot of those removals (many pointed out below, plus others not listed) don't seem to make a whole lot of sense. I haven't seen an explanation for the above example at the Warcraft article, not listed below. I very much want the stalker stopped (I watch the Hackneyhoud SPI, obviously). And I firmly believe that the main trigger for his antics is your removal of the term. (in a "restricted" area). I don't want you sanctioned, as I would hope that you can see it on your own and correct the situation.

I did not open a thread on any board, I asked Cailil for clarification. Frustratedly worded: certainly. I never should have gotten involved in this, all that time ago. I'm not known for being especially warm and fuzzy, so please know that there's really nothing personal in anything I said. Good luck, HighKing. Doc talk 00:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate you responding, thanks for the sentiment. Unfortunately the damage has been done... --HighKing (talk) 10:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm just an analyst here, in this situation. I did not create these sanctions. I only wandered into the fray. Any damage here was not done by me, I am certain. Please understand my motivation: to prevent disruption, period. Cheers... Doc talk 10:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I should have added "No hard feelings". I'm not sure how many editors would survive a detailed examination of edits going back 6 months, especially when most of the edits drew no comments or reaction at all at the time, so no opportunity to hone edits or back off the edits (which is the nature of most WP editing).

You asked about the "Warcraft" article - I explained on Cailil's page. In a nutshell, the statement is unreferenced. I tagged it, waited, then removed it. There's nothing at all to suggest it was modelled after anything in particular. In other words, it seems the original editor just made it up.

Anyway, peace. I don't hold grudges. --HighKing (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

If I had a stalker after me, they would have been shut down long ago. I don't get stalked because I will truly horrify them. Your solution to getting "un"-stalked has been proffered. Cheers :) Doc talk 11:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Glad to know. Thnx. :) --HighKing (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Removals of the term British Isles (again)

Pursuant to this thread[1] I've oppenned and examination of your edits in Relation to WP:GS/BI over the last 5 months (approx). I’m not going to get into content here other than in order to point out HOW edits infringe the probation so I want to be clear that I don’t have an opinion on the content itself, just the action. The edits in question are the Article (Name space) edits from June 6th 2013 to February 6th 2013[2]. The relevant probation is the community sanctions on the unsourced addition or removal of the term British Isles.

• For context, User:HighKing was indefinitely topic banned for repeated breaches of this probation in August 2011 [3] (see also [4][5]). That ban was lifted on 2 June 2012 on HighKing’s agreement to abide by policy[6]. A year later this user was reported to me as violating the probation. What follows is an examination of 5 months of those edits.
• The exact wording of this probation is that:

  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.

• It’s also worth noting that this user is being harassed by persistent sock-puppeting. However the point has been raised that this sock-puppeting occurs due to inappropriate edits by HighKing around the term British Isles, thus feeding a vicious circle that is of net disadvantage to this project, its aims, its readers and its other users.

