Jump to content

User talk:HighKing/Archives/2010/April

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Constant fighting

My apologies too, I was convinced the IP was you. Now, there's a new problem, IPs looking to get established editors into trouble. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't think I hadn't noticed your speedy condemnation! --HighKing (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
It's the constant fighting over a tiny phrase (British Isles), that's made me cynical & suspicious. Along with the 'fact', I'm not perfect (difficult for me to say). GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Constant fighting? After months of squabbling over multiple articles, we decided to try discussions in a single place before editing. We had a 1RR in place, and admins were keeping an eye. Some sort of peace broke out. But to the horror of some editors, article after article was shown to be using "British Isles" incorrectly or needlessly. Articles started getting changed. I've put up with a constant barrage of abuse, and sometimes it seems to me like the admins are siding with the disruptive SPAs - as Matt so eloquently puts it above, these editors have no reputations to uphold, so act as disruptively as they believe they can get away with. The only beneficiaries to preventing the articles from being discussed are trying everything they can. Excuse me for being a bit snippy, but next time you make allegations of "constant fighting", can you take a look at who exactly is stirring it up. And take note of the very very restrained behaviour from the rest of us. --HighKing (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I still say ya'll (both sides) are obsessed with that tiny phrase (British Isles). GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Except, and this is the important disctinction that you appear to be failing to see. One set of editors is abusive, aggressive, and are not interested in having any discussions. And because I have the cheek to want to fix articles and develop guidelines for usage, all of a sudden I'm the bad guy? By trying to reduce this discussion to what you see as a common denominator of "obsessed" is disingenuous and unfair. Stop before you dig any deeper. But I'd appreciate if you'd nudge Ryan to fix the block cos it's still set for tomorrow. --HighKing (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The nudge has been applied. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC) --HighKing (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've no idea why you were blocked, but I find the idea of you socking to be preposterous. Good luck. Mooretwin (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mooretwin. --HighKing (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry to see there was all this confusion over you and that the block took so long to fix. But I have to tell you HK, GoodDay is correct. And I understand the distinction between British Isles/Britain and Ireland/Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland/"these islands"/British and Irish/etc etc. But what you are failing to understand is how big a problem the interaction between "both sides" in this "british isles" dispute is for the project. People outside the content dispute and discussion area find what "both sides" are doing and saying to be inappropriate. You need to reflect upon this - nobody is innocent here. And by the way I told you before it is not the case that I don't "have the stomach" to police the BI SE page - I explained very clearly what my position is.
    I'm also asking you (again) to disengage from Mister Flash the air between you is toxic and I suggest you take a few days away from the area of dispute as per WP:DR--Cailil talk 00:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Cailil, I appreciate you taking the time to help me (and I don't mean that you're taking my side). The comment about not having the stomach to police the BI SE page actually specifically wasn't directed at you, but at a number of admins that have come and gone from the BI SE page, and especially those admins that place WP:CIVIL on a much much lower rung of the policy ladder than other policies, even though it is actually a core policy.
Regarding your comments above, I don't believe I'm getting a fair crack of the whip. For months and months I have brought articles to the SE page for discussion. It's a voluntary page. We discuss (probably no more than 3 to 6 editors) and sometimes this results in a decision to change the article. But then when we perform the edit, editors like MBM (MidnightBlueMan) and MF (Mister Flash) revert, claiming no consensus, or not enough discussion, etc, and mostly without references or rhyme or reason or discussion. I've tried waiting to see if discussion opens. Nope. I've tried reverting and asking that they discuss. Nope. And all throughout, the personal comments are being dropped in.
The simplistic approach of painting everybody black is too simplistic. It fails to acknowledge that I have, for the most part, kept to the SE page and tried to reach agreement through discussion and collaboration. It fails to acknowledge that both MBM and MF disagree and revert and stonewall without trying to engage, and regularly accuse editors of having a political agenda or being anti-British.
I know that you're taking a greater interest in this area, and all I ask is that you fairly examine what is going on and that you don't forget to look at timelines including the SE page. Most of the times I reverted MF or MBM was only after they had reverted while discussion was going on, or after a discussion had been held at the SE page. It's obvious that they wikistalk my edits, but what is often lost with a simplistic overview is the fact that they don't try to collaborate or provide discussion about the content. While it might be easy to pick one or two articles to paint a particular picture, I believe that there are a lot of articles on the SE page that should be taken into account - not neccessarily when there's been some disruption or lots of reverts (which, ironically, is the prime raison d'etre for the SE page).
I may not be the best writer in the world, and I know I can come across as being short and sharp on the Talk pages, but its wrong to classify my behaviour along with MF or MBM (and others).
So, after 2 years of being patient, this last week I've been pushed and goaded into a reaction. So I am taking a step back for a few days and I'll wait to see how things transpire. Jackyd101 has proposed some guidelines/observations which I want to think about and respond to. I'm also interested to see what happens regarding a 3RR breach report I filed on Mister Flash (about 2 days ago now). --HighKing (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
And I've put forward some propsals at JackD's page. Mister Flash (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Bears bearing bugs

