User talk:Cailil

This is Cailil's 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

If you're here to leave a message about an article I've deleted, feel free to ask me about such deletions but please check the deletion summary first. If that summary links to wikipedia's Criteria for speedy deletion please read that page and bring any issues arising from such deletions to the deletion review noticeboard. Similarly if it is label as an "Expired PROD" please read our criteria for deletion and again please bring any issues arising from that to deletion review rather than here.

If you are here about a page that I have protected please read this essay before asking me about it.

Finally if you are here in relation to a user I have blocked, banned or in any other way sanctioned please refer to WP:SANCTIONS, WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK before asking a question. Thanks--Cailil ^talk 03:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If you have substantive concerns about any of my edits or use of sysop tools you are invited to bring issues to sysop attention at WP:AN/I or at an individual sysop's talk page.

Happy New Year

Hi Cailil Good to see you back and thanks for your comments on those various pages that almost cause me to go bonkers with frustration. I have a very different request for you, however, with your M. Litt and all. I was wondering if you would care to review Olivia Manning, that I am trying to get up for peer review and then FA if possible. She's a 20th Century writer with an Irish connection, if that will tempt you. I'll have to warn you, that as a person she's quite annoying!! Anyway, I would be especially grateful if you could take a look at the literary assessment part and give your comments, questions.... or even better just improve it! --Slp1 (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey Slp1, sure thing I'll give it a read either tomorrow night or on Saturday. Happy new year--Cailil ^talk 22:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh good. Actually I'm feeling a bit depressed since I've just reread the further improvements at the Good Article review [1], and the suggestion to look at Stephen Crane and I realize that the literary summing up section still needs a lot of help, though I've done a hell of a lot of getting journal articles etc since September. If you have any suggestions about how best to organize things I would love it. There's a bit more material here on my subpage, and I'm sure I can rustle stuff up about the short stories; not sure there's much about the poetry though. Anyway, I hope you had a good New Year's Eve. I'll be going skating on Mount Royal at midnight! --Slp1 (talk) 02:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply on my talkpage

Hello, Cailil. You have new messages at WLU's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Service awards proposal

Hello, Cailil! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards. If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 20:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply re: abuse reporting

In general, serious abuse should be reported to the Internet service provider so appropriate action may be taken against the abusive user. From what I understand, it sounds like this editor fits the abuse response criteria and should be reported there for contact. Feel free to report him there =D. However, I should warn you that WP:ABUSE is undergoing some major revamping to become more effective in the future, so reports aren't being processed at a fast rate right now. The reports will still be processed (moved to the new toolserver interface in the future). Also, if the user meets WP:LTA criteria, he could also be reported there and then deferred to abuse response for contact with the ISP in the future. Sorry if this is a bit complicated; we're taking many steps to revive the project and making it more user friendly. Thanks & if you have any more questions, feel free to message me. Netalarmwelcome to 2010! 02:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Netalarm - that's very clear. I'll have a look at WP:LTA and if that doesn't fit I'll submit to WP:ABUSE. Thanks again--Cailil ^talk 17:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Explaination

