Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:08, 15 November 2010

User page

Talk page

Admin

Logs

Awards

Books

Cailil is extremely busy in real life, so please do not be offended if your message is not replied immediately. Due to his many commitments, in work, personal life and elsewhere on the internet, he may be occasionally inactive on wikipedia. He will do his best to check in daily but has less time available for wikipedia at the moment. In the event of his absence anything urgent should be brought to WP:ANI or another sysop, but you are still welcome to leave a message here if you wish..

If you're here to leave a message about an article I've deleted, feel free to ask me about such deletions but please check the deletion summary first. If that summary links to wikipedia's Criteria for speedy deletion please read that page and bring any issues arising from such deletions to the deletion review noticeboard. Similarly if it is label as an "Expired PROD" please read our criteria for deletion and again please bring any issues arising from that to deletion review rather than here.

If you are here about a page that I have protected please read this essay before asking me about it.

Triton Rocker block

Hello, Cailil. I'm not going to give an opinion on this, though I do have one. What I will say is this, why has this gone on so long and in so many places? To be honest, I'm not sure I could have taken the abuse you have taken up to now, but then that's probably a good reason I would never be an admin. I'm actually surprised there are no more admins intervening in this. Don't let it get you down mate. Jack forbes (talk) 00:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jack. Well unfortunately I've had worse so this kind of thing doesn't bother me =/ All I can say is thing do eventually turn out for the best on WP - it takes time, and persistence but the community does work, either by recognizing disruption or by reforming ppl who could make valuable contributions to the project but who need a steer in the right direction--Cailil 14:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, you are mentioned in relation to this at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Appeal by Triton Rocker.  Sandstein  12:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Dunlavin Green

Given the punishments you have handed out to the like of Triton Rocker, I and others for far more minor incivlities, can you explain to me why Dunlavin Green's latest contributions have passed without your comment or action?

"there is number of British nationalist posters here who have an agenda to remove all opposition ... you'll see their purpose on Misplaced Pages is to advance British nationalist articles like this one ... more bigoted, anti-Irish group of editors ... British nationalist hijacking of an international figure ... Snowded? He was a bright fella too, but got a woeful slew of shíte from the British nationalists for daring to empathise with the Irish on this issue ... all your royalist nonsense is fine online but ... screaming British nationalist pov ... flag-waving John Bull editor ... there is number of British nationalist posters here ... their purpose on Misplaced Pages is to advance British nationalist articles like this one ... A more bigoted, anti-Irish group of editors you will not find in Misplaced Pages ... if we could just move all traces of resistance to this British nationalist term from this article everything would be so much more aesthetically pleasing to our jingoistic friends over in Britain."

Examples

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:British_Isles&diff=prev&oldid=384364459

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bono&action=historysubmit&diff=376098659&oldid=375868316

--LevenBoy (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Dunlavin did go over-the-line, on that occassion. GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually GD if I had seen that at the time I would have warned him But as I didn't see it I couldn't deal with it.
LB your above post infers your restrictions are punitive - they are not they are preventative. Also be aware that edits that insuate, infer or otherwise suggest bad faith on the part of others (as your post does towards me) IS a breach of your editing restriction. You and others are invited to present evidence of this kind of behviour for examination but please do so in a neutral manner.
DG has been warned and made aware of the probation - if the problem persists let me know, I'll keep an eye on it when I'm here--Cailil 03:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you but I certainly wish to do my best to avoid any more such punishments in the future, so please give me clear examples of how I can report such incidents, or reference them in administrative or policy related discussions, and allow me to discuss this 'off the record' with you so that I can get it right.

You agree that such comments are utterly reasonable. I think it is fair to suggest that such comments are the clearest evidence of nationalistic sentiments and not good faith, motivating editing or discussion in a topic area damaged by such sentiments. How do I raise that is a "neutral manner"?

