Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TheShadowCrow (talk | contribs) at 21:47, 1 March 2014 (→Will you comment here?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User page

Talk page

Admin

Logs

Awards

Books

Cailil is currently extremely busy in real life due to work related commitments. He will be intermittently inactive or away from wikipedia for a while. He will try to check-in daily but is not in a position to take on any new issues or requests until early April 2014. If there is an urgent or complex matter it would be best to bring it to the attention of another sysop. If there is an emergency in an area Cailil has been involved in do leave a message here but please contact another sysop as well.

Your Comments on AE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

You honestly feel that removing two incorrect tags added by an editor after they were told they were wrong is worth a block under 1RR sanctions then knock yourself out but in no way will it "serve to protect the project from harm". And will be to say the least punitive. I have never been an edit warrior in spite of what others scream a quick check will prove that. Mo ainm~Talk 18:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

There's a red sentence in the editnotice, which comes up when you try to edit this page or add a new message (see User_talk:Cailil/Editnotice), asking that "any matters or comments relating to arbitration enforcement threads I am involved in should be made at WP:AE not here." I wont reply in substance Moanim but if you want to see others sanctioned for placing tags and thus breaking 1RR logically those breaking 1RR by removing are equally guilty. Furthermore if you read WP:NOT3RR your edits are not covered. There was no need for you to revert more than once - others removed the tags too. Furthermore please see the big red box at WP:AE. Arbcom enforcement blocks are not preventative or punitive, they're "coercive"--Cailil 18:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Whinge

I have already asked Sandstein if I can comply with a notice put on File:Ulster_Defence_Regiment_Insignia.jpg. This requires me to change the file from .jpg to .png. Of course that means that on all 18 articles where the file is used the infobox will have to be changed. They're all UDR articles. Sandstein says no. I fail to see why. I have no intentions of breaking my topic ban. What harm can it do to change this image with prior permission? Would you be kind enough to raise the subject with him? SonofSetanta (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You're "asking the other parent" SOS which is a kind of canvassing. The matter is closed. The change of file type can be carried out by anyone - you don't need to be doing this. Seriously, step away from all activities related to the WP:TROUBLES area (images, articles, discussions, RFCs, talk pages etc etc). Editing one would be a breach of your topic ban. Find other areas on WP to work on, there's a list of WikiProject MilHist tasks that need doing (see here) you could start there. But please research how processes work and avoid hitting Undo--Cailil 13:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you look at this?

Cailil, could you look at both Owenfighter1000 contribes and my reverts I havent discussed anything yet or than using edit summaries, he seems to have idea of production "nationality" yet ignores when suits. He also has been adding British where ever he can, whether its appropriate or not. Also as mentioned in the first sentence check out my reverts, and pass comment on them aswell, if they where approriate or in appropriate. BTW, Mabuska has post a 1RR and other editors have interacted on his talk page. I have post a message on his last revert since I started this discussion here. Thanks. Murry1975 (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

As per the box at the top of my page I'm under to much time pressure in real life to deal with new issues. my best advice is report any violation of 1RR on WP:TROUBLES articles to WP:AE. And if there is a long standing issue with editwarring (and you can evidence it) bring that to AE--Cailil 15:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update

Hey Cailil. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 22:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Romeo Castellucci, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Accademia di Belle Arti (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: Feminism

Oh, right, three is edit warring. I thought I might have one left. Anyway, per Kaldari's talk page, I don't really have anything to take up on Feminism's talk page as I'm not familiar with the relevant WikiProjects' requirements for notability, which is the last reason my edit was reverted and which is the only one I can understand so far. In my personal life, I happen to think men's rights concerns are underrepresented (although not really the job of the feminist movement), but if I had nothing but my own insights I'd take the issue somewhere other than Misplaced Pages. Tezero (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

FGM

Hi Cailil, just a note to say thank you very much for the barnstar. It was a nice thing waiting to greet me today when I came online. :) SlimVirgin 16:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Normal Service has resumed

You dealt with this before judging by user page. . Blitz editing 15 IMOS edits in 5 minutes. New record?Dubs boy (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Request your attention and help on this topic