WP:GS/BI related diffs

Violations

1. Gravity_anomalies_of_Britain_and_Ireland[7]. Numerous sources use "British Isles"[8], especially Watt’s ‘Gravity anomalies and magmatism along the western continental margin of the British Isles’[9]. There was no source based reason to change here. This edit alone could incur sanctions. Last time we were here I explained, and you seemed to agree, that cherry picking sources was unacceptable, and that changing phraseology contra to what sources actually say is disruptive.[10][11]. In this case you should have sourced the use of "British Isles", rather than deleting the term - that action is in direct violation of WP:GS/BI.
2. Pigeon Valley[12]. While I wonder whether this could have been considered for weight, the material is sourced and relevant. This was a removal not just of the term but also of a source. The source might be an Op Ed (by Crispin Hemson), but it’s still a source. And furthermore there was no discussion of the issue - no articulation that the source was a problem. The clause containing the phrase British Isles of that sentence was just removed. Maybe this one was a mistake since the material was in fact sourced but also tagged as needing a citation. I’d be willing to see this as an error given how badly the sourcing was recorded, but still I found the referenced material in seconds[13].
3. June 9th 2013 Cnapan[14]: This one is complicated, mainly becuase the edit to this page above is wrong. Your edit HK links Shrove Tuesday to Cnapan and Wales (rather than the British Isles) but this doesn’t happen in the source referred to. The chapter of Collins’s book does talk about football in the British Isles on Shrove Tuesday (p. 248-9) and does talk about Wales and Pembrokeshire WRT cnapan (p. 120, pp. 66-7), but if you read the whole source two of the central points it makes (that are relevant to this) are that a) football games (plural) were played on shrove Tuesday b) “many traditional sports and games were specific to a locality, others had variants throughout the British Isles.” (p. vii). This particular source uses terminology like “British Isles” & “Home Countries” routinely. Furthermore if I look a bit harder I can find a reference to the phraseology you removed (that football was played on shrove tide in the British Isles) in numerous books[15] (especially in Nauright’s Sports Around the World, p. 186).
   Now the ostensible reason for removal is that the source "only talks about Pembrokeshire and Wales". While true your edit has changed it to say something inaccurate in order to remove the phrase "British Isles". The reference you’ve linked to is on pages 66-67 of Collins’s book, but there's no mention of Shrove Tuesday there. Even when we look at page 120, the Welsh Football listing (which does mention Shrove Tuesday), your edit does not reflect this material either, because this isn’t about Cnapan but a descendant of that game. Regardless of all this that initial edit was also followed by edit warring without discussion with a Hackneyhound troll.
   Overall this material (about other games in the British Isles on Shrove Tuesday) might have been considered for removal through weight but that’s not what we’re here to look at. Insead of taking the material seriously, instead of looking to source it, you policed a term, introduced an inaccuracy and removed material that could have been sourced. All of this behaviour points to civil POVpushing, and a single minded focus on articles not becuase of their subject but becuase of the terminology they use.

Complex

1. Yule log [16]: Now this one is interesting, for all the wrong reasons. You’ve taken a sourced use of "British Isles" and removed it for a swap in terminology, and with a very iffy edit summary "Separated out the non-English phrases in this section". Hutton’s book uses the phrase British Isles extensively[17], and while it is true that he doesn’t use the phrase in the pages quoted, it is actually more accurate as a citation to his work to use the collective phrase that his work uses (retention of sense). This was followed by a long slow edit-war from February 6th to 17th (with a Hackneyhound sock) in order to maintain your change. All of this was of zero benefit to the project, and in my view this edit is actually pointy. The reason I’ve come to that determination is the pattern below of borderline, policing of the phrase ‘British Isles’. A behaviour not congruent with this project's aims or code of conduct, and more reminiscent of single purpose style editting.

Borderline

1. HMS Wilhemina[18][19]: While I see this one as borderline others might not be so lenient. The idea that Napoloen wanted to conquer the “British Isles” seems quite wide spread among sources. It’s not up to wikipedia to correct their use of the phrase or update it. We record what sources say not what we think they mean. Also there’s slow edit-warring here.
2. Independent conservative[20][21]: It’s true that certainly I’ve never heard of this phrase being used in the Republic of Ireland but Wikipedia doesn’t use the truth it uses sources. This change was not source based and thus was merely a policing of the term. Again there’s slow edit-warring here.
3. Custard tart[22]: Exactly the same issue as above. No sources either way and thus no basis for any change.
4. Ricicles [23]: As above, no sourced reason to change this. You should be adding sources not policing the phraseology of unsourced material.
5. Trinity College Dublin[24][25]: While I see where you’re coming from regarding the probity of the Ancient Universities, it is to the best of my knowledge an actual term. Oxford and Cambridge are considered ancient; I don’t know about TCD and can’t verify or contradict. However the problem here is essentially the same as above you’ve changed the phrase to police the use of ‘British Isles’. A) as above there’s no sourced reason given in your edits; B) TCD’s own website refers to the British Isles[26] in relation to its own history. While this is not a reason to keep that sentence it does show the institution itself placing itself within that terminology.

