User talk:Cailil/archive14

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

Editor retention

Love your comment concerning civility; "less again from the "teh adminz on whatisitpedia are alz evilz" crowd) for rigorous & equally enforcement of WP:5." We really need to do something about Admin retention also. Sure, there are some bad ones, but we are losing good ones faster than bad ones. I just heard from one who has become almost inactive because the pov pushers are winning (and he edits in an area where he is now the only Admin). Admins play a vital role in actually helping retain editors (or when they aren't active enough, in letting events occur that lose us editors). Dougweller (talk) 18:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree absolutely Doug. There's a really pointless meme on WP that we're all evil and delete stuff because we're biased. And yeah there some not very good sysops, and then occasionally we all screw up (I have) but there are ppl who've put years of work into helping this site who are getting abused directly and indirectly and that has to stop--Cailil ^talk 18:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I have time tonight, but I think we should make this a goal - maybe even talk about editor/Admin retention as "editor retention" doesn't suggest we need to retain Admins. Worth starting a separate section at the talk page? Dougweller (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah that's my feeling too - yeah lets open a discussion of it :) --Cailil ^talk 18:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. Dougweller (talk) 11:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Kindly return to the page where you just commented about me and respond. Your attitude is very cavalier and I feel as though you're not doing your very meaningful and important job as an administrator to the best of your ability. You seem to be acting rather on a whim and not giving me the time you should as an administrator by actually reading my posts. - Ottomanist (talk) 01:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

This is best exemplified by your claim that I brought diffs from 2007. Please, I urge you again to not take your administrative privileges for granted, but that you respect the authority that has been handed down to you and do your job properly. - Ottomanist (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

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.

Ban-evading sockpuppet

Thanks for your message about User:Brechbill123. I spent a very long time looking at the relevant editing histories, and concluded that you were certainly right in your suspicion that it was User:Anacapa evading the ban. The combined degree of similarity in (1) areas of interest, (2) POV, (3) attitude to other editors, (4) general editing style, (5) use of English made it clear beyond all reasonable doubt, as the lawyers say. Some of the evidence was immediately obvious, but most of it took a significant amount of searching to find, and it looks to me as though the user has mastered various techniques for preventing the sockpuppetry from being obvious. The overlap in editing of the same pages was small, but the overlap in similar editing of different articles on related topics was considerable. For some reason the Stalker result that you linked to missed the fact that both accounts edited Feminism and Talk:Feminism. I don't know if you are acquainted with this tool, but I find it more useful than stalker. It gives more information than stalker does, and on this occasion it also picked up the two pages that stalker missed, as you can see here. The edits to those two pages did not, in my opinion, make a very significant contribution to the evidence in the case, but I thought it worth mentioning to you for future reference. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at that James. I know how much stuff there is to thrawl through with cases like this. And thanks for the link to the interaction tool--Cailil ^talk 11:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Troubles AE

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.

---

Hi there. I noted your comments on the 1RR complaint brought against me by User:One_Night_In_Hackney. He has now raised yet another Troubles-related 1RR, albeit on an article about islamist terrorism in London, and I think that with your existing knowledge of the situation you would be a valuable contributor to this case. Thanks. --FergusM1970^{Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution.} 04:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

FergusM1970, please assume that sysops who regularly comment at AE have it watchlisted. You are not involved in that case and this comment looks a lot like canvassing albeit probably uninetentional. Please refrain from such practices. Also please remember that (contrary to poular belief) WP:AE is NOT a discussion forum - if you're not actually involved and have nothing substantive to show the patrolling sysops and arbs please don't use it as a forum--Cailil ^talk 11:53, 7 August 2012 (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.

