m more available |
→HighKing: cmnt |
||
Line 250: | Line 250: | ||
:By way of explanation, check the history of actions here. The anon IP reverted twice with a blank edit summary, and twice more with a "breach of sanctions" edit summary (over a period of 8 days). The piece of text in question - "the quote" - was not referenced. I (or any other editor) had been given no reasons for objecting to the edit, which was in line with [[WP:IRE-IRL]] and [[WP:IMOS]]. The anon IP didn't respond to two notices on their Talk page over the space of a week. Nobody could have known what reason the anon IP had for reverting, and in fact the anon IP has not once mentioned the "direct quote" as a reason - this was something brought up at AN/I. The anon IP's AN/I notice was a complaint that I was breaching my Topic Ban, which clearly I'm not. Since then, a brand spanking new editor has tried to make this into some sort of a breach of the topic ban, and deserving of some punishment. The anon IP has [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Series_B_Banknotes&diff=prev&oldid=568366436 since] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Series_C_Banknotes&diff=prev&oldid=568366875 reverted] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Series_A_Banknotes&diff=prev&oldid=568374600other] [[WP:IMOS]] related edits by other editors. So to reiterate - the anon IP left no reasons for reverting, didn't respond after I posted a notice on their Talk page (or anywhere), and the text in question wasn't referenced. Taking into account the other warnings on their Talk page, at this stage it looked like a (normal) anon IP petty vandalism account. |
:By way of explanation, check the history of actions here. The anon IP reverted twice with a blank edit summary, and twice more with a "breach of sanctions" edit summary (over a period of 8 days). The piece of text in question - "the quote" - was not referenced. I (or any other editor) had been given no reasons for objecting to the edit, which was in line with [[WP:IRE-IRL]] and [[WP:IMOS]]. The anon IP didn't respond to two notices on their Talk page over the space of a week. Nobody could have known what reason the anon IP had for reverting, and in fact the anon IP has not once mentioned the "direct quote" as a reason - this was something brought up at AN/I. The anon IP's AN/I notice was a complaint that I was breaching my Topic Ban, which clearly I'm not. Since then, a brand spanking new editor has tried to make this into some sort of a breach of the topic ban, and deserving of some punishment. The anon IP has [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Series_B_Banknotes&diff=prev&oldid=568366436 since] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Series_C_Banknotes&diff=prev&oldid=568366875 reverted] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Series_A_Banknotes&diff=prev&oldid=568374600other] [[WP:IMOS]] related edits by other editors. So to reiterate - the anon IP left no reasons for reverting, didn't respond after I posted a notice on their Talk page (or anywhere), and the text in question wasn't referenced. Taking into account the other warnings on their Talk page, at this stage it looked like a (normal) anon IP petty vandalism account. |
||
:But something fishy is going on here. The new editor, Zoombox21, is clearly not a new editor, and appears very very familiar with my editing history. If the anon IP was simply "fixing" a quote, why start edit warring on other articles with reasons [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Ireland-related_articles&diff=prev&oldid=568405523 at odds] with the general community? Or make [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zoombox21&diff=prev&oldid=568352379 accusations] of sockpuppetry between myself and Murry1975 (we've heard that one before?). Or dig back into my past (very very familiar with my editing history) and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Ireland-related_articles&diff=prev&oldid=568389681 post] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston&diff=prev&oldid=568389811 notices] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Murry1975&diff=prev&oldid=568389935 about] an alternative account that was used in the past (again - we've seen this before from a certain banned editor). --[[User:HighKing|HighKing]] ([[User talk:HighKing|talk]]) 02:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC) |
:But something fishy is going on here. The new editor, Zoombox21, is clearly not a new editor, and appears very very familiar with my editing history. If the anon IP was simply "fixing" a quote, why start edit warring on other articles with reasons [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Ireland-related_articles&diff=prev&oldid=568405523 at odds] with the general community? Or make [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zoombox21&diff=prev&oldid=568352379 accusations] of sockpuppetry between myself and Murry1975 (we've heard that one before?). Or dig back into my past (very very familiar with my editing history) and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Ireland-related_articles&diff=prev&oldid=568389681 post] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston&diff=prev&oldid=568389811 notices] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Murry1975&diff=prev&oldid=568389935 about] an alternative account that was used in the past (again - we've seen this before from a certain banned editor). --[[User:HighKing|HighKing]] ([[User talk:HighKing|talk]]) 02:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC) |
||
::HK I ''did'' in fact highlight that your policing of IMOS is not constructive. To reiterate myself: <blockquote>Furthermore an area that I stated as concerning 12 months ago was your policing of iMOS, indeed the volume of WP:IMOS edits you make is reiniscent of "gnoming" by GoodDay, but also of your policing of the phrase 'British Isles' above. This was precisely the issue in the GoodDay RFAR (fait a compli) too many edits to too many articles by a single user, seemingly (or actually) with their own agenda.</blockquote> While I see that there are issues with deliberate attempts to evade WP:IMOS by some I can also see a serious over use of it by others. I am very concerned that your (and otehrs') behaviour of policing terminology is falling into that category of edit which resulted in GoodDay's ban. The IMOS issue itself is adjacent to 4 ArbCom rulings (RFAR/Article titles and capitalisation, RFAR/GoodDay, WP:Troubles, and RFAR/Ireland article names) and 1 community probation (WP:GS/BI). This is not an area where border line behaviours will be tolerated. Furthermore, there is no authority for the MOS to override any policy or normal consensus editing. I will remind you of the actual position of the MOS ''vis-a-vis'' policy: <blockquote>''Style guides are used as a means of creating a consistent end result. They do not affect content, but rather how that content is presented. The English Wikipedia's Manual of Style (MoS) is a guideline, or a set of'' "'''best practices'''" ''supported by consensus.'' '''The MoS is not a collection of hard rules.'''"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article_titles_and_capitalisation#The_Manual_of_Style]</blockquote> There is no authority for anyone enforcing or imposing Style elements anywhere, in any situation. WP's MOS is not used in the same way as journals or other publications use a Manual of Style (these are in fact rigid an enforced). Furthermore I have stated this twice in 2 years. We've seen what happens when you don't heed such advice. The IP and Zoombox21 (both now blocked as obvious socks) are engaged in harassment BUT the edit they highlighted at ANI is way out of line. You changed info from a direct quote. ''You didn't check''. Making drive-by terminology policing edits IS A PROBLEM not a positive. Although this isn't a direct breach of your ban it is a problem and if part of a pattern a reason for concern. I don't see a reason to act here but for your own sake I suggest you step back from this type of edit and focus on improving articles holistically rather than gnoming like this--[[User:Cailil|<font color="#999999" size="2">'''Cailil'''</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Cailil|<font color="#999999">'''talk'''</font>]]</sup> 15:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:31, 14 August 2013
Talk page |
Admin |
Logs |
Awards |
Books |
ANI Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Mattel. Thank you. —Guy Macon (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
BI Bungling
Hello, Cailil! I am getting mighty sick of watching HighKing proudly trot over to WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Hackneyhound every time his BI removal campaign freaks out his stalker. This stalker would not react if he did not remove the damned term. Why he is off probation for exactly what the sanctions are designed for is inexplicable. Let's look at Races and factions of Warcraft. We have a challenge based on one familiar term[1] followed by the systematic removal less than a month later.[2] No wonder the socks go crazy. Why is this editor, whose actions create a shitstorm of sock activity, above the very rules that are in place to prevent disruption? Utterly baffling. Doc talk 15:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- "Why is this editor [...] above the very rules that are in place to prevent disruption?" - He's not. I happen to be extremely busy in the real world (as is stated on my talk page) and I'm not the only sysop capable of enforcing this Doc. I'm happy to look at this but it isn't my pet project or my sole responsibility. If you want me to take action please show me the diffs of misconduct and I will act in whatever way I see appropriate in light of the probation's wording (and a user's history). The reality of the sitaution is that I (and frankly most sysops) don't have the time to trawl through hundreds of contributions on the off-chance one shows misbehaviour somewhere. I'll look at the Warcraft issue myself tonight but please come to me with evidence if there's a problem elsewhere--Cailil talk 17:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I'm also baffled. So according to Doc, it's my fault for annoying the banned/blocked socking stalker? I don't understand is why he has got such a bee in his bonnet. He's never even discussed any of the edits so what's with all the misplaced outrage and emotive invective? For example, in the article above, I assure you that I looked all over the web including fan articles and press releases for that "fact". Couldn't find it. Closest I came was an article that talked about how the characters had vaguely English accents. But just in case, I tagged it. After a month, I removed it. Nobody objected or commented until the banned/blocked socking editor decided to get involved. Then Doc decides to get involved. Utterly baffling! --HighKing (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- I take the obvious stalking of you seriously HK, but I'm sure you know I take the (over-)use of the Undo/Revert function seriously too. Also BTW I wont tolerate flaming on this page by anyone - so both of you tone it down. I said I'd look at the matter and I will - if it requires action it'll get it, if it doesn't then it wont--Cailil talk 18:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- HighKing, I've been involved in this for years. Mostly prosecuting the other side (LevenBoy et. al). If you don't remove the term, there is no fuel for the fire. It's a cause and effect thing with the socks. It makes no sense to target the term anyway, as there are tens of thousands of instances of "British Isles" on Wikipedia. I have never approved of the guerrilla socking tactics, but the language is quite clear regarding adding or removing the term. I have nothing against you, and I'm not trying to get you punished; but the solution seems clear to me. Doc talk 02:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- Ok I've looked at the Warcraft edits and they are actually a non-issue (besides the stalking). There is obvious grounds for removal of any unsourced content. However Doc's point is that you, HighKing, have returned to a pattern of going to pages and editing them because they contain a phrase (British Isles) rather than in an effort to improve the articles as a whole your edits to them are made solely in order to police the use of terminology. That behaviour is in and of itself not constructive. We've had this conversation multiple times since 2010 and frankly I'm not impressed that it's come-up again.