Sorry for any trouble. I just saw the comment & I just instinctivly deleted it.--Jastcaan (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:TPG. We only delete other user's comments in exceptional circumstances--Cailil ^talk 16:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Jastcaan, nice work. See WP:IAR. You were being WP:BOLD. Don't let people bully you with their WP:WIKILAWYERING. If you don't like something, change it. And don't feel the need to apologize to anybody for anything. DegenFarang (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope they were removing other people's comments in violation of WP:TPG--Cailil ^talk 16:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It is impossible to violate this: "This page documents an English Wikipedia behavioral guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" - see those parts about 'attempt' and 'common sense' and 'exceptions'. He didn't violate anything, he did what he thought was right and you disagreed with him. DegenFarang (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Let it go Degen. And FYI removing other people's post from the talkspace is not acceptable behaviour.--Cailil ^talk 19:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
WP:IAR is a much better summation of what I was trying to explain to you before. And it happens to have been the first rule of Wikipedia, and the only one I care about. I'm very happy I found it - I'm going to cite it every single time somebody like you tries to bully me with WP:WIKILAWYERING. I just want to improve the encyclopedia, I don't care about the rules. And according to Jimbo Wales, I shouldn't, because Wikipedia has no firm rules. DegenFarang (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Degen this is your last warning for disruptive behaviour - civility is a non negotiable aspect of communication on wikipedia. Your posts to multiple users including myself have been in breach of this. I've pointed you towards our rules, our policies and our etiquette - these are the basic requirements for working on this project. WP:CIVIL spells it all out quite neatly. And no IAR doesn't trump WP:CIVIL, WP:DE, WP:TE, WP:NOR or WP:V (see WP:WIARM). Not caring about the rules is your problem nobody else's. This is a collaborative project that's why we need rules. If you can't/wont/don't follow them, you will be prevented from breaking them and thus disrupting the project and its editing environment. You've had fair warning--Cailil talk 16:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC) I find it hilarious that you responded to that with a string of WP:THIS and WP:THAT. As I said, I only care about one rule. WP:IAR. "Rules have zero importance compared with that goal (creating a free encyclopedia). If they aid that goal, good. If they interfere with it, they are instantly negated." The rules constantly interfere with my ability to improve Wikipedia because in 90% of instances they are used as WP:WIKILAWYERING - just as you are using them now. DegenFarang (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Degen I'm going to advise you to "stop digging". Our core policies are non-negotiable and if you can't (or don't want to) work within them, or indeed work with other people in a civil, collegial and appropriately measured fashion you will be prevented from disrupting other users who do. WP:IAR does not grant you permission to use talk space in this manner--Cailil talk 19:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Perhaps I can assist you. You say that the core policies are 'non-negotiable' yet all of them say they should be used under 'normal' conditions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Use_common_sense#Use_common_sense - I absolutely love the title they gave the section that 'normal' links to 'use common sense'. So, no, you are wrong, the core principles are absolutely negotiable if common sense dictates they are not applicable, see WP:IAR. What appears to be non negotiable are the 5 pillars of Wikipedia, to keep it free, to be neutral, that it is an encyclopedia and that wikipedia does not have firm rules. Oh yes, the other one, about treating each other with respect and civility - of all of the points you have attempted to make, this is the only one which has any merit. I will attempt to adhere to this pillar of Wikipedia more prudently. I will not, however, stop using my common sense and become a robot to every policy and guideline I read or have quoted to me. DegenFarang (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Degen nobody is asking you to do anything other than use common sense. And if you read our core policies (which make up those 5 pillars - the green and the blue ones) you'll see that WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:NOTE and WP:V are non-negotiable. I'm not here to debate policy with you - these are the standards we expect of all editors using this project and that's all--Cailil talk 22:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC) You are flat wrong. I don't think you or the other editors and administrators who agree with you are lying, I think you are just blinded by the normal way of doing things and have failed to recognize the truly awesome way that Wikipedia was setup - to empower each of us to break every rule and use our own common sense when making changes. You say that WP:NOV, WP:NOR, WP:NOTE and WP:V are all "non-negotiable". I submit: From WP:NOR: This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow From WP:NOV (does not exist, I assume you mean WP:NPOV). From WP:NPOV: This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow From WP:NOTE:This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply From WP:V:This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow As you can see each contains clear instructions to use them only under normal conditions, defined as "Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective (!! my entire point !!), so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. The principle of the rules is more important than the letter. Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? If you need to be told that this is a rule, you've missed the point entirely. (!!!) DegenFarang (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Degen of course using common sense is always appropriate but no IAR never trumps our core policy on neutrality, verification or original research, period. It also never trumps or policy on the biography of living persons. I've also told you already that I'm not here to debate policy with you. You must have missed that point so please refrain from making this kind of post. If you have a specific issue I can help you with feel free to post here again--Cailil talk 13:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Part of WP:V and WP:NOR is that you are allowed to use WP:IAR to override them if common sense dictates they do not apply (This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow). So it is therefore impossible to factually state that WP:IAR never trumps WP:V or WP:NOR. (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC). Degen I've politely asked you to stop posting to my talk page in order to debate policy. You've been corrected not just by myself but also on WT:V. No IAR does not permit use of inadequate sources or original research, period. Now please if you don't have another matter to discuss stop posting here-Cailil talk 17:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC) I don't have anything else to discuss and I'd love to stop posting here but you are wrong. If you can direct me to a place on Wikipedia where it says that IAR does not apply to WP:V and WP:NOR, I will give you $10,000. Otherwise, please admit that you are wrong - or at least stop telling me I am wrong, because I clearly am not. DegenFarang (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Degen here's a perfect example of when IAR does not apply - when you have been asked to stop posting on another person's talk page. This is tendentious editing. WP:WIARM spells out that ""Ignore all rules" does not mean there is necessarily an exception to every rule." If you want more help with this ask at WP:NORN. But be extremely clear, IAR is not a trump card on any core policy at any time, ever, anywhere on wikipedia. We work by consensus in creating articles through the neutral recording of verifiable sources without advancing an opinion or taking sides in a debate. When someone makes a bold move (or a move ignoring rules) it is still subject to discussion in the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Finally, part of common sense is understanding the spirit of the rule rather than obeying the letter. You are doing the reverse and that, ironically, is rules-lawyering. This conversation is at an end - let it go and do not post on this page again. If you need administrator assistance please contact someone else. If you want to talk to me do it through WP:ANI. I've also seen you be helpful to other users. Don't spoil that by engaging in tendentious posting--Cailil talk 20:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Mary Sargeant Gove Nichols