WP:TROUBLES

1. Constituent_country[27]: This is one of the same areas that GoodDay used to run afoul of too if I’m not mistaken. You reinserted unsourced material. You can’t have this both ways HK. Unsourced statements can be removed. WP:BRD is NOT a licence to revert

Baronets

(an area formerly covered by WP:TROUBLES)

1. List_of_marquesses_in_the_peerages_of_Britain_and_Ireland [28][29][30]
2. Marquesses_in_the_United_Kingdom[31][32][33]

In both cases these edits walk the line. These articles were under 1RR and this is edit-warring. While these articles/lists are no longer subject to WP:TROUBLEs they are worth noting for the pattern.

Notes

It’s worth noting that you made a number of correct calls too. I haven’t the time to analyze every edit here but certainly the use of ‘British Isles’ with regard to Music charts is erroneous and you were 100% correct to change that. So I’m not labelling all your edits as problematic in any way. However the pattern is a problem. Moreover because we’re revisiting old territory that you should understand and that got you into hot water before. What aggravates this is the the number of edit-wars that this editting generates. Furthermore an area that I stated as concerning 12 months ago was your policing of iMOS, indeed the volume of WP:IMOS edits you make is reiniscent of "gnoming" by GoodDay, but also of your policing of the phrase 'British Isles' above. This was precisely the issue in the GoodDay RFAR (fait a compli) too many edits to too many articles by a single user, seemingly (or actually) with their own agenda.

Decision

Pending--Cailil ^talk 21:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Indefinite ban reinstated --Cailil ^talk 21:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

I’m willing to listen HighKing but I’m afraid this is not good. Also I will reiterate, I am not discussing content here. The examination of edits and sources is not me taking a content position but examining the source based context of your edits. I will not be debating sources. I will not be debating wording. The issue is your behavioural pattern which goes back to 2008. I will ask you 2 questions before making a decision here:

1. Of what benefit are edits like yours above to HMS Wilhemina & Yule Log to wikipedia?
2. If banned from editing in relation to the term British Isles what articles would you edit? How would it change your approach to editing generally?--Cailil ^talk 21:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• I realize this will take you time to digest HK but I will be acting on this as if it was 21:41 (UTC) on 12 June 2013. I'll also add that I'm being very patient here but I cannot wait forever. Also please note that the majority of edits here occured in the April-May-June period of 2013 and are thus recent.
  I have to pick you up on this remark as well: "I'm not sure how many editors would survive a detailed examination of edits going back 6 months". Let me draw an analogy - only ppl who speed on the roads are afraid of speed cameras. Everything we do on WP is of public record. If something we are doing does not accord with the rules it's there for everyone everywhere to see forever. The addition/removal of the term "British Isles" is under probation and you are well aware of how strictly that is enforced. If edits one makes violate the rules one will be taken to task about it, eventually if not immediately.
  Also I see your log here thank you for this but please focus your response on the questions I've asked you, I am well aware that there is trolling going on adding the term where it doesn't belong, and that you are making correct calls about removals too, but that's not the point of this--Cailil ^talk 16:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Cailil, I'm in the process of drafting the response and I wanted to focus on behaviour and not get into the content too much. I am hoping that the log will provide a means to demonstrate that my behavioral pattern shows an overall picture of "good edits" with sourced statements and finding references. But it's been a useful exercise to produce the log for me, because I can also see a small number of edits where I am open to an accusation of "cherry picking" and "lazy" attempts at sourcing.

As to my comment that not many people would survive a detailed examination going back 6 months - most of the time on Wikipedia, when there's some controversy, people communicate with each other, and a consensus is reached. The discussions serve as a form of check and balance. In my case, this has been absent for these edits, and means I have to rely on my own judgement for some of the edits. By and large, I believe my judgement is just fine, but I also acknowledge I have made mistakes.

