Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log

HighKing

Why has Highking not been put on a list of editors banned from adding or removing British Isles. As the vote on the admin noticeboard clearly supported? Why are uninvolved editors currently going to be treated in exactly the same was as High King?BritishWatcher (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Because that was the way that the uninvolved administrator closed it. As such, it is still a useful sanction because HK and other editors will know that they cannot continue to mass-edit British Isles in or out of articles because they will be topic-banned. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If Highking makes a single alteration to an article removing British Isles will it be considered a violation of the sanctions currently imposed? Or will he have to make edits to multiple articles b4 it is considered a violation? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

"Without clear sourcing or justification"

"Without clear sourcing or justification" is the wording (referring to multiple articles). Not sure how anyone can rule on what is justified and what isn't. I presume that will be decided on by an uninvolved admin. Jack 1314 (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I currently take the view that if there was a consensus on each articles' talk page, or at WT:BISE, then adding or removing would be OK. But being a newbie I'd follow Black Kite's lead, and Ncmvocalist's advice, so don't be surprised if what I say right now isn't what I do in the future ;-)

The other scenario ("...or who edit-wars over such addition or removal...") is much more clear-cut, to my mind. WP:BOLD is OK. WP:REVERT is OK. Anything beyond that is edit warring. This scenario, as I understand it, applies to one or more articles, but Black Kite or Ncmvocalist may wish to set me straight on that if I've misunderstood.

TFOWR 15:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say that if an addition or removal of BI is so obviously correct that neither "side" could disagree with it, then make it. For any other change, it should be discussed at WT:BISE first. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that editors will sometimes assume that (BI is obviously correct and that no one can disagree with it) in situations where it is not reasonable to make that assumption and/or where the reality is different from the assumption - the sanction remains active at all times and does not become inactive in those situations. I have nothing else to add to what TFOWR and Black Kite have said, all of which is correct. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I take the view that any editor who is already involved in this debate should know that items are brought to the project page FIRST --Snowded ^TALK 00:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

At it again!

There's just no bloody stopping him! The minute he wriggles off the hook, for the umpteenth time, he's at it again, replacing British Isles with alternative terms. Now I don't care if he's right or wrong, but this unhealthly obsession with removing British Isles has just got to stop, but I'm at a loss to know how. He's defeated RfCs SPIs and ANIs, so as his user page says:

He's got the luck of the Irish

Any ideas? I'm lost for them. LevenBoy (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Not so fast. He's obviously correct about these two, and they're not controversial - he's actually fixing errors here. In BS 1363, you obviously can't attach "British Isles" to a wikilink which clearly says "United Kingdom". The UK education system does not stretch to the whole of the British Isles. On Keith Floyd, the series actually was called "Floyd on Britain and Ireland" ([1]). There is clear justification for both of these changes. (Edit: more controversial than was obvious - I have reverted HK's edit - now being discussed at BISE). If HK starts to change non-obvious ocurrences of BI, then he will find that he will not defeat this particular sanction. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• (ec with Black Kite) :These two go to the heart of the matter though. Both are incorrect uses of "British Isles" - one because it is simply illogical in the article and the other (the BS standard one) because the BS standard specifically does not cover Ireland, which the article itself explains has a different standard. So unless you are arguing LevenBoy that all references to BI must remain where they are regardless of context, source or applicability then you are just shooting yourself in the foot by attacking HK over these two. As I'm sure HK knows, which is why he is attempting to wind us up just now. You aren't the only one who saw those LB - I looked them over and checked them out carefully. For my money, the new ANI ruling is a good one, in that HK should no longer have carte-blanche. However, if we see long lists of these popping up, will that be allowed? That is the real test of this ruling. Black Kite, if this is just a quick test to see how you react - and is followed by the usual cascade of BI deletes, all superficially contextual - what then? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not going to say "if editor X does Y, then sanction Z will result" because everything is contextual. I would like to assume good faith and hope that HK is now restricting himself to obvious errors where the phrase BI occurs - I would also extend that good faith to an editor who inserted the term where is was obviously appropriate. I would suggest that editors note here any issue where the insertion/removal of BI is clearly not obvious, though, as it was in this case. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Any reporting of an obviously uncontroversial addition or removal should be clamped down on. Otherwise this page is going to be as long as your arm. Even then it should first be discussed with the editor who made the change. Jack 1314 (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• LevenBoy, if the first thing you do is check his contributions when you log on then I think that would count as an unhealthy obsession. Perhaps less reporting and more talk would lead to a healthier state of mind. Shame you both can't sit down in a pub and chat over a Guinness. Jack 1314 (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Both ARE NOT incorrect usage of British Isles. BS1363 we had The secondary school physics syllabuses in the British Isles and Hong Kong include the procedure for wiring BS 1363 plugs. Well, what's incorrect about that? Actually I don't know if it's right or wrong (nor, I'd wager, does HighKing) but it's a fair bet that it's not wrong and all we can assume is that the orginal editor was knowledgeable on the subject and knew what he was talking about - unlike some others. On the Keith Floyd article, Britiain and Ireland was pipelinked to British Isles, which is perferctly reasonable. Anyone wanting further detail of what or where Britain and Ireland is, could follow the link. HK's replacement is incorrect; Great Britain excludes all other islands. So, the issue here is not so much the rights or wrongs of a particular case, but it's the fact that this remorseless campaign has already restarted. I can understand the comments of some here who unwavingly support HK and his objective, but others simply have the wool pulled over their eyes. He's been doing this for long enough now - wriggle out of trouble, test the water, then slowly but surely resume the campaign. Is it ever going to stop? Anyway, how about for each instance of British Isles he removes I look for one where, say, Britain and Ireland is used and replace that term with British Isles, or should I just revert his recent changes on the basis of WP:BRD, then we'll be right back to square one with endless arguments, calls for inappropriate and difficult-to-find references and general system gaming (on both sides). LevenBoy (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry LB, but that's clearly wrong. The BS example clearly says that it refers to education in the United Kingdom, not Ireland (it's pipelinked to Secondary education#United Kingdom). As for the Keith Floyd article, the title of the show is "Britain and Ireland" - that clearly should be a link to Great Britain and a link to Ireland. (Edit: it appears this one isn't that straightforward (sigh) but is being discussed on BISE). I, like others, will come down very hard on any further disruption, but HK is completely correct on these two examples at least the first of these - which is probably why he chose them, and nothing more controversial. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

