Black Kite (talk | contribs) →HighKing: tweak |
No edit summary |
||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
* 3. I can't actually see a diff showing that HighKing has violated his ban on removing BI from an article. If you can actually show evidence of that, the complaint would be valid. |
* 3. I can't actually see a diff showing that HighKing has violated his ban on removing BI from an article. If you can actually show evidence of that, the complaint would be valid. |
||
* 4. If Cailil ''does'' sanction HK for those edits, that's his call. But I can't see a criteria for doing so at this time. [[User:Black Kite|Black Kite]] ([[User talk:Black Kite#top|talk]]) 11:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC) |
* 4. If Cailil ''does'' sanction HK for those edits, that's his call. But I can't see a criteria for doing so at this time. [[User:Black Kite|Black Kite]] ([[User talk:Black Kite#top|talk]]) 11:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC) |
||
::To repeat what I'd already said at ANI, I am not alleging a topic ban breach, except perhaps under the "broadly construed" wording. I am stating that, based on the manner of this series of reverts on [[The Automobile Association]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Automobile_Association&diff=prev&oldid=566700613][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Automobile_Association&diff=prev&oldid=566880880][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Automobile_Association&diff=prev&oldid=567976842][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Automobile_Association&diff=prev&oldid=568201341], followed by this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Automobile_Association&diff=prev&oldid=568204768 'rewrite'], and based on the fact that HighKing has yet to make any associated comment at [[Talk:The Automobile Association]], instead choosing to treat this as an issue of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=568201737 "vandalism"], HighKing has inarguably ignored the warnings Cailil gave him when he re-enacted the BI topic ban about his future conduct. Those can still be seen on his own talk page under the "Removals of the term British Isles (again)" section on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HighKing&oldid=568230989 HighKing's talk page], so he has no excuse for not remembering them. You're going to have to read that whole thread to get the picture, but it shows quite clearly that Cailil was quite explicit in what he expected from HighKing going forward, in addition to simply adhering to the topic ban: he must stop edit warring and start discussing, he must stop this behaviour of policing terminology on Wikipedia, he must stop introducing (and maintaining by reverts) innacuracies (his altered version of the quote is not in the source, so is clearly innacurate). Basically, he was telling him to just go and find something completely different to do than this, because it is of no benefit to the project. What he has done instead, is just transfer his focus from policing usage of the term 'British Isles' on Wikipeda, to policing the term 'Republic of Ireland', while mainaining the same bad behaviours - edit warring, lack of discussion, misrepresentation of sources, misuse of guidelines/policy, etc, etc. As an administrator, the onus is on you to step in and stop it. Five years is long enough to be still getting away with this sort of WP:TE in the way you have so far allowed him to in this case. You need to block HighKing now until he gives cast iron assurances he understands why Cailil wrote those things on his talk page, and tells you precisely how he proposes to avoid it in future. That's it. As far as evidence goes, short of me pulling out direct quotes of what Cailil said to HighKing, I don't see what more you need to see, to do what is required of you. [[User:Zoombox21|Zoombox21]] ([[User talk:Zoombox21|talk]]) 17:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:54, 13 August 2013
ANI discussion, re:canvassing/AfD
You mentioned another user there. I had already started looking at that. There is a backlog though. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 11:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- I've blocked. I'll make a note at the SPI, but probably worth continuing to find any other sleepers. Black Kite (talk) 11:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
HighKing
Your closure of that ANI report is unwise at best, abusive at worst. Ample evidence of wrong doing has been provided, maybe not with respect to the BI sanction (but even that is not clear cut, given it is meant to be broadly construed), but definitely in the sense that these edits are clearly the same terminology policing behaviour that led to that sanction, but on a slightly different BI related term. Action is clearly warranted. Archived or not, as I said, I am not going to let this lie, I will be informing Cailil when he returns. In addition to sanctioning Highking, I expect he will want to take issue with you disrespecting him by completely ignoring all the effort he went to in detailing exactly what is wrong with HighKing's behaviour, and what he should be avoiding. Who I am is completely and utterly irrelevant to whether or not HighKing is ignoring those warnings and engaging in the beahviour Cailil described as being not wanted here. He even made that exact point to HighKing - while Cailil has