I have only started the response today, and you can probably see from the amount of time taken so far that I have spending considerable time on this. The response will hopefully be much shorter. I'm taking this seriously, and not ignoring you. Apologies for not making this clear earlier. --HighKing (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Response

Timing is bad as I'm extremely busy in real life until beginning of next week. Probably best that I respond carefully in any case. --HighKing (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem take your time--Cailil ^talk 00:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

This is proving very difficult for me to reply to in a comprehensive manner, for a number of reasons. You say that you are not going to get into content - so I'll try to keep that to a minimum. You've bolded the pertinent points within the terms of WP:GS/BI - relating to clear sourcing and justification - which I agree completely with. You've also looked at months of edits and picked just 3 that you determine are violations, in that the edits were made without clear sourcing and justification.

1. Gravity anomalies of Britain and Ireland - the references used in the article refer to "Britain and Ireland" and the article title narrows the topic to "Britain and Ireland". The British Isles is not the same thing as "Britain and Ireland". You say that sources exist that talk about Gravity anomalies of the British Isles, but that isn't necessarily the same thing.
2. Pigeon Valley - genuinely, I couldn't find this reference. All it had in the article was "Hemson, C. (2010)" with no links and no title or anything, and it had been tagged since September 2010. I think it was perfectly reasonable and not in breach to delete this assertion.
3. Cnapan - again, genuinely, the sentence was (and is still) incorrect. I can now see that the intention for the sentence was to point out that Cnapan was one of many various football-type games from which codified football games originated. But the sentence stated "Cnapan was one of the traditional ball games played to celebrate Shrovetide and Eastertide in the British Isles". This is incorrect. The game was only played in Wales. I believe my edit was reasonable and not in breach. The chosen phrasing is confusing and does nothing to convey the intended meaning.

You also mention the following as Complex

1. Yule Log - While Hutton's book uses the phrase "British Isles" extensively, you agree that he doesn't use the phrase when dealing with a Yule Log. The reasons for my edit is that the book starts by covering the various names (in English) that are regionalized, from "Yule Clog" in the north east and Devon, to "Yule Block" in the west Midlands and West Country, etc. He then goes on to show that there are other names in difference languages, as little consistency. Unlike Hutton's book, the article itself isn't solely concerned with the British Isles, and mentions Germany as another example where different names are used. So we've two points to make - the first is that in the English language there are different names roughly corresponding to various regions, and the other point is that in different languages we get an even wider variety of names even when translated back into English.

You mention the following as borderline

1. HMS Wilhelmina (1798) - you say that the idea that Napoleon wanted to conquer the British Isles is wide-spread among sources. The statement in this article wasn't referenced. In this case, the main article on the topic is Napoleon's planned invasion of the United Kingdom where I can only assume that editors knowledgeable on the subject have collected the main references and sources and decided the correct naming. I changed the article for consistency, to agree with a main article title.
2. Independent conservative You say that this edit was not source based, but none of the sources listed use British Isles, or mention Ireland, and no sources appear to exist that links that term with either Ireland or the British Isles. The article itself explains that it is a term found on the ballot paper to denote a political "Conservative" not affiliated with a party. In Ireland, we don't even have the concept of a "Conservative" per se. I agree it's not about truth, but sourcing (and all the other policies) and in this case, it seems obvious that the "UK" was the intended meaning.
3. Custard tart The justification for this edit is the section heading, and was a correction on terminology. It says "Britain and Commonwealth", not "British Isles and the Commonwealth". The section in question also deals with "Britain" further down, not a wider scope. I agree that there's no sources to say that it is a "favorite pastry" in any place, but I made the change to keep the section consistent. The section only discussed Britain, not the British Isles, and the section heading was clear that it was about Britain and the Commonwealth.
4. Ricicles This change is not related to the British Isles but fixes terminology according to WP:IRE-IRL.
5. Trinity College, Dublin This change is also not directly related to British Isles, but instead was reverting an editor from substituting a redirect [[Britain and Ireland (region)]] (which redirects to British Isles) for the original "Britain" and "Ireland" links. I've reverted usage of that wikilink in other articles also. It can mislead readers into thinking that "Britain and Ireland" means the same thing as "British Isles".