And this isn't the place to debate BI content issues - that's WT:BISE. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not disagree with the Keith Floyd change, but Highking is not meant to be making changes alone. He should ask for agreement before making ANY change to British Isles within articles. That is the only way to stop edit warring. If its clearly incorrect then it will not be long before there is agreement to fix it. But he cant just keep doing that without getting agreement FIRST. The fact he has come across those proves he is still on the hunt for examples of where he can remove British Isles which is worrying. Any change by Highking on use of the Brtish Isles is controversial. Had the sanctions been correctly imposed as were supported by people over on the admin board, he would not have made that change.. he would have been forced to ASK first, which proves the full proposal should have been implemented. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Apart from LevenBoy, is there anyone who considers either of these two controversial in any way, shape or form? If not, I'd suggest we move on. TFOWR 19:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  • You mean move on to the next set for removal? LevenBoy (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
    • TFOWR probably meant move on as in let it go - which is good advice if the answer to his question is 'no'. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I thought the Levenboy had band himself from BI issues? I think he should take Jack's advice. Let's move on....Bjmullan (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say, the probation is going to work nicely. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if it doesn't things will sort themselves out. Ireland will drift westward, Scotland will drift eastward, England will remain where it is, and bingo! Problem solved. Just give it a couple of hundred thousand years. Jack 1314 (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

OMG, i can not believe he has already made an edit removing British Isles from an article. This is incredible. The sanction should have been imposed on him as people voted for. But no he was let off with people saying this would be enough to stop him. it clearly did not. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If there is justification as pointed out above for the changes, i.e. its on about the UK not BI etc., then there is nothing wrong with them, he may be just trying to rub it into a few editors noses to stir the crap. Nonetheless lets move on for now guys. When he makes an unjustified change then you can nab him. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Any change by highking in removing British Isles or a wikilink to British Isles is controversial. He should inform everyone about it, not make a change which obviously will be spotted and reverted, causing a conflict.

Lets not forget what people voted for on the noticeboard, which for some reason is not being implemented.

That (1) User:HighKing User:Bjmullan and User:LevenBoy be topic-banned from adding or removing any reference to "British Isles" on a Wikipedia-wide basis

There for his above edit would not have been allowed if the proposal was fully implemented, talk about rubbing peoples nose in it. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Applying the process

I've just posted this on HighKing's talkpage. As it involves my own views about how the process should be applied (and my own views may or may not necessarily reflect reality, common sense or the expressed wishes of the community) I'm re-posting here for comments:

I take the view that:

1. The process is mandatory (but, as previously noted, I'll defer to Black Kite's experience and Ncmvocalist's counsel...)
2. Local editors must be advised about WT:BISE whenever it starts to affect them, i.e. if an article is raised at WT:BISE a note should be posted on the relevant article's talkpage (obviously this is a new rule I've just made up, but it seems sensible (the usual disclaimer about me and sense applies here...))
3. All relevant WP policies apply, and certainly WP:V and WP:RS. Guidelines should be followed wherever possible.
4. Black Kite and myself (and, I'd hope, other admins) will be following the process carefully and intervening where necessary and/or appropriate.
5. I disagree with blocks, at least at first. Editors who breach the above should - in the first instance - be listed at Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log. Blocks would then follow if they breached the topic ban. This means that any editors mentioned in the original ANI report, or blocked prior to the closure of that report, start with a "clean slate". I agree that subsequent blocks should be of increasing duration (though, given my recent conversations with one editor at Talk:Northern Ireland I'd refer you back to my clean-slate comment: I believe everyone involved starts now (well, yesterday) with a clean-slate: an editor who has been blocked prior to the start of this formal process would not receive a longer block post-topic ban).

As always, I regard myself as very much the "junior partner" in this process, and I defer to Black Kite's experience and Ncmvocalist's counsel. And if either of these two editors cease to be involved, I'll defer to whoever steps in as a replacement: I'm not suggesting that Black Kite or Ncmvocalist have to remain involved forever ;-)

Thinking about it, I should probably post this at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log - which I will do now ;-)

Comments, complaints, criticism and cackling are welcome! TFOWR 09:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

We need a fresh start from that BISE, it has too many old debates which will take months for us to sort through, all of that should be archived and left. A new more formal page should be created with certain restrictions to limit the number and type of cases certain editors can bring forward. We should have a list of "involved editors" which would include someone like myself, Highking and all of us debating this issue here. Any one of us MUST post on the more formal page before making any change to something relating to British Isles use (adding/Removing/or altering a wikilink). Highkings change in this case seems justified if the article is accurate, but he must not be allowed to go around making changes like that without informing people and getting approval, and once there is approval an admin should make the change not him.

The fact he has come across that link and made a change so soon after the recent debate about sanctions for him is pretty shocking and shows he is not prepared to give up on the quest. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

As I grumped before, BISE should have a one-case-at-a-time approach. It's certainly slower, but less confusing. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm coming across to GoodDay's idea of restricting the amount of cases that can be brought at the one time. Maybe not one, but certainly few enough where it can be reviewed by others without any rush. It may even go someway to making the place a little more civil if people think they can take their time. Jack 1314 (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It certainly would. Trying to go through all of these edits listed by highking in a single post is rather difficult and time consuming. It certainly does not put me in a happy and loving mood. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say 5 requests open at a time, if people dont want that as it may cause time wasting to prevent us ever moving onto something new then each editor should be limited in the number of cases they may bring a month or their cases which may be open at once. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see limiting the number of cases per month working. Some cases may be dealt with very quickly, or slowly, meaning there is no telling how many cases per month there will be. I could see it working if having just five requests open at a time and when one is resolved another can be brought in to make up the five again. As I said on the specific example page, we can't have people clogging the process up grumbling that the page shouldn't even exist. Any complaints in that direction should be kept clear of the page and taken to an appropriate place, here for example. I would go as far as saying it should be part of the sanctions if complaints of that type continue to be posted at the examples page. Jack 1314 (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

One of the mechanisms that we discussed previously was to hopefully categorize usage so that we don't have to continue to revisit the same type of discussion over and over again. But five articles seems like as good a number as any to start with, and lets see how we go. Maybe it should be less, maybe it should be more - time will tell. --HighKing (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Why? Why should we put up with this POV-pushing nonsense just because ONE editor out of tens of thousands tries to impose his views on article after article? This is going to be never ending. He's been at it for two years now, so are we looking at another two years of ridiculous arguments on subjects we know very little about, just to enable HighKing to get maybe a 50% hit rate, because that's his objective. He's going to systematically trawl the What Links Here list at British Isles and introduce one article after another. Each will result in protracted debate and time wasting, and because HighKing is tireless in his efforts he doesn't mind being in it the long term. He's no doubt sitting somewhere right now laughing his cock off at what's going on here. What is the point of this? LevenBoy (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

LevenBoy, the process is already in place at the examples page. Trying to shout it down won't change that. Jack 1314 (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Process, what process? It's as you were for the last two years: HK delivering a never ending list of topics for expunging BI and various other editors trying to stop him. I don't see much of a process there. LevenBoy (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It is a process if all editors decide to calmly and civilly talk over each case. There is nothing stopping you doing that and remaining calm at the same time. If I see any cases that should retain British Isles I will say so, and I'm sure if you see a case that should never have British Isles you will do the same. Yes? Jack 1314 (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Laughing his what off? LB, thou does protest too much. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The "24 hour rule"

A few days ago I proposed - somewhat foolishly - a 30 minute wait between posting at WT:BISE and making the corresponding edit. There was considerable discomfort about this proposal, and, if I recall correctly, the feeling of those participating was that the waiting period should be substantially longer - specifically 24 hours. This was to allow "local editors" to be informed and to comment, and to allow editors who might not be online time to see the proposal and comment.