While the Warcraft stuff is a non-issue there are edits that raise a red flag. I'm looking through your last 500 article edits (March 2013 - present) & I've identified at least 11 questionable edits in April and May 2013 (10 of which fall under WP:GS/BI and 1 under WP:TROUBLES). I will be posting to your page in the next 48 hours with a detailed examination and a determination in relation to this. As mentioned above this behaviour falls into the category of single purpose editing, and multiple ArbCom resolutions state that accounts behaving in this manner must:
I haven't decided whether the edits are violations, mistakes or just borderline, but edits that test the limits eventually become disruptive in and of themselves. In my view the first 2 princples of the GoodDay RFAR equally apply here. I will be looking at further edits both in June 2013 and earlier this year in order to aid my determination--Cailil talk 22:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is incompatible with the goals of this project.[3][4][5][6][7].
- I've always been clear, and I've said in the past, that I pay attention to articles that use the terminology "British Isles". It can hardly be called single purpose editing though, I edit on a lot of articles. A lot of my editing may be classed as terminology-related though - I've made a load of edits wrt WP:IRE-IRL and do a lot of cleanup on articles in general. Also, unlike the Arb cases you've pointed to, I've always been happy to discuss edits, look for sources and references, engage positively with the community, etc. I don't edit war, etc, etc. I don't think at any time in the past 9 months I've ever stuck my heels in on an edit - if people object and can make a case, fine by me. I've thought about logging my "British Isles" related edits to one of my pages, with the rationale and research done, etc. What makes this especially difficult for me is that nobody has actually objected to any of the edits you are looking at, or made a case why my edits are incorrect. I'm being placed in a practically impossible situation, and one that is very frustrating. As I've said many many times in the past, I'm only too happy to engage with the community in any way, shape, or form. Anyway, lets wait and see what edits you want me to explain. --HighKing (talk) 10:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Further comment on the ban
Since HighKing linked to an SPI report that may justify his apparent 3RR violation on a Warcraft article I've now modified my comment, though I still support keeping the ban in place. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
thanks for help on Feminism
It's bound to be a tricky topic to edit, so thanks. Leadwind (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- NP, that particular text you moved was inserted there as a compromise but I think the way it is now makes better sense--Cailil talk 13:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Help requested
Calil I have a very keen editor who is determined to remove images from the Ulster Defence Regiment article. Some of which have been there for a very long time. I lack the experience to properly negotiate with this guy and he's even gone as far as to delete an RfC I made on the talk page.
Would you be kind enough to have a look at the situation and please advise both parties? I hasten to add that the editing at this page has been collegiate and productive for quite some time now however this editor is engaging in edit warring which I find quite disconcerting. Thank you. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have suggested that SonofSetanta, take this to WP:NFCR if they disagree. Werieth (talk) 12:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have done so however Calil is a very experienced moderator, particularly with regards to articles concerning the Northern Ireland Troubles. You have violated an Arbcom directive and rather than make a mountain out of this molehill I suggest you let him comment. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- First off Werieth is correct, WP:NFCR is the correct venue and I see you've opened discussion there - let that run and see what the determination is. Secondly you're both wrong to have reverted one another. Werieth broke the 1rr but this seems like a mistake to me so I'll warn but that's as far as it'll go (unless further reverting from either of you occurs). Equally SonofSetanta, you shouldn't have reverted the removal of Non free images. Where a policy as serious as that is being invoked err on the side of caution. Thirdly, Werieth shouldn't have deleted the RFC on the article's talk page - but I would have closed it and sent you to NFCR - I don't see that as a big issue since it was the worng venue. Overall I'd suggest stepping back a bit, NFCR is well experienced with this issue and will make the correct decision as regards policy--Cailil talk 13:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for this advice Calil. My view was that once I had reverted the images Werieth would have engaged in discussion about why he felt they should be removed and at that point a WP:NFCR should have been raised by him. My opinion is always that nothing should be forced through but discussed in a collegiate fashion unless it's directed by a moderator, especially when it's on such a sensitive topic and more especially in view of the turbulent history of this particular article. It only takes one edit war and serious editors like myself are likely to leave the project and that's to the detriment of the article and the wiki. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- For clarity SonofSetanta, there was nothing wrong with Werieth boldy removing non free images that are not covered by WP:NFCC or if he thought in good faith that they were not covered by NFCC. When he did that you should have opened a review. You should not have reverted. And he should not have reverted you. It takes two to edit war SoS--Cailil talk 14:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- I accept what you say Calil but my thinking was that if I reverted him and invited him onto the talk page to see what his concerns were then we could discuss the merits of the images and how text could have been edited to make them suitable in his eyes. I'd never heard of WP:NFCC before today which is why I called for advice but surely it could have been discussed with the images in place instead of Werieth forcing his changes through? I have warned him that I will ask for ArnCom to sanction him unless he reverts. It sounds petty but surely he should do the decent thing and adopt the same collegiate attitude as I? I know I definitely don't want to go down the "traditional route" of infighting on this page but I'm rather annoyed that this chap is just ramming WP:NFCC#8 down my throat when he hasn't complied with so many other Wikipedia guidelines, especially the very important WP:1RR. One thing I've learned from past experience is that discussion is always better than edit-warring. After all, we're all trying to achieve the same thing - perfection! SonofSetanta (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Replied with a note on Wereith's[8] and your own[9] talk pages. Short answer: Non Free Image policy is serious, reverting is unwise. His first edit was fine. Your revert was wrong. His revert of you was a technical breach of the 1RR (but a mistake).
Using ArbCom rulings to try to win arguments had an impact on your previous sanction SoS - that is what you are doing here, whether you realize it or not. Step back. Let the NFCR thread run its course - it might take a while but there is no deadline--Cailil talk 15:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Replied with a note on Wereith's[8] and your own[9] talk pages. Short answer: Non Free Image policy is serious, reverting is unwise. His first edit was fine. Your revert was wrong. His revert of you was a technical breach of the 1RR (but a mistake).
Noted your comment to Wereith and very much appreciate the advice you've given. It's in my nature to say so when I feel aggrieved and I felt this type of intervention without discussion ran against the collegiate policy of the wiki so I threw my teddy out of the pram. Thank you too for allowing me to discuss it with you. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Cailil I am really trying to not go to ANI and ask for a block, but SonofSetanta just re-inserted a NFCC violation less than 24 hours after their last revert and it still completely fails NFCC. My suggestion is that you step in and give SonofSetanta a clue before I need to seek either a topic ban or block. Werieth (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's a good faith error Calil. Given that it is a new day I didn't stop to think that I was still inside the 24 hour limit as my mind was focused on the "Women's UDR (Greenfinches)" section which I've now published. I'm quite happy to revert until 24 hours have passed. I changed the text on the article to specifically include the application form usage although another editor has since changed it and a question is posted on the article talk page to discuss the wording. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- PS, on checking I see I was out by around 1hr 20 mins. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Facepalm You *really* don't get it SonOfSetanta. Whether or not you were inside or outside the 24 hour 1RR window is irrelevnt you were editwarring. Read all of the posts I've made. Werieth's removal IS correct (in terms of policy). Wait till the NFCR thread runs its course. You have NO justification for reverting after files are removed under NFCC policy, until an NFCR thread with outside input is closed.