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

OK, thanks. It was indeed unintentional, but I'm now aware of the rules on that and won't do it again.--FergusM1970^{Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution.} 18:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Cailil, I'm also busy in real life and am finding it hard to keep on top of discussions on the AE. When I want to address a comment, such as this to you [[1]] I've seen people use @ followed by the name, and I've been following that, but is it better to post on people's talk page like this if you want to discuss? Or is it one of those many things for which there is no one right answer and it doesn't really matter? I am finding the AE page now hard to follow. Regards. --Flexdream (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Guys do not keep posting to closed discussions. I realize you may feel uneasy about being at Arbitration Enforcement but you are making things worse by doing this kind of thing. Not every comment needs a reply. Especially at AE - sysops are weighing evidence they are not always talking to you even when they are talking about you. That is except when they use the @Username. Please don't post on other pages about Arbitration Enforcement threads (or for that matter WP:AN or WP:ANi threads) such discussions should be centralized for outsiders to follow. So yes if you *need* (and I emphasize need) to respond use @Username in the discussion section at AE.
  Also please heed closed discussion templates. I am marking this thread closed again. If there is something you need to show about the AE thread do it at AE, but my advice is less is more in terms of commentary and comments without evidence (ie diffs that actually show what your talking about) generally don't help. And if you are going to show evidence do it without over description let the diffs talk for themsleves--Cailil ^talk 00:10, 9 August 2012 (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.

Rules and stuff

Hi Cailil, because of how your talk page displayed with the title in bold and Fergus comment showing below the closed discussion section, I though the discussion above wasn't closed when I posted to it. I thought someone had copied text from elsewhere on wikipedia into your talk page. So apologies for that. Thanks for the guidance on how @ etc. works. Is this stuff about how to post in discussions all written down somewhere or is it just something you pick up as you go along? Thanks--Flexdream (talk) 10:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It's fine, these rules are generally considered netiquette (internet etiquette). Sometimes we expect that, at this point, everyone knows these rules already, but I understand they do require adjustment and learning.
Also by the way if the Enforcement threads end with topic bans please be aware that these are not punishments these kind of sanctions are measures taken to reduce problems on site and help the people banned learn how to edit in less confrontational environments in hopes that they will bring these new skills back to the topic area they were temporarily banned from--Cailil ^talk 11:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Alleged authority to impose ban

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.

---

Per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions please provide a diff where "Discretionary sanctions may be imposed by any uninvolved administrator after giving due warning" was given, in particular including "Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways". Me simply being aware of the existence of discretionary sanctions is insufficient for a ban to be imposed. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 20:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Hackney. I have received no warning regarding any "misbehaviour" in Troubles-related articles. By what authority, and on what basis, am I to be topic-banned for three months? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 22:36, 14 August 2012 (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.

Ban appeal

Hi Calil. Sorry to bother you but I would like to appeal my ban but can't find out how to do so on the link you provided on my talk page. Thanks. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

At the bottom of the big red box on WP:AE there is a step by step tutorial/form for appealing there. When appealing please state the grounds for appeal clearly and concisely, also please talk about yourself, not others--Cailil ^talk 13:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Topic Ban

Um... the Troubles I get. The Ulster Banner, I can see the connection. But British baronets?? It seems slightly unrelated.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 14:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

They're all part of the ruling - a ban from one is a ban from all. Please refer to WP:TROUBLES for details. Also I've opened an SPI case relating to User:Portugalpete. As there is an existing SPI relating to you, and IPs who reverted One Night In Hackney, I've opened it there. If it's not you I do apologize for the inconvenience but we need to check these things out--Cailil ^talk 14:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Appeal

I am making a partial appeal against my topic ban on the grounds that the topic British baronets is not related to the issue for which I was sanctioned. The appeal can be found here: [2]. I am not appealing against the ban on editing Troubles-related articles as I accept that my behaviour in this area was not up to the required standard, and I can understand that the Ulster banner could be construed as related to this so am not appealing that either. Regarding the sockpuppet investigation, I fully support your CheckUser request as this is the quickest and most definitive way to clear it up. Thanks,--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Request to have ban overturned

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

Hi Cailil, I've made a request here to have my ban overturned. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't usually comment on cases. I find admins are usually very .. astute .. at cutting through the bull. For longer topic bans, I like to see hard evidence alongside commonsense and astuteness, and a clear summary with logic as to why the 3 month topic ban is justified. A lot of what ONIH and Domer have stated (clearly and logically) seems reasonable and mounts a good defense to the initial case. Several admins and editors have voiced concerns at the length of the topic ban (aside for the "guilt" of the editors) and this aspect needs to be looked at. I know some admins are precious over their actions, but I also know that you're pretty ego-less about this. It's unlikely Arbcom or other admins will overturn or even revisit your decision, and I'm not sure if you've recently considered a lesser length of time for the topic ban, but it's notable that other admins have commented on this aspect. --HighKing (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