Hi Cailil. Thanks for your two cents in the Gender Studies talk page on Mary Sargeant Gove Nichols' name. Much appreciated, and a good point. If one initially explicates the full name (using anaesthetic of course - I mean it does sound painful), one could then trim down to what looks like the established "Mary Gove Nichols" usage, using "she" and "her" for readability where possible, interspersed with "Mary Gove Nichols" at key points. Money well spent!

P.s. I've also copied your reply and mine to the Feminism Task Force discussion page, as the Gender studies talkpage has automated archiving after 30 days, which I note at the bottom of another discussion section is probably too frequent for a page with low-frequency discussion turnover (logic dictates high frequency archiving for high frequency turnover and vice versa). The Feminism Task Force page has automated archiving after 45 days, so any discussion on a Mary Gove Nichols article can also continue there if need be. Regards Wotnow (talk) 05:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

User:DegenFarang

Please take a look at this ANI notice. User:DegenFarang has a long history of abusive edits, particularly BLPs, and has stated that the only rule he will abide by is ignore all rules. He violeted 3RR today, and absused another BLP. His abusiveness needs to finally be dealt with. 2005 (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

RFC/U

All to angst has become moot since Michael H 34 has returned to editing. I have posted the RFC/U here [2], in case you care to comment/endorse. --Slp1 (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Theatre Newsletter - February 2010

The WikiProject Theatre Newsletter (Febrauary 2010)

The WikiProject Theatre Newsletter! Issue 5 - February 2010 Welcome to the latest WikiProject Theatre newsletter (the first in quite a while!) bringing you news of what's going on in the project, what progress we're making, and how you can get involved. Latest News All theatre articles currently tagged with a project banner have now been assessed for quality. There are still plenty to assess for importance, though - see the article assessment page for details. There is now a News section on the main project page, updated automatically to keep us informed of developments in theatre articles. Collaboration of the Month Theatre has been nominated as the next project collaboration. This could be an excellent opportunity to improve the quality of one of our most important articles - listed as one of Wikipedia's top 1000 most vital articles - but it needs a lot of work before it can be considered for even good article nomination! Stop by the collaboration page for tips on how to improve an article, to add your support, or to suggest alternative or future collaborations. Jobs you can do Any and all improvements to theatre-related articles will help the project, but if you're looking for something to do, have a look at the to-do list. Some current areas of priority are: Improving top-importance articles Prioritisation of unknown-importance articles Creation of requested article stubs If you are currently working on a particular topic or area of the project, and would like to muster some support from other editors, feel free to add tasks to the to-do list. Or even think about setting up an informal working group - create a project subpage to organise tasks in a central location. Remember you can always discuss ideas with others at the project talk page. New members The past month has seen Poisonborz, 15lsoucy, LaNaranja and Phaeton23 join us - welcome to you all! If you've been editing a theatre-related article recently and noticed another user helping you who also appears to have an interest for the subject of theatre, why not drop them a line and invite them over to the project? And finally... Don't forget to add the {{User WPTheatre}} userbox to your userpage, and {{WikiProject Theatre}} banner to article talk pages to spread the word about the project! You have received this newsletter because your name is on the list of Members on the WikiProject page. If this information is out of date and you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name from the list, or click here to stop receiving it. If you have any news or announcements to be broadcast, do let us know on the talk page.