Hello admin Cailil,

I was ever topic banned by you on June but I quite trust you to fairly carry out admin management on this topic and enforce the discretionary sanctions mandated by Arbcom decision in the Senaku Islands RfAr if it is needed. Now an ongoing discussion has been involved in starting a new RfC regarding the sensitive naming issue . May I request you to pay some attention on that talk page. I plan to draft the new RfC so just in case I may ask your help for some technical issue, and hope I can get such help. Thank you in advance. --Lvhis (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Lvhis, I'm sorry but due to real life pressures I'm not in a position to take on any new issues or requests at the moment. It would be better for you to seek advice from an admin that is more active on wikipedia right now--Cailil 14:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

A Voice for Men

When you have a moment, take a look at this new article. As an aside, the link to their website is on the blacklist.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

created by an editor who declares a COI and who's whole history is just this one article. When this goes to AFD (because on a first and second look none of the sources are up to standard) that site will flood the discussion with SPAs and COI accounts. It's not a good sign for AFC that it let this through without checking a) that the site is blacklisted and b) that that topic is under probation but that's a side issue - the point remains this is purely a promotional exercise without encyclopedic merit. I'm still AWOL and may have to prolong my absence till March but I'll try to keep an eye on this too--Cailil 18:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hope everything is OK in your real life. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Topic Ban

Hey Cailil, happy new year. Last we wrote, you said you'd review the topic ban after 6 months, which I believe might have been up last month. I know it takes a lot of time and you like to look over the edits I've made for the past 6 months, so no panic, take your time. I've no compelling reason for asking for you to do a review, I've no plans for any editing in that topic area and I've just been plodding along really. Distracted by other stuff. But the topic ban kinda hangs over like a black cloud and I'd like for it to be lifted. Thanks. --HighKing (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I will get to this in the next few weeks. The issues I will be looking at are the related to the pattern of behvaiour examined at the time of the ban reinstatement. I have pressing real life matters that I need to focus on right now but I will try to resolve this around January 18th--Cailil 13:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

With that in mind I have to say (and I mentioned the continual pedantic edit warring at Cecil Day-Lewis in one of the previous bans - probably the first one) that the removal of material from Cecil Day-Lewis without trying to replace it with a better source is precisely the same problem as before. Any academic quality Cecil Day-Lewis biography will state something similar to the removed text. Page 4 of C Day-Lewis: A Life (that isn't available online but should be in any good library) contains a (very) brief genealogy of the family and a paragraph describing them feeling British but also British-Irish, and the complexities of that.

The approach to editing cannot be based on erasure if one source isn't good enough. The prime directive on WP beyond all other rules is the Editing policy which is summarized as: "Preserve the value that others add, even if they "did it wrong" (try to fix it rather than delete it)." Removing an explanation as to the fact that Cecil Day-Lewis was Anglo-Irish does not improve wikipedia. Something being in the lede is not enough. The lede summarizes the article's contents. I mentioned this the last time I granted an appeal of your ban - you should be sourcing material to better books rather than finding a way to remove and/or insert the opposite POV.

Now you were correct that the material which was sourced to the Bloomsbury book probably came from a wiki (TBH I suspect it came from wikipedia initially and was then copied to goodreads and then put in the book and then back on wikipedia) but what was needed here was another approach.

I will be looking at many more edits but I'm not happy with this approach to editing (by anyone) in the WP:TROUBLES area or topics adjacent to it, and the fact is whether someone is or is not, how, and the definition of, Anglo-Irish, does fall within that ambit because the portrayal of individuals as British or Irish who have a more complex status is British Nationalism related to Ireland and/or Irish Nationalism related to Britain--Cailil 13:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Cailil, the piece in question was actually removed by another editor because it had a "Citation Required" tag in place for 2 years. When the exact same text was put back into the article - this time with a reference, after I checked I saw that the reference was not a good one. I reverted the re-addition and explained why the reference was flawed. I've no problem with Day-Lewis being described as Anglo-Irish, but what is annoying is that you imply that *do* I have a problem with describing Day-Lewis as Anglo-Irish - or maybe the term Anglo-Irish in general. That is untrue, and I've no issue with the term. To the best of my knowledge I've never made an edit to any biography/article relating to the term before. I think you're reading far too much into that edit. Also you have linked my edits with WP:TROUBLES topics in the past - it's a topic area I really don't have an involvement with or interest in. --HighKing (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

No HK the problem is that this is the same pattern as all the "gnoming" that got you in to hot water last time and the same kind of stuff that got GoodDay banned. Removing something without a citation is ok but it is only step 1.

