User talk:Cailil/archive11

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page To leave me a new message, please click here.

User page

Talk page

Admin

Logs

Awards

Books

Talk archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22

Email

Hello, Cailil. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by LevenBoy (talk • contribs) 20:43, 4 July 2011

Recent BISE Stuff

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.

---

Hello, Cailil! I've followed the BISE mess for awhile and know many of the players. Most of the "pro" BI editors have been SPAs and socks using guerrilla tactics. The main target of their stalking, of course, is "anti" BI editor HighKing. HighKing makes many different types of contributions to the wiki and couldn't nearly as easily be considered a SPA.

But here's the thing: he does target the term "British Isles" and remove it or tag it (often for later removal). There's no question about it, and recent edits confirm this. I could care less which term is preferred: but there is a question about serial removal of the term here. There's a reason all these socks are going after him, and whether or not removal of the term is considered disruptive is up to those who've been dealing with this for a lot longer than I've seen it. I'd like any feedback you have, and Cheers :> Doc talk 09:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey Doc, any particular edit you think is wrong? Or any tag? Let me know. --HighKing (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Doc. I will admit that I am, to say the least, uneasy about any account that focuses on one issue (particularly semi-political ones, which tend to be "hotter" than actual political ones, in my experience). As regards HighKing's taggings, removals, etc there are a few principles that I try to weigh when looking at BISE edits
1) There is nothing wrong with an editor tagging an inaccurate, unsourced, or otherwise challengable (in WP policy terms) entry
2) Over tagging terms/entries that are not any of the above is disruptive and pointy
3) Correcting misconstrued or misrepresented sources (ie "sneaky vandalism") is of benefit to the encyclopaedia
4) Finding alternative sources to back one's POV on a subject and replace other reliable sources is contrary to editing policy and specifically WP:NPOV
5) Changing terms simply to fit one's POV is original research
6) Removing original research is essential to retaining WP's credibility
7) Misleading Pipe linking is disruptive and borders on "sneaky vandalism".
Below is a tiny sample of HK's edits from yesterday (July 5th 2011) to June 5th 2011 and notes comparing them with the above 6 principles.

Extended content

{{These[1][2][3] tagging should have been about whole sentences not just the location. However this one[4] is different (British Isles is not a political entity, the United Kingdom Of Britain and Ireland, was and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is) HK is right to query this but it shouldn't be fact tagged rather the wording sould be questioned and if indeed the source uses "British Isles" (which is entirely possible) it should be quoted/attributed so that it isn't challenged again. I'm genuinely unsure of this one[5] I doubt racewalk.com is a reliable source but would have sent things like this to WP:RSN. These ones[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] should be sourced either way not just changed. Then we see things like these[15][16] where HK is correct. These ones[17][18][19] should be obvious enough. These[20][21][22][23][24] are correct per the sources (which don't mention "British Isles" anywhere). Assuming AGF he's right with these [25][26] but would need access to sources to double check. There are also 2 instances of him correcting (and not removing) the term British Isles[27][28]}}

So from the above months' worth of edits we can see that HK is mainly fixing some sneaky vandalism, correcting some obvious errors, querying challengable material relating to teh term British Isles - none of which is incompatible with site policy. However there are a number of edits that should have been sourced, but I'm honesty unsure if they fall into the "chnaged to fit POV" category. That said in light of the community topic probation (WP:GS/BI) their lack of sourcing may be problematic and I'll take a closer look at them tonight. But at this point I don't think HK's edits meet the standard of disruption as stated in WP:GS/BI:

Any editor who systematically adds or removes the term "British Isles" from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification, or who edit-wars over such addition or removal, may be added to the list of topic-banned editors.

Nevertheless it is plain that there is a huge focus on the term from HK's end, one that I am uncomfortable with (and I’m sure HK knows that). The question for me is, whether HK's focus on the term, or the SPA sock's focus on him, is the source of the problem for wikipedia. That said I must say that I'm aware of off-site attention on HighKing in particular, and the British Isles thing in general, on at least 2 websites which I find deeply & intrinsically problematic.
So in short, would I prefer HK not focus on the term 'British Isles'? - yes. Is he in breach of site policy? - not that I can see right now.
Speaking more generally, I have for years asked that editors in this field make proper use of the dispute resolution functions of this site rather than as you put it resorting to "guerilla" tactics. Sysops are just volunteers we cannot handle intractable issues - this dispute has burned out a number of great admins and the primary reason for that is the refusal of parties involved to engage with others in order to reach a resolution for the benefit of this project (wikipedia). I would sincerly suggest that if anyone feels that there is a long running issue with another user's conduct, and can evidence it properly, that WP:RFC/U should be used. Where disputes have become intractible mediation is an option. At present I don't see Arbitrartion as a solution or an option. Too many ppl will come with too many diffuse and divergeant issues & if that happens ArbCom will (rightly) reject the issue.
All in all Doc, I'm not here to defend or prosecute any user. I have always looked upon the British Isles edit war in the light of User:Moreschi/The_Plague and User:Dbachmann/Wikipedia and nationalism. I can only deal with what I can see, so if you want to put diffs to me (for example, instances of edits that are unsourced, and not 'obvious', since mid-March 2011) my mind remains open, otherwise RFC/U is probably a better option--Cailil ^talk 14:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a fair summary. I acknowledge that some editors are "uncomfortable" with a focus on the term "British Isles", but I don't believe any of the symptoms outlined by Moreschi are attributable to my editing.