Having reported Werieth for a 1RR breach yesterday you showed me you understood the rules. Rules you just broke. It's been just under 7 months since your were last sanctioned expired for breaching WP:TROUBLES, and this is the second time in 18 months that you've broken 1RR at the Ulster Defence Regiment article. I really am left with few options here but to take action--Cailil talk 16:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)- I really would rather not get involved in the edit war, however both of the non-free images that where restored have the worst justification for inclusion and completely fail NFCC and should be removed. Werieth (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)`
- Werieth I'd suggest waiting for the NFCR thread to finish to make any further edits removing or adding these or other non free images to that page. EdJohnston spoke to you a month ago about precisely this kind of thing - wait for teh community input for any further edits--Cailil talk 18:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- I really would rather not get involved in the edit war, however both of the non-free images that where restored have the worst justification for inclusion and completely fail NFCC and should be removed. Werieth (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)`
- Facepalm You *really* don't get it SonOfSetanta. Whether or not you were inside or outside the 24 hour 1RR window is irrelevnt you were editwarring. Read all of the posts I've made. Werieth's removal IS correct (in terms of policy). Wait till the NFCR thread runs its course. You have NO justification for reverting after files are removed under NFCC policy, until an NFCR thread with outside input is closed.
(talk page stalker)July?. OMG, thats amazing, or everyone is already blocked ;) Murry1975 (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Opinion sought
You may remember I had a little difficulty with images last Thursday and Friday? ;)
I am still seeking an outcome and have made suggestions at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Proposals.
I would appreciate your comment and any further advice you might have? SonofSetanta (talk) 09:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- The best advice SoS is wait. Let uninvolved editors voice their opinions that's what NFCR is for. Give it a number of days without interjecting and work on other stuff (even other stuff in that article not related to non free images). Because these images are not copyright free using them is an issue - thus we (wikipedia) have to exacting in our diligence about using them. That rigour takes time--Cailil talk 20:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm working away and being patient. Thank you. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
ANI notice (July 2013)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding me unblocking Pudeo. The thread is Bwilkins' response to my unblock of Pudeo. Thank you. -- tariqabjotu 22:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
FYI
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 06:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
He's at it again
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Werieth (talk) He removed the UDR badge from all the infoboxes in all the UDR articles bar the parent article, citing the reasons: no fair use rationale, and incorrect source. I fixed those and restored the badges. Then he pops up again and says he hasn't given all the reasons and quotes WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFC#UUI. He's now editwarring as he's gone back and commented out all the badges again. Unlike the last time I'm not going to fall into any traps. I'm asking you for your advice and I'm raising the points at the Military History page. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
BTW: he's also removed all the fair use rationales which I put on the image page at File:Cap Badge of the Ulster Defence Regiment.jpg. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Please be accurate. When I removed the files from the articles I only cited one reason (Missing rationales for the usage). However when I left a note on SoS's talk page I let them know there was an issue with the source, and that usage of said file needs to be restricted because its a non-free file. (This was a summary without giving a long explanation of reasons). There isnt and cant be justification for using the image on 18 different articles. Werieth (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- SoS using non free images in a nav box is not appropriate. If you want to have images for these things you need to source copyright free pictures. Discuss it at the Mil History project, but you need to be crystal clear about the non free image policy. NFCC #8 rules this kind of use out. There must be a copyright free image that fits the bill for that nav box?--Cailil talk 15:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Calil the instructions for using a military info box are here: Template:Infobox_military_unit. The instructions are clear: that " an image of the unit insignia (cap badges, tartan or colours), if available". There is only one badge for the Ulster Defence Regiment and its use in military info boxes is acceptable as far as I can see. Each page is about a different battalion or component of the Ulster Defence Regiment and warrants the use of a military infobox - with the correct badge included. This constitutes minimal usage as far as I can see, having found no information to contradict it. If the images were in the body of the text then Werieth would have a case under Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria but as they're being used in military info boxes he doesn't. Plus, if you don't mind me adding, Werieth has clearly engaged in edit warring, long after you cautioned him. Not only that but he has removed all the fair use rationales supplied on the image page. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Here's an example of what I'm talking about Calil. [File:75 Ranger Regiment Distinctive Unit Insignia.svg] a unit insignia being used on 38 different pages. Werieth's complaints don't apply when it comes to military insignia. If the Harp & Crown badge is all the unit is known by then I, along with every editor on Wikipedia, can rightly use it to indicate the UDR, it's battalions, companies, platoons and personnel, without over zealous people jumping down my throat. Minimal usage still applies and usually means the insignia will only be used in the info box. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, I guess you havent actually read NFCC yet. Minimal usage WP:NFCC#3 applies both on a single page, and across wikipedia as a whole. {{Infobox military unit}}'s is for when a particular unit has its own distinctive identification (See 174th Attack Wing for example) You cannot just include the badge of the parent organization to fill the space. Using a copyrighted file across 18 pages isnt minimal usage. We have free images that are used hundreds of thousands of times, I really dont care about how often those are used. Free content has one set of rules, while non-free content has a second set of rules. If you want to avoid issues the easiest thing to do would be to not use/upload non-free media. Werieth (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Here's an example of what I'm talking about Calil. [File:75 Ranger Regiment Distinctive Unit Insignia.svg] a unit insignia being used on 38 different pages. Werieth's complaints don't apply when it comes to military insignia. If the Harp & Crown badge is all the unit is known by then I, along with every editor on Wikipedia, can rightly use it to indicate the UDR, it's battalions, companies, platoons and personnel, without over zealous people jumping down my throat. Minimal usage still applies and usually means the insignia will only be used in the info box. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- These 2 image shave 2 different licenses SoS. File:75 Ranger Regiment Distinctive Unit Insignia.svg is copyright free because it is a drawing of the insignia released to wikimedia commons. The File:Cap Badge of the Ulster Defence Regiment.jpg is a photo from somebody else's website. These are two completely different things. Non-free images are restrictively used. I'm afraid that nav boxes and other transcluded templates do not constitute minimal use. I will look at the edit warring but please step back. My overwhelming suggestion is that you seek a copyright free version. Perhaps ask at commons if somebody could make one (a drawing ala File:75 Ranger Regiment Distinctive Unit Insignia.svg) at commons (I've never done this but I'm assuming that there is a project there that would cover this. Perhaps this File:UDR Sign.jpg could be the basis for it (it's copyright free)?--Cailil talk 16:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- (EC) Or go from otehr elements which are copyright free and make up the badge digitally. This flag has the same harp[10] and you'll easily find the right crown on commons - i found these two without much effort[11][12]. With a little photoshop and a good acknowledgement of the source files you could have a free version of the insignia and use it for the navbox--Cailil talk 16:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- These 2 image shave 2 different licenses SoS. File:75 Ranger Regiment Distinctive Unit Insignia.svg is copyright free because it is a drawing of the insignia released to wikimedia commons. The File:Cap Badge of the Ulster Defence Regiment.jpg is a photo from somebody else's website. These are two completely different things. Non-free images are restrictively used. I'm afraid that nav boxes and other transcluded templates do not constitute minimal use. I will look at the edit warring but please step back. My overwhelming suggestion is that you seek a copyright free version. Perhaps ask at commons if somebody could make one (a drawing ala File:75 Ranger Regiment Distinctive Unit Insignia.svg) at commons (I've never done this but I'm assuming that there is a project there that would cover this. Perhaps this File:UDR Sign.jpg could be the basis for it (it's copyright free)?--Cailil talk 16:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- My point is Calil: that minimal usage can mean 100 legitimate uses of the file provided those uses are, in this case, to depict the regimental badge in the military info boxes for each UDR battalion - in other words, minimal as per the situation. (750 men and women approx). The same logic would apply if for example there was a famous UDR soldier; one could still use the image in his infobox to denote service with the regiment. I'd be very obliged if you'd look at the editwarring because I'm getting the feeling that this guy just wants to walk all over me, that I'm being singled out for "special attention". He's even passed comment on my talk page that HE doesn't want to see ME get "banned again". Your suggestion to use a copyright free image seems reasonable so I'll look at that whilst simultaneously awaiting a response from MILHIST. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- In order for it to be a legitimate use the article cannot be understood without it. A really good example of this is Virgin Killer (warning graphic image). There is a distinct reason for having the file. The image itself is part of the discussion about the history of the album. Including a icon just because someone served with that group. Take a look at Bill Gates you wont see the logo of Microsoft, because its not needed. The barrier for WP:NFCC#8 is fairly high. Werieth (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- My point is Calil: that minimal usage can mean 100 legitimate uses of the file provided those uses are, in this case, to depict the regimental badge in the military info boxes for each UDR battalion - in other words, minimal as per the situation. (750 men and women approx). The same logic would apply if for example there was a famous UDR soldier; one could still use the image in his infobox to denote service with the regiment. I'd be very obliged if you'd look at the editwarring because I'm getting the feeling that this guy just wants to walk all over me, that I'm being singled out for "special attention". He's even passed comment on my talk page that HE doesn't want to see ME get "banned again". Your suggestion to use a copyright free image seems reasonable so I'll look at that whilst simultaneously awaiting a response from MILHIST. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think you see where NFCC is coming from. Fundamentally unless a page NEEDS to have a non-free version of an image then it shouldn't have one. If there is ANY other way it should be tried first. In my experience WRT insignia & flags there generally is another option--Cailil talk 16:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I see where he's coming from but I think he's interpreting his rules too narrowly. He doesn't understand the significance of a military capbadge to illustrate a particular unit. The information provided at Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Rationale is clear: NO FREE EQUIVALENT - Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. . There is no free equivalent for this badge therefore it is the only insignia which can be used to identify the subject matter. That the subject unit has 16 battalions is beyond our control. 16 Battalions, 16 fair uses, plus the fair use on the parent article and the list of locations. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Again you are only reading part of NFCC. Why does 9th Battalion, Ulster Defence Regiment require a image? What about the article cannot be understood without it? a link to Ulster Defence Regiment would do the same thing as you are trying to do. The barrier needed to meet all 10 points of WP:NFCC will not be met across the articles you are trying to spread that file. Werieth (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- (ec) @ SoS: Well as above you can see how one could be made, without too much trouble. A free image is always superior to a non-free one on WP. NFCC #8 is very restrictive and it has to be to protect this site from copyright claims. My advice see about getting a free version made - it should solve all the issues--Cailil talk 17:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for the advice and guidance, as always. I will create a free image today and use that. One question though: if the UDR themselves were to request the use of the file would that have any merit? I've been in contact with them and they're quite keen to help. When this has been completed do I have your permission to edit the image into each infobox without falling foul of the 1RR restriction?