If I pay you this respect, will you respect back to the point of accepting that I do not insinuate anything but just state plainly what I see or ask? --LevenBoy (talk) 12:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

My point about the insinuation is that really one should just assume that an admin hasn't seen something rather than that they are ignoring it. That's all.
With regard to the nationalist editing issues in many articles and topics on WP like Macedonia, Palestine & Israel and the British Isles (or political partisan issues like we had at the Barak Obama and John McCain articles) it's actually best to look at (and report) what problematic behaviour is happening, where and how (rely on diffs to do the talking) and leave out the whys (becuase that's where assumption comes in). Send me an email if you like but I think the above report would have been fine if you left out the top piece that could be read to imply that I was ignoring DG's behaviour. Instead a framing statement like "could you look at these diffs in regard to civility at Talk:British Isles and elsewhere" would suffice--Cailil 13:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Ya didn't see it at the time? Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been on-line in fits and spurts due to my many real life obligations since the end of October. It's best to highlight specific things here if anyone wants my attention--Cailil 19:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Will do. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

I rather belatedly saw the change from M.Litt to PhD. Many congrats... no wonder you've been very busy in the last year or so! It must be a relief to have it done, unless you've now got to adapt the dissertation as a book, when you don't want to look at the bloody thing ever again! --Slp1 (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Slp1. LOL Yes that's where I am at - looking at some restructurings and a new introduction to my introduction for a book version =) But seriously it is really hard to lok at it at all--Cailil 14:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not surprised! Worth doing, though, if one holds one's nose, so that all those years of work can come to something more useful than languishing unread in a university library. Or take a more contrarian approach, and build your spirits by imagining some poor slob having to plough through it as part of some assignment! --Slp1 (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Renaming Campaign

WP:PLACE only refers to "conventions for determining the titles of Misplaced Pages articles on places". The problems we have go much further than that. Thank you for the offer, I would like to take you up and report what I and other see as a long-term "campaign to remove the term British Isles" from the Misplaced Pages. Firstly, as you have such in an interest in my conduct over the conduct of others, could you please inform me clearly and specifically with examples of what you will consider as acceptable reportage and unacceptable reportage? I do not want to make a report in language that is unacceptable to you for it then to be used against me. Obvious to do so I will have to name names and present my assumptions of their intention which you seem to specifically object to. Secondly, regarding your comment at WP:VERIFY. I know very well what your concerns and opinions about my contributions to the Misplaced Pages are and I have my own opinions about them. You really don't need to follow me around re-stating them in a way others might consider to be "poisoning the well" of other discussions. I approached you respectfully for advice. If I step towards the line of what you consider acceptable, please contact me via my talk page if you must. I am sure others will find such comments if they are interested. LemonMonday's RfCs are entirely separate from mine. I don't think the problem can be resolved by consensus. I don't think there is any point rehashing the British Isles issue with the same individual due to a lack of manual of style and the weak, undefined policy in this area. I think it has to be resolved at a policy level. --LevenBoy (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

LB, first of all it's the assumptions bit that is the problem. Full stop. You don't need to speculate on other's motivations. All you need to do is show what they do and how it breaks policy. Their motives, intentions, etc will be self-evident from diffs. Let your diffs do the talking. A report should not be, or should not look like, an attack on another editor - it should just present facts in the form of diffs. "Editor X keeps inserting this in article Z (+diff)"
It should show diffs - relevant policies and if possible edit patterns. It just doesn't need any editorial - one's opinions on the 'why' are irrelevant becuase they are just that opinions, assumptions and speculations (this is all explained in WP:NPA).
Also you are not "being followed", your RFC is on a policy page - as a sysop I happen to watch policy pages so that I know about changes there. It is also a fact that this is the 3rd RFC on, broadly, the same topic within a week that is a problem becuase it's forum shopping.
It is unfortunate that you think others cannot be communicated with vis-a-vis the British Isles naming dispute but I'm afraid that's your problem rather than the project's. We have policies and fora for this topic to be discussed appropriately, and WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV (specicially WP:DUE) cover it quite nicely. If that fails try dispute resolution ie mediation. You wont find a policy trump card LB, because all our policies are based on using sources, and editing in, a consentual manner. If you really want you could try putting in a request for clarification with ArbCom on the Ireland naming RfAr re: British Isles and Ireland. It would need to be very clear and specific and I have no idea if they'll consider it but it's there if you want to try--Cailil 23:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This links to that RFAR and if you go through the final decision it may help you understand where the rest of the projet is at wrt Geographical naming disputes--Cailil 00:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Also if you wa ant examples of reportsr: this is the report I compilled when looking into MisterFlash and HK's editwarring back in April and this is an old abuse report from 2007. You don't need to format report like this or make them as sub-pages - that's simply my preferred method. A paragraph with diffs would do the same job--Cailil 02:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I will look over all this.

I am sorry if I you are offended that I wrote "followed" but my edits clearly are being followed by a number of individuals. It feels my every breath is being X-Rayed for evil intentions whilst others individuals come on the same pages, are allowed to come rant, are unblocked for much worse than I have ever done or have no any issue made of the behaviour. So far, I do have agreement from others about the need for refinement of general policies (not BISE specific).