Extended content

Regarding the edits you highlighted above: No.8 - Parish Walk. I reverted this claim based on the fact that there's simply no sources for this claim whatsoever, so going to WP:RSN would have done little good. I found one claim and put that in the article. It's still "open" but the editor who made the claim is an infrequent editor and I'm waiting to discuss. You point out that the following should be sourced either way and not just changed. Well, for these, the existing references already have the claim but it's misquoted. In those cases I change to match the reference and point it out in the edit summary. I'm happy to reference the changes if you think that would cause less fuss. But it's certainly not an "unsourced" change as the existing references suffice. No.9 - King Arthur game. The existing references including the game website (on the FAQ page) invariably describe the map as either "Britannia", "Britain" or "Roman Britain". No.10 - Titan (cave). The existing reference describes the shaft as the highest pitch in Britain. No.11 - The Skystone. This a fictional character in a series of historical fiction books. In the book he (and Publius Varrus) discover they were both born in Colchester. No.12 - Albion's Seed. The four groups - first was an exodus of Puritans from the east of England to Massachusetts (1629-1640). The second was the movement of a Royalist elite and indentured servants from the south of England to Virginia (ca. 1649-75). The third was the "Friends' migration,"--the Quakers--from the North Midlands and Wales to the Delaware Valley (ca. 1675-1725). The fourth was a great flight from the borderlands of North Britain and northern Ireland to the American backcountry (ca. 1717-75). No.13 - Company rule in India. Between 1825 and 1835, Ireland had 1 railway of about 6 miles, build in 1834, and it was not inter-city. England, on the other hand, had "rapidly" built the Liverpool/Manchester railway and the Leeds/Selby railway, and the London/Birmingham railway company in 1833. No.14 - I removed "Western Europe" seeing as how the preceding list of countries already included France, and I changed "British Isles" because the references included in the book only mention Bogomilism in England. No.15 - The website for the magazine states that it covers the genre in Wales and border areas in England. Since the lede already makes this point, and the website already referenced, I simply redid the sentence (as per my edit summary). No.16 - This was a pretty simple editing job to remove the tautology of the "Britain and Europe" type. No.17 - The reference uses UK and Ireland and Holland. I'm pretty sure we don't want to get into a big discussion on your Talk page about each edit, so any comments or questions can go on the appropriate article Talk page.

What external websites? --HighKing (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't link to the sites HK,[29] but google will bring at least one of them up quickly. My advice stay away from them and deny recognition engagement is likely to make it worse--Cailil ^talk 17:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

WRT to the edits I queried - I'll look at all that later tonight--Cailil ^talk 17:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying HighKing should be in trouble. But one thing I do know is that we have an editor who's been blabbing about HighKing (from even before he was known as HighKing) and socking over at WR for years. Surprise, surprise - they've started up again about the LevenBoy block. Like the SPA socks here, this person's focus is pretty much solely on HighKing and his targeting of the term. They admit to socking extensively, they are suspected of being LevenBoy over there: and are most active when HighKing is actually going after the term. @HighKing - it's not that any particular edit is bad, it's the fact that you are doing searches for the BI term and going to articles based on the search results. This person who is feverishly watching your edits usually reacts rather quickly with sock activity when this occurs, and disruption ensues. It would drive me nuts if certain edits I made were almost guaranteed to cause a reaction from a person who's been obsessively watching me for years and using reams of socks to revert me. I don't feel sorry for the "pro-BI" group, but I do kind of see their frustration and reasons for reacting. I have no stake in the term and make no judgements on who is "wrong or right". I guess we'll just wait and see who the next socks are. Doc talk 22:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Doc I think that's one of the most reasoned and reasonable summations of the problem I've seen and I tend to agree. WR is indeed one of the sites I mentioned and that person uses one of those usernames from there elsewhere. I'm pretty sure at this point there is an open & shut case of harassment/wikihounding targetting a number of anti-BI editors (mainly HighKing), and sysops so I am looking at things VERY carefully. But I too am uneasy about the practice by accounts who do searches for a "term and [... edit] articles based on the search result". But for me these have really become 2 seperate issues (and by saying that I'm not diminishing either's importance)--Cailil ^talk 00:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate where you're coming from. I also don't feel sorry for the "pro-BI" group (or individual to be more accurate, if the truth be told). He got away with wholesale disruption for (literally) years and made it pretty hellish here. I'm not hiding anything, or socking, or sneaking around. I'm not on a campaign of wholesale removal of "British Isles" from Wikipedia - I'm sure Cailil and you and anyone else who've looked at my edits will see that. Not am I off-wiki trying to whip up support at WR, etc. I'm not entrenched in my views, edit-warring or reverting or refusing to discuss my edits. I'm happy to discuss any of my edits. And I'll also add that my editing has improved greatly, and I've learned tons, and I AGF as much as possible because, well, most editors here are actually trying to improve things. It's not even about being right or wrong - it's about verifiable facts with civility and respect, and a reasonable dose of commonsense. I appreciate your comments aren't personal - I'd just ask for a fair crack of the whip, and a nod to the reality of the situation as opposed to the bad press and mudslinging put out by the "pro-BI" individual. --HighKing (talk) 00:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Definitely nothing personal: you've always been a more "broad" editor than, say, LevenBoy, LemonMonday or Triton Rocker. Thanks for both of your considered responses, and you both know I'm on the wiki's side - there are rules everywhere, you know ;> I'll keep watching the BISE stuff because I like to see things through, and hopefully the editor who continues the harassment and wikistalking will realize that it will not work. Cheers :> Doc talk 05:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like we didn't have to wait long. User:Spanking Tart has resumed where the previous sock left off. Is the best thing to file an SPI? --HighKing (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