Feminist movement article

I've been attempting to tidy up this article, which seems to have suffered some malicious tweaks and blankings since your excellent attempt to overhaul it early in 2008. I thought I would drop you a note since I'm sure you know a lot more about the subject than I do (I've only been able to work on it as a sub-editor with no specialist information to hand), and might be interested in helping to pull the article back into shape. Best wishes, Alfietucker (talk) 11:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Alfietucker I'll have a look at it--Cailil ^talk 17:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Þjóðólfr

Since even I'd agree the block for what he did isn't necessarily deserving an indef block, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aatomic1 has been filed. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I yeah it's worth double checking--Cailil ^talk 16:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, his indef-block wasn't for evasion. GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, I though Aatomic1 had been indef blocked. He just disappeared - will refactor--Cailil ^talk 15:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe he was blocked for harrassment, not sockery. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well actually: "LessHeard vanU (talk | contribs | block) blocked Þjóðólfr (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Disruptive editing: "Don't I know you?" nevermind)". Þjóðólfr was blocked for harassment conforming to another account's, rather unique, pattern of harassment of a recently unbanned editor. That's a duck sockpuppet block - and rather common form of socking unfotunately. But if the CU says that that's not the case I'll happily refactor again--Cailil ^talk 17:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No checkuser is going to be performed on the sockpuppet case, as the other accounts are too old to be checked. The case will be judged on things like the timeline of accounts and comparison of editing, you may find this comparison interesting, particularly in terms of the diverse range of obscure articles the accounts have in common. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I had had a look using wikistalk between Aatomic1 and Þjóðólfr earlier. That and the unique style of trolling are to mind indicative of a duck sockpuppet. However it'll be good to get wider input--Cailil ^talk 16:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)The ANI thread has been archived. Has the issue been dealt with? Were any sanctions decided upon? --HighKing (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue has gone without consensus. Besides myself there was no outside input. 2over0 agreed with me but they started the thread, and I asked SirFozzie to comment. In all fairness this is not enough for a community sanction. I suggest you continue editing as normal but attempt to avoid Mister Flash as much as possible. If he seeks meaningful discussion engage with him in line with AGF & WP:CIVIL. Don't edit-war with him, even if you are correct - use article RFC.
If further problems arise anoter thread will be opened, on ANi or elsewhere. I would also suggest, for future reference, that if you want to progress your guideline changes that you keep that seperate from any and all behavioural issues with Flash. Part of the reason nobody outside commented was becuase the issue was blurred by the ideas about the task force and the guideline proposals. ANi just isn't the place for that sort of complexity.
Your other option would be RfAr--Cailil ^talk 15:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Cailil. In fairness, it's a common tactic whenever one of the disruptive editors gets put under the microscope, they blur the lines by widening the issue and trying to turn it into a content issue. It's frustrating, but I'm pretty used to it by now. --HighKing (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

User:MidnightBlueMan

Please can you take a look at the recent editing pattern of User:MidnightBlueMan if you get half a chance please? Appears to be putting "British Isles" into articles even when they've been discussed on the SE page, etc. --HighKing (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for putting the notice on his Talk page. It has had the desired affect, to a point, in that he is now engaging on the SE page. But further reminders are needed regarding 1RR (which he has breached) and civility. His 1RR breach is here at Scottish Blackface and his civility breaches are when he comments on motives and not on content, and reinstates the struck out comment and reminder to remain civil. I'm also suspicious that this editing pattern is very like a previous editing pattern we may have seen, especially since this editor has a history of being a sock. --HighKing (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Scottish Blackface. I reverted the removal of British Isles, and you reverted my edit - so you are at fault. As for being a sock, I'll be filing a sock report against you in the near future. I'm collating evidence at the moment. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I totally reject being a sock and I strongly suggest you strike your comment immediately. You've stepped over the line. --HighKing (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

