User talk:HighKing/Archives/2010/March

BI and admin

Is Cailil looking over BI? I've got something to take to an admin, but I won't put it to him if he's not fully involved. It's probably not wise to overload anyone. It's a bit of a poisoned chalise with all the socks, incivility and the 1RR. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Matt. Cailil is the only one overlooking BI at the moment, but I'm unsure if he's fully involved. And he might just get overloaded - the last thing we need is to force another well-intentioned admin to decide it's too much. --HighKing (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ya need an administrator with tough hide, Sandstein & Elonka comes to mind. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't interacted with either of these before. Anyone else want to approach them to see if they would keep an eye? --HighKing (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal has begun

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal was started on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working compromise, so CDA is still largely being floated as an idea.

Also note that, although the RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and Neutral, with Comments underneath), this RfC is still essentially a 'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.

Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Ireland article names

Per motions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification:

1) The Arbitration Committee notes that the conditions put forward by remedies during the Ireland article names arbitration case were fulfilled to the Committee's satisfaction and that, as a consequence, remedy 4 ("[...] no further page moves discussions related to these articles shall be initiated for a period of 2 years.") is in force until September 18, 2011.

2) While the related matter of how to refer to Ireland/Republic of Ireland in other places (such as articles) is not directly covered by the aforementioned remedies, the Committee takes notes of the existence of a de facto consensus on the matter owing to the stability of the Ireland manual of style and enjoins the community to avoid needlessly rehashing the disputes.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Your edits to Canterbury–York dispute

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Canterbury–York dispute. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

Keith D (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

This set of edits where you're blind reverting with MidnightBlueMan are unacceptable and so I've blocked you for 24 hours. You were both reverting each other on multiple articles. I suggest that when you return from your block you stay away from each other. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Block reset and extended to 3 days as you've clearly been socking as 84.19.169.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:23, 23 March 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:

No, I haven't. I don't sock. Please review this ASAP. From what I can see, the IP address is in Germany, I'm based in Ireland. --HighKing (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Judging by the contributions, the IP is very likely to be you or editing on your behalf.  Sandstein  19:28, 23 March 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.

 Unlikely to be related, but I am not positive. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I am - HighKing has not been socking as anyone. Either Ryan Pothlethwaite must prove the socking claim, or he must take it back and actually apologise too. BritishWatcher is a WP:SPA account created to replace the term 'British Isles' where HighKing has chosen to re-phrase it - that is the clear fact that matters here. HighKing's removals, although not liked by everyone (esp some admin who just don't see the point of it all), do have a good deal of support, and have been legal and considered - even when he has perhaps got it wrong. HighKing has never (until perhaps yesterday) deleted unilaterally (ie before looking at the relevance of the term first), and has worked hard on creating guidelines for using the term. BritishWatcher has always been difficult and antagonistic, and it is always worth noting that SPA accounts like BritishWatcher don't have any standing to uphold. They have the freedom to wind people up and be a general nuisance whenever the log in.

I agree that the various reverts of yesterday went over the top, but why do admin always stick the knife in when they think they've glimpsed some 'trouble'? There is no evidence for HK socking at all, but his block is extended on guesswork. I've had admin behaving like this to myself, and I'm getting really tired of seeing it. It's like once you are targeted by an admin as 'difficult' in some way, you are then cast as a nuisance 'troll', and basically lose your basic human rights. 'WP:Break all the rules' then seems to apply to any passing admin's behaviour towards you. It's lazy at very best, and just so wrong. Unfortunately I wasn't editing last night but HighKing at one point did ask for "Help" at the Specific Examples page, where we voluntarily decide on British Isles value per article before making changes. It's a real shame that Britishwatcher (and a couple of other 'Single purpose accounts') can make the Special Examples page so unpleasant to work on, and that it can lead to incidents like this. But when admin ignore the 'danger situations' of SPA's commenting completely out of policy (ie being rude, wantonly deaf and generally dismissive - as happens time and time again over British Isles) the troll accounts simply get empowered, and occasionally feel in the mood to be invisible/invincible. The people who suffer in the end are the normally law-abiding editors like HighKing, and those who feel compelled to stick their neck out and write angry comments complaining about 'bloody admin'!

I'm not arguing over the initial block as such (although the background of editors always needs to be considered with British Isles, and I generally don't favour using these kind of blocks), and I haven't looked into each edit, but I strongly object to HighKing being labelled as a sock user - primarily because there is no evidence, and also because he just doesn't do it. His taskforce, guideline, SE page, talk page and main page work does not involve suspicious edits. There are a couple of the sock users on the subject to be sure, but HK isn't one of them. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

((unblock|There has been a spate of anonymous IP contributions on the topic of British Isles recently from lots of different IP addresses. Currently on the Wikipedia Talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples#IP edits there is a long discussion in progress about a list of edits performed by a different IP address; 209.119.9.98 (USA). I also note that the 3 articles recently edited by 84.19.169.231 were previously edited by a very similar address, 84.19.169.162. I'm sure if we check other articles we'll find yet more IP addresses. I can't be held responsible for these anonymous IP addresses. I'm happy to validate in any way that I'm sitting in Dublin. And no, I don't know anyone in Germany.)) --HighKing (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies HighKing, I have obviously got it wrong about the IP address. I've reset the block to its original length which is set to expire in around 3 hours time. I've also made a note in your block log that you weren't in fact socking. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ryan. How about, by way of making up :-), you'll consider monitoring the SE page where we discuss British Isles edits. Keep it a little more civil and help move things along? Black Kite used to implement a 1RR policy on users - perhaps you'd consider re-implementing this again? --HighKing (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)@Ryan, can you fix the block? It's still set to expire on 24th, and I should have been unblocked by now. If anyone else sees this, can they let Ryan now? --HighKing (talk) 23:35, 23 March 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:

The block should have been set to expire by now, but it's still showing the 24th. The original length was 24 hours, which was 2 hours ago.

Decline reason:

Try editing and tell me what the block notice says. It's entirely possible you got hit by an autoblock. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 01:35, 24 March 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.

--HighKing (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, yes it says "Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "HighKing"." --HighKing (talk) 01:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I've lifted the autoblock. I was evidently wrong in the review above; sorry on my part too.  Sandstein  05:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Sandstein. Same request to you - would you be willing to keep an eye on the SE page (see above request to Ryan)? --HighKing (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I missed the autoblock. I'll tell you what - next time you see an IP make a similar change, pop by my talk page and I'll hit them with a block. I'm not going to watchlist a load of pages for it, but I'll gladly act if you direct me. Sound fair? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ryan, OK. I'd be even better if the SE page could become a more civil and productive environment for collaborators who actually want to make some progress, and if you could pop it onto your watchlist and check it out from time to time, that would be appreciated very much. --HighKing (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at Canterbury–York dispute

Please be very careful about edit-warring at Canterbury–York dispute. When someone asks for more discussion, it's usually best to go discuss rather than revert. I've got the page watch-listed and will protect if the edit-warring continues. Karanacs (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, HighKing. You have new messages at RashersTierney's talk page.
Message added 20:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RashersTierney (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Workweek

Yep, see that. OK. Mister Flash (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should discuss at the SE page in any case? I'll create the topic. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)