You listed a number of other edits. You say two "walk the line", both relating to "Baronets". Again, these edits are in line with the other articles in this topic series.

You ask two specific questions, in the context of my "behavioural pattern". In order to answer, I've created a log of my British Isles related edits, so that the behavioural pattern is more obvious than just picking up on articles where you have questions. I believe that in general, the pattern shows that most of the time I do a good job in editing, and my general behaviour is civil and I abide by policies, am willing to discuss, etc. Most of my edits don't get any comment or feedback, and are not disruptive. The only disruption comes from my stalker who socks and kicks up a fuss. Many of the edits are small and gnomish in nature, and I try to keep the original context and original sources where possible.

In terms of HMS Wilhelmina (1798) and Yule Log specifically, I stand over both of those edits and believe both were made correctly and well within the bounds of WP:GS/BI. The benefit to the project, like most gnomish edits, is consistency and high quality and easily understood articles.

All that said, when producing the log, I did uncover some edits I'm not at all happy with. Muckle Flugga [34] was careless and it is obvious that I didn't search correctly and get a hit to support the fact that Muckle Flugga is sometimes referred to as the most northerly point in the British Isles. I can't explain and have no reasons as to why that happened. Also, I'm not happy with Language school [35] and while I think deleting the section is an improvement, it's exactly the type of edit I should steer clear of. Finally, the edits to Barnardia [36] and Fair Isle [37] are also the kind of edits I should steer clear of as they are extremely difficult to justify and are best left to other editors. --HighKing (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, well first off thank you for the response. However, I don't think we're in the territory of you steering clear of particular edits, we've tried that and failed 3 times. The problem is not that you get it wrong on occassion, it's that you think it appropriate to edit an article just to change instances of the use of a term. For example, the Cnapan issue is not about the edit alone. You changed a statement that you consider inaccurate, which in fact could have been sourced (again WP:WEIGHT was the solution here no deletion), but changed it into something that is actually inaccurate. Then this was all followed by edit-warring, thus breaching both clauses of the probation.
  In your defense of the Gravity_anomalies_of_Britain_and_Ireland edits you say that "British Isles is not the same thing as 'Britain and Ireland" but that's actually your contention. That's you taking a side in a real life debate, and in essence that's Civil POVpushing. The term "British Isles" is ambiguous HK, and it's not wikipedia's job to "correct" or interprete sources - espeiclaly when it favours one side of a real life debate.
  The problem with the Yule Log edits is that the removal is not source justified and was again followed by edit-warring. Furthermore the problem with the unsourced changes (i.e Custard tart etc) is that the material is ... unsourced. The probation mandates sanction for edits without clear sourcing. It doesn't matter how you justify this - you didn't add a source, you just policed terminology. Thus breaching the probation, multiple times.
  In answer to my first question you say that the benefit of these edits "is consistency and high quality and easily understood articles", but the response to that is that these edits are counter to WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:PRESERVE (the core principles of this site), and the probation. I note you did not answer the second question. I also note that you dont seem to understand how serious breaches of a probation actually are. You not being happy with edits in hindsight aint good enough.
  HK, you were already indefinitely topic banned but after a period of good editing you reverted to the old behaviour. I'm also left with no choice regarding the probation, Van Speijk, Bj Mullan, LevenBoy and TritonRocker were all topic banned for less than this. Thus in light of all of this, and under the terms of British Isles Probation I have to reimpose the indefinite topic ban. The formal wording of this ban are

  User:HighKing is topic banned from editing in relation to the term 'British Isles' broadly 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.