- BTW The reason 9th Battalion, Ulster Defence Regiment would need an image is purely from the aesthetics and protocol of using an image in the military info box. Each info box identifies the article for the reader, in addition to the header. This is contained within the instructions for using a military info box. One tries to create a corporate image (for want of a better term) for each subject. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- New image uploaded at Ulster Defence Regiment infobox. Is this ok? May I use it to fill the remaining UDR battalion articles? SonofSetanta (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- I missed the second paragraph of this post, You need to take a step back and go read NFCC, would need an image is purely from the aesthetics and protocol of using an image means that you shouldn't use the image. There is no automatic right to use copyrighted material on a article. We do not under any circumstance use a non free file solely for its aesthetic value. If a unit has its own distinct branding (which is unique from the parent group) then justification for identification can be asserted. Otherwise their isn't a need to repeat the same branding. Using NFCC isn't automatically allowed, take a look at both parts of NFCC#8. The barrier for using NFC is very high. Something you dont seem to be getting. Werieth (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- New image uploaded at Ulster Defence Regiment infobox. Is this ok? May I use it to fill the remaining UDR battalion articles? SonofSetanta (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- On the 1RR: I can't give you permission to break the rule - wait till the time has elapsed, maybe even wait a few more hours - then add the new free image.
RE: the UDR & the file. If a group has an image they would be willing to donate to the world free of copyright they can upload it to commons. The owner's request for use of a file on Wikipedia (and wikipedia alone) is actually incompatible with our licenses (creative commons & GFDL). So actually, no. Any group would have to upload an image they own free of copyright or under GFDL or Creative Commons.
Most ppl are used to uploading any image to a website but wikipedia can't do that - it has to obey copyright laws--Cailil talk 14:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- On the 1RR: I can't give you permission to break the rule - wait till the time has elapsed, maybe even wait a few more hours - then add the new free image.
- Thanks for that Calil. The UDR would be unable to donate the badge as it's ultimately Crown Copyright. They have certain rights under that usage which they can't waive. From what I have read (and replied to) below it would seem that Werieth is still unhappy even though I'm simply using a Maid of Erin with a crown on top now. Would you have any further comment or advice to offer vis-a-vis his current objections? SonofSetanta (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Two points. The image you created looks nothing like the official badge. Also it would fail Wikipedia:Derivative works Werieth (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm happy with the image I have created and believe it fits the bill. I believe my colleagues in Military History would agree. If it looks nothing like the original then that means it's copyright free and NOT a derivative. FYI: the "Maid of Erin" or "Angel Harp" is hundreds of years old and does not require copyright. If I fancy putting a crown on top of a Maid of Erin then that's my business. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Again two points, Just because you created something that kinda looks like their emblem means we shouldnt use it. By using it we are lying to our readers, we are portraying something that is not their emblem as if it was. Two, just because the elements are free doesnt mean that you can combine them and avoid copyright issues. Regardless of how it was created if you create something visually similar enough to pass as the original you run into copyright issues. If you want an hour lecture on the intricacies of copyright law, Derivative works, Threshold of Originality, and Verifiability I can do it but its boring and complex. Werieth (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Hang on Werieth - he needs to obey commons policy yes. I don't know where he got that harp from but *IF* its a free (creative commons or GFDL) image, he just needs to identify and license it properly. The crown is the Crown of St Edward and is free and appropriate for this use. And no the image does not look "nothing like the official badge".Ah I was under the misconception that the UDR was set-up circa 1922. See WP:LOGO SoS. In term of the likeness I disagree with Werieth. I also wonder whether this should actually be discussed at MilHis with others with experieence of working with historical regiments' insignia. As this involves a British insignia I don't know whether its likeness is copyrighted--Cailil talk 15:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
@SoS I don't think the image looks "nothing like" the badge that is a huge overstatement but where the Harp image comes fom IS important. If where that harp comes from is not free then you CAN'T use it. With that in mind, perhaps this image[13] or a modification of it (with the same elements) would be better given Wereith's concerns about the harp source--Cailil talk 15:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- A good example of what I was referring to about Derivative works can be explained using File:Challenge ProMode Arena logo.png which is basically a bio-hazard symbol with a circle. Yes I can create something visually almost identical using only free works, however because the original is copyrighted what ever I create would fall under the same copyright as it would look almost the same. Because I used File:Challenge ProMode Arena logo.png as a reference and attempted to create my own free version of it anything that resulted from that would be a Derivative work. Werieth (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Werieth what is going to satisfy you in this instance? You say the badge isn't representative of the UDR whereas Calil and I say it is close enough. At the same time you say it's too close to be classed as a free image. There must be a way to settle this and provide a corporate image for the Ulster Defence Regiment on Wikipedia inline with the concept recommended at MILHIST where a badge or symbol, recognisably that of the unit, occupies the top of the info box. As things stand I have created a free image which arguably could be construed as that of many Irish regiments in the British Army but it isn't; it's a home construct designed to be the corporate image of the UDR on Wikipedia and inform readers that each article is connected with the parent article at Ulster Defence Regiment. We are not lying to our readers and can inform them even better by placing a copy of the original badge in the parent article.