Finding a better reference and adding it is step 2. Building on that to improve the article in a holistic fashion is step 3. When we have 6+ years of step 2 & 3 never being taken and instead a pattern of deletion or deletion and insertion of contra-POV material in a drive-by manner then we have a problem.

On the matter of edits around the term Anglo-Irish: you took part in an RFC on talk:Francis Bacon regarding it 14 months ago. There have also been intermittent edit wars about this issue at C. S. Lewis, and while you did not take part in those you must have been aware of them, the article should be on your watchlist, especially considering you first edited it in 2011 and jumped in with a revert in October 2013.

I'm happy to review the edits since your ban was reinstated HK but you need to listen to the feedback. One of my biggest pieces of advice was for you to move away from "gnoming" and approach article development in a more in-depth fashion. That's what I'm looking for - it's something you can still work on--Cailil 00:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Cailil, I know this process takes time and I wanted to allow you some peace to make progress since I know that disagreeing/arguing with you on your Talk page steals whatever scarce time you have. Some points you raised above initially, I didn't respond to initially. But with respect, I feel I have to respond to make matters clear. The text in question wasn't merely making a claim that he was Anglo-Irish (as you suggest above), but made a particular claim that Cecil chose British nationality after WW1 because he figured out where his roots lay. That's far and away a much different claim. It was not, as you suggest above, a simple claim that he is Anglo-Irish.
Also, despite what you say above, I searched diligently for something/anything on those lines (given in the claim). I looked specifically for any reference that discusses Cecil choosing British nationality and specifically was interested in anywhere Cecil provides a reason. I found nothing other than a lot of places repeating the same text with minor variations, all of which appear to be created after Misplaced Pages published the "fact" in the first place. -- HighKing 13:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe calling him English rather than Anglo-Irish would make more sense seeing as he grew up (aged 2 when he moved to England) and spent most of his life in England, just like Oxford Dictionaries have classified him as. Britannica cites him as a British poet. Mabuska 16:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Despite Highking apparently not having an active interest in WP:Troubles, he did feel the need to make edits to the WP:Derry page back in September. Must of slipped his mind.Dubs boy (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

To users other than HK please leave this discussion alone. I am very capable of searching HK's edit history on my own. Also this is not a place to rehash content issues.

HK you don't get it. Searching the web is not the best way to create a high quality biography. I stated above the biography I cited isn't available on the net. Library work is necessary. Really and truly there is a problem with jumping into a topic that one has only read minimally about and assuming one can debate the merits of deleting material without replacing it with people who have read on the topic. IMHO many of the users who frequented WP:BISE and its successor pages are guilty of this kind of editing/thinking. It is the opposite of best practice for creating high quality encyclopedic material (please read the linked article of Anti-patterns - it is illustrative of the issue here). Again as per WP:IMPROVE even when somebody does something wrong every effort should be made to "preserve the value that others add". You saw what happened to GoodDay - you need to move away from edits of this type and editing from this position of in-depth & technical Misplaced Pages guideline knowledge but comparatively shallow topic/subject research. Google does not have all the answers and relying on it is bad practice. You're position above is that the exact text is not reproduced in a google search. You should be going to biographies and reading broadly and citing them - whatever they say. Not trying to prove or disprove the text which was removed.

Also yes arguing with me about this will only delay the process--Cailil 17:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Just to say I haven't forgotten about this - I should have the review completed by Wednesday--Cailil 13:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Review

HighKing, on review and in light of my comments and those of a second sysop last time I’m not over-turning my decision to topic ban you from edits relating to changes of the term “British Isles”. This is due to the lack of change in patterns of behaviour identified by both myself and EdJohnston. Last time around Ed said that " should leave it to other editors to fix any style issues involving Great Britain, Ireland or the British Isles". This is advice you have not followed.

One of the key issues for me in the reinstatement of your ban was that "The problem is not that you get it wrong on occassion, it's that you think it appropriate to edit an article just to change instances of the use of a term". This approach to edits seems to have continued. Gnoming can be a net positive to Misplaced Pages but as I have repeatedly stated (and as ArbCom pointed out vis-à-vis GoodDay) mass changes without consensus that police a terminology/styling issues are not helpful. Given that the current ban was reinstated in light of a return to inappropriate behaviours after a period of good editing I would need to see a substantial change in practice to remove the ban.