At this point I don't think so but that's my opinion. User:SpankingTart is an obvious duck-sock[30] of one or other of 'The Troubles' SPA accounts[31][32][33] and has been blocked for harassment, socking, disruption & block evasion--Cailil ^talk 15:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

HighKing, you are 100% entrenched in your views. Not once, not ever, have I ever seen you concede that on any BI issue, that an edit of yours was simply wrong. At best, after making the same point 5 or 10 times, you will begrudgingly leave the issue alone, while still declaring your opposition to the consensus, only for you to raise it again a month or even a year later. And you most definitely have edit warred, particularly when you look at article histories over months and years. He is, and always has been, an SPA in this area. A couple of edits about cheese now and then never has and never will change the basic fact of what lies behind his main reason for being here - in his own words, he is here to "correct" other people's "incorrect" use of the English language, as regard this specific term. And those other people number in the thousands, he is not here battling a single sock, the sock/s are largely only engaged in reverting changes he makes to third party's original choice to use the term - pick any article and that's largely what you will find if you go back far enough in the history. On all levels, policy and common sense, it is unacceptable, totally unacceptable, that through his singular presence on Wikipedia, a source is now required for every single usage of a term that is in common use in the English language, and is not seen as controversial at all when, as NPOV requires, the entire body of literature on it, and its representative usage in sources, is properly examined, i.e. not just the cherry picked sources in the POV pushers wet dream that is our 'dispute' article. It's dislike by some people in the Republic, and by extension of course, its avoidance by those outside it who want to deal with it, is frankly irrelevant to Wikipedia, the global encyclopoedia, save for the tiny few places where the Republican world view is to be appropriately mentioned in articles. That is how you neutrally deal with this dispute, such as it can even be called one. Our core principle of NPOV is not and never has been about levelling that playing field to suit their minority world view, at the expense of the actual world view. And even calling this a leveling of the playing field is innacurate - the current use of the term on Wikipedia, and more importantly the phenomenon of active avoidance, is now, thanks to HighKing, totally out of whack compared to its usage/avoidance in the real world, in proper, authorative sources, aswell as natural language. When a single editor like HighKing is attempting to, by sheer grit and determination, achieve widespread change in the natural usage of a term on Wikipedia by thousands of other casual editors via systematic searching, then they are unquestionably POV pushing. Anyone who says otherwise simply doesn't understand the concept. He has never restricted his edits solely to simply correcting other people's willfull or accidental misrepresentation of sources, that's not true in the slightest. It stretches the basic collaborative purpose of this site to breaking point to remotely suggest that he is allowed to do that just because everyone who wants to dispute it has eventually found that talking to a brick wall is a more rewarding past time. There is real opposition to HighKing out there, from experienced non-sock editors, it's all on record in the various past arenas. Not once, not ever, has his viewpoint been sanctioned by a large community forum, or by any editor who has a respected record in NPOV writing. The implementation of a Guideline that incorprorates his views on the term and how it should be used is an eternal fantasy, for good reason - the proposals do not follow policy and as such never get community support when put to them for examination. Thus, we are in perpetual 'HighKing management' mode, setting up special rules and venues and probations and witch hunts simply to mitigate his presence on Wikipedia. Discussion might have worked if HighKing's idea of how that goes had been properly monitored and guided away from his incessant tendentious approach, but administrators like yourself have failed in their duty to not reward his WP:TE as a modus operandi, so interest in discussion has now well and truly dissappeared, while he continues to do what he's always done since year dot - search and change, search and change. In the game of POV pushing, that's classed as a win. MickMacNee (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

MMN - HK was just warned by me a matter of hours ago. Contrary to your opinion MMN the community sanction on the addition/removal/alteration of the term British Isles is to prevent disruption by both "sides".
MMN do not post to this page in the above fashion. If you want to post here do it with short, diff based points or not at all. This will be your only warning wrt to that - this talk page is not a forum and will no be used as such--Cailil ^talk 18:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

