User talk:HighKing/Archives/2011/August

Myrmica ruginodis

HighKing, you are engaged in a slow edit war with User:Stemonitis[1]. Please stop. You know that the unsourced alteration/insertion/removal of the term British Isles is under probation. User:Stemonitis has also been warned for edit-warring.--Cailil ^talk 21:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I've written to you at length about making sure alterations/removals/insertions were sourced. The anthillwood.co.uk uses the term 'British Isles' with regard to Myrmica ruginodis, and although I don't think the site is of the best reliability you did not provide a different source. However, contrary to both your and Stemonitis' edits the source does not state that "[they are] the only species of ant to have been recorded from all 152 of the Watsonian vice-counties" just that "[they are] found well dispersed throughout the British Isles".
This has to be an official warning under the terms of the probation, and I am bound to state that further breaches of the probation may result in sanctions. Please try to build consensus and source changes rather than slowly revert waring--Cailil ^talk 21:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Cailil. The source states This small red ant is found well dispersed throughout the British Isles. ..... Myrmica ruginodis is the only species to have reached the Isle of Shetland to the north of Scotland; and so far, it is the only ant found in all 152 vice- counties in Britain. You may be right about this website not being a reliable source, but last edit tried to accurately reflect this data, while catering for the "campaign" comment in the edit summary. I understand what your concerns are, but I believed my last edits should have been acceptable or a discussion started at the Talk page as per BRD. --HighKing (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

And. The Channel Islands is sometimes referred to with a designation of 'C', and sometimes counted as the vice-county 113, both of which are "unofficial" - but either was would count as an extra, and make a total of 153 "vice-counties". So when this source says 152, it is not talking about the "British Isles", but only GB&I (Isle of Man) included as part of GB. --HighKing (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

HK don't interprete/correct sources that's original research. The source says British Isles. Another source was found that also says British Isles--Cailil ^talk 12:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Cailil, a couple of points.

• You state The source says British Isles. Another source was found that also says British Isles - eh, actually no. Or perhaps you can clarify what you mean by "the source says British Isles". Cos I bet the source doesn't say "the 152 vice-counties of the British Isles" which is the *wrong* part of the sentence.
• You state that I removed "British Isles" without sourcing, and issued an official warning under the terms of the sanctions. Can you please revise this as I've shown that your original assumption wasn't accurate, and that the text I used was supported by the reference.
• A number of times, you've pointed out that a reference uses or doesn't use "British Isles". What you should ask, does the reference use the term "British Isles" in the context of the fact or assertion being made. That's a different question and one more pertinent.
• Which is not relevant in this case. I in fact changed is the only species of ant to have been recorded from all 152 of the Watsonian vice-counties into which the British Isles are divided to is abundant throughout the British Isles and is the only species of ant to have been recorded from all 152 of the Watsonian vice-counties into which Great Britain and Ireland are divided which is closer to what the source actually states.
• You state that I am interpreting/correcting sources - and that makes it original research. If anything, the opposite is true, and using "British Isles" is original research. The reference within the article states "it is the only ant found in all 152 vice- counties in Britain. There are 112 vice-counties in Great Britain. There are 40 vice-counties in Ireland. The Isle of Man is classified (and has always been so) as a vice-county of Great Britain (number 71). Sure, I could have left the reference to state Britain, but it is not WP:OR to change Britain to Great Britain and Ireland since the data points to this fact.
• The Channel Islands are *not* part of the Watsonian vice-counties. So saying that the British Isles is divided up into Watsonian vice-counties is wrong, and nowhere will you find a source that says otherwise. That's not to say that some websites may count the Channel Islands as the 113th vice-county (such as the BSBI), or give it the letter 'C', but that's their own interpretation and is not a Watsonian vice-county.
• User:Stemonitis has now started to incorrectly alter] articles, using WP:OR. I'll revert as per WP:BRD and make my case at the article Talk page including discussion of the reference he is relying on.
• I will make the case at the discussion page of Myrmica ruginodis too, but my understanding of WP:BRD is that the person reinserting removed material should start the discussion, and I would expect an admin like Stemonitis to be aware of this. --HighKing (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No HK the warning stands. It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong about an edit - editwarring is prohibitted. And you are well aware of the topic probation. Furthermore, I see nothing wrong with Stemonitis' edits either to the Watsonian article (if the sources state that "the British Isles" are so divided that's what wikipedia says) or to the Myrmica ruginodis (again the source anthill.co.uk very clearly uses the term British Isles in its first sentence - "This small red ant is found well dispersed throughout the British Isles" - and the new source, which looks to be of a high quality, seems to clear also).
Enter into dialogue seeking consensus with Stemonitis as further reversions are not of benefit to the project and will be in breach of the topic probation.
With regard to WP:BRD, there is no formal sequence to who should start the discussion in a BRD cycle but there is no exemption from it. Whether you're being bold, or reverting, if the other guy doesn't start talking you should--Cailil ^talk 17:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You state that the BRD cycle does not have a formal sequence to who should start the discussion. Well, it seemed unequivocally clear to me. It states: 1. BE BOLD, and make what you currently believe to be the optimal change. (Stemonitis) 2. Wait until someone reverts your edit. (me) You have now discovered a Most Interested Person. 3. Discuss the changes you would like to make with this Most Interested Person, perhaps using other forms of Wikipedia dispute resolution as needed, and reach a compromise.