- @Calil. I will get in touch with Sodacan as you suggest. I note many copyrighted images on his page and think he will have the nouse to sort this one out. I await helpful suggestions from Werieth too and meanwhile the discussion continues at Military History. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- I want to put something to Werieth. Above you state: Minimal usage WP:NFCC#3 applies both on a single page, and across wikipedia as a whole. {{Infobox military unit}}'s is for when a particular unit has its own distinctive identification (See 174th Attack Wing. I agree with you. The problem being faced here is that the UDR wasn't just one unit. It was so big it had a brigadier commanding and it's impossible to compress the history into one Wikipedia page. It was tried but because there is so much notable information it was decided to split the individual battalion histories away from a general regimental history. With a normal infantry regiment it would be sufficient to include the histories for the 2nd and 3rd battalions on one page but this regiment had 16 battalions over its history and the only insignia it ever used was the Maid of Erin badge. It didn't have divisional or formation signs or individual battalion badges - just that one which is causing so much fuss at the moment, which is why I'm trying to impress upon you that, bizarre as it might sound, the use of the badge 18 times is actually minimal use. So to recap: the UDR as a regiment used the maid of erin and each battalion of 500+ men and women ALSO used the badge, in their hats, on their flags, their paperwork, their vehicles - this is the ONLY symbol that can be used. I believe it acceptable to use a representation as a corporate image on the wiki because it's similar enough to identify the regiment the regiment as Irish Infantry in the British Army by doing so. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- SoS I'm closing this here as it REALLY is best to have 1 conversation not multiple ones. Talk to Sodacan. British Regiments and their insgina are a little more complex than Werieth seems to understand in terms of the image rights. But that doesn't mean that in the end the image WILL be free. They're from differnt armies but Irish Army's Ranger Wing insignia is Non-free as are some Canadian unit's emblems. This is a very complex area and frankly being as conservative as Werieth suggests is a good call: please read WP:LOGO it does apply here even to recreations of logos. There is a possibility though that as a British military insignia there are otehr rules. I'm not an expert on British military emblems and copyright law. Talk this out at MilHist and chat to sodacan.
Both of you try to drop the interpersonal issues. It will rebound on both of you if it continues--Cailil talk 16:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- SoS I'm closing this here as it REALLY is best to have 1 conversation not multiple ones. Talk to Sodacan. British Regiments and their insgina are a little more complex than Werieth seems to understand in terms of the image rights. But that doesn't mean that in the end the image WILL be free. They're from differnt armies but Irish Army's Ranger Wing insignia is Non-free as are some Canadian unit's emblems. This is a very complex area and frankly being as conservative as Werieth suggests is a good call: please read WP:LOGO it does apply here even to recreations of logos. There is a possibility though that as a British military insignia there are otehr rules. I'm not an expert on British military emblems and copyright law. Talk this out at MilHist and chat to sodacan.
- (edit conflict)There is no entitlement to have an image in an article. I think your whole approach to NFC is backwards. Just because we have an article on a sub-entity doesnt mean that we need to include branding information on their article. If the sub-entity has no unique branding its assumed that they inherit the branding of the parent entity. When using the badge most people will not associate it with a particular sub-entity, they will associate the badge with the parent entity. One sort of example where things where split to its own article. Take a look at Juneau, Alaska, it uses File:Seal of the City and Borough of Juneau, Alaska.svg and has several spinoff articles, yet none use the seal as its not needed. The barrier for NFCC#8 is extremely high. You will just have to live with the fact that you cannot have a badge in the battalion articles. The usage of non-free media is highly restrictive, and you will have to live with that, or get policy changed (something that will not happen). Your point of view in regards to 'would need an image is purely from the aesthetics and protocol of using an image so far from current policy. Your perspective needs to shift from that to, why am I required to include a non-free file? is there anything I can do to avoid it? can I link to where a similar example is? Can I replace it with text? Is there anything I can do so that I do not need to include said file? If after answering those questions you still need the file in order to comprehend the article, that's when the bar for NFC usage is met. Right now you just want to include the file in the sub-entities as eye candy. That cannot be done. Werieth (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- I understand your frustration Werieth but you need to understand too - this may actually be more complex than you suggest. Talk it out at the MilHist Project. And furthermore I am serious about the interpersonal stuff. Drop it. WP:TROUBLES does cover that and frankly given that I've already warned you not to treat the 3RR exemptions as a straight forward license to revert further editwarring will be sanctioned.
If SoS persists with inappropriate use of non free images do not revert first take it to WP:AE under the WP:Troubles ruling and outline the history here. Let uninvolved sysops decide then follow through after that decision. Also please respect the closure templates - this discussion is archived-Cailil talk 18:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- I understand your frustration Werieth but you need to understand too - this may actually be more complex than you suggest. Talk it out at the MilHist Project. And furthermore I am serious about the interpersonal stuff. Drop it. WP:TROUBLES does cover that and frankly given that I've already warned you not to treat the 3RR exemptions as a straight forward license to revert further editwarring will be sanctioned.
- (edit conflict)There is no entitlement to have an image in an article. I think your whole approach to NFC is backwards. Just because we have an article on a sub-entity doesnt mean that we need to include branding information on their article. If the sub-entity has no unique branding its assumed that they inherit the branding of the parent entity. When using the badge most people will not associate it with a particular sub-entity, they will associate the badge with the parent entity. One sort of example where things where split to its own article. Take a look at Juneau, Alaska, it uses File:Seal of the City and Borough of Juneau, Alaska.svg and has several spinoff articles, yet none use the seal as its not needed. The barrier for NFCC#8 is extremely high. You will just have to live with the fact that you cannot have a badge in the battalion articles. The usage of non-free media is highly restrictive, and you will have to live with that, or get policy changed (something that will not happen). Your point of view in regards to 'would need an image is purely from the aesthetics and protocol of using an image so far from current policy. Your perspective needs to shift from that to, why am I required to include a non-free file? is there anything I can do to avoid it? can I link to where a similar example is? Can I replace it with text? Is there anything I can do so that I do not need to include said file? If after answering those questions you still need the file in order to comprehend the article, that's when the bar for NFC usage is met. Right now you just want to include the file in the sub-entities as eye candy. That cannot be done. Werieth (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Discussion
I would be very grateful if you were to examine the discussion at commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:The_Badge_of_the_Ulster_Defence_Regiment.jpg and perhaps even give an opinion?
As regards the interpersonal difficulties you made mention of in the above (archived) discussion, I have placed a request on my talk page asking for assistance from Dispute Resolution. I think you would agree that dialogue is the best way forward? SonofSetanta (talk) 12:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Commons has its own rules SoS. I'm an admin here on English Wikipedia not there. I really have nothing more to add to that discussion.
Also please read what I said above. You need to have identified where you got the two copyright free elements from - epecially the harp. I can't find that harp on commons. The one used to represent the harp that the UDR badge uses is the same as the one used here[14]. Sodacan has recommended this file[15] as an alternative BTW.
At this point I need to advise you to step back. Both you and Wereith are talk at one another rather than to each other. Neither of you will win this argument because neither of you are listening. Dispute resolution may not help - this is about policy. It is black and white. Insignia like this are either covered by WP:LOGO and/or NFCC or not. There is nothing to debate. There are no opinions that can change the fact that these policies either apply or not - simple as that.