further commentry from MMN

My mistake. I saw the warning, I found this discussion, and I added my opinion based on my many years of subject knowledge. Your hostility and threats toward editors who act in this most outrageous manner on a talk page is duly noted, I shall leave you to what you apparently see as 'your' talk page, and shall endevour to observe your unique requirements from now on, or maybe find a more open admin. I'll give you a free pass on the whole 'forum' slur for now, but kindly don't repeat it either directly or indirectly, unless you mean to intentionally aggravate me. MickMacNee (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Your filing in response to this is noted. I would welcome the committee examining your involvement in that dispute, and your claims about what motivates me in it. I note your inflammatory use of words like "targetted", interesting choice. I would welcome the committee examining whether the claims I make about HighKing are true, as let's face it, that's not really something you've ever bothered to do is it? If I find a golden diff that proves HighKing is a relentless POV pusher whose tendentious tactics are achieving systematic change on this site, aided and abetted by admins who are unable or unwilling to stop him, then I'll be sure to present it to you, but I'd rather the committee saw this demand for what it was. I would welcome the committee examining your claim that I have never once made a policy or diff backed argument against him, or my involvement in this dispute is even half as personalised or hostile as you make out. There is no policy against me highlighting you or anybody else's failings as regards content or behavioural policies frankly, that's real wishful thinking on your part. And it's frankly perverse that you think schools would be bothered about the internal disputes on Wikipedia, but not the POV pushing of our content that triggers it. I would love it, love it, if schools were made fully aware of what impact single editors like HighKing are achieving on the content of this so called global encyclopoedia, and what role admins like yourself are playing in sweeping it under the carpet. As always, it's nice to see someone trusted to stop large scale POV pushing on this site, simply describe it as a "lame" issue. You've made some seriously strong claims about me in that evidence, not backed up by any of the diffs you've presented, and the committe would do well to examine exactly what you've done about them up to now if they are minded to believe it, because I cannot for a minute think that if you had infact ever seen other editors or even admins be "verbally abused, threatened and personally attacked" by me, that you would have waited until now to highlight it. Not you, maybe others with a thicker skin and a real talent for pragmatic administration in highly charged areas of dispute like nationalist POV pushing, but not you. It's a nice story, but that's about it. If the committe finds that I have intimated you, HighKing, or anyone else, simply by holding you to basic standards or pointing out some uncomfortable truths, then they can ban me right now, and I'll be glad of it. I would want no part in such a backward project frankly. MickMacNee (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC) My only regret infact is not filing an arbitration request on HighKing once the stupidity that was trying to engage with him through BISE/SE met its inevitable end, and he simply resumed where he left off, free to act the victim yet again, with your help. Instead of wasting time on your ideas of topic bans and civility restrictions while pretedning this was a content issue and waiting for mythical Rfcs that nobody was ever going to file, not least you, we should have just we got right down to it - file the case and ask the committee to rule whether what HighKing does over months and years, and how he has done it, with the facade of 'using sources' and 'civil discussion' (only the bits relating to fake politeness of course, ignoring all the parts that relate to WP:TE), constitutes POV pushing or not. For me, well, obvious campaign was and still is obvious, but it's a sad truth of this site that you often have to go all the way to a case to get obvious things recognised, particularly when dealing with editors like Highking who have been here long enough to know what all the weaknesses of this site are against the tactics he employs, which are not, and never have been, about collegialism or consensus, let alone respect for basic content policies like NPOV. He has been doing this for years, and like all good nationalist POV pushers, he doesn't give a fuck whether it takes him years to achieve his goal or not. MickMacNee (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

blocking user:Dzlinker (me!)

in response to this message.

you should know that i asked for a consensus every time a conflict was rised with the other guy. but he still refuses any talk or consensus. take a look here, and u'll find that i'was talking alone. the other guy juste want to impose his PoV. He doesn't want any talk.

another point. he is using proxies to revert/undo edits like here or here, and i'm pretty sure there is others

Dzlinker (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

He's been warned too. It doesn't if one thinks one is correct - revert warring is prohibited. Period--Cailil ^talk 18:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

About EW

Hello,

I agree that I reverted too many edits for a few weeks, however, you should see that it was a vandalism/sock-puppetry case and that these multiple accounts belong to one single user ; all these issues were discussed and I didn't act without a quasi-agreement of the board [34] [35] [36]

About the user Dzlinker/Omar2788, I reported that to the board but I got no answer from the admins [37]. However, you can easily see that his edits are mainly Algerian-POV ones, making a confusion between French Algeria and independent one. On the other hand, I find that some of his edit-comments are highly aggressive : "you'r french. ok. so you don't speak arabic. i do. maghrib means NORTH AFRICA not maroco. do your own researches", "ok here it is, what's your problem?"... for the rest, you can easily see on the article Berber people that he doesn't care about what is written on the talk page and he's editing the article despite many users opposed his proposed edits and no one agreed.

About the rest of my reverts, it is mainly related to IP edits, some being extremely POV.

Sorry if these edits are looking as EW's but as I wrote, they are mainly related to specific cases.

Btw, I'm making no undoings (except for IP cases) on the next days.

Regards,
Omar-Toons (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

As above - you were both warned--Cailil ^talk 13:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

• WP:Observations on Wikipedia behavior
• Thank you for your kind advices on my page, its been a disturbing period since the potty mouth IP started his abusive behaviour on me and on whoever deemed by him to have sided/supported me. Evidently and much afterwards, if you look through my contribution history, I have spoken to at least three other Admins and their assessment to leave him alone, which I did but not before that when apparently I was feeding into his psyche too much. Admittedly, I shouldn't have done that but I'm human after all. Again, thanks for your help. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 14:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Blasphemous edit summary

I notice you've been monitoring an IP and maybe you noticed the disgusting edit summary [38]. Maybe you could remove this completely? It is one of the most offensive summaries I've ever seen and should not be permitted. Thanks. The Skywatcher and me (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not finished parsing the new rules for revdel wrt to offensive material, so please contact a sysop from the category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests - they will be able to look at this--Cailil ^talk 20:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll take it up with them. The Skywatcher and me (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The block of 2.220.204.70

I'll start by noting that the language of the IP 2.220.204.70 is not acceptable, but my limited review of the edit exchange leads me to belief that, on the merits, the IP edits were good edits. In addition, the IP did a better job at using edit summaries, and making a clear case, including appeals to relevant guidelines. The profanity is unfortunate, but may be a result of making clear sense in edit summaries and on the talk page, yet getting reverted without good reason, and treated like a vandal. We have procedures for dispute resolution that the IP did not pursue, but unless there's evidence that the IP is familiar with Wikipedia process, and rules regarding decorum, I think the IP should be cut some slack. I suggest reducing the block to 24 hours.

I'm also inclined to make the edit myself. I've only scanned the exchange, but the argument for "said" over "explained" sounds solid. I think the burden is on those preferring "explained" to, well explain themselves. However, these two actions are not linked, and I want to review the entire exchange further before making the edit.

I don't think it would be helpful for me to revise the block unilaterally, which is why I am here. Can we discuss to see if I'm missing something?--SPhilbrickT 18:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi SPhilbrick. Well, the block is for a pattern of abusive and disruptive behaviour in contravention of WP:5 across a series of content disputes, not just the one. It doesn't matter if 2.220.204.70 was right about the Van Tuong Nguyen content issue ("said" / "explained") as long as they are going to ignore the rest of WP:5. Indeed I extended that block from 5 days to 10 after reading the WQA thread (which the IP initiated)[39] where the IP was warned (days ago) to reconsider its approach. Thus at this point the IP has been made fully aware of site policy wrt behaviour and has instead of acting appropriately resorted to abusive and uncivil use of the talk-space and launched personal attacks on/been repeatedly incivil to 3 editors[40][41][42][43]. There is also a long running serious issue of abuse of edit-summaries[44] for example[45]. That said I would be happy to implement a reduction/unblock of 2.220.204.70 (to time served) as soon as they accept the reason for blocking and give a commitment to change their problematic behaviour--Cailil ^talk 19:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. My review so far has been limited to the Van Tuong Nguyen page and talk page. I'll look at those other locations.--SPhilbrickT 20:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I do see you point BTW and like I said if the IP can do a proper unblock request I'd be happy enough to unblock and AGF--Cailil ^talk 20:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm reading those posts very differently than you, (although your response suggests perhaps we are closer now). I thought the IP was quite right to post the rquest at WQA. The posts by Dave1185 appear inappropriate, and it is disappointing that, other than User:Born2cycle, there's so little support for the notion that the IP is mostly in the right. The strong language does make it harder to make this a clear case, and language like that isn't excused, even when provoked, but it does appear the IP was provoked. The IP was accused of vandalism and there is nothing that hints of vandalism. The IP was called a troll by Dave1185. I see you admonished him for that, but I'd like to see an apology. The IP was given a vandalism "welcome". That was highly inappropriate, and deserves an apology.

I reviewed the multiple examples of uncivil posting, and see only one clear cut example.

All that said, we may be on the same page. The uncivil language by the IP cannot continue. If the IP agrees to moderate the language, we can unblock with time served. However, I intend to request (obviously, I have no authority to compel) that some editors, Dave1185 either apologize to the IP, or explain to me why my understanding was wrong.

In addition, we need to address the edit to the page. The current wording is simply wrong. The IP was right that "explained" is wrong. However, I haven't seen the evidence that Lee said anything, so it may be more complicated than changing "explained to "said".--SPhilbrickT 20:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into content issues but if I remember correctly one of the posts in reply to content issue stated the same point as you - the source doesn't back up either position--Cailil ^talk 21:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and sorry if I rambled a bit. I was asked to take a look into this, so I'm trying to review both the conduct issues and the edit itself. I agree you don't have to deal with the edit itself.--SPhilbrickT 22:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

3 things SPhilbrick. First I agree with you that other user's actions need correcting (and I'm less than happy with Dave1188's responses to you[46][47][48]). I would indeed pursue their actions towards the IP as per WP:BITE and in response to you (per WP:TPG) - and I am considering doing so myself. Second, I think you've been had by that IP. Rather than file an unblock request the user behind 2.220.204.70 (a UK based BSKYB IP) used a spanish IP address to reply - this is a major Red Flag and I've blocked that IP and filed an open-proxy report. Third, this is friendly advice from someone who's been a sysop here for 4 years 3 years. If you are going to have a POV on content in relation to a dispute I suggest taking off your admin hat while dealing with it - IMHO it gets too close to being 'involved' - I'm not saying taht you are in this case I'm just saying think about it--Cailil ^talk 12:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yet another major failure to assume good faith. You could have asked the Spanish IP why it was replying on a UK IP's page. You can see the reasons now, on the Spanish IP talk page. But you didn't - you just assumed malice, blocked and ran. Not helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.5.27.93 (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Cailil, I was going to let you know about the above mentioned IP evading his/her block (see my talk page) but it looks like they self-reported. Seems a little obsessive to me --Snowded ^TALK 05:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

As a still relatively new admin, I'm very willing to accept advice from those with more experience. I steered clear of using admin tools, although reviewing some of my edits, I see my statement that "I don't think it would be helpful for me to revise the block unilaterally," might be construed as an implicit threat to do so, and, if not using the tools, arguably threatening to do so.

I felt the protection of the page was not justified, but I deliberately did not change the protection level, so I would not be viewed as an admin stepping in. I tried to tread lightly on the editing itself. No one seemed willing to remove the problematic sentence, which was unquestionably unsupported by the source, but rather than add a revised sentence back in, I tried to suggest options at the talk page, which have stalled. Was your comment about my admin hat directed at my statement above, or something else? In retrospect, I think it would have been better to post as an editor, and ask for a reconsideration of the block, without hinting that I might take action. If there's something else, please let me know.--SPhilbrickT 17:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah no problem Sphilbrick I did indeed get the impression you came to this as an admin first by the phrasing of your query about the initial block. No worries --Cailil ^talk 12:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

That's understandable. I was asked by an involved party to take a look, and that was one of my first posts on the subject. I hadn't given much thought to what "hat" I was wearing, and should have worked harder at simply gathering information. I do see some positives coming out of this. More than one editor, whose actions I perceived as a little heavy-handed at first, have come to realize the situation was a bit more nuanced than it originally appeared. Oft-times, these situations result in both sides digging in further, and I see some examples, with two notable exceptions, of parties reaching less extreme conclusions. I wish the IP would concede to some over-reaction, and request an unblock, then go on to edit productively. Maybe there's still hope.--SPhilbrickT 19:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW SPhilbrick, with regard to this, given the level of block evasion and the refusal to get the point on the part of that IP editor I would not be happy simply to unblock/reduce to time served at present.
Due to level of block evasion it would be counter productive for the project to reward such behaviour. There is a point at which one has to recognize that this IP user who began with seriously inappropriate conduct (edit summaries and WP:CIVIL breaches) and continues with that style of interaction does not have the necessary competence to edit in a collegial environment based on consensus and policies. Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy.
I remain happy to reduce the block as appropriate once the user signs up to WP:5 in full--Cailil ^talk 20:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sigh (directed at the situation, not at you). I posted that before realizing the IP appears to have used yet another IP to post. I don't think it would be reasonable to call the use of a Spanish IP a block evasion, if a resident of the UK happened to be in Spain at the time the UK IP was blocked. It might be technically the rule, but it is as clear an example of a rationale for IAR as I've seen. However, assuming the IP is back in London, and not appealing the block, I agree that the IP is not attempting to resolve the situation in a reasonable manner. I still contend that one editor acted in such an egregious way that apologies, at a minimum are appropriate, So it troubles me that we are insisting that an IP, whose edit were in the right, is being told to politely request block removal, which may not be granted, and not a single editor who made the situation worse is being called on the carpet. I agree that the processes are separate, and the IP should agree to stop evading blocks and agree to follow the rules independently of whatever action might be taken against others, but looking through the eyes of the IP, it sure looks like a pile-on, and no action taken against the truly offending parties.--SPhilbrickT 22:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

No disagreement from me about other editors' behaviour. But I'm afraid that concentrating on whether the IP was right on a single word content matter on Van Tuong Nguyen requires that we ignore the sum total of their behaviour as 2.220.204.70 and with 2 Spanish Ips and the new UK Ip. This person is setting off most of the red flags we have for disruptive users (WP:IDHT, WP:TE, WP:NPA etc) and seem to be looking for a fight (even before the Van Tuong Nguyen issue). They have been continually offered the opertunity to sign-up to site standards and policy but rather than doing so and moving on they have found ways to waste our time with block evasion--Cailil ^talk 22:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I support the block of 90.199.34.148 as block evasion. However, I do not understand why a template has been added claiming that the IP engaged in vandalism. I've seen no vandalism. Did I miss something? I'm losing my interest in supporting someone who isn't lifting a finger to respond, but I'd like to bend over backwards to make sure we don't make errors simply because the IP is being intractable. (If there's a rule somewhere defining block evasion as vandalism, I'll accept that, but the rule is wrong.)--SPhilbrickT 23:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we have very different understandings of Template:ISP Sphilbrick. When an IP is blocked/warned we add it. It's not a vandalism warning it is an ISP identification template that shows the whois information, as well as the what, who and how to contact if there's any vandalism. It's main purpose however is for ppl who "accidentally logged" in as IPs who are getting other ppl's warnings (irrelevant warnings) and blocks (collateral damage) - in this instance the template recommends that they open an account. It's not a "vandal only" template. A toned down version of teh template is template:whois - I'm happy to use this one in this instance if you think the other looks like a 'badge of shame'--Cailil ^talk 23:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I confess I haven't been very active on the vandalism front, but I see the phrase "In response to vandalism from this IP address", I say we should modify the template if we use it as a matter of course in non-vandalism situations. IIRC, this particular IP took offense to being called a vandal. I understand the concern. Thanks for the offer to use a different template.--SPhilbrickT 23:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem - the vandalism box in IP template is pretty standard but do go ahead an talk it out at the template. I'll change the templates to {{whois}} - it gives other ppl who use these IPs the info they need--Cailil ^talk 23:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

User Caiboshtank

Hi Cailil, looks like a new sock of MidnightBlueMan has popped up - check out User:Caiboshtank --HighKing (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Dealt with via the AN3 report - btw HK please have a read of WP:DENY & WP:GRIEFER. This person(s) is encouraged by giving them exceptional notice. Ignoring them and reporting them through the normal channels (AN3 in this case) without highlighting the names of prior accounts (except when necessary) is best. Besides an admin will see the pattern very clearly--Cailil ^talk 12:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AKnight2B

Cailil, could you please tell me what I can do to prove my innocence? I have been watching the investigation and the other users Talk hoping to be exonerated; however, I am still being accused and this is effecting my reputation on any edit, comment, or creation I do. I am a very well respected advisor to Parliament and have never used any form of sock puppeteering in my life. The only thing which has been stated is:

• "they do share one IP address that hasn't been used by any other user." and
• "That IP address shows them on the same operating system"

However, the Admin goes on to say:

• "but using a different browser."
• "Each account does use other IP addresses that are not shared between these two"

Given that i use free internet provided by public hotspots that are provided to millions of UK residences, it is not unlikely that I might have gotten an IP that someone else had at some point. Especially as these IPs are shared IPs and that the user claims they were at the same event I was. This would suggest that we are both residents of central London. BUT this only happened once (according to the admin who placed the note) And as for the other point of us both using the the same operating system. Over half of the world Uses Windows.

Now looking at the evidence in my favour, we are using different browsers, considering the only browser installed on my PC is Internet Explorer, and "does not use other IP addresses" There is not court of law in the world that would convict and penalize an individual with a permanent record as detrimental as this, based on this information.

Please tell me what I can do to prove my innocence, especially when there is no evidence that would suggest guilt. AKnight2B (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

User:HighKing continues

new edits

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.

---

On my talk page, you asserted that "if another edit like this happens HK wil have violated his warning and will be sanctioned". Well, now he has. He has again removed the term "British Isles" even though the source explicitly uses that term. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Stemonitis. Indeed, I was in the middle of confirming my warning to him when that happened so I will ask another sysop to review. On the matter of his edit I do think his talk page message has a point but I don't see why he reverted your article edit (and agree in whole with your reply to him on that talk page). As such I'm of the opinion that the probation may have been breached, but want another set of eyes before acting. If any further reverts on that article, or the ant article, occur however I will act myself--Cailil ^talk 18:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for a second set of eyes made[49]--Cailil ^talk 18:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the effort, and I understand how demanding such decisions can be. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

In light of my revert occurring before you affirmed the warning, and the concerns expressed here, I've self reverted. Indeed I will always self-revert if requested and discussions are in progress. I also understand (in retrospect) how my reverting on a different article might be seen as continuing an edit war from a previous (but related) article - that wasn't obvious to me until now. --HighKing (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks HK - I'll note this with MoonRiddenGirl--Cailil ^talk 19:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry. I don't think this is good enough. Behaving well when the teacher is looking is not a substitute for behaving well the rest of the time. The time for contrition was before sanctions became probable, not after. This smacks of a desperate attempt to avoid punishment for obvious wrongdoing. He does not self-revert the rest of the time, and it should not have to be "requested". He knows the edits are contentious, and he must be aware that they misrepresent the sources. How could anyone fall for this transparent puppy-dog-eyes trick? --Stemonitis (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

outside views

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.

---

This is beginning to look like a demand for a head on a pike, rather than resolution of a content dispute. RashersTierney (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually Stemonitis, I have self-reverted in the past. And my understanding was that Cailil's concern was over edit-warring, which is why I've self-reverted. I had already given up on the Myrmica ruginodis article - my last edit was 3 days ago - and I didn't twig that BRDing on the Watsonian vice-county article would be seen as part of that edit war. --HighKing (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

If British Isles was left where it was & not added where it wasn't, there'd be much less of these disputes. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This is much more than a content dispute, as even a cursory glance at HighKing's edit history reveals. It affects articles and editors far and wide and is even attracting attention off wiki in an alarming manner. Van Speijk (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Ok guys those of you that don't know how I feel about 'pile-ins' relating to British Isles disputes and disputants should know I wont tolerate unnecessary drama or attempts to derail enforcement. This matter will be handled properly and openly on this site - not elsewhere. I am well aware of teh history of this dispute and the current situation is under review by a second sysop. And if we don't agree we'll go to WP:AN or get a WP:3O if we deem it necessary but I will not tolerate drama-mongering from "either side". Relax. Step back and enjoy your evenings--Cailil ^talk 20:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Cailil. It's actually raining cats and dogs at my place but I'll do my best. Should this not be closed down here and moved elsewhere? Van Speijk (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Progress

Any news on this front? Despite claims that he has "given up" on Myrmica ruginodis, User:HighKing is still stirring up trouble on the talk page there. The consensus of each of the involved admins appeared to be (without wishing to speak for any of you) that a topic ban would be appropriate. It is good that he is now talking, but his arguments have not progressed at all, suggesting that he is not really engaging with the community. I am sure that he can be a useful editor, but I think it would be better for everyone if he kept away from the British Isles naming debate and concentrated on other areas. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

In the interests of sparing Cailil's page from drama-mongering, I'll reply at your my Talk page, Stemonitis. --HighKing (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for your patience guys - we're just finalizing our discussion. Given that there is a long history of the British Isles dispute it can take a while to "read ppl in"--Cailil ^talk 22:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

DegenFarang again, and again and again

User:DegenFarang has been blocked eight or so times for his tendatious editing, most recently by you less than a week ago. After his usual pretending, within a couple days of being unblocked he has returned to his exact same behavoir, making the exact same edits, ignoring not just "all rules" but all other editors. These multiple one day bannings only embolden him because he sees there are no consequences at all for his abusivness and vandalism. Prior to the ANI thread which lead to you blocking him for a day, he had an additional warning in another subject area here. He needs to be permanently banned and his IP permanently blocked. These one day bannings accomplish nothing, aside from wasting huge amounts of time and driving away productive editors. Please block him and his IP permanently. 2005 (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

And now I also see he made another of his User_talk:TheTakeover#External_Link_Spam bullying threats that you specifically told him not to do. After years of this type of behavoir, this person must not be allowed to act like this anymore. 2005 (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi,
not sure about your history in this, but since this unblock comment of yours was highlighted at ANI, I would welcome your input at the current WP:ANI#Edit Warring w/ Sockpuppets.
Thank you, Amalthea 20:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

IRC!