You say - if the sources state that "the British Isles" are so divided that's what wikipedia says - well that's the crux of the matter. I was correcting the statement specifically relating to the 152 vice-counties because saying that there are 152 vice-counties in the British Isles is wrong, and not supported by any reference. Also, the statement "This small red ant is found well dispersed throughout the British Isles" was added by me, not Stemonitis (perhaps you missed that). The warning relating to edit-warring over the inclusion/removal of the term British Isles seems unfair in the extreme, especially in the light of how I added the term to include the "well dispersed" comment while correcting the 152 vice-counties inaccuracy. --HighKing (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Stemonitis

Stemonitis, lets get the facts straight for all to see.

• You're inserting content into articles that is not supported by references, and subsequently justifying your interpretation with reasoning such as (for example, Carex hirta) That is what we have to report, albeit fixing the stylistic errors (anthropomorphism, omission of areas clearly intended, etc.). and Within the British Isles (the context of the clause), the far north equates to the Northwest Highlands and the Northern Isles, where records are indeed very scarce. This is explicitly not OK as per WP:V and explained in WP:OR.
• You accuse me of campaigning to remove "British Isles", and of being a POV pusher. Yet at Carex hirta and Myrmica ruginodis, I suggested the insertion of the term to keep the article correct and in line with the sources. You, on the other hand, flatly refuse to accept any suggestions or corrections, and ride rough-shod over every article as if you WP:OWN it.
• Even when you're wrong, you try to claim you are right but with no sources or references, just opinion. Trying to state that there are only 111 vice-counties in Great Britain, even though WP:COMMON usage uses the term to count 112 vice-counties and includes the "Isle of Man".
• Or failing that, launching ad hominen attacks to conflate the issue with nationalistic comments such as Your attempts represent the truth and the sentiments in the sources considerably worse than the existing text, and are transparently part of an campaign to reduce usage of the term "British Isles" for, presumably, ideological reasons which are blatently in breach of WP:CIVIL.
• And immediately after being warned by Cailil for making unsourced edits, you make a series of WP:POINTy edits to change the Watsonian vice-counties article to suit your point of view. All without references and sources that *actually* back up your changes. Changing the text of the map to read "Vice-counties of Great Britain and the Isle of Man" is practically a Googlewhack.
• Continually calling me a vandal and calling for a topic ban is a smokescreen for your unsourced edits, your confrontational comments, nationalistic edit summaries and ad hominen attacks. Can I suggest you focus on the content, not on the editor. I'm not nationalistic in the slightest. I'm pedantic - that much I can admit. --HighKing (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit war

In the interests of avoiding another pointless edit war, I suggest you see my latest reversion of your edits to Dosima as the 'R' in WP:BRD. You made an edit, and it was reverted. It is now your responsibility to seek consensus before making such an edit again. Failure to do so, particularly combined with your recent editing history, is likely to be frowned upon. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Seek consensus with you? I'll try :-) But I'm still remembering our encounter at Talk:Myrmica ruginodis and I don't believe it's possible. It won't matter what I suggest, you'll knock it down. I mean, even now at Dosima, you're reverting perfectly innocent and referenced text solely on the basis that it was added by me, and for no other reason. But for the sake of AGF, let's give it a try anyway. See how we get on. --HighKing (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, your "particularly combined with your recent editing history" comment is not appreciated. Can you point to specific diffs where my behaviour was out of line (and where I can't point to the exact same behavior by you)? Double standards at work there I suspect... It's also interesting/amusing that you now quote BRD, but if I recall, you spectacularly failed to "seek consensus" or open anything at the Talk page on the other occasions when we bumped into each other, and failed to treat my edits as the "R" in BRD. I've (once again) opened the Talk page - I understand your tactic of not wanting to since you'd prefer your text to remain in the article while we go through the charade of "seeking consensus". You were wrong at "Watsonian vice-counties" and you were wrong at "Myrmica ruginodis", just as you'll be wrong at "Dosima". Once again though, I'll set the example and begin the Talk. --HighKing (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Systematic replacement of term British Isles

Hello, HighKing. I was asked to look into concerns regarding the British Isle sanctions with regards to your edits on August 1st, but due to my work schedule had not been able to give it sufficient time before today.