You said that I should contact you if any problems with other editors arose rather than engage with them. I feel that Snowded is deliberate provoking a conflict here with multiple reversions of my work , and making personal comments accusing me of being "tedious" and "tendentiousness". I wish avoid any conflict.

LemonMonday and I have discussed refining the RfC. There is nothing in the refinement to change the context or content of the discussion. Having spoken to him and GoodDay about them, I think we all pretty much feel it is a formality on the way to more authoritative decision making process. The intention with the refinement was merely to state the issue clearly so that individuals new to the discussion would better understand all the shorthand and issues involved.

Left as it was, it was pretty much a closed discussion between the usual suspects. --LevenBoy (talk) 03:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

WRT the RFC on the BISE page - I understand hence my advice to use {{rfc|project}} or {{rfc|policy}}. But bear in mind an RFC needs a longer time - maybe a month to see any input from outside. And for the record I have absolutely nothing against BISE undergoing an RFC - in fact I think it's a good idea - but it must ask different question to the MFD. It must also ask a question without creating a feeling of it being a mechanism to fight 'the Other Side', which LM's original one appeared to be (because of it's claim of misconduct without evidence).
On the matter of the RFC being a "formality on the way to more authoritative decision making process" that's actually a bit of a problem. RFCs are for dispute resolution. If DR is not entered into with the hope of resolving said dispute then DR isn't actually being entered into at all. ArbCom are unlikely to look favourably on such an attitude. And personally I doubt very much that going to ArbCom will give anyone what they want - it rarely does.
Fundamentally saying finding agreement is too hard and asking ArbCom to sort whatever dispute is not going to work. Learning to find consensus and work by consensus even when we disagree with it is part of being a wikipedian.
I keep coming back to this point but you all should consider mediation. The level of ... 'hostility' (for lack of better term) at WP:BISE is just an exaggerated form of the average frustrations found in disputes at articles. Regardless of the area in which one edits all users needs to a) try to work together (even by 'writing for the enemy' sometimes) and b) foster an environment where people of diametrically opposite views can disagree without disrupting the project. That last point is why we (the community when I say 'we') imposed a probation on the BI naming topic - to foster a positive environment for non-disruptive disagreement. Everyone involved needs to get to place where they can be contradicted and say: 'ok fair enough'. GoodDay is the best example of this attitude IMHO.
THis is a very long comment already so I'm going to stop here - I'll look into Snowded's comments now and will drop a line where approriate momentarily--Cailil 18:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah I seem to have misunderstood something. The RFC at the article talkpage Talk:British Isles was what you were discussin changing. Ah right. Snowded is technicaly correct. You can't change the question after some people have answered. You'd actually need to start a new RFC and close the old one. However, I don't think that page is the right place for what you are asking. I say this becuase you are not actually asking about the article British Isles but the subject - you're not supposed to do that. However I understand the confusion. First I would suggest clarifying your question: Is that RFC about the use of BI versus B&I on wikipedia or in that article? If on WP then this is the wrong venue - I'm unsure where is the right venue - WP:MOS-IE might(and stress might) be better. If in the article show where and in what policy context.
BTW WP:PLACE should help with the Flora & Fauna dispute (as it is about naming of pages).
I couldn't see the diff where Snowded labeled your edit tendentious or tedious could you post them again (and could you post the diff he was refering to) - sorry about that--Cailil 18:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

LevenBoy

Normally I'd ask TFOWR but he's caught up in RL right now. Also posted to BlackKites Talk. Just a heads up on this, this and the creation of this category. What to do? --HighKing (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm take it to WP:BISE see if LB has consensus for this. I'd defer to TFOWR (as he has a grasp on the flora & fauna stuff). I'd need more infor to understand what the problem is exactly - he may have just forgot to put Category:Lists of biota of the United Kingdom back? Ask him, ask why and see if you all can talk it out. If that fails I'd suggest waiting to make any further chnages / decisions on disputed flora & fauna issues till TFOWR comes back--Cailil 19:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, as above, WP:PLACE might help come to a consensus here--Cailil 19:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted his edits for now as per BRD. He had previously asked about Categories at the BISE page. My concern is that LB is searching for a run-around - how to insert BI into articles without discussion. Let's see what happens at the BISE page for now on the basis of least-drama option first. --HighKing (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)