User talk:Cailil/archive16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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.

Crystal Clear action gohome.png
User page

Crystal Clear app sipphone.png
Talk page
Crystal Clear app access.png
Admin
Crystal Clear action info.png
Logs
Crystal Clear app lassist.png
Awards
Crystal Clear app filetypes.png
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


Requesting your opinion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests[edit]

Hi, I'm contacting you because you have recently contributed as a reviewing administrator to WP:AE. I've made a suggestion relating to the management of that page at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Structural improvements to AE threads, and would appreciate your input. Thanks,  Sandstein  22:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

User carptrash is violating rules in men's rights movements[edit]

Hello Cailil. You have demonstrated a heavy handedness in the MRM page before. I would appreciate if you applied the rules to everyone both fairly and equally. User carptrash has made a number of off-topic posts and there have been no longterm wikipedia users giving her warnings. It would be nice if you also gave her reminders of what is appropriate. You can see the problematic posts here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Men%27s_rights_movement#Addition_to_.22Relation_to_Feminism.22_section Yhwhsks (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I work at that page as an editor not an admin. I'm perfroming normal actions anyone can do (as long as they work within the guideline sof the probation and wikipedia's talk page guidelines). Also its worth noting that becuase of the probation things are far stricter there than might be expected elsewhere.
I have just closed the thread & I was heading over to notify User:Carptrash of the probation but Rschen7754 got there first. Also I will advise you Yhwhsks that calling the kettle black[1] is quite unwise. Carptrash's behaviour is indefensive but your reply is equally unnecessary and personal. Its best to avoid personalizing things--Cailil talk 13:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore re: you remark here[2] the thread was not closed because 1 person was acting inapproprately - 3 of you were. If you read my post above and in the closing you'll see I'm acting as an editor NOT an admin Carptrash has already been spoken to by an uninvolved admin.--Cailil talk 14:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

General sanctions clean up[edit]

Hi, could you take a look at User:Timotheus Canens/GS draft and leave comments on the talk page? Thanks a lot. T. Canens (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

AC/DS comments requested[edit]

Hi, as an administrator who has recently been active at WP:AE, you may be interested in AGK's request for comments at User talk:Sandstein#Draft of discretionary sanctions update.  Sandstein  15:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Male privilege[edit]

Hi there, I saw that you were intending to work on Male privilege not too long ago. If you are still interested, I will be working on the article as best I can to bring it up to encyclopedic standards. Cheers, Rgambord (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

My support for lifting of Rumiton's ban was forgotten[edit]

CLOSED:
As per my notice above I don't deal with WP:AE matters here. They should be raised on the noticeboard - I'm watching that page.Cailil talk 15:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
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.

My clear support for lifting of Rumiton's ban seems to have been forgotten. I hope you will reconsider the count. I am a minimally involved editor and only for a short period of time. Thank you.(olive (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2013 (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.


Hey[edit]

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

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

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

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



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

I saw that[edit]

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

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

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion[edit]

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

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies/Countering Systemic Gender Bias[edit]

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

Hi SV, that goes back at least 6 years. It took me a while but I found some of the old convos here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gender_Studies/Archive_2#I.27m_confused. Basically in '07 there was consensus to spin-off that aspect of the project and it was supposed to be either incorporated into WP:CSB or started up as a new specifically anti-gender bias project. It was decided that Wikiproject Gender Studies should have purveiw over the maintenance of gender studies articles and it was felt that that was incompatible with the countering bias aims etc. I was against the spin off then but now, six years later I understand why they decided to do that. I'd be of the opinion that WP:CSB probably cover this now and if it doesn't it should (a task-force could be set-up there about this). The issue at List of Vegetarians is clearly a Systemic Bias issue--Cailil talk 02:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Cailil. I'm not sure how to go about setting up a task force under the auspices of CSB. Should I just create Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender bias task force, or do I need to gain consensus first from CSB? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
AFAIK there aren't firm rules but I'd do a bit of both. Consensus at CSB is probably the best place to start but once the ball gets rolling opening a sub-page with draft aims/objectives shoudl be fine--Cailil talk 15:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay, many thanks. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Men's movement[edit]

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

AFAIK if an edit is men's rights related in the wide topic area it's covered by the probation. The probation might be focussed on the men's rights movement page but it is a topic wide remedy, at least that's always been my understanding of it. So if someone is going to that article making edits that violate the probation then they can be sanctioned even unde rthe current sitaution--Cailil talk 22:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, but I'd rather make it explicit, so I'll add the notice to the talk page and create an edit notice for it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Grand, that's probably a good idea. Just in case I wasn't clear about my own position in this topic area I'd consider myself "involved". The admin that was doing the patrolling here was KillerChihuahua. I did propose that original sanction though at ANi though but with my editor "hat" on rather than as a sysop--Cailil talk 15:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