For your information I will be filing a SPI report soon. I don't have the time right now. I have not stepped over the line any more than you have with your comment above, in fact less so. MidnightBlue (Talk) 23:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Ok gentlemen. That's enough. If you can't engage civilly then disengage.
  MidnightBlue you've just broken WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. I suggest you reconsider your remarks.
  HK, it's ok to bring something to my attention but please even if MidnightBlue has a history of socking please don't cast aspersions without evidence (this is not a request for evidence btw).
  I will say this only once - this page is not to be used to continue your disputes. If you want to communicate with me or bring something to my attention fine - but please don't use this space to attack or flamebait one another - that goes for other users not present but involved in the topic area-Cailil ^talk 23:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Precisely which remarks do you think I should reconsider? MidnightBlue (Talk) 23:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Saying that you are going to file an SPI or RfAr or WQA etc is considered a threat. Even if you are going to do it. Also accusing someone of socking (even if you are correct) without evidence or going through a process is assuming bad faith and/or casting aspersions. It's best to keep such things to oneself and present SPIs or WQA if and when one has evidence and then inform the user when the thread is opened--Cailil ^talk 23:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Breach of 1RR on List of former sovereign states --HighKing (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• 3 points HK.
  First to show a 1RR violation you need to show a) the original edit by said user. b)The first revert by same. And c) their subsequent ones. Reverting once isn't in and of itself a breach of 1RR. And I am not convinced that the informal agreement to 'not revert a revert' is enforcable.
  Second I have not said that I WILL enforce Black Kite's remedies yet. I wish to speak to BK and assess whether I agree or not and find out if they have a policy basis at community level to my satisfaction. This doesn't mean I wont enforce 1RRs just that I am investigating the remedy system at the BI topic.
  Third, relating to your second post here. You cannot strike another user's comments even if uncivil, or if you consider them to be uncivil.
  Finally to both of you- have you considered mediation--Cailil ^talk 12:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Cailil. Black Kite appears to have retired so I'm not sure if you'll get much joy there. Also the 1RR interpretation was "no revert of a revert", not simply "more than one revert". It's currently in force on "The Troubles" also, which I suppose is where the inspiration came from. If it's not going to be enforced, then experience tells me that rightly or wrongly, the line will just get pushed to 3RR since MBM doesn't engage in meaningful discussion as you can clearly see from the SE page. Regarding the "strike off" - it concerns and puzzles me greatly that a core wikipedia policy WP:CIVIL is ignored by all concerned and breaches are so frequent that they rarely merit any notice, but striking an off-topic ad hominen comment merits a warning from you. Regarding the "disengage" instruction - please note exactly who engaged and who made threats, etc. This is a very common tactic which I notice shared among a handful of users here.

The SE page is desperate for someone like yourself to keep an eye on it, and I sincerely hope you won't be bullied or cowed as has happened to other well-meaning admins in the past. Even though I have the impression (rightly or wrongly) from you that you believe the debate over using (or not using) "British Isles" is a nonesense, I hope you have the time to at least focus on behaviour and core policies, and if you have the time and inclination to also provide a common sense view on the core content dispute, all the better. --HighKing (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent activity by User:MidnightBlueMan shows that they're in breach of 1RR and clearly not bothering with the SE page for discussing any changes they may have concerns or doubts about. For example The Ferns of Great Britain and Ireland has been a recent edit war with reverts by MBM here, here, with a summary in breach of civility, and here. --HighKing (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me preface this by saying I'm still waiting for Black Kite to reply but as I see things the 1rr agreement for those participating on the BI SE page is not enforceable at an administrative level. There is no basis in policy to block a user for their non-acceptance of another group's internal agreement. Either you all need to enter mediation and all formally adopt a 1RR for those of you who are involved in that.
I'm concerned that those of you working at the BI SE page (on both 'sides') are displaying a WP:OWN attitude. I would recommend stepping back for a while to gain perspective. I would recommend this for everyone involved.
All that said, MBM is allowed to revert up to 3 times, per WP:3RR & WP:BRD as long as he is not edit warring. It should be noted that Fionnsci's reasons for altering & reverting the page are not sourced based and can be challenged - so frankly neither of them should have been reverting. So as it stands at 22:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC) this is a non-issue - however I will keep an eye on it as further reverts (by either user) may be considered a breach of WP:EDITWAR.
As regards this it is not a glowing example of AGF but it is not a breach of civility - strictly speaking - it is however an AGF issue. With this in mind please try to understate and/or record with strict neutrality the actions of other editors when you go about reporting them - other users might not have the same view as yourself--Cailil ^talk 22:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand what you've just said. The 1RR "agreement" is not enforcable (even though it was put in place by an admin. Also, the Task Force, while trying to resolve this issue, cannot impose any "rules" on editors that (may participate, but) decide not to agree. You are also concerned that all editors on the Task Force are displaying WP:OWN behaviour (diffs would help). And you recommend that we just stop and get perspective. But you'll keep an eye for further reverts.