Was this proposal (the 24 hour wait after posting at WT:BISE) formalised anywhere? If so, could some kind soul point me to the "where"? If not, is it worth formally recording it, or is the feeling of editors here that it has been agreed by consensus, and does not need formally recording?

TFOWR 16:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It was not as far as im aware, and it is not something i would support. 24 hours is way too short a period if there is going to be a formal rule that allows an involved editor to make a change. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

But presumably you agree that an editor should post at WT:BISE and then wait? It's purely the waiting period you disagree with? TFOWR 16:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the concept of list then wait and any time period would have to be set so that it was something like wait 7 days with out any response before making an edit, however if it was clear that there was a consensus then the edit could be made when that clear consensus emerges. Codf1977 (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes thats how i feel about this. There should be something like a 7 day limit. If it is obvious within 24 hours that a change is not going to be controversial and people from both sides of the debate agree then no problem with that being done by one of the admins. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, should have dug out the original thread when I raised this. It was WT:BISE#Keith Floyd, particularly the comments half-way through, starting at my "I've suggested to HighKing..." comment. Looking back, the only real participants in the "waiting period" part of the thread were Black Kite, Jamesinderbyshire and me. TFOWR 17:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Any time limit would be un-workable. Simply iron out one case, before moving on to another, no matter how long it takes. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Id also support that proposal. But some form of limit on the number of active cases is needed for sure. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

But surely editors aren't going to be involved with every case? Or am I being naïve? My thinking is that only some of us are going to be qualified to assess Arthurian legend (say), whereas others among us will be deeply interested in electrical wiring standards (say). I'd have thought there's no need for all of us to pile on to every case. TFOWR 22:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

One thought is that we could simply wait until either Black Kite or myself (or another admin, or uninvolved third party accepted by all...) closed a case, before the proposed edit was made. Obviously that could create a bottleneck, though, and I don't see many other admins rushing in... TFOWR 22:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Holiday spam

Editors here may find this of interest. (I'm going to be away next week). TFOWR 14:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Triton Rocker

As well as editing warring at Terminology of the British Isles TR has again violated his topic ban here.

I'd be tolerant of the insertion of the main article link on the Terminology page although its a technical infringement. However the edit warring followed by personal attacks on other editors is getting out of hand. Despite multiple blocks we have seen zero evidence of a willingness to edit collaboratively, just a firm belief that whatever he does is right and anyone who disagrees is either ignorant of the subject, a meat puppet or a snitch (to use his language). I'm sorely tempted to propose that the sanction on insertion of BI should extend to a topic ban on the whole subject, if only to prevent the behaviour escalating to the point where a long term block becomes inevitable. --Snowded ^TALK 09:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Whilst he should not have done either the edit warring or the insertion of the Main Article BI, it is the first time hes clearly stepped out of line since his previous block as far as im aware. He did seem to be focusing more on the talk page than making additions of BI to random articles which is what got him the sanctions in the first place. A total topic ban on British Isles related matters would be unfair when certain editors have been involved in this conflict for many years and not even faced such a sanction. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious BW, if they had been removing BI would you hold the same position? Mo ainm~Talk 10:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

As i said before, he should not have done either the edit war or the insertion of BI (even if it was only in the "Main article" thing. My views on a topic ban are based on the fact certain other editors who have been in this conflict long before Triton has, have not faced a similar topic ban as a punishment for the disruption they have caused. If the topic ban for a period of time was applied instead of a full block then maybe it would be suitable, but that would be a weaker punishment so i do not think people would support that. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

But if certain other editors are now following the guidelines/rules then to use their past misdeeds to justify not blocking an editor who consistently breaches them is wrong IMO. I am not a fan of topic bans unless it is for very serious stuff. And constant disregard for a process that is aimed at stopping silly edit wars is going close to it.Mo ainm~Talk 10:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I never said triton should not be blocked for a period of time or face some form of punishment for the edit warring or insertion of BI. But yes when certain editors in the past who have caused this whole dispute have not been topic banned, i do not think others should be either. The General Sanctions here were set following community support to impose the sanctions on Highking, the sanctions were set up but were never applied to Highking and right after he got away with that, he was caught making another removal of British Isles.. which again he faced no punishment for at all. Leniency must be shown to both sides. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to be put in a situation were it appears I am arguing for a topic ban but it could also be argued that TR has been treated fairly leniently also. Mo ainm~Talk 10:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Others have been shown more leniency despite causing more disruption in my opinion. The incident at the moment relating to the sanctions is pretty minor considering it was simply adding "Main artile:British Isles" on the terminology of the BI article, that is very different to going to an unrelated article and inserting BI which is what he got in trouble for before, although he still should not have inserted it. The edit war is a separate matter entirely even though it did take place on a BI article, it was not edit warring over inserting/removing British Isles which these sanctions strictly relate to. Any punishment in this case should be applied for the edit warring. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

BW - a very straight question. Do you think that is OK for an editor to accuse established editors of being meat puppets (RA and myself)? You appear at the moment to want to excuse any behaviour for an editor who supports your POV. --Snowded ^TALK 12:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No and like i said he should not have been edit warring over the issue either. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Guys, this page is not a requests for enforcement page or a page where you report/discuss violations; it so far hasn't been treated as such, and this is certainly not exceptional enough to warrant a change to that practice. To those who have commented here in this thread, that's enough; please report it to ANI (where there are more eyes anyway) and let others decide how to handle this, and make your suggestions/views known there. This is not going to improve if you continue this amongst yourselves here. Please consider this as a firm reminder to everyone who is watching this page (rather than a criticism that is only directed to the people who have commented here so far, and Bjmullan, the editor who created this thread). Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be the best place to raise these matters where involved admins have it on their watchlist rather than take it to WP:ANI every time we have a problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Ncmvocalist (and sorry for not signing my post). I wasn't sure where I should report the violation but have now reported it at ANI. Bjmullan (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

That's OK. To add to what I said, although this page shouldn't turn into something that it's not (per what I said at 12:56), there's no issue in adding something (like a notification) on this page saying "(Alleged) violation was reported and is being discussed [[ |here]]" so those who are familiar with this can follow that discussion. You can also approach certain admins (eg; TFOWR) who will definitely help. But if (for example) he's not available, or it might prompt a longer discussion, it probably should be at ANI as it might not be as straightforward as first thought or there might be other issues that need to be looked into at the same time. Chances are that it will be TFOWR, Black Kite, or someone who's remotely familiar with it who'll deal with it, but it'll give the community opportunities to review/comment through normal venues (ANI) rather than limiting it to venues many people won't look at. To be more specific, I'm hoping this will not turn into a trainwreck climate change type probation (which was partially why there is an arbitration case on that topic). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Just to note that I'm (now) around, but if I'm ever not then ANI is definitely the place to go: I don't honestly know if any admins apart from Black Kite and me have this page watchlisted. (But I believe one or two admins may watchlist ANI...) TFOWR 13:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• I have it watchlisted and I just want echo NCMV this page isn't for discussion--Cailil ^talk 14:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Well could someone actually state that at the top of this page because thats what i thought this page was for and its what its been used for since it was created. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with BW it states at the top of the page This page is for general discussion of sanctions issues on the topic of the addition or removal of the term "British Isles". Mo ainm~Talk 15:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Mo anim & BW, it's taken for granted that you understand that this is page a log as it states in the page title and that discussion would be of logged sanctions not "requests for enforcement". That can be clarified if necessary but it shouldn't be.--Cailil ^talk 15:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I've adjusted that text - if anyone feels it's unclear ask TFOWR, Blackkite, myself or another admin about it--Cailil ^talk 15:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

TR must be topic banned. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

AN & ANI discussions

For quick reference the discussions that have effected how this page operates can be found here:

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]

--Cailil ^talk 02:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Clarification on closing statement of "Politics of the British Isles"

I've read this notice and the closing statement and I believe this is overstepping the bounds of WP:GS/BI. This sanction is for systematically adding/removing the term "British Isles", and for edit warring over the same. It isn't to shut down the normal procedures of proposing name changes, DRV's, etc. Also, the comment re-argue the article's title would fall under the broad umbrella of "edit warring" within the scope of the British Isles sanctions is a stretch at best. If the community wishes to propose a moratorium on not reopening another page move on this article, it should be done at the article Talk page, not with threats. --HighKing (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice: motion to revoke authorisation for BI sanctions

Please see this proposal to revoke the authorisation for these sanctions. RGloucester — ☎ 18:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The motion to revoke these sanctions has failed. RGloucester — ☎ 17:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Over the years

Interesting, of the five editors banned from the topic British Isles. There's only one editor still active on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 02:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)