sympathy with the so called harassment he often claims to be suffering as a way of avoiding sanctions for making these edits, Cailil was crystal clear on the point that who reports him, or even just the mere presence of suspect accounts in any of these reports/disputes, has absolutely no bearing on whether or not he will act on any poor behaviour he observes from HighKing. I know he has previously expressed frustration at seemingly being the only admin here who is prepared to deal with HighKing, and I can see why with actions like this. Your closure of the section simply because of who the complainents are has only one effect - rewarding HighKing for bad edits. It's really no skin off my nose, is it? If I am a banned user, do you think archiving that discussion will have any effect on me? Or if I am not banned but this is just not my main account, then do you think archiving the section is going to change whatever reason I might have for not posting there with my main account? Of course not. The only thing it achieves is to remove from sight as an immediate issue. Which, given the fact Cailil was at pains to point out that HighKing's poor behaviour stretches back to 2008, is not a good thing for Wikipedia. You're an admin. You're expected to deal with long term problems, not sweep them under the carpet for wholly irrelevant reasons. If HighKing were ever to end up at arbitration for example, do you think he would escape sanction for persistent WP:TE behaviour, simply because other people involved were not following some completely unrelated rule like WP:SOCK? Of course not. Hopefully you can at least appreciate that as an admin, you being the person who maintains that cycle of WP:TE, is not only bad for Wikipedia, it's a form of laxity that really isn't excused by who I may or may not be. It also had the material effect of me not being able to correct Murray on a basic point of fact, meaning the archive now has errors in it, which I am sure is not the intent of that facility. Archive or no archive, at the very least, if, or more likely when, Cailil sanctions HighKing for those edits, I expect you to hold your hands up and admit your failure to do your duty as an admin in this case. Anything less will simply fall well below the expected standards of admins on Wikipedia. Anyway, I've probably spent far too long typing a post that you will most likely just ignore and delete, so goodbye for now. Zoombox21 (talk) 11:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- 1. If you think I haven't sanctioned HighKing in the past, I'd suggest you look at his block log.
- 2. You're obviously not a new user (neither is the IP), so why hide the issue? It wouldn't make any difference to the complaint - indeed, it'd probably add more gravitas to it.
- 3. I can't actually see a diff showing that HighKing has violated his ban on removing BI from an article. If you can actually show evidence of that, the complaint would be valid.
- 4. If Cailil does sanction HK for those edits, that's his call. But I can't see a criteria for doing so at this time. Black Kite (talk) 11:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- To repeat what I'd already said at ANI, I am not alleging a topic ban breach, except perhaps under the "broadly construed" wording. I am stating that, based on the manner of this series of reverts on The Automobile Association [1][2][3][4], followed by this 'rewrite', and based on the fact that HighKing has yet to make any associated comment at Talk:The Automobile Association, instead choosing to treat this as an issue of "vandalism", HighKing has inarguably ignored the warnings Cailil gave him when he re-enacted the BI topic ban about his future conduct. Those can still be seen on his own talk page under the "Removals of the term British Isles (again)" section on HighKing's talk page, so he has no excuse for not remembering them. You're going to have to read that whole thread to get the picture, but it shows quite clearly that Cailil was quite explicit in what he expected from HighKing going forward, in addition to simply adhering to the topic ban: he must stop edit warring and start discussing, he must stop this behaviour of policing terminology on Wikipedia, he must stop introducing (and maintaining by reverts) innacuracies (his altered version of the quote is not in the source, so is clearly innacurate). Basically, he was telling him to just go and find something completely different to do than this, because it is of no benefit to the project. What he has done instead, is just transfer his focus from policing usage of the term 'British Isles' on Wikipeda, to policing the term 'Republic of Ireland', while mainaining the same bad behaviours - edit warring, lack of discussion, misrepresentation of sources, misuse of guidelines/policy, etc, etc. As an administrator, the onus is on you to step in and stop it. Five years is long enough to be still getting away with this sort of WP:TE in the way you have so far allowed him to in this case. You need to block HighKing now until he gives cast iron assurances he understands why Cailil wrote those things on his talk page, and tells you precisely how he proposes to avoid it in future. That's it. As far as evidence goes, short of me pulling out direct quotes of what Cailil said to HighKing, I don't see what more you need to see, to do what is required of you. Zoombox21 (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)