• Issues around "gnoming"

• Mass changing of terminology/names without consensus. As I said last time: "Making drive-by terminology policing edits IS A PROBLEM not a positive". Also with regard to common names and MOS as I said in August "there is no authority for the MOS to override any policy or normal consensus editing".
• Focus on British/Irish nationalist topics (WP:TROUBLES) - both Ed and I advised you to stay away from gnoming edits in this topic area. You haven’t. I explained that gnoming in the Troubles area is not grounds for removal of this topic ban
• Good Friday/Belfast Agreement
• Islands_of_the_North_Atlantic – edit made after British Isles category added to article.
• 15 edits of this type on 14 December 2013

• Edits/comments around Derry/Londonderry naming issue

• The point I'm making here is that you remain entangled with the TROUBLES area terminology debates - you need to move away from this.

I’m not at all saying these are bad edits. But what I am saying is what I’ve said for a long time: indefinite topic bans are by definition not lifted on the basis of passage of time. Indefinite topic bans are lifted based on change in patterns of behaviour and diversification in areas of editing. You need to broaden the topics you edit in and avoid mass gnomish edits. Currently you’re not in that position, but there is progress. Most recently however there has been some backsliding (the CS Lewis issue and the Belfast/Good Friday agreement edits). My suggestion is take some time (at least 6 months from now – no earlier than June 20th 2014) and implement these suggestions. Edit articles holistically, improve one article consistently to a high standard and avoid mass changes to terminology or MOS “enforcement” and come back to me--Cailil 00:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Cailil, I wasn't aware any of my edits were against consensus on any Topic. Nor was I aware that I wasn't to comment or participate in any article where there might be the slightest contention over terminology. The "behaviour" problem you point our above assumes my edits were contentious or against consensus, but I haven't a clue how you come to that conclusion. But if you're saying that it part of the problem then I'll avoid that type of editing. I believe an additional 6 months is extremely harsh. -- HighKing 03:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

No HK, first of all there is a difference between there being no consensus for a mass change and it being against consensus. Did you start a discussion about why the term Belfast Agreement should be changed over a mass number of articles with the term Good Friday Agreement. Did it end in a broad consensus? You've had all this explained 4 or 5 times now. You need to change tack in how you approach editing in this area. Indeed you were advised by two sysops to avoid terminological changes in the British/Irish area altogether. Similarly with the CS Lewis edits rather than seeking to follow WP:Preserve and find a better source and record what it says you just removed material. I made a big issue of this practice when I reimposed the ban and 6 months when BlackKite asked me to review edits adjacent to this ban. In order for an indefinite ban to be lifted measurable change on your side needs to occur. I've been saying for at least a year you need to approach editing holistically for the community to see that kind of change. Focus on one article (preferably that is not directly related to British/Irish/Northern Ireland terminology disputes) and improve it to a higher status (see WP:GA? for advice). This is the way forward, mass changes related to gnoming about terms and/or MOSs wont help - that shows you not breaking the ban, but it doesn't show you changing how you approach editing--Cailil 12:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict):You just beat me to posting. On reflection, I can see where you're coming from. It's always clearer in hindsight... Let's revisit in June and see where we are. There's an area I've already started to focus on and I've started a stub article Sir Walter Coppinger (an infamous character around parts of Cork) and I'm thinking of starting other related articles (perhaps one on "Sir Fineen O'Driscoll"). Thanks for taking the time, I appreciate you're busy and this steals your time from you. -- HighKing 13:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Bot logging

Thanks for your comment over the draft text for DS. Would you mind chatting here about my idea for bot logging? The idea is neither to canvass nor to create chaos of WP:MULTI but to help me understand my own shortcomings in conception or presentation of the concept.

The general idea is to tell a bot a few of the top-level articles squarely within jurisdiction of a DS ruling. For example, Global warming would fall under the "climate change" ruling. For each new edit at the article or talk page, the bot looks at the username, and checks the alert log for that subject area. If the user is not listed, the bot issues the alert and logs it. And that's it. With my very limited knowledge of wiki programming, this seems technically super simple. Some eds have said it requires too much discretion, but that answer suggests to me that these eds are thinking the alerts mean some sort of problematic edit instead of just an FYI that is merited after the first edit, even if the first edit is helpful!

Concerns were also expressed that lots of articles only have overlap. For example, one can write a lot about Hurricane Sandy without crossing into ARBCC territory. My proposal has a simple solution for these: on these articles we just do what we are already envisioning doing without a bot.