Hi! I just wanted to let you know that we have created an IRC channel for "countering systemic bias one new editor at a time", aka closing the gender gap! Come hang out at #wikimedia-gendergap. I hope you'll join us! (And if you need any IRC help, just let me know!) See you there! SarahStierch (talk) 23:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathanson and Young

Dear Cailil, hi. With regards to Nathanson and Young I have made a little section on Paul_Nathanson#Misandry which I think it might be nicer to redirect to rather than just delete. My logic is there is quite a but of useful stuff on Nathanson and Young but it was deemed too POVish for inclusion in Misandry so was moved there. The talk page discusses this rationale at lenght. I have raised this also in my contribution to the AFD but just thought I would raise it with you also. I hope this is OK. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC))

That section seems fine to me Msrasnw. However, I don't know that a redirect is necessary and given that there are 2 authors it might end up being POV to redirect to just one (just a thought)--Cailil ^talk 13:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I've made a few alterations to that page after reading it a few times. Some are purely organizational (splitting the info you added putting the prose in the lede and the list in a 'publications' section). Other changes are per WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and WP:EL--Cailil ^talk 14:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Sven the Big Viking

Without commenting on the merits of the block (though I will do that if you like) the first diff you list wasn't by this user. You should probably correct it. Cheers, --John (talk) 00:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks John and do go ahead and review/reduce/adjust the block as you see fit--Cailil ^talk 00:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd probably cut the duration in half. No, that's a lousy math joke. I was opposed to the unblock in the first place and would endorse the reinstatement of the indef block. Thanks for your prompt attention on the correction. --John (talk) 03:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

E-Mail

Hello, Cailil. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Mtking ^(edits) 23:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:AE

I have to agree with Domer regarding your comments at AE, I don't see how "Domer48's history" has anything to do with your judgement on the case, 2 reverts on an article that has a 1 revert limit from an editor who was well aware what they were doing and disregarded the "rules" layed out regarding Troubles articles. Mo ainm~Talk 18:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Re : The Skywatcher and me

Per "The Troubles" Remedy 3.2, do register AE blocks on the case page itself, namely Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#2011. It will go a long way in helping us to keep track. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 07:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder Mailer Diablo - that's been done.--Cailil ^talk 11:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

What do you make of this...

Hi Cailil, as an administrator who knows that me and Domer48 are in the middle of a content dispute, what do you make of the following actions:

1. HighKing reverting to the version Domer48 was pushing to have in the article, seeing as Domer48 can't do it himself and i can't revert it. Reverting under dubious reasons at that as well as that, whilst giving different reasons on the talk page (i'm providing the direct link to the discussion as there are only two comments at this time in it - his and my response)
2. Domer48 the next day conveniently taking a break for the duration of the "elections" whilst the dispute is still on-going. These elections i presume are the Irish presidential elections which don't place until Thursday, 27 October 2011 - a month away!

I posted a compromise two days ago to no response (it's in the "3 questions and a compromise" section of the now closed RfC). The now closed RfC has been superceded by a new more specific one, which also includes this compromise.

Having failed to tackle the questions i ask for him to prove relevance head on, they are now taking a month long break, in which time the issue will probably be dead and buried with no responses to my questions from the editor who disagrees with me. How can the dispute be resolved in this way?

Mabuska ^(talk) 12:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, there is other input coming into the discussion now. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the very slow reply Mabuska (I'm very very busy in real life). I see the issue you're raising and will make time to look into it again at the weekend.
However, for the moment I'd suggest continuing to do what you're doing - engaging wider input on the article and building a consensus in teh talkspace--Cailil ^talk 00:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Don't worry about the slow reply, i knew not to expect lightning fast responses by reading the welcome message you have when you go to make a post. It's not always easy to get wider input when some make it quite hard to have a rationale collaborative debate that doesn't scare others away, but at least for the moment it's heading in the right way - collaborating. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

AE request

Here [50]. Volunteer Marek  06:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments at User talk:Lvivske

I have considered the comments made, and posted an account of my opinion. I hope it is helpful. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks James, I think that's fair - I would definitely have been better off describing the block as for disruption but I feel with Lvivske's history I am not wrong. But I take on board your reasoned criticism of my wording and will work on that--Cailil ^talk 14:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Dispute opened by Hermiod against Kgorman-ucb about men's rights

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Men's Rights". Thank you. --SarahStierch (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Sarah--Cailil ^talk 14:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a little thanks...

....for adding dates to my men's rights templates! Thank you! SarahStierch (talk) 05:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem =)--Cailil ^talk 11:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)