ANI Notice[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Mattel. Thank you. —Guy Macon (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

BI Bungling[edit]

Hello, Cailil! I am getting mighty sick of watching HighKing proudly trot over to WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Hackneyhound every time his BI removal campaign freaks out his stalker. This stalker would not react if he did not remove the damned term. Why he is off probation for exactly what the sanctions are designed for is inexplicable. Let's look at Races and factions of Warcraft. We have a challenge based on one familiar term[3] followed by the systematic removal less than a month later.[4] No wonder the socks go crazy. Why is this editor, whose actions create a shitstorm of sock activity, above the very rules that are in place to prevent disruption? Utterly baffling. Doc talk 15:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

"Why is this editor [...] above the very rules that are in place to prevent disruption?" - He's not. I happen to be extremely busy in the real world (as is stated on my talk page) and I'm not the only sysop capable of enforcing this Doc. I'm happy to look at this but it isn't my pet project or my sole responsibility. If you want me to take action please show me the diffs of misconduct and I will act in whatever way I see appropriate in light of the probation's wording (and a user's history). The reality of the sitaution is that I (and frankly most sysops) don't have the time to trawl through hundreds of contributions on the off-chance one shows misbehaviour somewhere. I'll look at the Warcraft issue myself tonight but please come to me with evidence if there's a problem elsewhere--Cailil talk 17:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm also baffled. So according to Doc, it's my fault for annoying the banned/blocked socking stalker? I don't understand is why he has got such a bee in his bonnet. He's never even discussed any of the edits so what's with all the misplaced outrage and emotive invective? For example, in the article above, I assure you that I looked all over the web including fan articles and press releases for that "fact". Couldn't find it. Closest I came was an article that talked about how the characters had vaguely English accents. But just in case, I tagged it. After a month, I removed it. Nobody objected or commented until the banned/blocked socking editor decided to get involved. Then Doc decides to get involved. Utterly baffling! --HighKing (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I take the obvious stalking of you seriously HK, but I'm sure you know I take the (over-)use of the Undo/Revert function seriously too. Also BTW I wont tolerate flaming on this page by anyone - so both of you tone it down. I said I'd look at the matter and I will - if it requires action it'll get it, if it doesn't then it wont--Cailil talk 18:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
HighKing, I've been involved in this for years. Mostly prosecuting the other side (LevenBoy et. al). If you don't remove the term, there is no fuel for the fire. It's a cause and effect thing with the socks. It makes no sense to target the term anyway, as there are tens of thousands of instances of "British Isles" on Wikipedia. I have never approved of the guerrilla socking tactics, but the language is quite clear regarding adding or removing the term. I have nothing against you, and I'm not trying to get you punished; but the solution seems clear to me. Doc talk 02:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Cailil, apologies for using your Talk page. Doc, take it over to my Talk page if you want to continue discussing, I've responded there. --HighKing (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Ok I've looked at the Warcraft edits and they are actually a non-issue (besides the stalking). There is obvious grounds for removal of any unsourced content. However Doc's point is that you, HighKing, have returned to a pattern of going to pages and editing them because they contain a phrase (British Isles) rather than in an effort to improve the articles as a whole your edits to them are made solely in order to police the use of terminology. That behaviour is in and of itself not constructive. We've had this conversation multiple times since 2010 and frankly I'm not impressed that it's come-up again.
    While the Warcraft stuff is a non-issue there are edits that raise a red flag. I'm looking through your last 500 article edits (March 2013 - present) & I've identified at least 11 questionable edits in April and May 2013 (10 of which fall under WP:GS/BI and 1 under WP:TROUBLES). I will be posting to your page in the next 48 hours with a detailed examination and a determination in relation to this. As mentioned above this behaviour falls into the category of single purpose editing, and multiple ArbCom resolutions state that accounts behaving in this manner must:

    contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is incompatible with the goals of this project.[5][6][7][8][9].

    I haven't decided whether the edits are violations, mistakes or just borderline, but edits that test the limits eventually become disruptive in and of themselves. In my view the first 2 princples of the GoodDay RFAR equally apply here. I will be looking at further edits both in June 2013 and earlier this year in order to aid my determination--Cailil talk 22:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I've always been clear, and I've said in the past, that I pay attention to articles that use the terminology "British Isles". It can hardly be called single purpose editing though, I edit on a lot of articles. A lot of my editing may be classed as terminology-related though - I've made a load of edits wrt WP:IRE-IRL and do a lot of cleanup on articles in general. Also, unlike the Arb cases you've pointed to, I've always been happy to discuss edits, look for sources and references, engage positively with the community, etc. I don't edit war, etc, etc. I don't think at any time in the past 9 months I've ever stuck my heels in on an edit - if people object and can make a case, fine by me. I've thought about logging my "British Isles" related edits to one of my pages, with the rationale and research done, etc. What makes this especially difficult for me is that nobody has actually objected to any of the edits you are looking at, or made a case why my edits are incorrect. I'm being placed in a practically impossible situation, and one that is very frustrating. As I've said many many times in the past, I'm only too happy to engage with the community in any way, shape, or form. Anyway, lets wait and see what edits you want me to explain. --HighKing (talk) 10:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Further comment on the ban[edit]

Since HighKing linked to an SPI report that may justify his apparent 3RR violation on a Warcraft article I've now modified my comment, though I still support keeping the ban in place. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

thanks for help on Feminism[edit]

It's bound to be a tricky topic to edit, so thanks. Leadwind (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

NP, that particular text you moved was inserted there as a compromise but I think the way it is now makes better sense--Cailil talk 13:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Help requested[edit]

Calil I have a very keen editor who is determined to remove images from the Ulster Defence Regiment article. Some of which have been there for a very long time. I lack the experience to properly negotiate with this guy and he's even gone as far as to delete an RfC I made on the talk page.

Would you be kind enough to have a look at the situation and please advise both parties? I hasten to add that the editing at this page has been collegiate and productive for quite some time now however this editor is engaging in edit warring which I find quite disconcerting. Thank you. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I have suggested that SonofSetanta, take this to WP:NFCR if they disagree. Werieth (talk) 12:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I have done so however Calil is a very experienced moderator, particularly with regards to articles concerning the Northern Ireland Troubles. You have violated an Arbcom directive and rather than make a mountain out of this molehill I suggest you let him comment. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • First off Werieth is correct, WP:NFCR is the correct venue and I see you've opened discussion there - let that run and see what the determination is. Secondly you're both wrong to have reverted one another. Werieth broke the 1rr but this seems like a mistake to me so I'll warn but that's as far as it'll go (unless further reverting from either of you occurs). Equally SonofSetanta, you shouldn't have reverted the removal of Non free images. Where a policy as serious as that is being invoked err on the side of caution. Thirdly, Werieth shouldn't have deleted the RFC on the article's talk page - but I would have closed it and sent you to NFCR - I don't see that as a big issue since it was the worng venue. Overall I'd suggest stepping back a bit, NFCR is well experienced with this issue and will make the correct decision as regards policy--Cailil talk 13:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much for this advice Calil. My view was that once I had reverted the images Werieth would have engaged in discussion about why he felt they should be removed and at that point a WP:NFCR should have been raised by him. My opinion is always that nothing should be forced through but discussed in a collegiate fashion unless it's directed by a moderator, especially when it's on such a sensitive topic and more especially in view of the turbulent history of this particular article. It only takes one edit war and serious editors like myself are likely to leave the project and that's to the detriment of the article and the wiki. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
For clarity SonofSetanta, there was nothing wrong with Werieth boldy removing non free images that are not covered by WP:NFCC or if he thought in good faith that they were not covered by NFCC. When he did that you should have opened a review. You should not have reverted. And he should not have reverted you. It takes two to edit war SoS--Cailil talk 14:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I accept what you say Calil but my thinking was that if I reverted him and invited him onto the talk page to see what his concerns were then we could discuss the merits of the images and how text could have been edited to make them suitable in his eyes. I'd never heard of WP:NFCC before today which is why I called for advice but surely it could have been discussed with the images in place instead of Werieth forcing his changes through? I have warned him that I will ask for ArnCom to sanction him unless he reverts. It sounds petty but surely he should do the decent thing and adopt the same collegiate attitude as I? I know I definitely don't want to go down the "traditional route" of infighting on this page but I'm rather annoyed that this chap is just ramming WP:NFCC#8 down my throat when he hasn't complied with so many other Wikipedia guidelines, especially the very important WP:1RR. One thing I've learned from past experience is that discussion is always better than edit-warring. After all, we're all trying to achieve the same thing - perfection! SonofSetanta (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Replied with a note on Wereith's[10] and your own[11] talk pages. Short answer: Non Free Image policy is serious, reverting is unwise. His first edit was fine. Your revert was wrong. His revert of you was a technical breach of the 1RR (but a mistake).
Using ArbCom rulings to try to win arguments had an impact on your previous sanction SoS - that is what you are doing here, whether you realize it or not. Step back. Let the NFCR thread run its course - it might take a while but there is no deadline--Cailil talk 15:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Noted your comment to Wereith and very much appreciate the advice you've given. It's in my nature to say so when I feel aggrieved and I felt this type of intervention without discussion ran against the collegiate policy of the wiki so I threw my teddy out of the pram. Thank you too for allowing me to discuss it with you. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Cailil I am really trying to not go to ANI and ask for a block, but SonofSetanta just re-inserted a NFCC violation less than 24 hours after their last revert and it still completely fails NFCC. My suggestion is that you step in and give SonofSetanta a clue before I need to seek either a topic ban or block. Werieth (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
It's a good faith error Calil. Given that it is a new day I didn't stop to think that I was still inside the 24 hour limit as my mind was focused on the "Women's UDR (Greenfinches)" section which I've now published. I'm quite happy to revert until 24 hours have passed. I changed the text on the article to specifically include the application form usage although another editor has since changed it and a question is posted on the article talk page to discuss the wording. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
PS, on checking I see I was out by around 1hr 20 mins. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Facepalm3.svg Facepalm You *really* don't get it SonOfSetanta. Whether or not you were inside or outside the 24 hour 1RR window is irrelevnt you were editwarring. Read all of the posts I've made. Werieth's removal IS correct (in terms of policy). Wait till the NFCR thread runs its course. You have NO justification for reverting after files are removed under NFCC policy, until an NFCR thread with outside input is closed.
Having reported Werieth for a 1RR breach yesterday you showed me you understood the rules. Rules you just broke. It's been just under 7 months since your were last sanctioned expired for breaching WP:TROUBLES, and this is the second time in 18 months that you've broken 1RR at the Ulster Defence Regiment article. I really am left with few options here but to take action--Cailil talk 16:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I really would rather not get involved in the edit war, however both of the non-free images that where restored have the worst justification for inclusion and completely fail NFCC and should be removed. Werieth (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)`
Werieth I'd suggest waiting for the NFCR thread to finish to make any further edits removing or adding these or other non free images to that page. EdJohnston spoke to you a month ago about precisely this kind of thing - wait for teh community input for any further edits--Cailil talk 18:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)July?. OMG, thats amazing, or everyone is already blocked ;) Murry1975 (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Opinion sought[edit]

