User talk:Cailil/Archive 2

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

Anacapa: Maoist mob rule or respectable-reasons rule on Wiki?

I am responding to your comments on my talk page. What I have to say to you here might be hard for you to hear because I see from your discussions above that you SEEM to favor gender-ginning project pages, you SEEM to be "anti-conservative" (whatever that POV means to you personally) and you SEEM to be blind to the insane bullcrap and inane cowcrap (conservative, liberal or whatever) that prevails in the NAME of NPOV on Wikipedia. However, I am independent editor with a hard science background who has no problem separating people from their PERSONAL POV's so please refrain from taking what I say to you PERSONALLY. Instead, I ask that you consider the professional editing issues I raise here. I have real concerns about the rape of reason that reigns here on Wikipedia in the name of so-called consensus. I suggest you google Esquire magazine's NOV 05 Greetings from Idiot America for a better take than I can offer you on really happens on Wiki as well as on other online forums where mob rule is welcome. As with any topic it is always instructive to see what the other side (such as[1]) has to say. This 'anti-wiki' take matches my take on many 'loaded' wiki articles where partisan propagandists rule.

In particular, I am concerned about the rampant use of Maoist mob methods on Wiki, the (all-to-visible) ease with which totalitarian gangs get away with slander, character assassination and censorship on religious, on psuedo-religious (say the psuedo-science of inane politically- deterministic Gender Studies or the idiotic psuedo-religious side of the biologically-deterministic Evolutionary Psychology) and on other politically correct articles and the apparent lack of concern from editors like you about these totalitarian tactics. To toss away credible content, to call other editors pejorative names, and to use false forms of consensus to censor so-called "problematic" content is totalitarian by it's very nature. This kind of conduct destroys the credibility, the NPOV balance, and the completeness of all associated articles. (One can easily see the distorted pandering to gender-ginning propaganda in ANY gender-related article or project...one of your topics of interest, one of many topics (pro and con) where politically inspired psuedo-science rules, and a topic where widespread totalitarian tactics by it's proponents have been well documented by credible critics.) This widespread mob mayhem is so sad because Wiki is indeed a powerful platform within which to create credible content.

Before I discuss specifics with you and before I help you in any way, I need to know that you care about, did do something about and are willing to do something about these serious editorial process issues. I need you to show me how you face totalitarian tactics (preferably on your favorite topics where someone offers opposing but well-sourced and credible content), how you insist on reasonable and respectable discussions IRREGARDLESS of your personal POV's about politics, 'gender', or whatever, and where you are willing to back other opposing but credible editors against mean-spirited barrages from totalitarian gangs. I will be glad to assist any editor who cares about well-established Western standards of free speech and reason-able dialogue. Do you care more about these standards than you do about your personal, political or other POV's or are you an editor who uses (inane) ends to justify (ugly) means? No offense, but I need to know who I am dealing with here before I begin to "help" you do whatever it is you need my help to do. I will be glad to discuss discussion 'methods' issues in more depth with you should you care to. That might be one way we could come to some common ground given that we seem to have a few differences in how we see particular topics...and especially those topics within which well-documented totalitarian thugs predominate.

I welcome your reasonable and respectable responses back. I ask that you point me to any administrators you know on wiki who are familiar with totalitarian tactics. I will be glad to listen to any constructive criticisms of any edits I have made that could be construed as un-reason-able, as personally pejorative or as unsourced. However, I will not allow any other editors to mob me just because I bring content in that is 'uncomfortable, 'problematic' or politically incorrect. I have a right to take on any IDEAS that I like boldly and with credible sources. I insist that I be allowed to engage in reasonable discussions rather than mere Maoist mob repressions. I also insist on a single civil standard for all editors so please use the same standards for me than you use for yourself and for other editors. Please show me what nice (no nice-vice) responses look like on Wiki. Thanks,Anacapa 03:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

wasn't vandalsim

what I just did wasn't vandalism, thanks anyway —The preceding unsigned comment was added by L.P, Cheshunt (talk • contribs) 23:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Removing correct warnings that you got minutes ago from your talk page isn't a good idea. By the book it's not vandalism, I wont disagree, but it doesn't look good. Apologies for any inconveince caused--Cailil ^talk 00:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Qian Zhijun

You commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun. It has been closed early after a confusing and IMO unfortunate sequence of events. I have now listed it on Deletion Review. You may wish to express your views there. DES ^(talk) 01:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Induced dyslexia

I am glad I checked the posting for Induced dyslexia so that I discovered before May 20th that you had deleted it.

I am new to contributing to Wikipedia so that I am not sure of the procedures to make sure that there is proper validation and verification of posted items.

The basis for my posting was a personal discovery as to why I was having a horrendous difficulty understanding text material for about a 5 year period. When I got new progressive glasses with a "corrected prescription" after 4 years, I also got reading glasses to wear while at work and while using my computer. About 6 months ago thanks in part to the "Cambridge spelling sample" I discovered that the loss of comprehension problem was from the effect if the reduced peripheral vision inherent in progressive glasses.