I closed the thread above so that you would centralize your discussions at the MilHist Project - I insist you do that and keep the deletion discussion at commons-Cailil talk 13:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Subject to the outcome of the discussion at commons I may well decide to use the image Sodacan has recommended - thank you for that. I've started a dispute resolution case to try and resolve the growing interpersonal problems between Werieth and I, not to resolve the badge issue. The issue with the existing badge doesn't appear to be one of copyright infringement but more personal dislike of the image by Werieth, going by his comments so I've drawn the attention of the MILHIST people to the discussion at commons. Other suggestions are now forthcoming too including the one by Sodacan which you've kindly shown me. At the moment I've done as much as I can (I think) to avoid a repetition of edit warring and to try and mend fences with Werieth. I note your comments about "stepping back" and I will try to do so, bearing in mind the manifold ongoing discussions. I keep coming back to you because I know you will give me straight answers. Sorry for taking up so much of your time. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- No problem SoS. I can see that you both are working in good faith. It's just a highly complex issue. Wereith is making some excellent points to you re: image policy. They might be unpalitable in that image policy is restrictive but as I've said above WP has to have very high standards due to our licences. Wereith is only acting in a way that he sees as protecting the site. And you are acting in a way that you see as improving the site. The twain can meet - I hope your DRN re the personal issues will help resolve this. Just stay on the safe side of 1RR and don't revert. Discuss and reach consensus first--Cailil talk 14:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you.SonofSetanta (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- You'll be glad to hear that the fur has stopped flying as regards all of this copyright stuff. I have requested closure of the discussion at the Administrators Noticeboard and am discussing outstanding issues with Werieth and on the respective talk pages. The discussions have helped my understanding of copyright to a great degree as has the remedial work I've carried out. I have to admit to being a bit taken aback when the three "vultures" appeared out of the blue but I ignored them which I think you'll agree was the best thing to do. I want to thank you again for your advice and guidance which is always helpful, even when you get exasperated. I'm sorry if you felt I was creating a scene, I know I can be hard work at times but I am genuine, just maybe a little slow on the uptake when it comes to technical matters. Working on Wikipedia means a lot to me, more than you can imagine, so I am very keen to avoid the type of knee-jerk behaviour which has got me into trouble in the past. I would like to think I can call on you for further advice in the future if the need arises? SonofSetanta (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- I saw that on Wereith's talk page. It's a very good step - keep it up. My advice is to take it slowly (in terms of images). Use the rest of your time to do other things needed for improving the article(s)--Cailil talk 10:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- You've probably noticed but I have a much more collegiate approach than in the past. It has to be said though, it's much easier to work on articles when there's no fighting going on. Nobody trying to prove a point, no POV pushing etc. I would be interested to know however if you think I have created an NPOV article at Ulster Defence Regiment? I've done my best just to stick to the facts. I had considered deleting all the political stuff but I kept it deliberately to show POV from both sides of the NI community. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- I saw that on Wereith's talk page. It's a very good step - keep it up. My advice is to take it slowly (in terms of images). Use the rest of your time to do other things needed for improving the article(s)--Cailil talk 10:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- You'll be glad to hear that the fur has stopped flying as regards all of this copyright stuff. I have requested closure of the discussion at the Administrators Noticeboard and am discussing outstanding issues with Werieth and on the respective talk pages. The discussions have helped my understanding of copyright to a great degree as has the remedial work I've carried out. I have to admit to being a bit taken aback when the three "vultures" appeared out of the blue but I ignored them which I think you'll agree was the best thing to do. I want to thank you again for your advice and guidance which is always helpful, even when you get exasperated. I'm sorry if you felt I was creating a scene, I know I can be hard work at times but I am genuine, just maybe a little slow on the uptake when it comes to technical matters. Working on Wikipedia means a lot to me, more than you can imagine, so I am very keen to avoid the type of knee-jerk behaviour which has got me into trouble in the past. I would like to think I can call on you for further advice in the future if the need arises? SonofSetanta (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
As an uninvoled sysop it's best for me not to get into content SoS so my advice on that is try Good article review. An experienced reviewer will give feedback on how to improve the page towards Good Article status. There is a process to go through so please read it all first and good luck--Cailil talk 12:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you again Calil. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
"uninvolved sysops"
I have withdrawn my objection[16] to this particular RfE appeal, which I hope, proves that the consensus building process (however difficult) can work. However, there is a larger issue I wish to discuss. I don't agree that only the opinions of uninvolved admins matter. Perhaps that's not what you intended to imply when you said "uninvolved sysops" (as opposed to "uninvolved editors"). AFAIK, being an admin is no big deal, and admins simply carry out the consensus of the larger community. But I am troubled by the fact that we are apparently creating a two-class system. To the best of my knowledge, there is no policy that states this. Can you please change the wording of this post[17] to say "uninvolved editors"? Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Actually if you read my user page you'll see I 'm one of the few sysops who actually believe that it's a not a big deal. However WP:AE has segregated discussion for a reason. One of the sysops has to take responsibility for taking action. They have to perform the block/ban etc. It's on them if it's wrong. And yes the policy for discretionary sanctions (and every single ArbCom enforcement section in every RfAr) states that: "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions...".
The only analogy I have is that WP:AE threads are like being on a road trip with 8 of your friends in the back (you'd need a big car for the AE crowd). Stan and Bob want to take the Freeway, but Steve and Sean want to take the back-road, and now their arguing and throwing empty beer cans at one another. Evin and Paul want you the driver to have a bud with them and aren't wearing seat-belts so they can lean in to talk to you (wearing seat-belts is mandatory for all passengers here). Carlo wants to stick his head out the window and Eric is mooning other cars from the front seat. All this is going on but you're the driving. If you get distracted real people suffer. There are real consequences. If cops decide to caution Eric you'll get a slap on the wrist too - because you're the one driving (that at least is how it works here) - the driver is accountable for their passengers actions. If the passangers are out of control the driver answers for it too. The comparison with AE is this: it's the driver's responsibility to make all the calls. To decide where to go, to get Eric and others to sit down and behave, etc. The driver has to take action because they're accountable. They can't say "oh... well... Steve said it'd be ok" or "Bob convinced me...".
Any one who hasn't gone through RFA hasn't had the community consider whether their judgement is fit for deciding when and when not to block. The sysop is (and this is actually true at WP:AE) accountable for their actions. ArbCom will desysop or ban an admin from AE if they actually make inappropriate calls. It needs to be borne in mind that AE is not democratic, and it's an imperfect system so I 100% understand where you're coming from AQfK, but as it stands unless or until editors who aren't sysops are held accountable for actions/opinions/decisions at AE they wont have input on that final decision. In short it's actually far more complex than you're suggesting becuase:
1) there are matters of accountability, and
2) it is actually policy/Arbcom's call that this is how it's done.
But thanks for dropping by, I think there a number of policies and procedures that could be updated to at least help ppl understand why sysops have the role they do, and of course some could be changed to be more inclusive--Cailil talk 18:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)- Cailil, I'm never giving a ride to any of your friends, but that explanation should be on an FAQ at the AE page somewhere. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- That's why I don't give my friends lifts either ;)--Cailil talk 21:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- @Cailil: Just to clarify, you're referring to WP:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions? If so, that does answer my query, although it flies in the face of WP:CONCENSUS (which, unlike WP:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, is an actual Wikipedia policy). I guess the way I've always viewed this is that if an AE admin action is uncontentious (for example, a clear violation of 1RR), an AE admin can assume consensus already exists, and can act boldly. But where an AE action is contentious and significant disagreement exists among uninvolved editors, the normal consensus building process should be followed. To me, that lives up to the ethos that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. What you are saying creates a two class system of haves and have nots. Perhaps I'm being far too idealistic in this regard, but I don't believe that some editors are more equal than others. I'm not sure how to proceed at this point. Should we have an RfC to formally establish a two-class system? While I wouldn't agree with such a system, I would rather have it explicitly stated, than implied. Or maybe I should just remove AE from my watchlist if the contributions of uninvolved editors are less equal than others. It's time for me to take my own chill pill, LOL. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- (Apologies for the long response) Actually no AQfK, AE doesn't work by consensus (I know that sounds crazy but) because it's an enforcement board for existing sanctions/procedures the admins are acting with pre-authorization, and the closer is the one who acts (and acts alone). The only question actually being asked by an AE thread is "do the edits shown in this report meet the standard for action or not". Another aspect to AE is that sanctions from it are (obviously) not always preventative - they are coercive (see the big red box at the top of WP:AE). It's a whole different system, because its a subset of RFAR.
Just look at the way we do RFAR - only a few people become Arbs, only a few become clerks. Only clerks can manage pages. Only Arbs can make decisions. The question: why do we do this? is important. RFARs are very serious. Look at the many many nationalist dispute cases. There are real world issues that bleed into the actions of groups of people on this site. People working, sometimes covertly to use this website to advertise/promote their agenda or inflame real world tensions. The WMF has a real world responsibility to stop that. In fact I'm sure its charitable status would be at stake if it didn't act to prevent such activities. Thus a very rigid and formal system was created - one that flies in the face of how the rest of WP and indeed the internet works. I understand why ppl feel excluded I'm not an Arb (and have zero ambitions to be one) and I get frustrated every-now-and-then by decisions they make. I'm sure others feel the same about some of my admin decisions. But frankly when one is accountable for decisions the action we take is often different to what we wish it would be.
Re: the two class system, well it only creates that in the same way that a driver's license does (some people have had their driving vetted and checked that it's up to safety standards, some people haven't - thus who haven't can't drive until they get a license). The block button and decision to ban need that vetting in the same way driving needs testing. The bit is not a status symbol - it makes one a functionary with responsibilities. Now I know there are admins maybe some who were RFA'd later than myself and others who seem to feel it is a status symbol or a police badge, it's not. The way I look at it is if I drop the ball by not fulfilling my functions (AE being one, CSD being another, unblock requests another and XFD etc) the whole website suffers, perhaps just a bit. But its like having a traffic light not working, it holds up the progress of people trying to do things.