Sounds very one-sided to me. --HighKing (talk) 01:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the length of my reply but allow me to clarify HighKing, there is no policy for that 1RR because there is no ruling or dispute resolution that can be reviewed and enforced by multiple outside admins. This is down to Black Kite - who left without instructing anyone in how to carry on, or with the what where and why of his remedy. Because BK did not formalize that remedy nobody knows how to enforce it or when to. Thus I consider enforcing it unsafe. (In other words any other admin would have the right to reverse such a block immediately and query the conduct of the blocking admin - unless it was BK.) Thus I think other avenues should be explored. I have also said that I have not agreed to enforce BK's measures.
I have stated my recommendation a number of times that all involved should try formal mediation. That way a formal remedy could be reached and imposed. It might also resolve some of the personal antipathy that seems to exist between some volunteers.

The issue re: WP:OWN is also simple. The BI task force and it's SE page are a forum for reaching consensus on how to improve and manage articles relating to, or containing, the phrase "British Isles". It can (and has) been used to formulate a policy as well - but at some point you have to bring that to the village pump and or WP:MOS. You need to understand that due to WP:BOLD nobody is, or can be, forced to use the BI SE page - until it has a standing in policy or through dispute resolution. For it to have such a standing a formal system of dispute resolution would need to be attempted (ie mediation, or ArbCom).
Be clear HK I am not against the SE page at all in fact I think it's an excellent idea - but you don't seem to be clear about its limits in, or its relationship to, policy. The fact that you and others are willing to discuss and propose ideas at the BI SE page in order to find consensus is a very positive thing. Also the fact that others are obviously acting contrary to that consensus (while being aware of it) speaks volumes. If in future there is an RfAr the activity of users on the page will be noted.

FYI I am reviewing the activity of a number of users in relation to this issue and I can see a pattern of disruption. I have long experience of this and I will follow my own council and site policy on when, where and how to act. My best advice for the time being is that there are at least 3 ways in which the task force can try to resolve this.

1. ) Formal mediation.
2. ) Going ahead with the WP:MOS proposal (thus removing any and all ambiguity about usage and having a enforceable policy to back it up).
3. ) Go to ArbCom.

Unfortunately I believe this will end up in ArbCom unless all involved go to mediation or the MOS issue is cleared up. ArbCom would probably not be an enjoyable process nor one that will end to any of your satisfactions.
Also re: "Sounds very one-sided to me" I'm going to let that slide HK, but I wont in future - I'm not taking sides in this dispute. Saying you should all disengage is a basic dispute resolution suggestion.
Apropos this, here on this site I work within its core policies and through its internal processes. I set aside my personal feelings, allegiances and opinions - acting as "coldly" and neutrally as possible towards an issue. If I err on the side of caution that is because I have found it best practice to do so. Sometimes volunteers who are in the thick of a dispute can misinterpret my coldness for disinterest or negativity. It is neither. I am merely being neutral, and thus my perspective on a dispute will be different to those involved - please bear that in mind when I disagree with your view on an edit or on another user's behaviour--Cailil ^talk 03:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

In retrospect, my "one-sided" comment was inappropriate - what I was trying to convey was a sense of frustration around the inaction to a new round of disruptive behaviour, and I didn't understand why you believed BK's ruling to be unenforcable, and I believed you were also threatening that if I reverted, you'd block take action - thus allowing one editor to "get away" while punishing the other. But thank you for your excellent clarification and I now understand (and agree) with your stance and position. Perhaps I'm not good at making assumptions and need the dots joined up for me, but I appreciate you've spent considerable time providing me with a response and I am grateful. --HighKing (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey what's the problem with [talk:feminist theory||feminist theory] the article is in a very bad form and you are deleting objective comments about the article? if they bother you so much , since they don't break any WPs why not just take down the appropriate bits that bother you? do you have something against improving the artiles?leave my posts alone, they should not bother anyone honest who is writing wikipedia. 79.176.49.28 (talk) 11:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)