As an uninvolved administrator, it looks to me as though there are some problems with your approach, including in a series of edits by you on August 8th (one example: [2]) wherein you replaced the term British Isles in multiple articles without the "clear sourcing" mandated by Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log. As you are an experienced editor, I assume you know that the title of a book is not "clear sourcing" sufficient to verify controversial information. While these articles need citations already, this is beside the point that you are the one who was systematically removing the term "British Isles" from multiple articles; under the Arbitration Committee's findings, the burden is on you.

I have no opinion myself on the appropriate terminology here, and I recognize that your changes may very well reflect the source accurately (albeit without proper citation), but the problem here is the disruptive impact of the behavior. It is provocative to say the least to those on the other side of this dispute if contributors do not scrupulously follow these general sanctions. The greater good of Wikipedia requires that these general sanctions be evenly enforced.

I am not imposing specific sanctions on you, but at my talk page have noted my agreement with the specific sanctions imposed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Moonriddengirl, no doubt you are aware that my edits are under a rather unusual amount of scrutiny. I've no complaints with that - I understand fully that my edits regarding "British Isles" are seen by some as being nationalistic, disruptive and uncool, and this is not true, but with the level of disruption generated by numerous socks reverting my edits, I understand that I must tread carefully.

Also, I personally don't submit to "British Isles" being a "controversial" term. In fact, I support using the term in articles such as River Shannon (and stated so on the Talk page) and disagree with trying to avoid perfectly normal and acceptable geographic terms because of nationalistic or political sensitivities, especially when usage is referenced.

Regarding your specific highlighting of my edits regarding Agabus striolatus and the other similar edits, there is already clear sourcing referenced within the article. The "Fauna Europaea" source is already referenced in the article for this particular species, and can be found here. If you examine that webpage, scroll down a little, and click on "Display in table", you can see the list of areas that had already been listed in the article. I have not been able to reference the page containing the table directly. You will also notice that the list was incorrectly transcribed, and that "Britain I" was transcribed as "British Isles" in those series of articles. I corrected the article to correctly assign "Britain I" to the description contained within "Fauna Europaea". It is not possible to link directly to the distribution table, otherwise I would have done so.

Please re-examine your evaluation of these edits in light of the information above. I believe my editing was fully sourced and in line with policy. I only wish that editors would take care when transcribing sources to use the terms as referenced within the sources. --HighKing (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Topic-ban

HighKing, I’m afraid your edits to which Moonriddengirl was referring on August 8th[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] were not attributed appropriately. No reference was added to the article, the pages do link to the Flora/Fauna websites as an external link but no appropraite reference was added. The problem with this type of edit has been explained to you numerous times, and just in the last 8 weeks.
These edits are, as Moonriddengirl pointed out, in violation of the terms of the topic probation. Furthermore your dispute with Stemonitis from the Myrmica ruginodis article spilled-over to the Vice-counties article and has since expanded to Dosima. This kind of 'spill-over' is precisely what the topic probation is supposed to prevent.
Given that you have not heeded the warnings that were given and given that you have edit-warred in violation of the probation within the last 2 weeks[12], and that further edits in contravention of the probation occurred less than a week ago (August 8th), it is clear that there is a problem here.
On top of that, this edit on August 11th is most problematic. The site your edit referenced, uk butterflies, describes itself as being about butterflies 'in the British Isles' and states clearly, on the page that your edit referenced, that: the "subspecies [britannicus] is indigenous to the British Isles." Rather than including that information and retaining the other source your edit[13] presents an interpretation of the the ukbutterflies.co.uk page, breaching the 'original research' policy; that edit also removes another source in order to present a different POV - breaching the neutral point of view policy.
For the above set of reasons in order to prevent further actions that violate the topic probation, 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. The formal wording of the ban is as follows:

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.

The ban code for this on WP:GS/BI relates to the community imposed sanction 'TB02'. Please follow the appeals procedure as outlined at WP:GS/BI if you wish to appeal this sanction. I will review this sanction myself after six months have elapsed--Cailil ^talk 17:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

If this matter had been restricted to the edit-war at vice-counties and Myrmica ruginodis I would have imposed a 0RR (zero revert restriction) on this account with regard to British Isles topics, widely construed. However, as further edits in contravention of the probation were made that could not be prevented with such a restriction another form of sanction was deemed necessary to prevent disruption of the wikipedia project--Cailil ^talk 17:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)