Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cailil (talk | contribs) at 16:45, 5 July 2013 (→Help requested). 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

• 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 If that is the case please be aware that the page may be outdated and that User:Cailil has no affiliation to any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original page is located here.
• Cailil is extremely busy in real life, so your message may not be replied to. Due to many real world commitments he will not always be available for voluntary work on wikipedia on weekdays. He may still be active on site and may answer messages left here but cannot & will not be responding to everything.
• If you are here to send Cailil an email please be aware of the conditions under which wikipedia's email system is used. Also note that if he feels it is appropriate he may, at his discretion, respond to such messages on-wiki rather than through email. Messages that could reasonably be considered to be attempts to game behavioural sanctions will incur sanctions.
• Please note that any matters or comments relating to arbitration enforcement threads I am involved in should be made at WP:AE not here.
• Cailil has no problem with any other sysop reversing his decisions, as long as they have consensus on the appropriate board or if they have a substantive reason to do so (such as a blocked/banned party's agreement to abide by WP:5).
• This page is subject to wikipedia's talk page guidelines and civility policies. Violations of these rules will be enforced. Please remember that wikipedia is not a forum and not a form of social media.
• 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.

Hey

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

When I removed the link from the "see also" section here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rujm_el-Hiri&diff=546948917&oldid=540878492

The link was in the article at two separate locations: see "The site was cataloged during an Israeli archaeological survey carried out" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rujm_el-Hiri&oldid=546948917 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not alleging you were involved in an editwar just that after your initial edit one happened. Also I refrain from dealing with WP:AE discussions on this page. It's better to keep them together on that noticeboard--Cailil 15:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I saw that

... suppressed now :) - Alison 16:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

TY--Cailil 17:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Cailil. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CSDarrow (talk • contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Given that the consensus is now clearly against your position your use of yet another forum is simply forum shopping - that this inappropriate--Cailil 21:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Gender Studies/Countering Systemic Gender Bias

Hi Calil, I was looking at the above, thinking we need it now more than ever, and saw you had marked it as historical. Can you give me some background as to how it came about and why it didn't work out? I was wondering if we should resurrect it, but I don't want to duplicate other efforts. SlimVirgin 01:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi SV, that goes back at least 6 years. It took me a while but I found some of the old convos here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gender_Studies/Archive_2#I.27m_confused. Basically in '07 there was consensus to spin-off that aspect of the project and it was supposed to be either incorporated into WP:CSB or started up as a new specifically anti-gender bias project. It was decided that Wikiproject Gender Studies should have purveiw over the maintenance of gender studies articles and it was felt that that was incompatible with the countering bias aims etc. I was against the spin off then but now, six years later I understand why they decided to do that. I'd be of the opinion that WP:CSB probably cover this now and if it doesn't it should (a task-force could be set-up there about this). The issue at List of Vegetarians is clearly a Systemic Bias issue--Cailil 02:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Cailil. I'm not sure how to go about setting up a task force under the auspices of CSB. Should I just create Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender bias task force, or do I need to gain consensus first from CSB? SlimVirgin 23:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK there aren't firm rules but I'd do a bit of both. Consensus at CSB is probably the best place to start but once the ball gets rolling opening a sub-page with draft aims/objectives shoudl be fine--Cailil 15:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, many thanks. SlimVirgin 23:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Men's movement

Hello again. I'd like to make this article subject to probation sanctions. Is there a reason why it's not? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK if an edit is men's rights related in the wide topic area it's covered by the probation. The probation might be focussed on the men's rights movement page but it is a topic wide remedy, at least that's always been my understanding of it. So if someone is going to that article making edits that violate the probation then they can be sanctioned even unde rthe current sitaution--Cailil 22:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, but I'd rather make it explicit, so I'll add the notice to the talk page and create an edit notice for it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Grand, that's probably a good idea. Just in case I wasn't clear about my own position in this topic area I'd consider myself "involved". The admin that was doing the patrolling here was KillerChihuahua. I did propose that original sanction though at ANi though but with my editor "hat" on rather than as a sysop--Cailil 15:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages: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 followed by the systematic removal less than a month later. 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

Cailil, apologies for using your Talk page. Doc, take it over to my Talk page if you want to continue discussing, I've responded there. --HighKing (talk) 11:43, 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:

  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..

  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 22:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 and your own 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 15:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

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 16:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)