  Please follow the appeals procedure as outlined at WP:GS/BI if you wish to appeal this sanction. I will review this sanction myself in six months time (January 18th 2014). I'm sorry but this is the only option open to me in light of the pattern of edit-warring, especially at Cnapan here you introduced an inaccuracy and edit-warred to maintain it--Cailil ^talk 21:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Also HK I have asked another uninvolved sysop[38] to review this and I will take their comments on board. If they suggest being more lenient I will review the decision.--Cailil ^talk 21:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Cailil, I know this all takes more time than people think. A couple of things...

• You say above it's that you think it appropriate to edit an article just to change instances of the use of a term. not true. Only after clear sourcing and justification. You appear to be interpreting "sourcing" to mean "a source must be found". I always interpret it as "searching for sources" - because there may be no sources to find which is the case for the "Races and Factions of Warcraft" article which you acknowledge as a good edit.
• You say the Cnapan issue is not about the edit alone. I've explained that edit above, but you appear to have not considered my response. That's disappointing. Also the "edit-warring" you refer to is with the banned block-evading sock abusing editor, which I've always been under the impression that these edits can be reverted with impunity.
• For "Gravity Anomilies", you say that it is *my* contention that "British Isles is not the same thing as Britain and Ireland". Actually, no, that is the COMMON interpretation of editors here on Wikipedia. Nobody (except you it seems) objects to that edit, or other edits of a similar nature. On what basis are you saying that they are the same thing?
• Also with "Yule Log" the edit warring was my sock stalker. So now it seems that you're counting reverting this banned and blocked sock-evading editor as edit warring? And you've also give exactly zero weight to my response above. I've provided clear sourcing and justification for both Yule Log and Custard Tart. As a test, if those edits had been made by an anonymous editor (or any other editor for that matter), nobody would have reverted or even commented. But I can't make those edits? If that's the case, the WP:GS/BI is broken. Actually Ed Johnston's comment was most insightful. He says "The spirit of the GS/BI sanction is to discourage a long term pattern of edits focused on occurrence of the phrase 'British Isles'". So the intention is to simply block an editor who works in this area, regardless of the merits of each individual edit. I've been accused of Wiki Lawyering in the past, but it seems to me that your justification to block me is also wiki-lawyering and is simply not clear to me. Each individual edit may be correct, sourced and justifiable, but the "pattern" is punishable with a block. That's borked.

From my log, you can see I made 80+ edits on British Isles related articles in the past 6 months. You've questioned a small handful. It's clear too, that Ed Johnson hasn't really looked in detail - and I don't blame him because what's the motivation? Far easier to agree with someone else's interpretation rather than wading through this issue, and it's a long and tiresome one. You've not given any attention or weight to the fact that none of these edits were objected to by any editor. There was no disruption on the project. Sure, mistakes will be made. Everyone makes mistakes. That's why it is unfair to comb back over 6 months of editing history and pick out "mistakes" and use that as a reason to block an editor, especially when it is clear that the general patter of editing in this area is within the bounds of WP:GS/BI. --HighKing (talk) 11:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sorry it's come to this based on my query, but I have to call it like I see it. You do a tremendous amount of fine work outside this highly contested area, and I sincerely hope that it continues. Doc talk 05:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Now that I've seen Cailil's response, I'd be interested in your take on my edits also. --HighKing (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