See http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/~mattd/Cmabrigde for the original article and additional references.

I am currently working with the Chairman of the Ophthalmology Department of Emory University to see if they can provide additional documentation and cases of this vision problem. He is very aware of the reduction of peripheral vision that is inherent in progressive glasses. In most cases, however, the wearer realizes the debilitation of progressive glasses and gets either bi-focals (which I now have) or tri-focals without bothering to analyze or understand the mechanics of the problem. I seem to be unique in thinking that the vision problem I was having was internal or emotional rather than because I was wearing the wrong glasses. It seems that I failed to understand the difference between being able to see the "Big E" and comprehending what I was reading. I also failed to understand the optician’s priorities for satisfying most patients was that they "look good" rather than their being able to "see well."

If you will let me figure out how to add proper additional documentation, I would greatly appreciate having the article re-posted.

Thank you,Hold2file 15:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments I've responded on your talk page--Cailil ^talk 16:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

being a newby

In trying to find out how to get my "Induced dyslexia" page reposted, I feel like the kid who walked into the wrong door and into the inner chambers of the High Priests.

I am indebted to Wikipedia for the almost infinite amount of information available. It has become the equivalent of Douglas Adams' 1980 "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy."

Hopefully, you will re-post my article on "Induced dyslexia" so that I can provide (and learn how to provide) the additional documentation. However, in trying to learn how to contact the administrators, I am in awe of the resiliency and depth of the information in and on Wikipedia that far exceeds my imagination or lifetime to investigate.

Is there a support group for Wikipedia Addicts or do they just become Editors?

You could call it "Non-Sequiturs Anonymous."

Allan HytowitzHold2file 15:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Responed on your talk page--Cailil ^talk 16:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Where to dialogue

I don't like breaking conversations up all over the place. Do you want to here (and I'll monitor) or my page or anacapa page's talk page or..? jbolden1517^Talk 21:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You may want to comment

WP:CSN#Anacapa. Durova^Charge! 19:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

AN/I logic is not right

That IP user is not in California, according to WHOIS. Anacapa and Hotpotatoes is. Therefore, that IP is neither of them. According to what I read, that IP edit just cites the wikipedia rule and does not defend Anacapa (or if it did, it wasn't a very convincing defense). Feddhicks 23:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Feddhicks. It really is a bizare situation. As I've said I'm not 100% certain that Hotpotatoes is the same user as Anacapa, but then I don't doubt the Checkuser.

I can't make out what that IP is trying to say but it doesn't relate to the case. Either way those accounts are blocked for trolling--Cailil ^talk 23:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:CN

Although I appreciate your long hours of work on the Anacapa case, I need to make a request regarding the discussion. At two different points in the current thread you invoked my name and made a representation, and both times your interpretation clouded the discussion's central issue. The first time, a good-faith inadvertent phrasing forced me to respond because a reader could have misunderstood my indef block as a serious breach of administrative ethics. The second time, you advanced a subtle inaccuracy about my basis for banning. That compelled me to make a second clarification.

It would be a shame if the discussion goes off course and fails to conclude because of these tangents. Please be more careful in the future. I specialize in handling the site's most disruptive editors, some of whom would attempt to mine comments such as yours to construct spurious claims of misconduct against me. Since I often give evidence at arbitration proceedings there's a realistic chance that your posts to the ban discussion could cause evidentiary headaches for me weeks or months from now. I'd rather not go down that road, so remember you're always welcome to confirm with me via e-mail. Warm regards, Durova^Charge! 20:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for that. I had a re-read of my comments and I understand your concern. I've striken my second reference as an inaccuracuracy. Once again I'm sorry, I didn't intentionally misrepresent the situation and if my posts do cause any kind of problem let me know.--Cailil ^talk 22:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Editor review

I left you a review over at editor review. I'm sorry that your request for review was not attended to earlier. --wpktsfs (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Notification on the warning dispute hearing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lost_Angel - see last post.Lost Angel 14:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Provided a WP:30 on User Talk:Lost Angel

Hi Cailil, as you requested, I looked at the edit you provided and I do agree with you that was a violation of WP:NPA. I have made a couple suggestions to Lost Angel that I hope will be taken in the spirit that it was offered. Let Lost Angel remove the warning from their talk page, it's understood that by removing them, they are acknowledging the warning was received. Sorry it took so long to get back to you, I've been fighting off migranes today. SirFozzie 17:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Masculine psychology

The other user contested that section quite a while ago. He then added quite a few references to that section. After some debate, other editors came in and settled on that paragraph as it is. Then the editor himself just yesterday singlehandedly decided the paragraph was of no use and deleted it entirely. It's been a very confusing situation. I don't see any reason why the paragraph should be deleted. It has citation and it is on-topic. Just because this editor doesn't like that paragraph doesn't mean it deserves to be deleted. Andrew Parodi 04:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The only point I'm trying to make is that a section should not be removed by a single-handed consensus. I had already worked with him at some length to as to bring that paragraph to a standard he agreed with, only to have him delete it single-handedly. Please intervene. Andrew Parodi 05:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'll get right to it. Just about every book related to masculine psyhology that I have read has a section about homophobia or the male fear of being perceived as being homosexual. I am the one who started that article, so the article in some ways is perhaps reflecting of my own reading. It's my own opinion that the issue of homophobia is very important to issues regarding masculine psychology. In fact, my point may be demonstrated by the fact that the homophobia section has been, from the start, the most hotly contested section of the article (from both straight and gay men).

