Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:54, 4 January 2008

User:Cailil/Status

User page

Talk page

Admin

Logs

Awards

Books

Archives

1 2 3 4

NOR Request for arbitration

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 23:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Feminism

Nice work on your recent edits to feminism. I'm going to be really busy over the next few days, but I'll be bringing a little more ref'd content to the sex-positive section (and its main article) soon. Did I miss it again (my eyesight is actually terrible) or does the article not mention Audre Lorde, "the master's tools" or "poetry is not a luxury" (can't remember exact phrase), or intersectional analysis/birdcage theory? If not, I think these would be great additions (Audre Lorde is such a central figure, IMO). Also, what do you think about adding some context to the "personal is political" phrase? Conversely, are there any particular areas you'd like to see improved or expanded? Phyesalis (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article mentions Lorde by name but that's all. I'm not all that well versed in her work so in the original re-write I wasn't able to do much more than that.

Intersectionality is dealt with in the Black feminism section. However, there is a section in the article called 'Issues in defining feminism' which is largely redundant and could be reduced and with that space we should add more about ideas of intersectionality from marxist, postcolonial, black and ethnic feminism since it is becoming more and more common for people to come across studies of "race, gender and location."

Context for "the personal is political" would be important - I've been so busy for the past 3 months that I haven't been able to address all the areas that Awadewit raised in their peer review (see it here) back in September.

It's great to see somebody else taking an interest in this article - we got it close to good article standard back in August and I'd be hopeful that we could get it through that test and up to featured status next year--Cailil 20:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Good, glad to be of service. I will make feminism (GA) a new personal priority. By the end of the year I should have a lot more time. I'd be happy to work on Lorde, sex-positive, and context for personal/political. I'll go back over the critique for other ideas. Phyesalis (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I love the edits you have done on the feminism article too. I hope to see more of your edits on the article in the future. --Grrrlriot (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Grrrlriot, I hope we can can all work together to make it a really great wikipedia article--Cailil 22:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think it would be good to have a wiki on the web strictly on feminism and its many categories and sub-types. I think we would all contribute a lot to the wiki. I have some more information I would like to add about feminism and I am interested in feminisms all around the world. The feminism article on wikipedia keeps getting bigger and I think that's great, but with more and more information being added, It would be a huge article and it would be good to have a wiki strictly about feminism. What do you think? --Grrrlriot (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a really wonderful idea. I think something along those lines exists somewhere - I'll see if I can remember the name and put a link to it here.

There is actually a lot of stuff up on wikipedia throughout category:feminism. History of feminism is another article that could do with serious attention. Indeed everything in the category needs work. A lot of merging and sourcing is necessary to make them proper encyclopedia articles. Another area that needs to be addressed is the lack of copyleft images for feminists outside North America.--Cailil 19:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you think its a good idea. I know that LadyWiki used to exist, but it no longer exists. Let me know if you find the website. I have viewed and edited the category before. --Grrrlriot (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Pepper puppet?

Hey. If someone is using another IP to evade a block, that is serious. I think it is salient that the Pepper was suspected of sockpuppetry before. But I am afraid I am not really the right person to help you. The first thing is you need stronger evidence that this is a sockpuppet and I think the only way to do that (to go beyond what you have done) is via Checkuser, a process what only select admins have the knowledge or power to do. My advice is you petition a checkuser (go to someone other than Durovna at this stage). The next question is, what to do? It may not be possible or deirable to block the IP address. However, if you could establih a very strong case that this is a sockpuppet, if the IP address is the same as Pepper´s, you would have grounds to revert on site any edit )and this would free you and me and others from 3RR restrictions) so it is worth it. So I encourage you to do this. But if the anonymous user is just being a pain in the ass, just keep reverting, there isn´t much else one can do. If a revert war heats up let me know. Feminism is on my watchlist but I seldom check ever edit, but if something is going on that concerns you let me know and I will, Happy Hannuchristmakwaanza, Slrubenstein | Talk 18:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

But wikipedia has never had a good mechanism for dealing with anonymous users. There are two issues, stalking ' you can go for an RfC now, but I am not sure what good will come of it. I think you need to find someone capable of doing a checkuser pronto, and have more information, then to to AN-I to see what action can be taken. Fin out whether it would be possible to block the IP address (without causing many other legitimate users problems).Slrubenstein | Talk 23:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Revert any silly edit, let me know if you need support in any sticky cases. Alas, Misplaced Pages is fill of irritants and many will never go away. Ever. Keep me posted when the problem gets serious, Slrubenstein | Talk 18:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I was out of town at the time, but I can't say I was surprised to see A B Pepper's ham-handed attempt to harass various editors who had crossed him upon his return. From the look of things, he'll probably show up as an IP now and then, but I don't think he'll be difficult to identify. In retrospect, I'm certain he was the IP (75.132.86.220 that showed up over at Talk:Christian views about women#Regarding some recent additions and Talk:Christian views about women#Gratitude, though I gave the benefit of the doubt at the time.

Anyway, thanks for staying on top of things. Sχeptomaniac 23:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem Sxeptomaniac. At this point I find his posting kinda funny - disruptive but funny--Cailil 23:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

J Michael Clark

Thanks heaps for this reference. I will look it up. V close to my own field. :D Alastair Haines (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. I was delighted to find this myself, the piece on misandry is short but informative. And the article itself is really quite a good examination of the difficulties of men teaching feminism in academia. The only thing I find slightly dubious is his own idea that becuase he is homosexual and non-christian this, in his words, makes him an outsider and thus an acceptable Gender studies teacher. (Personally I've always found being a hetrosexual man involved in feminism and gender studies that I'm an "outsider".) The logic of his equation doesn't sit all that well with me, becuase in a way it compromises his own argument--Cailil 17:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Reproductive rights

Thanks for taking the time to weigh in on Reproductive rights. I see the issue a little differently.

Asking that a basic fact be attributed beyond WP's requirement of in-line attribution is, in effect, an attempt to skew weight, in this cause for a Pro-life prospective). Particularly in a lead of an article which has many reliable sources to support the general statement of fact. There are no documented sources in the article or the talk page to support the assertion that a) the fact that certain reproductive rights have been established in international human rights treaties is somehow an opinion that needs contextualizing; b) that there is any opposing opinion on this matter; c) there is no Pro-life content in the body of the article, as such Pro-life content and POV in the lead is a lead violation with unique content in the lead that is not reflected in the body of the article. While both editors have spent a lot of time arguing over my contributions (as followed from FGC) neither have spent any time actually contributing a single piece of relevant ref'd content.

Now I am aware of the opposition to contraception and abortion as "rights", (and if I ever get a chance to move beyond the lead, I've already invited one of the users to help me write a balanced subsection in an attempt to bring this from stub to GA) but I am unaware of a general position that considers the category of (or all) reproductive rights to not be human rights. Thank you for your time. Please feel free to respond here or on my talk page. Phyesalis (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Phyesalis, believe me I understand. If you read the Talk:Feminism page you'll see that some people have tried to raise the issue of abortion as a right there as well - on that page its a red herring becuase the statements are all well sourced. I am missing how attribution skews the lede towards a pro-life angle. I think you're referring to Blackworm's points about abortion - could you be more specific about what is pov. I'm not being facetious, I'm actually missing it in the talk page convos because they are very long and slightly difficult to read.

This isn't my best area by any stretch of the imagination but I know women's rights activists have had to fight for a long time just to get to discuss reporductive rights as human rights. But I'm also aware of the strange bed-fellows that a) oppose that discussion and b) have prevented its clear and unambiguous inclusion within human rights charters - including CEDAW.

As I said this is not my strongest field and you may be aware of sources that I don't know of - please tell me if you are - but my understanding is that people are still struggling to have reproductive rights discussed explicitly as human rights.

I'm going to recommend you RFC this article so that the wider WP community can review it. Go to WP:RFC and have a read of how the process works. In short it will give the wider community an opportunity to review the situation and give an outside opinion like I did. It would help very much if each of you involved in the dispute could give a 3 line summary of their position and/or a proposed lede line so that everyone doesn't have to go through the last few sections of the talk page.

Alternatively you could ask someone like pigman to give an outside view. Make sure you state on the talk page that you have requested this "outside opinion" so that nobody can accuse you of canvassing. If you feel WP:WEIGHT is being gamed he might be able to help.

I must say that I avoid all pages related to reproduction and abortion on WP as much as I can, I have been given enough of a head-ache dealing with the less controversial pages. So I do realize how trying this process is and I realize how much hard work goes into writing a lede, not mention arguing for the inclusion of every word, line by line. Sometimes the only thing to do is become an incrementalist and plod along proving things line by line.

The reason I suggest attribution is that it is impossible to argue with. If reliable sources say something you need an extraordinary source to dispute it. Look at how the lede in Feminism is written - it's not a work of art but due to heavy trolling we proved/sourced it line by line. You all may have to do this th hard way and make it as indisputable as possible - which means using sources--Cailil 22:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the excellent advice. I apologize for letting my frustration show. And I do understand the reticence to get involved with reproductive articles. I'm fine with the typical WP process of line by line citation, but this issue is just silly. The weight problem is that additional contextualization is unnecessary as the sentence is a summary of content in the article and the statement itself has an inline citation asserting an easily verifiable fact - certain reproductive rights are established as human rights in various international documents. It is a lead sentence, should be as short and sweet as possible. Attributing it with "Amnesty International" unnecessarily lengthens the lead, makes the sentence longer and more cumbersome, and implies that it is an opinion (That would be the Pro-life POV, that this is an opinion, not a fact). Furthermore, acquiescing to unreasonable POV pushing encourages trolling. If there were reliable and relevant sources to contradict the factual assertions, there might be room to play around. I've asked for some (for weeks), but none have been provided. I'm going to think about your advice. It's a difficult call; I think much of the debate actually stems from one editor's displeasure over an RfC on another page. I appreciate your time. Phyesalis (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:disengage

Thank you. I agree that disengaging is important at this stage, that's why I've avoided the interesting discussion over at WP:WikiProject Gender Studies#Neutral Wikiproject?. This will be about the third time disengagement has been necessary, I'm thinking WP:WQA is the next step. But I really appreciate you taking the time to give me more advice. May I ask you a question - how well or badly did I handle his canvassing accusation? Do you think what I did was canvassing? I only ask because it was not my intention to break wiki policy in letter or spirit. Phyesalis (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Asking for advice/input from an uninvolved sysop is not canvassing - it's the same as requesting a third opinion - which is a lesser form of article RfC. The fact is you didn't ask for my input, and Pigman states quite clearly he has an independent position. Also it is acceptable to contact a small number of editors who would be interested in a dispute - that's what the policy says. Unless you contacted a large number of editors (who haven't edited the page) by some off-wiki means (and I am pretty sure you haven't), you didn't brake any policy in spirit or letter. Can I ask you a question, where and when did your interaction with Blackworm begin, was it Talk:Female genital cutting in November or somewhere else?--Cailil 22:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Whew! Oh thank you. I've had my account for over a year, but I've really only been editing for 4 months (I was living in a foreign country much of the time). I've read a lot of the policies and guidelines, but there's always more to learn! My interaction with Blackworm started here when I responded to his RfC in early November. When I started editing FGC (it was fairly inactive), I hadn't realized that Blackworm had previously worked on the page. When our conflict began on FGC, I thought it was rather opportune. I checked out his contributions and he looked like an SPA. But then I checked back through FGC and saw that he had been involved with the page prior and dismissed my suspicions. Then Coppertwig got involved (he had previously worked on both Circumcision and FGC). In another attempt to disengage from issues over there (there were several on my part), I moved on to the inactive stub of reproductive rights. I was moving things along when Blackworm showed up again. Shortly thereafter Coppertwig showed up again. This has been a growing issue, so I really appreciate your time and interest. Phyesalis (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

profeminism

Dear cailil,

I think a recent critical study of profeminism by a feminist is an important text both in academic and political terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coleencoleen (talk • contribs) 22:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

replied on user's talk page--Cailil 22:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

answering a question you asked

Yes I am the Sharon Presley who co-founded Laissez Faire Books

SPresley (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please consider witdrawing your accusation of bad faith.

Hello. I am here to ask that you please respond to my latest post on the WikiProject Gender Studies Talk page. In that discussion section, you first implied, and then openly accused me violating Misplaced Pages's Assume Good Faith guideline. In my opinion, that accusation was unwarranted and unprovoked, and therefore itself was a violation of that policy, as well as a personal attack. I believe I may have now provided enough evidence and explanation to show that your accusation was completely misplaced, and would like to put this ugly matter behind us as soon as possible; therefore, I ask that you please review my latest post and consider withdrawing your accusation on that page, or striking out comments making the accusation. Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)