I think there is a general lack of knowledge of how ArbCom sanctions work and how they are different from Community Sanctions. Community sanctions are based on uninvolved editors and the consensus at ANI but have (unfortunately IMHO) lacked the same respect from some quarters. Also I don't mean it to sound like I or other sysops don't listen to uninvolved editors I at least do (I don't always agree or respond but I read everything) and often some of the best points are made by people who aren't sysops, so I would not encourage you to de-watchlist AE. It's always good to have people there to sanity check decisions even if they can't !vote on the outcome. And if you wanted there's always RFA, although in all honesty (and I've gone through tough things in RL), RFA was one of the worst experiences of my life (and I had a relatively easy time)--Cailil talk 10:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)- No offense, but I don't want to waste my time examining someone else's dispute if I am not allowed to be a part of the consensus-building process. I'd rather just remove AE from my watch list and pretend that AE doesn't exist. Good luck, but I feel that this is an area where we have failed ourselves. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- (Apologies for the long response) Actually no AQfK, AE doesn't work by consensus (I know that sounds crazy but) because it's an enforcement board for existing sanctions/procedures the admins are acting with pre-authorization, and the closer is the one who acts (and acts alone). The only question actually being asked by an AE thread is "do the edits shown in this report meet the standard for action or not". Another aspect to AE is that sanctions from it are (obviously) not always preventative - they are coercive (see the big red box at the top of WP:AE). It's a whole different system, because its a subset of RFAR.
- @Cailil: Just to clarify, you're referring to WP:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions? If so, that does answer my query, although it flies in the face of WP:CONCENSUS (which, unlike WP:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, is an actual Wikipedia policy). I guess the way I've always viewed this is that if an AE admin action is uncontentious (for example, a clear violation of 1RR), an AE admin can assume consensus already exists, and can act boldly. But where an AE action is contentious and significant disagreement exists among uninvolved editors, the normal consensus building process should be followed. To me, that lives up to the ethos that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. What you are saying creates a two class system of haves and have nots. Perhaps I'm being far too idealistic in this regard, but I don't believe that some editors are more equal than others. I'm not sure how to proceed at this point. Should we have an RfC to formally establish a two-class system? While I wouldn't agree with such a system, I would rather have it explicitly stated, than implied. Or maybe I should just remove AE from my watchlist if the contributions of uninvolved editors are less equal than others. It's time for me to take my own chill pill, LOL. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- That's why I don't give my friends lifts either ;)--Cailil talk 21:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Cailil, I'm never giving a ride to any of your friends, but that explanation should be on an FAQ at the AE page somewhere. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Well that might change: see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests#Update_on_discretionary_sanctions_review. All in all though I think the idea that there is a two class system on WP is not in fact a reality: "the bit" doesn't create that anymore than a drivers license does. Indeed sysops here have far far more oversight and less autonomy than admins at other websites. WP admins are not government or police, but then on the flip side WP isn't a democracy - sysops just take the actions mandated by policy.
I do understand why you think AE is a failure. In a sense I personally think that every time we have an RFAR we're failing, but IMHO it's not the RFAR/AE system that has failed its the community's ability to deal with something/someone. AE is a response to that failure. And yeah it's not perfect, but unless we understand why it's the way it is we are prone to forgetting why it's there in the first place. Anyway it's your call about commenting/watch-listing AE but thoughtful responses are always welcome (anywhere)--Cailil talk 12:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Newbie on the road to perdition?
Several other editors have drawn my attention to this chappie: User talk:ÓCorcráin. I think he's in the same position I was in when I first started editing. He knows what he wants to write but, like me, he doesn't realise what he's getting himself into when editing articles about the Troubles. He's polite and seems erudite but he's getting frustrated because some of his edits are being reverted. I've looked at his most recent ones regarding the Provisional IRA and I think one of the regular contributors there will revert him. The danger, in my opinion, is that his frustration will cause him to be rash. I've left him a couple of nice messages and invited him to look at the UDR article to see what I've done there but perhaps a couple of pointers from you might save tears for everybody in the long run. We all know what happens when teddy gets thrown from the pram. SonofSetanta (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hi SoS. I had a look at this. I think its too early for an intervention from sysops (unless I've missed something). Encourage that user to engage the article talk pages and discuss controversial edits. I think your explanation on his talk page about how controversial some of those changes are is good. If he fails to listen let me know--Cailil talk 17:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- OK Calil I'll do that. He seems to be knowledgeable enough, just not experienced yet. I certainly don't want him to fall prey to any tag teamers because that'll just put him off editing and to be honest we need good editors on Irish articles, especially troubles related ones. SonofSetanta (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
AN
It was a valiant effort to close that topic, but, unfortunately, once a topic devolves into the admin vs. non-admin bottomless pit, it's doomed. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Edit warring
Cailil I feel I need to draw your attention to someone who is edit warring at Operation Banner. It is User:Asarlaí. I have not raised any complaint on any notice board because I don't want to start a bout of ill feeling between editors. I respect your judgement in these matters and won't be jumping on any bandwagons. I just want to see this type of thing stopped. The edit warring can be seen here here and I have left a message for Asarlai here. I won't go into the content - you can draw your own conclusions. SonofSetanta (talk) 10:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- I need to see the individual diffs SoS, the link you give above goes to the page history (there's a lot to sift through there) can you be more specific? You need to point me to: a) the initial edit (the one Asarlaí is reverting), b) his 1st revert, and c) his second and/or subsequent reverts--Cailil talk 13:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ok Cailil. The first diff is here at 17:01 yesterday [18] showing where he puts the POV material back in which I've deleted on 1 August. Then I come in here [19] and make a series of edits until here [20] to correct errors, twisted source material and POV, but not reverting him - finishing at 17:37pm yesterday. Asarlai then starts to edit again here at 18:02pm [21] and makes seven edits up until this one at 19:37. [22]. His objective appears to be to slant the article in an anti-British fashion. I've made suggestions to him on his talk page and on the article talk page to try and persuade him to follow the manual of style but instead of taking the guidance he has launched into an epistle of justification on the article talk page. I've replied to that in friendly fashion, again reminding him of how the manual of style works and inviting him to edit with me. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ok well unless I'm missing something this[23] is Asarlai's only revert within 24 hours? If so he has not breached the 1RR. If that edit is a repeat of another one do show me when he did that revert before. As it stands I don't see a second revert and thus there is no grounds for action. It looks like a content dispute and I' suggest trying to tone everything down and sort out the differences between the 2 of you. I'm sure you can both work together to improve that article. If direct talk page discussion doesn't help let me know. DRN might be able to help you--Cailil talk 15:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- It looked like edit warring to me. I take something out and he puts it back in again. The line between edit warring and content dispute is very thin and perhaps because of my own actions I have prevented edit warring on this occasion (doesn't that make a pleasant change?). There's been nothing today because I can't edit again as it's within 24 hours. I'm a little wary because, whilst exercising good faith, it appears that this chap has an anti-British agenda. Something we've seen less of recently. We'll see does he respond to my invitations. I'm not touching the OP Banner article again until Monday when I will remove the excess text, which I've already put on the 10 UDR article. If he edits it back in then I'll be saying it's an edit war rather than a content dispute. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ok well unless I'm missing something this[23] is Asarlai's only revert within 24 hours? If so he has not breached the 1RR. If that edit is a repeat of another one do show me when he did that revert before. As it stands I don't see a second revert and thus there is no grounds for action. It looks like a content dispute and I' suggest trying to tone everything down and sort out the differences between the 2 of you. I'm sure you can both work together to improve that article. If direct talk page discussion doesn't help let me know. DRN might be able to help you--Cailil talk 15:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ok Cailil. The first diff is here at 17:01 yesterday [18] showing where he puts the POV material back in which I've deleted on 1 August. Then I come in here [19] and make a series of edits until here [20] to correct errors, twisted source material and POV, but not reverting him - finishing at 17:37pm yesterday. Asarlai then starts to edit again here at 18:02pm [21] and makes seven edits up until this one at 19:37. [22]. His objective appears to be to slant the article in an anti-British fashion. I've made suggestions to him on his talk page and on the article talk page to try and persuade him to follow the manual of style but instead of taking the guidance he has launched into an epistle of justification on the article talk page. I've replied to that in friendly fashion, again reminding him of how the manual of style works and inviting him to edit with me. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Actually SoS you'd BOTH be edit-warring then. In the situation of an edit-war it doesn't matter who started it, all that matters is that ppl are reverting. In short discuss don't revert. Find consensus first then edit the article.
As regards "I take something out and he puts it back in again", he needs to undo your edits twice (within 24 hours) to breach 1RR. In this situation follow the "Bold revert discuss cycle": you were bold, he reverted, & now it's time to discuss. Try to AGF here. If all that fails let me know--Cailil talk 15:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Actually SoS you'd BOTH be edit-warring then. In the situation of an edit-war it doesn't matter who started it, all that matters is that ppl are reverting. In short discuss don't revert. Find consensus first then edit the article.