I am not protective of any specific information in that section, or of its structure. What I am opposed to is the other editor's single-handed decision making. It's been a lengthy process. First, he took the entire section out. Then, I replaced it. Then he edited it. Then he added sources. Then we argued some more (this is all on the talk page of the article). Then, after having argued with me about it, after having added information of his own to that section, he, from out of nowhere, just deletes the whole section. To my knowledge, this isn't how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Entire paragraphs (in this case, a paragraph with about eight citations) are not supposed to be deleted wholesale just because one editor suddenly decides it adds nothing to the page.

Freud is perhaps the most influential psychologist of all time. He said that all people are at some level bisexual. This is mentioned in that paragraph, and there's a citation. Kinsey is also very influential, and he said about 30% of all men have engaged in homosexual activity at some point. Guy Corneau, a Canadian Jungian analyst, suggests that there is a correlation between the homosexual activity of men and the homophobia in men. I think this is a point of interest with regard to masculine psychology. If we can get more than just that other editor to say that he thinks it isn't, then I will defer and say "go ahead, delete the paragraph."

I suppose at base all I'm saying is that "consensus" seems to be the way it works on Wikipedia, and the other editor hasn't allowed for that. Thanks for listening. Andrew Parodi 04:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, without meaning it in any demeaning way, you present the case not accurately. (1) I never objected to the inclusion of a homophobia section. For me, the section is not controversial in any inherent way. (2) I have the impression that you single-handedly decided on the page. No other contributors were involved. So we can safely say that we were both wrong in deciding single-handedly. The most problematic aspect is perhaps that no other contributors were involved. (3) I did not delete the section "out of nowhere". I argued for changes and expressed my concerns, which were not addressed, but instead ignored. I stopped editing - still unhappy with the section - and waited two weeks because you promised a full rewrite (on the article's talk page) and because you just reverted any edits I did anyway. I don't see how much longer I had to wait. (4) There are severe problems with the particular part of the section, some of which were addressed by me, some of which were addressed by others (see the talk page). As I remember quite fairly, you responded by just removing (even small) contributions and later by just reverting and reverting and reverting. You have to admit that this is also not how Wikipedia should work.One thing you have to admit however is that I did indeed try to change wording and structure and adding sources and that I just started to revert out of frustration. Nevertheless, I apologize for doing so. (5) And indeed, I decided to temporarely remove the part, until either I'm allowed to address my and other contributor's concerns (i.e. no more reverting, but discussion and editing) or you address them by rewriting the section. I also hoped to permanently solve this non-issue. The summary of mine and other's concerns:

• Minor concerns: that part of the section adds indeed very little because it is not directly related to the concept of masculine psychology (while homophobia is stated to be related to masculine psychology, Kinsey nor Corneau deal directly with homophobia in relation to masculine psychology. This could constitute OR. Also the section gives undue weight to one opinion: Guy Corneau. One psychologist once said (but did not research the specific matter if I understand correctly) that despite Kinsey's research there is still a high level of homophobia. But this presumed connection is not an academic or widespread opinion - or if it is: no other persons are mentioned or cited. By the way: What does Freud has to do with it, if he isn't used elsewhere in the argumentation or isn't related to any aspect of homophobia? Mentioning Freud seems to imply a connection between his view and Corneau's - which there isn't (at least not sourced). However these are not major objections, I'm willing to live with it - but it would nevertheless be a good idea to address them.
• Cailil's concern: As I can understand, there is an additional problem, expressed by Cailil on the article's talk page, namely that there is no direct link expressed by Corneau between Kinsey and the level homophobia. This would indeed be a major issue, making the particular part of the section obsolete. As I do not possess the book, I cannot verify this.
• My main concern: by using "not all research" the article pushed implicitly a POV: by the formulation of the wording it assumes that there is (only) a minority of opposing research or at least that there is a significant amount of research that supports Kinsey's claims. But there is not a single representative and methodological rigid research project that has results that come near to Kinsey's figure of 37%. So I wonder why the replacement of "not all" by "representative" or "modern" or "not supported by a majority of research" is so extremely problematic that it justifies a revert. I could give an almost comprehensive list of the research done on the subject. If necessary I can also just provide one concluding source that says that modern/representative and methodological rigid/... research do not support Kinsey's claims, but this is in fact already implicitly included in some of the used sources. Now, this is the core of the problem: why isn't there any wording possible that solves my concerns, while not causing any concerns for you? So that you don't feel the need to revert? I'm open to any suggestion. I'm glad that you wish to mediate, Cailil. Could you give your opinion on the matter? Sijo Ripa 11:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, it seems that direct communication between the two of us is not beneficial because apparently we have a history of misunderstanding one another. Case in point: I never said I was going to rewrite the section entirely. I said that the whole section could probably do with a rewrite entirely. I never offered that I would be the one to do it.