Hello, HighKing. You have new messages at Rannpháirtí anaithnid's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

x2. --RA (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked by Black Kite

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 24 hours, for persistent revert-warring on same issue after previous blocks for same reason. Examples: this, this and this.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

HighKing/Archives/2010 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This isn't fair or right. Why have I been blocked for "disruptive editing"? I have not been editing in a disruptive manner and I have tried and bent over backwards to adhere to policy. Black Kite states that I have been blocked twice for the same thing in the past. This is incorrect - I was blocked once previously (and arguably, was provoked, but hey, I accept I shouldn't have gotten dragged into it). And now I get a block for 3 days?!?! That is completely over the top! Black Kite quotes 3 articles as an example of disruptive editing. * Weisse Frauen - I reverted twice! Twice???? Over a 24 hour period! * The Manor House Bishop Bridge - I reverted once!!! Just one single revert! * Settlement of Iceland - I reverted twice! Twice over 3 days!!! Can someone explain to me exactly how this is disruptive editing? This is a ridiculous over-the-top decision by an admin who didn't have the stomach to be involved when he was asked previously (and retired!) and comes back to impose a hasty block and singles *my* behaviour out as disruptive without a shred of thinking gone into it. This has gone on far enough. And this completely ignores the fact that those edits I carried out were done *after* discussion here. As soon as I realized that MBM was just going to revert, without trying to give any reasons, I opened an ANI case. For me, this is clearly a case of trying to ignore the fact that we *do* have disruptive editing behaviour, but it is ignored. Why does it take an ANI case before MBM's behaviour is examined? Why is it that my behaviour, in trying to adhere to policies, engage in discussions, is then regarded as a breach? I tried to bring MBM's behaviour to the attention of Ryan Postlewaite here over a number of days, but Ryan was away. Where exactly in all this has my behaviour been disruptive and deserving of a 3 day block? Do the work, follow the discussions. --HighKing (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Clear violation of WP:EDITWAR. The number of reverts per article nor the timeframe over which the reverts occured is irrelevent. The use of reverting in the manner you have been using it is inappropriate. The merits of your arguement over the content you wish to see in the article is irrelevent here. You may or may not be ultimately correct, but your behavior in getting your point accross is inappropriate. Jayron32 04:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Yes, but it is repeated disruption at multiple articles regarding the exact same issue. Off2riorob (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish. And it just shows how sometimes, failing to follow what's going on leads to bad decisions. Are you trying to say that there's some new policies now, and that if a single editor reverts more than 5 times over 3 articles in a period of less than 3 days, it's disruption? What'll we call this then? WP:IDONTLIKEPEOPLEMESSINGWITHBRITISHISLESESPECIALLYIFTHEYRETRYINGTOREMOVEIT? --HighKing (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Its not rubbish. If, as you are, you go from one article to another altering the same edit causing exactly the same disruption as you go, then it matters not that it is only two at one article and two at another. When your block is over you will simply continue with the same issue. Have you considered a topic ban? Off2riorob (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but with respect, it is rubbish and you're wrong. I don't go from one article to another altering the same edit. The SE page was set up to centralize discussions and work towards developing MOS guidelines, and let all participants see the pattern of what is good and what is not. Please answer the question as to why 5 reverts over 3 days over 3 articles is worthy of a block. --HighKing (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  • One could argue that it's actually three previous blocks. However, I did make an error; I duplicated RyanPostlethwaite's previous blocks, but misread HighKing's as 72 hours (it was actually 24). Therefore, I've reduced this one to 24h as well - only fair since I duplicated the other editor's block as well. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Kindly explain how my editing on this occasion was disruptive, or how any facet of my behaviour was? I have never received any warnings against my behaviour or against policy. Kindly explain wow is it that 5 reverts over 3 articles over 3 days qualifies for a block exactly? What really is of concern to me is that Black Kite is aware of the British Isles problems, at least in the past just before he retired. So he knows that MBM just reverts, and he knows that on the SE page we discuss before edits are made. Yet in that case, MBM reverted over 10 articles, then came to the SE page where 3 different editors voiced opinions that the edits were fine. I reverted the most obvious articles, but MBM just reverted without discussion. I reverted *once* more on two articles and pointed to the SE page. That is not disruption under any definition on my part. But it very much is on MBM's part. Kindly stop assuming that everybody involved in the "British Isles" task force is disruptive, because if you took the time and paid a little attention, it is very much a one-sided disruption, and not coming from me. I've waited 5 hours for a review, can someone kindly review this? It is an unfair and unjust block with absolutely no justification. --HighKing (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  • To be honest your reference to another editor as an admin who didn't have the stomach to be involved when he was asked previously (and retired!) is uncivil and just plain rude, you should think yourself lucky to have got a reduction. Off2riorob (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Wrong again. Not my words, but his own - see here. In actual fact, I was a big fan of Black Kite's no nonsense style and get-on-with-it attitude, and I was actually extremely and bitterly disappointed that he disappeared because it has been absolute mayhem for most of the time since. That said, I genuinely believe he's got this one wrong. --HighKing (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
The only thing he's got wrong is reducing your block from a reasonable 72 hr to just 24 hrs (you might as well just ride it out). Are you not partly responsible for the "absolute mayhem"? Mister Flash (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Just to point out, Mister Flash has been repeatedly asked to *not* comment on this Talk page, and this comment is inappropriate and designed to gloat and goad. --HighKing (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please review this block? I've been waiting for 7 hours already. This is very unfair. --HighKing (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I just came by for the cheese, but I noticed the unblock request and had a look. The thing is... the interminable arguing about the names of places on Wikipedia articles, it is an ongoing problem at Wikipedia. Everyone involved is always passionately certain that they are right, and no one else can ever figure out who's right. I think I must have personally blocked at least thirty people over it, read more of their reasons than I can count, and I still don't really understand why everyone is so angry. The only thing that ever seems to work is for people on both sides to hash out a solid compromise that everyone can live with, put it somewhere easy-to-refer-to (like the guideline to naming conventions) and then stick to it with the new users who arrive to 'fix' the names again. If there's an existing compromise with firm consensus, you should go with it. If there isn't, you should work on creating one, and not worry about fixing the names until the best wording has been decided on. Otherwise, all you get is years and years of angry edit-reverting, that raises everyone's blood pressure and doesn't make the encyclopedia any better. I'm not choosing to unblock you, but I will leave your request open so that someone else can review it if they like, and leave you this note so you know I looked into it. In general, if you've had an unblock request open for hours, it doesn't mean no one has looked at it- it means that a lot of people have looked at it, but they've decided that, while they aren't willing to reject you entirely, they don't see enough merit to your argument to override another admin's block- that's something that we admins take very seriously, and we only do it when we're absolutely sure we're right and they're wrong. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks FisherQueen. The problem with this particular topic is that the majority of participants have volunteered to work on MOS guidelines at the Task Force, and we're past the initial years-of-grief. The Specific Examples page is used to discuss edits. But there are one or two editors, such as Mister Flash and MidnightBlueMan that cause problems by reverting articles regardless of the discussion. I appreciate that the block request may have been open for hours and looked at by loads of admins (and I'm aware that another admin has recently gone through the usual "Block justified" rigamorol without actually answering the question I asked) but it is *very* annoying that I received this block for *not* reacting to MBM's reverts. I mean, come on! 5 reverts over 3 days on 3 articles??? That's bullshit. Leaving aside the history of this BI thing (if it's too much for an uninvolved admin to take in) and just based on normal interpretation of policies and guidelines, this is a horribly bad block. It's the worst block I've personally come across. --HighKing (talk) 09:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