No HK it's not unfair to check if an editor who was previously banned for violating a probation returned to the same behaviour. It's logical. And again its not about incidental mistakes - it's about the pattern and its one going back to 2008. The probation is there to protect this site from editwarring - the Cnapan example is very clear you reverted multiple times to maintain an inaccuracy you introduced. You're using the revert function on multiple articles to police terminology not to build content. You could have after 1 revert (regardles of your suspicions of who that IP is) have openned a talk page thread and got consensus for your edit. Instead you just kept reverting. You need to start listening HK. And moreover you need to try to understand this from a macro POV; look at what happens to users in other naming disputes. Look at what happened that GoodDay when his gnoming went into "fait a compli" territory.
Have a read over the terms of the ban. You can still note on talk pages where you see a problem with the use of the term. Furthermore you don't need to avoid articles that contain the phrase British Isles. Just leave the phrase alone if its in that article. Overall I would suggest editing other topics completely. Taking a stub to a full article for example, or helping take something from B class to a Good Article. Gnoming is great but concentrating on one article and doing indepth reading to find the best sources is more helpful. I'm sure there are hundreds of topics you've research that could be improved in this way. I understand that this hurts, but try to stand back from that and see why we have to do this--Cailil ^talk 12:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

After the last conversation with the last topic ban, I believed I understood what was considered a bad edit. Now I genuinely don't any more - specifically in relation to the Cnapan article. You keep saying that I introduced an inaccuracy. I really fail to see that in the context of that paragraph, *without* the context provided afterwards by the original editor. I kept within the WP:GS/BI parameters. In hindsight and only with the context provided afterwards, sure I can see what was meant, but even so the sentence could be clearer, and could state it was "one of many" ball games, to properly connect it with the following sentence. My one was a fair and reasonable interpretation, and I stand by that. The sentence was clearly sourced and justified.

The point about "edit warring" doesn't make sense at all, since the editor was the stalker sock. I reverted *twice*, then reported the sock who was immediately blocked. Sure, twice is once more than you recommend, but it's hardly edit warring, and if you check my history, I normally revert either once or twice and then report the IP address. It was obvious from the comments and from the history of that IP address range. You say I should have opened a Talk page and tried to Talk with that banned user. Really? That's been tried in the past, and it's futile.

It's the Cnapan article especially that I don't get. You are simply not giving any weight, at all, to the interpretation I have described, which is a reasonable interpretation if you don't have the subsequent context from the editor. --HighKing (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Look HK 3RR's exemption on socks is not a licence to revert, it's leeway. That's a clear distinction until there are numerous sites of reverting, at that point it just gets disruptive. Reverting is a serious issue, it junks the article history & floods the recent changes log. Furthermore in these cases the reverts are about another topic entirely - a real life dispute about geopolitics. Also when I say take it to the talk page, I'm not advocating discussing the issue with the stalker, but rather the rest of wikipedia community.
On a point you made to Ed; Yes editing multiple articles that incidentally contian a phrase only to remove it becuse of a real world debate/sensitivity is inherently unconstructive. GoodDay was doing something extremely similar with diacritics. Numerous other editors banned in nationalist disputes have done it too and as Ed notes they have had far harsher sanctions imposed.
In terms of the bigger picture you cannot have this both ways HK, you cannot advocate for (and be right) sanction of LevenBoy for a single instance of breach[39] and not understand why you're being sanctioned here. In your own words

Those sanctions don't rule on content - it's about policy and behaviour.

Re: Cnapan, the reason I'm not giving any weight to your interpretation is becuase it is not in the source and I'm not going to debate content. The probation mandates sanction where there is not clear sourcing. Furthermore there is a sourced reason to keep the phrase anyway. Thus it seems you are making decisions on how to remove (a term) rather than how to improve (articles from a wholistic perspective). All of this is of no benefit to wikipedia.
You can go round the houses here HK but this is very clear a) this practice is counter-productive, b) you broke the probation c) we were here before. Your ban is TINY. It will not impinge on productive editing. It doesn't ban you from Ireland or Britain or British Isles articles. But if this kind of editting is all you want to do here then we have a bigger problem and the solution there is not pretty - you can see what's happen to GoodDay and you can see how--Cailil ^talk 17:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your detailed response and the time you've taken to keep on top of this issue. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 12:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)