OK Cailil. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Sad but - see below
I need to draw your attention to here. Unfortunately I know from the many incidents of the past that talking to this individual makes no difference. Rather than having my extremely enjoyable time on here marred by getting involved in a WP:BATTLE I've decided to nip it in the bud. No doubt there'll be some dirt dragged up on me but I'm just going to have to suffer it. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to give me a character reference? I'd be grateful. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- As you are aware you must notify an editor about an ANI report that you make against them, instead of trying to canvass support for yourself. Mo ainm~Talk 11:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- What's this then? SonofSetanta (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- It is where you notified me after I had responded on ANI and also here, any reason why you are linking to it? Mo ainm~Talk 11:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- The place for semantic arguing is here or on my talk page. Not on Cailil's talk page. You've been a Wikipedia editor long enough to know that. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- It is where you notified me after I had responded on ANI and also here, any reason why you are linking to it? Mo ainm~Talk 11:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- What's this then? SonofSetanta (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Conclusion
By all means close the discussion at the Arbitration Noticeboard. I've got your message loud and clear and hopefully so has Mo-aimn which was exactly my purpose in raising the complaint. I could have just done what I normally do and alerted you here and sought advice. The thing is though: I AM enjoying myself on Wikipedia now, whereas before I was having to fight all the time to be allowed to edit anything in because you and I know that there are republican and unionist cabals on here and they both fought for a long time to try and establish their own POV on articles to do with the troubles. It was shocking. I wanted nothing to do with it then and I want nothing to do with it now. I belong to NO cabals or tag teams. I work alone or in conjunction with other editors who want me to work with them, and there are a few. I was stupid enough to allow the WP:BATTLE to affect me when I was User:GDD1000 and USER:The Thunderer but I'm not going to allow that to happen under this identity. I want a long history of good editing and Good Articles to speak for me, not a long history of blocks.
You, like me, will have noticed certain familiar names recently, getting involved where they weren't involved; trying to do a hatchet job. I was expecting a probe to follow, just like this one, and I suspect there'll be more. I need your help to stop them getting me banned from Wikipedia and from trying to make a mockery of the articles I work on by introducing POV against the manual of style. I know I've chosen a difficult area to work in but it's where my passion lies and the results are good, the wiki is getting benefit from my work. I'll do my bit by staying out of trouble and not falling for the edit war trick but I have my bad days and that's when they might catch me. I know I'm being stalked by editors who just want to find the right opportunity to get me and I know I'm naive enough in some ways and on some days to get careless. Please help me, as you have done in the past. I know I won't get any special treatment from you and I can expect a metaphoric kick up the arse when I do slip up, but I respect your impartial judgement which is why I'm letting you know my fears, founded or unfounded. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Changed information on former identities.
See here and here. I've also put the information on my homepage here. As I've said above: the past is firmly behind me and I only want to do things in a convivial and collegiate manner. I always did but I got suckered into behaving the same way as those who were attacking me. No more succumbing to WP:BATTLE however. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Help me out here
Cailil you told me to "drop it" as far as the complaint went at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mo_ainm. I've done so. It seems however that there's a bit of knife twisting going on. Mo-aimn doesn't seem to want to drop it and there is support for him from two editors who don't appear to know the history of all this or what degree of freedom Troubles Sanctions give to sysops. Mo has gone straight back to the Ulster Special Constabulary article, without discussion and changed the copy again whereas I would have thought a colling off period would have been more advisiable, which is what I'm doing. He hasn't bothered to link his retired account to his new name as you advised. In addition he is again raising the question of my old accounts. From my perspective it's just more of the same old, same old - Mo-aimn seems to be gaming. It may seem like bad faith on my part but previous history would suggest that his only reason for going back to the USC article time after time is to try and get some sort of reaction from me. Will you please intervene? SonofSetanta (talk) 12:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Blatant attempts to get SoS liable to be topic-banned full-stop. Same old tactics they used on Mooretwin which the admins willingly obliged. Mabuska (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
You ask him to "drop it" and this is what his next step is, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mo ainm, along with a sob story on each of the editors who SoS felt were less than sympathetic to him by their comments on ANI. Really is amazing the power given to me by SoS and Mabuska that an edit made to one of SoS articles is an attempt to get a topic ban for him. Serious ownership issues. Mo ainm~Talk 08:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
ANI notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wolfe Tone Societies. Thank you. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
HighKing
See the ANI thread mentioned above and User_talk:Black_Kite#HighKing. I'd be interested in your take on this. I can't see an obvious topic ban breach (based, of course, on the actual topic ban wording), but the complainant is suggesting it should go further than this. Short of spending a long time digging out diffs of your interaction with HK, I thought pinging you here would be better. Black Kite (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- By way of explanation, check the history of actions here. The anon IP reverted twice with a blank edit summary, and twice more with a "breach of sanctions" edit summary (over a period of 8 days). The piece of text in question - "the quote" - was not referenced. I (or any other editor) had been given no reasons for objecting to the edit, which was in line with WP:IRE-IRL and WP:IMOS. The anon IP didn't respond to two notices on their Talk page over the space of a week. Nobody could have known what reason the anon IP had for reverting, and in fact the anon IP has not once mentioned the "direct quote" as a reason - this was something brought up at AN/I. The anon IP's AN/I notice was a complaint that I was breaching my Topic Ban, which clearly I'm not. Since then, a brand spanking new editor has tried to make this into some sort of a breach of the topic ban, and deserving of some punishment. The anon IP has since reverted [24] WP:IMOS related edits by other editors. So to reiterate - the anon IP left no reasons for reverting, didn't respond after I posted a notice on their Talk page (or anywhere), and the text in question wasn't referenced. Taking into account the other warnings on their Talk page, at this stage it looked like a (normal) anon IP petty vandalism account.
- But something fishy is going on here. The new editor, Zoombox21, is clearly not a new editor, and appears very very familiar with my editing history. If the anon IP was simply "fixing" a quote, why start edit warring on other articles with reasons at odds with the general community? Or make accusations of sockpuppetry between myself and Murry1975 (we've heard that one before?). Or dig back into my past (very very familiar with my editing history) and post notices about an alternative account that was used in the past (again - we've seen this before from a certain banned editor). --HighKing (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- HK I did in fact highlight that your policing of IMOS is not constructive. To reiterate myself:
While I see that there are issues with deliberate attempts to evade WP:IMOS by some I can also see a serious over use of it by others. I am very concerned that your (and otehrs') behaviour of policing terminology is falling into that category of edit which resulted in GoodDay's ban. The IMOS issue itself is adjacent to 4 ArbCom rulings (RFAR/Article titles and capitalisation, RFAR/GoodDay, WP:Troubles, and RFAR/Ireland article names) and 1 community probation (WP:GS/BI). This is not an area where border line behaviours will be tolerated. Furthermore, there is no authority for the MOS to override any policy or normal consensus editing. I will remind you of the actual position of the MOS vis-a-vis policy:Furthermore an area that I stated as concerning 12 months ago was your policing of iMOS, indeed the volume of WP:IMOS edits you make is reiniscent of "gnoming" by GoodDay, but also of your policing of the phrase 'British Isles' above. This was precisely the issue in the GoodDay RFAR (fait a compli) too many edits to too many articles by a single user, seemingly (or actually) with their own agenda.
There is no authority for anyone enforcing or imposing Style elements anywhere, in any situation. WP's MOS is not used in the same way as journals or other publications use a Manual of Style (these are in fact rigid an enforced). Furthermore I have stated this twice in 2 years. We've seen what happens when you don't heed such advice. The IP and Zoombox21 (both now blocked as obvious socks) are engaged in harassment BUT the edit they highlighted at ANI is way out of line. You changed info from a direct quote. You didn't check. Making drive-by terminology policing edits IS A PROBLEM not a positive. Although this isn't a direct breach of your ban it is a problem and if part of a pattern a reason for concern. I don't see a reason to act here but for your own sake I suggest you step back from this type of edit and focus on improving articles holistically rather than gnoming like this--Cailil talk 15:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Style guides are used as a means of creating a consistent end result. They do not affect content, but rather how that content is presented. The English Wikipedia's Manual of Style (MoS) is a guideline, or a set of "best practices" supported by consensus. The MoS is not a collection of hard rules."[25]
- HK I did in fact highlight that your policing of IMOS is not constructive. To reiterate myself: