Revision as of 11:49, 25 July 2012 editCailil (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,119 edits →Ban-evading sockpuppet: r← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:33, 7 August 2012 edit undoFergusM1970 (talk | contribs)4,665 edits →Troubles AE: new sectionNext edit → | ||
Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
:Thanks for looking at that James. I know how much stuff there is to thrawl through with cases like this. And thanks for the link to the interaction tool--] <sup>]</sup> 11:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC) | :Thanks for looking at that James. I know how much stuff there is to thrawl through with cases like this. And thanks for the link to the interaction tool--] <sup>]</sup> 11:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC) | ||
== Troubles AE == | |||
Hi there. I noted your comments on the 1RR complaint brought against me by ]. He has now raised yet another Troubles-related 1RR, albeit on an article about islamist terrorism in London, and I think that with your existing knowledge of the situation you would be a valuable contributor to this case. Thanks. --FergusM1970<sup>Misplaced Pages policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution.</sup> 04:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:33, 7 August 2012
This is Cailil's talk page. To leave him a new message, please click here.
Talk page |
Admin |
Logs |
Awards |
Books |
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22
- This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages you are viewing a mirror site. If that is the case please be aware that the page may be outdated and that User:Cailil may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original page is located here.
- User:Cailil is extremely busy in real life - please do not be offended if your message is not replied immediately. Due to many commitments in real life he is not as available on wikipedia as he once was. In his absence, matters arising from normal administrative decisions taken by him should be brought to WP:AN or WP:ANI, matters arising from arbitration enforcement should be taken to WP:AE. And by way of clarity he has no problem with any other sysop reversing his decisions, as long as they have consesus on the appropriate board or if they have a substantive reason (such as a blocked/banned party's agreement to abide by WP:5) to do so.
- This page is subject to wikipedia's talk page guidelines and civility policies. Violations of these rules will be enforced. In short please remeber that wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a forum and not a form of social media - please do not make posts here (or anywhere else) that personally attack, assume bad faith of other editors, or otherwise attempt to use wikipedia for advocacy or to carry on campaigns from other websites or real life.
- If you are a new user and are unfamiliar with wikipedia's codes of conduct, content policies and procedures please familiarize yourself with these rules before asking questions.
Editor retention
Love your comment concerning civility; "less again from the "teh adminz on whatisitpedia are alz evilz" crowd) for rigorous & equally enforcement of WP:5." We really need to do something about Admin retention also. Sure, there are some bad ones, but we are losing good ones faster than bad ones. I just heard from one who has become almost inactive because the pov pushers are winning (and he edits in an area where he is now the only Admin). Admins play a vital role in actually helping retain editors (or when they aren't active enough, in letting events occur that lose us editors). Dougweller (talk) 18:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Agree absolutely Doug. There's a really pointless meme on WP that we're all evil and delete stuff because we're biased. And yeah there some not very good sysops, and then occasionally we all screw up (I have) but there are ppl who've put years of work into helping this site who are getting abused directly and indirectly and that has to stop--Cailil 18:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think I have time tonight, but I think we should make this a goal - maybe even talk about editor/Admin retention as "editor retention" doesn't suggest we need to retain Admins. Worth starting a separate section at the talk page? Dougweller (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah that's my feeling too - yeah lets open a discussion of it :) --Cailil 18:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Done. Dougweller (talk) 11:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah that's my feeling too - yeah lets open a discussion of it :) --Cailil 18:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think I have time tonight, but I think we should make this a goal - maybe even talk about editor/Admin retention as "editor retention" doesn't suggest we need to retain Admins. Worth starting a separate section at the talk page? Dougweller (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi
CLOSED User blocked for 1 week for filing a bad faith complaint at WP:AE, and indefintely topic banned by consensus of 4 sysops also at WP:AE--Cailil 16:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)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.
Kindly return to the page where you just commented about me and respond. Your attitude is very cavalier and I feel as though you're not doing your very meaningful and important job as an administrator to the best of your ability. You seem to be acting rather on a whim and not giving me the time you should as an administrator by actually reading my posts. - Ottomanist (talk) 01:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- This is best exemplified by your claim that I brought diffs from 2007. Please, I urge you again to not take your administrative privileges for granted, but that you respect the authority that has been handed down to you and do your job properly. - Ottomanist (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Ban-evading sockpuppet
Thanks for your message about User:Brechbill123. I spent a very long time looking at the relevant editing histories, and concluded that you were certainly right in your suspicion that it was User:Anacapa evading the ban. The combined degree of similarity in (1) areas of interest, (2) POV, (3) attitude to other editors, (4) general editing style, (5) use of English made it clear beyond all reasonable doubt, as the lawyers say. Some of the evidence was immediately obvious, but most of it took a significant amount of searching to find, and it looks to me as though the user has mastered various techniques for preventing the sockpuppetry from being obvious. The overlap in editing of the same pages was small, but the overlap in similar editing of different articles on related topics was considerable. For some reason the Stalker result that you linked to missed the fact that both accounts edited Feminism and Talk:Feminism. I don't know if you are acquainted with this tool, but I find it more useful than stalker. It gives more information than stalker does, and on this occasion it also picked up the two pages that stalker missed, as you can see here. The edits to those two pages did not, in my opinion, make a very significant contribution to the evidence in the case, but I thought it worth mentioning to you for future reference. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking at that James. I know how much stuff there is to thrawl through with cases like this. And thanks for the link to the interaction tool--Cailil 11:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Troubles AE
Hi there. I noted your comments on the 1RR complaint brought against me by User:One_Night_In_Hackney. He has now raised yet another Troubles-related 1RR, albeit on an article about islamist terrorism in London, and I think that with your existing knowledge of the situation you would be a valuable contributor to this case. Thanks. --FergusM1970 04:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)