HK *IF* it were the case that multiple sysops disagreed with the ban lengths then Domer's AE request would have been upheld not declined. Similarly if that were the case ArbCom would have no hesitation in chewing me and others out and overturning the bans in ONiH's appeal. They haven't. As I say above I'm not open to discussing group decisions here (alterations are not in my individual gift), but I'll make one last comment on it.
BHG is the only admin (and who has not reviewed the case) to take issue with the sanctions and she bases this on the grounds that ONiH is a good content contributor. However, nobody denies this. He simply does not see how his conduct as summarized by SilkTork is in breach of the TROUBLES probation - ONiH needs to take this on board, if he wont listen to us at AE he needs to listen to SilkTork & the other Arbs.
Regarding Domer: there was leniency shown to him as he would under normal practice have been indef banned (escalating from a 6 month probation & I will add that if further misconduct occurs on Domer's part such a decision in the future is possible). I didn't argue for him to be banned that was Slp1's point. I enacted a group decision which I think is on balance best for the encyclopedia.
Other than this HK I honestly have nothing more to add, if the Arbs see action as inappropriate they WILL overturn it or institute a different approach, as I suggested at the appeal, if they see fit. I'm closing because there really is nothing more I can add & I will be consistent in my decision not to comment here on group decisions by sysops--Cailil ^talk 18:17, 25 August 2012 (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.

Advice

Hi Cailil, thanks for the advice [3]. I thought my talk page was like an in-box and it didn't really matter what I did with it. I didn't know there were rules or preferences about deleting things. I've followed your advice and reverted the warning to reappear so I think that's ok now. Please check and let me know if you think it's not ok [[4]]I've left out the mediation notice as I don't think that has any significance now. I'm busy just now so will probably look at creating an archive later. Thanks for the links. Regards. --Flexdream (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cailil, of the other involved editors Hackney also has removed their notice[5]. Do these stay up for the duration of the ban?--Flexdream (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Notification

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Discretionary sanctions appeal: The Troubles. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Stalking accusation

Please rescind this accusation. It is highly incendiary to make such a serious allegation with such weak evidence. My comments about the Troubles case did not concern admin conduct at all so taking that as being directed at you appears to be over-personalizing the issue. Even more incredible is claiming that I have done something wrong by doing a requested move instead of a move review. I was actually the first to bring up MRV as an option! Noetica's later comments and other on-wiki comments regarding this case, such as Hobit's comments at the ANI discussion, left me thinking it would be reasonable to do a requested move instead in order to satisfy any concerns about the recent rename. That is actually my effort to find a way to resolve the dispute about KC's rename with minimal confrontation. So, again, please rescind your accusation of stalking.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I see that you raised your harassment accusation with three of the Arbs in addition to raising the accusation on the arbitration request, with another frivolous claim about me commenting on the Feminism article. The arbitration request was declined and the comments removed from there with the rest of request so there is no harm in that now, but I will ask that you also rescind the claims made on the talk pages of these Arbs.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Pudeo

Perhaps it's best to take it to ANI? There are almost no sources on "mothers' rights movement" whereas there are plenty of sources dealing specifically with the fathers' rights movement. The move is mighty pointy or complete and utter ignorance of some of our core policies like WP:NOR. In either case, I think it's a good idea to have extra eyes on this. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I've asked Tim Canens to review Pudeo's action - I'll wait for his view but I'll also drop a line to KC as the admin who's been enforcing the probation. But if they see it as ANi worthy then it'll go there--Cailil ^talk 23:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you heard of WP:BRD? I made a bold move; if you so wholeheartedly disagree with me as it seems, why didn't you revert me and then take it to the talk page as the cycle suggest? I prefer the cycle instead of telling the teacher, but you may as well fill the ANI and I may write this simple view there as well. --Pudeo' 23:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The article content/name is one matter and I prefer to discuss before acting in controversial circumstances - hence I haven't reverted I've requested outside input. Your conduct vis-a-vis the men's rights probation and/or WP:POINT is another matter and that's why I requested other sysops' views on it--Cailil ^talk 00:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Altfrock

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.

---

I'm not offended because your life so so darn busy that you can't answer your messages. I'm offended because all of you delete legitmate articles!

I'm done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wllmlos (talk • contribs) 01:08, 2 September 2012 (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.

Talkback

Hello, Cailil. You have new messages at MarcusBritish's talk page.
Message added 18:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 18:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for stalking & handling !! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 18:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)