{{unblock|This is a very horribly bad block. Using WP:EDITWAR as a reason would require an entirely new interpretation of policy unless 5 reverts over 3 days on 3 separate articles counts as edit warring. This block is bad. It fails to take into account (as per the WP:EDITWAR article) my attempts to discuss the changes at the SE page, along with two other editors who agreed that MBM's initial reverts were wrong. It fails to take into account my attempt to involve an admin (Ryan Postlethwaite) who had an understanding of the situation and asked him to intervene as he warned on MBM's Talk page he would be blocked again if he repeated the behaviour of reverting without discussions or references, etc. This is a bad block. I have not edit warred by any stretch of the definition.}}

List of Irish cheeses

I just dropped by because I patrolled this article while going through the list of unpatrolled pages, and wanted to tell you that I liked it. Probably needs some sources on the unlinked cheeses, but a great idea for a list in my opinion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be filling out the articles over time. Hardest part will be having to buy the cheeses to photograph them :-) --HighKing (talk) 09:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that will be an ordeal. Since I'm an American, and so never leave my home and get all of my ideas about the world from television, I'm choosing to picture you sitting under a spreading tree, among rolling green hills, reading poetry and eating leftover cheese. Nearby, a stunningly beautiful green-eyed, redheaded woman is playing a harp and singing a song about fairies. That's exactly what your life is like, right? I mean, except for the cheese, which you haven't bought yet. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
LOL! Yes, exactly right! And also picture the wee folk dressed in green with red hats sporting a white feather, dancing jigs and reels to the sounds of much merriment. And beer! Beer that tastes of golden fields of barley waving in the autumn breeze. But then the volcano erupts, and one of the wee folk recruits me to travel with him to drop a weird ring into it's depths...
Amusingly, I am, after breakfast, going to drive into the heart of a squalid and dangerous urban neighborhood, where poorly dressed young thugs will glare at me and homeless people will ask me for money, to spend the day among surly teenagers who may curse at me, start a fight, or burst into gangsta rap. And afterward, I will almost certainly have supper at McDonald's. So I am living the American dream. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, be careful. We're such admirers of Gangsta rap in this part of the world. Although Crystal Swing are finally getting the recognition they deserve :-) - be sure to check out their YouTube video. Inspirational, eh? --HighKing (talk) 11:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, Crystal Swing - just the latest in a fine tradition... Jedward, Daniel O'Donnell, Dana... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes. It's a great tradition really, we should actually create a new list article! Big Tom and The Mainliners, Dustin the Turkey's Eurovision entry, the unforgettable Irelande Douze Pointe, Do you Want your Old Lobby Washed Down (con shine), Wanderly Wagon, Bosco .... this could be a really big list :-) Only thing - what would we call the list??? --HighKing (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
List of really shite music of the British Isles, obviously. Then it could be pointed out that there were no entries from Britain on the list, and we'd have to WP:RM it to "...of Ireland" :p BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Made me LOL :-) --HighKing (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I only dropped by to remove the expired unblock request, but I was foolish enough to go ahead and click that YouTube link. Let me make sure I understand, a middle class Irish family has elected to seek their fortune with a (terrible) impersonation of American rednecks? ouch. They should at least ditch the clothes and gets some jeans and cowboy hats, maybe a mechanical bull... Beeblebrox (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
That's how it starts ... first they're awful, but in a fascinating kinda way. Next you'll be checking up YouTube for their appearance on the Ellen DeGeneres show... :-) You'll be in awe at the performance of the "Hucklebuck" (which probably should have an article...). It's a slippery slope from there...meet you at the bottom! --HighKing (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HighKing/Archives/2010/April&oldid=1140528322"