If issues regarding homophobia are of no consequence to masculine psychology, then why has everY book on masculine psychology that I've read had a section on it, and why is it statistically speaking straight men who perpetuate gay bashing against gay men more often than against gay women (or straight women against gay women)?

At any rate, I'll return to this model: We seem to continually misunderstand one another, so someone else needs to intervene. Cailil offered to intervene, saying that a subpage has been opened for a discussion. Off to find that subpage. -- Andrew Parodi 22:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Cailil, can you propose a solution? All my earlier solutions were rejected by a reversal and I can't think of any other nor do I wish to violate the spirit of the violation by editing the particular page. Sijo Ripa 16:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this. I must say, however, that I don't understand why so much debate is necessary about such a minor point. To be honest, I'm just overwhelmed by the amount of debate taking place over such a small section. I feel that my energies should probably be directed elsewhere. So, you and Sijo Ripa can do as you like and I won't contest. I just don't have the energy to debate this anymore. Thank you, though for the help. -- Andrew Parodi 05:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Note from Cybergroover

Hi Cailil, thanks for the links to instructions to write wikipedia articles. I couldn't find them before I added the "criticisms" section. I had another look at the warhammer article and noticed that much of the rest of the content does not have sources either (for example the "hobby" sections is marked thrice with "citation needed" . This leads me to believe that there must be different rules for citations for different content. Infact I notice to my surprise that this article only includes two references in total. With sentences such as: "Most long term players feel that sixth was a more balanced edition of the game than previous incarnations[citation needed" (6th and 7th edition)going uncited.

Any information you could give me about this would be appreciated.

Also I notice you are interested in gender studies. Living in Japan now has brought issues of gender to my attention more than ever before (a Asahi Shimbun poll done around 2000 showed that still 50% of Japanese men feel that woman's rightful place is primarily in the home!). As far as I have noticed here all the "tea ladies", "office ladies", and face to face service staff at banks and post offices are women. And all the managerial staff are men. Certainly makes me feel better (but still perfect) about New Zealand's (my home country) gender relations! Japanese exceptionalism generally keeps foreigners shying away from researching topics such as this and still rampant (and still legal)racism. I widening gap between woman's expectations and cultural and work realities is one of the main drivers behind Japan's low low birth rate (woman are no longer so happy to give up their career completely to raise their family; which is generally a requirement for mothers who find significant barriers to re-entering the private workforce once they have had children). I imagine this would be a very fertile area of research.

cheers Paul—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cybergroover (talk • contribs) 03:08, 3 July 2007.

Feminism & religion

Thank you for your support. This is going to be a long argument, I fear. --Orange Mike 21:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you made the right call about the mega-churches ref. I do think Bremskraft‎ is trying to improve the article and her willingness to source what she's added is positive. I'm sure we can all build a consensus on how to improve that section, but yeah it may take a while =) --Cailil ^talk 00:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

My situation

I appreciate your comments on the CN board. We have an open dispute between two users. The user asked me to help create a template. Through the course of the template creation, he became increasingly agitated because I would not institute a number of features without discussing them first. Many subtopics were started within a very short time and it became very hard to address each one. WP:OWN and WP:NPA, amongst a handful of other things, were violated several days ago by said user. He was informed politely that WP:OWN is not a good thing, and that it would be nice if he would not attack others. The attacks continued, and at one point, he even appologized before picking back up again. These issues were bought to the attention of the community through various steps in WP:DR. What happened? The attacks continued. The statements of WP:OWN continued. And the only discussion with regards to the issues at hand could be summarized in one statement: "I'm right because it's obvious, so there is no dispute." (I'm creating that quotation as if i were said user). The user started to follow me around and harass me. Finally, after approximately a week of this stuff - I attacked the guy. He has shown no respect for those that don't agree with him. Nobody else wanted to address the issue, so I did what I felt was appropriate.

Do many people consider that to be a absolute no-no: definitely. Am I one of those people? Absolutely not. I believe it is okay to attack people who show no regards for others in this world. I will only resort to this when absolutely necessary, and had someone stepped in - then this would have never happened. I even opened a wiki alert and nothing came of that (WikiAlert). The failure of the wiki system is that the onus remains on me to have this situation dealt with. I have suggested that we both agree not to edit the template. I have suggested that we both agree not to edit the template on article pages. I have suggested any number of compromises, and nothing is acceptable to the user. I don't see why I should have to start ANOTHER process where everything has to be formatted in a particular way, and everyone has to be noted on the various pages when people involved react with RFM notification is treated as WP:vandalism. I am not making any content related edits to wikipedia until this situation is resolved. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• As a quick note: I'm watching this page, if you want to discuss this on my talk page as opposed to this talk page, please feel free to refractor the conversation. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Re-read WP:CIVIL there is no clause allowing for incivility and/or attacks. WP:CIVIL is non-negotiable, whether or not you have (or feel you have) been provoked. You should know that you may be warned for what you said to User:Chrisjnelson; IMO you were goaded into this attack but that doesn't excuse it.

You should also be aware that you may have violated WP:CANVAS by posting your grievienaces in a number of places in order to get attention.

Have you tried dispute resolution with Chrisjnelson? By that I mean have you sought a third opinion or opened a requst for comment on the template? This would attract the attention of impartial editors and help build consensus.

That you have problems with Chrisjnelson is very unfortunate. Are they displaying signs of WP:OWN - yes. Are they being obstructive with comments like "there's what you believe and then there's the truth" - yes. Have they breached WP:NPA - yes [2]. Is that enough for WP:CSN - no. I notice that there are other editors who have problems with Chrisjnelson's behaviour. I'll be having a look into the situation.

If you want other editors to look into this issue you need to be specific about what and where the problem is. Give diffs as evidence. Word everything coolly and neutrally. Be concise. Even now assume good faith as best you can.

If you can give a short, specific account of the problems you're having at the temlate page I suggest you ask an admin for advice. They may point you to WP:RFC/U or to WP:CEM. There is no short cut to resolving this and asking that admins / the community hurry-up and "ban him" is not helping.

You're fairly new to Wikipedia so you could check-out the mentorhsip programme for a while, it might help you with situations like this. But for the time being I really strongly recommend you take a short break (I know how hard that is when you're being attacked - but it is nearly always the first step in resolving disputes)--Cailil ^talk 02:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not canvasing and I am shocked to see that suggestion. I'm asking for action to be taken because my numerous other avenues are being cut off. The RFM was shot down because he, and another user, wouldn't agree to it. Chris nelson has been going around, asking uninvolved editors to make edits to the template. They, unkowingly make the edits, without realizing there were disagreements. Most of the time, you will see that users (like RyguyMN (talk · contribs) are quick to agree and promptly step out of the situation, per his comments on Chris' tp. Look through Chris Nelson's talk page history and you will see he has selectively removed content that speaks to this. Per WP:TPG it is okay to blank your own user tp, but it is not okay to selectively remove content. I have filed RFCs, RFM, 30, and WAs. Nothing has happened. I am aware of WP:CIVIL and the implications of my actions. If you think that I need to be prevented from editing, then I cannot argue with that. I have always been concise and am willing to talk about things. You might want to talk a look at the recent edits to my talk page by Xanderer, who has had the same problems with him.. That user's talk page has some interesting things on it as well. I can provide you with concrete support that something needs to be done. I'm not even saying that it doesn't involve a reprimand for my actions. But I'm not apologizing for them because I'm the one putting out all the effort to get things moving forward. Especially when Chris calls me ignorant and mentally unstable (here) - had he been reprimanded immediately for his first round of personal attacks, then I would have never gotten to the point where i made those comments. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  03:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Per your concerns, I have struck my request for him to be banned from the CSN page. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  03:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that diff. I will be looking into matters. What ever I find I'll bring to the attention of some admins experienced in dealing with disruptive editors. You should also be aware that you can warn anyone for violating policy - its not just an admin responsibility / tool (but be careful because using warnings incorrectly is frowned upon).

I don't think you should be prevented from editing Wikipedia but it may be a good idea to look at mentorship - its not a punishment or a patronizing programme, it gives you privelaged access to the wisdom and knowledge of one of wikipedia's more experienced editors.

As I've said I will look into this but it may take a little time and it may end-up with a WP:RFC/U about Chrisjnelson. My best advice is to take a short break and to worry about this as little as possible. That you made 1 personal attack is not a banning or blocking offence and if you can learn from it and become an even better wikipedian all the better =)--Cailil ^talk 14:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• I can go on and on about this, so at this time I'll just let you do your thing. It gets fairly hairy because of the various number of editors turned onto the situation, so you might have a hard time following the "sequence of events". You might want to check with Seraphimblade (talk · contribs) as it looks like he's also willing to look into things. Per the note at the top of my talk page and this post, I have decided to stop editing content altogether until this matter is resolved. All i'm doing is discussing on talk pages and making fixing some non-controversial disambig issues.
• Speaking to the aspect of my behavior: I will tell you that as this thing stretched out from hours to days and eventually week(s), I lost my patience with him in a few places. So whether or not you guys want to consider that one or more attacks is up to you. Again, I'm not apologizing for it, and because that, you won't hear a peep out of me if a ban/block is instituted.
• I appreciate the suggestion of WP:ADOPT, however, I'm just not inclined for that type of thing. I'm well versed in the various policies and guidelines. I understand what I'm doing around here and as you will see by the barn star on my talk page, I was actually able to help other's in this situation. The difference between that situation and this one is that I got involved and politely and diplomatically informed people of ways to improve their behavior. That's in stark contrast to what happened here. People who did become loosely involved for the most part were afraid to speak their mind. In fact, the other editor in that situation just so happens to be involved with this situation with Chris. Apparently the two of them are "buds". I do my best to adhere to policy and guidelines but I temper those policies with WP:BOLD and WP:IAR in the spirit of protecting the content. Content is king on here, that's the only reason an encyclopedia exists. I'm here to be a positive presence in the community and I will give it the "old college try" when dealing with uncivil editors. But I do have to draw the line at a certain point. Any who, I'm all ears if you have some more thoughts on my behavior. As for the dispute, I'll just let you guys take the next step and we'll see what happens. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  14:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

(out dent) thank you for your response. I have looked into this a bit (there's still more to do) and I will be talking to Seraphimblade, as well as other admins. I want to ask you if my impression of events is accurate. In fact I have a few questions

1. Am I correct in saying that this dispute began at the template around July 25th. And that up until the discussion about the "debut date" of players things were fine?
2. Is it the case that Chrisjnelson made a number of MOVES reverting your MOVES without discussionn?
3. Would I be correct in saying that the RFC at the template failed because Pastordavid's and Jddphd's advice was not followed?
4. Finally if you are accusing Chrisjnelson of following around do you have any evidence of this - ie diffs?

Sorry for all the questions but this dispute is so messy that I'd like to see if I'm anywhere near right in my understanding of it--Cailil ^talk 22:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I fully understand the messiness of this situation. I just want some peaceful resolution. Thank you for engaging me in discussion, even after my admittedly hostile post to WP:CS.

1. The disputes started to creep in on July 22nd on the discussion {{Infobox NFLactive#Listing out highlights/awards}}. There were also some comments made to my talk page. This was really the first edit made to my talk page where trouble started to leak through there (previous edits were pretty benign), and it was on a topic that the person had not been an active participant in.
2. Yes
3. That wouldn't be incorrect. as there are a few other "points of interest", but that'll suffice.
4. Yes I do, would you like me to provide them. This is not a major concern of mine.

No problem. Your efforts are MUCH appreciated. I realize that it's silly for me to discuss anything on that talk page as any changes can be reverted later. I'll just leave it alone. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  09:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. If you have diffs showing that chrisjnelson followed you around please post them here. I've spoken to Seraphimblade and I want to second his call for all parties to enter community enforcable mediation. If this goes to Arbcom it will be a lengthly process and it may not be good, in the long term, for any of the parties involved--Cailil ^talk 12:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Can't say i disagree with any of your points. I'm hoping this is accepted. I'll post some stuff if need be. But I don't want to drag this out any further. If the guy accepts the proposal, it won't be necessary anyway. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  12:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• He refused, and did so quite rudely on User talk:Seraphimblade's page. Is this not grounds for administrative intervention? I'm not sure what the point of going through arbitration is if the guy makes statements that reassert WP:OWN and also fail WP:NPA repeatedly. Someone else has chimmed in and also agreed that an "impartial" system needs to be used. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Bremskraft's Contention: we are masking POV by invoking Wikipedia rules inconsistently

Cailil, frankly I do not have the time to continue to reiterate the arguments I have posted on the Feminism page. But here are the relevant issues to what you just posted: 1) Wikipedia rules are applied inconsistently; as a result, citing Wikipedia rules has become in many instances a way to mask arguments for a certain point of view (whether consciously or not), or conversely for an "NPOV" goal that that no one has defined in the context of what it means to have a masculinism page. 2)It's wonderful that you are taking the time to carefully reorganize many of the pages. Unfortunately, not all of us have the same amount of time, and yet it is still necessary to challenge how certain things are characterized if they are not correct.--Bremskraft 16:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for the help with Bride burning - its going to be a long process getting that to good article standard but I'm in here for the long haul. Best regards--Cailil ^talk 21:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome :-) —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Your question

I don't see any blatant vandalism there, but it certainly seems that the editor is making some very contentious edits, and does very much need to discuss them. You do at least need to make an effort to engage that editor in discussion (which you may have, I don't know). If (s)he refuses or ignores your offers to discuss, and continues to insert the disputed material despite consensus against it, there are certainly steps that can be taken from there. But you'd be surprised at how often an offer to discuss works. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Loneranger4justice

He's making some highly POV edits to Feminazi and reverting other editors. Since you've warned him recently, thought I'd let you know. --Orange Mike 13:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Misandry IPs

Hi edgarde, just to let you know I submitted those two IPs (189.155.54.100 & 89.210.111.19) to WikiProject on open proxies to confirm that they are open proxies - if the User behind these IPs is Anacapa it would start to really worry me - he never used open proxies before--Cailil ^talk 23:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Good to know. If you're on this, I'll not bother labeling these so as not to complicate the matter. If there are further IP posts, I'll request page protection. / edg ☺ ★ 23:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Cailil, I think it's fine to remove those comments--as well as being uncivil personal attacks, they're not part of a good-faith effort to improve the articles in question. Also, if this is User:Anacapa any edits by a banned editor can be reverted or removed. I've removed the comments at Talk:Men's rights and semi-protected that page for a week; let me know if you notice any further problems. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Please help

Hi. I'd appreciate it if you would check out the article on White people and comment on this discussion. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 06:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Loneranger4justice

I saw your comments on the ANI post about fourdee. I share your view that there has been an upsurge in racist posters. I was heartened by Jimbo's action in this case because no-one else seemed to notice Fourdee's white-supremacists rants, the pictures of weapons in his user space & his trolling of talk pages. There were so many red flags he was becoming quite a problem.