• If there is no bot at all, if someone shows up at Hurricane Sandy to edit or comment on the climate change connection to the storm, eds will have to issue and log alerts for newcomers to the climate change subject area.
• If there is a bot for the main articles, then if that same person comes to Hurricane Sandy, we simply do the exact same thing i.e. eds issue and log those alerts.

Thus, without a bot, eds would issue and log the alerts on each other for all articles. Several eds have opined that no matter what words are used, people would still view the giving of alerts as being something more significant than an FYI. They would be wrong, of course, because the alerts are envisioned to be just and FYI. Nonetheless, if the only way we do this with eds issuing/logging on each other, a false badge-of-shame impression will endure.

If instead we rely on a bot to issue & log alerts to users at top articles, many eds will be auto-alerted by the bot upon their first edit in the subject area, rather than by an opposing disputant. The articles the bot can't handle (like Hurrican Sandy) will have to still be monitored by eds, but they'll be doing that in a culture molded by use of the nonjudgmental bot, which should destigmatize the issuance and logging of alerts even by eds on cross-over types of articles.

Thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Honestly NewsAndEventsGuy because Arbcom rulings usually effect behavior not content bots are not the best judge. The reason discretionary sanctions are called "discretionary" is because it requires human judgment, a bot cannot be programmed (as yet) for such actions. There is a technical impossibility also where style issues or behaviours are involved. If a problem from one dispute is brought to another topic area completely a bot will miss it. For example an edit-war in a physics category article about Israeli-Palestinian issues would be covered by ARB:PIA even though it may not be in a category that has any relationship to the topic (because said issue is about editor animosity or nationalism and has NOTHING to do with the subject of the article). The behavior and actions of the editors fall under that ruling NOT the articles per se.

That "people would still view the giving of alerts as being something more significant than an FYI" is not resolvable by argument. The fact is an alert is an FYI not a warning. People can believe what they like - it doesn't change facts. Up to now ppl were formally warned now they wont be expect as a result of Arbitration enforcement action. In other areas where community probation is in force such a system already exists and has done so for some time - it has yet to run into problems (see template:uw-probation)--Cailil 16:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks but you are talking about judgment needed to impose a sanction. My proposal for a bot has nothing to do with that part of the process, so I guess I have failed to express myself well. But this has been very useful because I see the need to produce a table that will chart out the idea, so thanks! I'll work on the table in my userspace over the next x number of days. I'm grateful for the ear. Cheers, NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually I'm not just talking about imposition of sanctions. Identifying where a ruling begins and ends requires judgment that bots cannot be programmed to have. Knowing that edits in a category that is unrelated to a topic are introducing behaviours forbidden by an Arbcom ruling is beyond bot intelligences. Editing an article on homeopathy and being notified of the ArbCom ruling on that is easy (but equally unnecessary a big edit notice flashes up when you try to edit articles that are obviously cover like this) it's the less obvious ones that are the problem. Again rulings usually cover behaviours NOT content and this requires a human eye--Cailil 16:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's say Jane Wiki Doe (talk · contribs) is brand new, and arrives at top-level article Global warming where she spots a {{cn}} tag. Saying to herself, "Hey, I just read something about that!", she pulls out her copy of Scientific American and fills in the citation template. My first response is to thank Jane for her edit. QUESTION: Under the new DS system, am I also allowed to "alert" Jane that DS applies and then log it, even if she makes no additional edits? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Under the new system you should alert them. The discussion I replied to you in is advocating no logging is necessary. There is a lot of support (inlcuding my own) for *not logging*. It's up to the ArbCom drafters but I'd expect that when the draft is implemented no logging would be necessary--Cailil 01:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Dope slap! Suppose we told a bot to alert Jane, but not log it. Further, we only told the bot to do this on top-level articles where there is no question about the entire article falling under a ruling? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Clarification

To respect your request for other users to leave the HK review discussion alone, I'm posting this in a new section. In response to your comment which is directed at me: "Also this is not a place to rehash content issues." - I must explicitly state that I have never been involved in a dispute over the Cecil Day Lewis article never mind with HK over it and having never ever made an edit to it or it's talk page. I was simply stating as a talk-page stalker a simple resolution that seemed non-controversial. In fact I can't remember when I was last in dispute with HK, oddly me and him have agreed more on things over the past couple of years we have interacted than not agreed. So I think the tone you took was slightly over the top. Not in regards to Dubs boy though as they where flinging things up. Mabuska 23:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Will you comment here?

Since you seemed to be open minded to me editing again, will you say something positive here? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)