Recently I've been having problems with User:Loneranger4justice. His comments aren't exactly racist but they are similarly fringe. He doesn't post very often, but when he does all he does is revert to reinsert what are a mix of unsourced and fringe theories that claim feminists are nazis and that pro-feminist men are like KKK auxiliaries. I have a report page about it here. I've brought this to Seraphimblade's attention a month ago, but he didn't see the repeated reverts to be as povpushy as I did, so he recommended I RFC the pages and that I try to engage Loneranger4justice in discussion. I attempted this nearly a month ago - I left an NPOV warning with a message on August 6th. Since then Loneranger4justice has reverted without discussion 6 times across 3 articles.[3][4][5][6][7][8]. After the first 4 I warned him with {{uw-npov4}}. About 10 days later (August 27th) he made a further 2 reverts to reinsert his preferred material.

Have you any advice on this? Has Loneranger4justice broken WP:NPOV or am I incorrect in this?--Cailil ^talk 17:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I see the trend. Too many POV edits formulated as WP:OR (i.e.WP:SYNTH) and some concerns about the same at his talkpage since a year or so now. Fix what you can fix following the policies above. If he persists drop me another line. I am leaving a note at his talk page. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Everybody who watches these topics is aware of the Ranger and his POV edits. I agree he's a long-term problem; but he insists it's WE who have the POV problem. What else is new? --Orange Mike 12:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your comments. I hope the messages on his page either encourage L4J to become a better wikipedian or at least to engage and seek consensus for his edits. But considering his edit summaries I'd be a surprised if that happened--Cailil ^talk 13:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

hate speech and soapboxing

Thanks for your comment - yes, I do think we need something like a 3RR for talk pages, only instead of three reverts, three "soapboxing" warnings, or something like that. The thing is, I fear there is little general support for this (for reasons that are sadly obvious) and I have no idea where even to raise the idea. Are you on the list serve? I was but dropped out well over a year ago, it would good for someone to raise the idea there to see what feedback it generates before trying to develop a formal proposal. But if you want to work on one let me know and I will help out.

By the way, I really value the incredible work you have done with the Feminism article. When I first came to Wikipedia it was one of a handfull of articles I worked on, but since then I have focused on other things and as you know really just check in every once in a while to leave a comment on the talk page. But I am sory there aren't other editors as knowledgable as you to help you develop it. You have been doing great things! Slrubenstein | Talk 09:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

My theory of the problem I'd like to hear more about what Durova thinks. My own views are a little complicated. I certainly think Wikipedia needs a hate-speech policy. However I do think we need to encourage free speech on talk pages and am very uncomfortable about blocking or banning someone just becuase he holds views I despise. Therefore, I do not agree with Matchsci that what we need is a guideline on racism. I would like to present a different analysis of the problem which i think justifies a slightly different approach without violating NPOV. I think this is the problem: we have content policies like NOR and V and NPOV for articles, and they do not strictly apply to talk pages. As long as people use talk pages to discuss improvements to the article, this (writing stuff that would otherwise violate NPOV, V< NOR) is completely fine, indeed, it may be a good thing to be encouraged, to keep discussions open and free-flowing. However, I think there are some trolls who have figured out that this expediency for talk pages creates a huge loophole: they can say things on talk pages that would instantly be reverted in the article. If they really cared about improving the article and intended on editing the article we could tolerate such stuff and move beyond it. but I think that some of them actually decide that they will not edit article pages. They are content merely to write on talk pages. Conventionally, the article is the end, and the talk page is a means to an end; these trolls, by abandoning working on articles, turn the talk page into an end in itself. What they have in effect done is turned talk pages into something that for them functions like article pages (a way to broadcast their views, make them permanently present at Wikipedia) without ever having to obey the content policies. This is why I characterize them as having "hijacked" the talk pages. While I do not feel comfortable banning someone for hate speech (though I do not defend it), I do NOT have any qualms against blocking someone for hijaking a talk page. Others, reflecting on Fourdee, have focused on hate-speech, or disruptive editing, or incivility. I am not convinced these are the proper points of dparture for rething our policies - for one thing, Fourdee was (if you can believe it) a civil anti-Semite most of the time. And were his comments disruptive? Only because they represented a fringe view - and my belief in NPOV is such that in general I do not want to discourage that (in a way, lots of talk should be disruptive - it is how original or challenging ideas enter a discussion). While I do not reject policies that guide personal behavior, I think we all too often rely on infraction of personal behavior guidelines to police Wikipedia. Let's just be honest: the problem with Fourdee was not his personal behaviro so much as the actual content of what he wrote, and our dilemma is that we resist policing content on talk pages. BUT if we can see how people like Fourdee treat talk pages such that they function as at least surrogates for articles, then such people should be held accountable to our content policies on talk pages. Anyway this is the logic I have been playing with recently. Please think about it.

EnforcementBe that as it may I do think we need a mechanism for blocking people from talk pages and, using 3RR as a model, I would say that if three different people slap an off-topic warning on someone three times, they shoulc then have the right to ask a fourth party admin to block if it happens again.

rationalizing with other policies And I do think it is worthwhile to take elements of an existing policty, namely this and this, copy them from the [Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not] policy and edit them to apply specifically to talk pages, which is where these particular elements of the policy most often apply. I wonder if my "theory" should be proposed as a guidelins. I think we need a discussion of how "not a blog" and "not a soapbox" fit together - should they be merged? Are they one idea or two? i think we need to look at all policies and guidelines that touch on this issue and rationalize them, so they are not only consistent but each cover distinct problems.

templates would a "no soapboxing template" duplicate or complement these: {{Off topic warning}} or {{Notaforum}}? Again, I think we need to rationalize them. do they apply to increasingly serious problems, or different kinds of problems? I think we need an omnibus policy that lays out different kinds of abuses of talk pages and provides different warning templates with clear explanations of what makes them different/how to apply them. When you have reflected more on this can you compare notes with Durovna and see if she agrees? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

i hope you find these thoughts useful. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I would be content for you to take what I have written here, whatever Durova has suggested, and your own thoughts, and draft a proposal - and then i can go over it and either revise it or raise points of discussion with you. I certainly think we have dicussed it enough at this point to lay out a rough draft of something Slrubenstein | Talk 01:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikisleuthing

Could you send me a link to your Anacapa report? I'd like to relay it to someone as a model. Thanks, Durova^Charge! 10:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

re User:204.52.215.6's warning / message at my talkpage

No, you didn't make a mess - you reported in good faith, and that is all that can be asked when making a report. Thanks for the understanding re my decision. Happy editing. LessHeard vanU 21:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

for the tip on Mentors; will follow-up. Sincerely, Shir-El too 23:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This is too much.

I'm willing to compromise. I open to debate the issue in the talkpage with proper arguments and reasons. I'm willing to provide a sentence explaining that that name is controversial, and I'm also willing to provide a proper link to the relevant article. But when the other side is uncompromising and simply deletes and reverts everything it's simply a lost case. Honestly: I'm not even British or English (seriously: I consider myself rather a European and the Brits are all against the EU, the irony of this whole situation :). I'm just interrested in the accuracy of this little article in particular, and of all articles inside of wikipedia in general. What shall I do? Simply accept that someones can impose his POV through force? This is simply ridiculous. Flamarande 17:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It is simply ridiculous that the term british isles must be used i do not see why it cannot be left as britain and Ireland. If you want people to look at the britsih isles page so much then put a link at the bottom of the page saying, see also british isles. Saoirsegodeohf 18:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think Flamarande's measure to introduce NPOV by stating that the term is contested is good. The term "British isles" offends me - but wikipedia is not a forum for restorative social justice (I know WP:NOT doesn't use these words but it is implied) - but I will not give a further opinion on this as I feel too close to the subject. To answer your question Flamarande POVPUSHING is considered as disruptive editing. So is pushing against consensus. What needs to happen at Talk:Western Europe is this. Request comment for community wide in-put on the issue in order to establish consensus. When consensus is established one term or the other will be used by the wikipedia article until a new consensus is reached. I will point one more policy out to both of you. WP gives self-definition preference in naming disputes. I would therefore see it as entirely appropriate and possible to note that the term British Isles is not used in the Republic of Ireland but is used elsewhere--Cailil ^talk 18:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hy, I placed the "Request comment template" as you suggested. I honestly don't know if the template is working corectly (I hope it does, but I don't think so). I also improved the article with a neutral statement that the term/name is controversial and objected by the ppl of the Irish Republic, including a proper link to the article British Isles naming dispute. That article explains the issues and the controversy to a large extent. I hope that you agree with all these changes. Flamarande 00:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The template is fine - people are just very slow to respond to it. You could make a short post it to WikiProject Ireland or the Geography WikiProject if you want faster responses.

Honestly I think you're doing fine - just disengage from the dispute with Saoirsegodeohf for a while and if he continues to disrupt WP he'll be dealt with by the community--Cailil ^talk 12:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Gender Studies

Dear Cailil, I've looked you personal page and I read this:

Current
gender studies
Feminism
Feminist theory
Bride burning
The Second Sex
Gender studies

I'd like to remember you that in "gender stidues" there are masculinism and "men's movement" too. The genders are two not only one, there are males and females, not just female! ;-) Bye --Giubizza 21:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page--Cailil ^talk 21:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

OK! --Giubizza 22:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You have reason, but I'm very tired, very tired now!

Bye --Giubizza 13:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)