You may remember I had a little difficulty with images last Thursday and Friday?  ;)

I am still seeking an outcome and have made suggestions at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Proposals.

I would appreciate your comment and any further advice you might have? SonofSetanta (talk) 09:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The best advice SoS is wait. Let uninvolved editors voice their opinions that's what NFCR is for. Give it a number of days without interjecting and work on other stuff (even other stuff in that article not related to non free images). Because these images are not copyright free using them is an issue - thus we (wikipedia) have to exacting in our diligence about using them. That rigour takes time--Cailil talk 20:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm working away and being patient. Thank you. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice (July 2013)[edit]

Information icon Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding me unblocking Pudeo. The thread is Bwilkins' response to my unblock of Pudeo. Thank you. -- tariqabjotu 22:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

Information icon Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 06:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

He's at it again[edit]

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.

Werieth (talk) He removed the UDR badge from all the infoboxes in all the UDR articles bar the parent article, citing the reasons: no fair use rationale, and incorrect source. I fixed those and restored the badges. Then he pops up again and says he hasn't given all the reasons and quotes WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFC#UUI. He's now editwarring as he's gone back and commented out all the badges again. Unlike the last time I'm not going to fall into any traps. I'm asking you for your advice and I'm raising the points at the Military History page. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

BTW: he's also removed all the fair use rationales which I put on the image page at File:Cap Badge of the Ulster Defence Regiment.jpg. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Please be accurate. When I removed the files from the articles I only cited one reason (Missing rationales for the usage). However when I left a note on SoS's talk page I let them know there was an issue with the source, and that usage of said file needs to be restricted because its a non-free file. (This was a summary without giving a long explanation of reasons). There isnt and cant be justification for using the image on 18 different articles. Werieth (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
SoS using non free images in a nav box is not appropriate. If you want to have images for these things you need to source copyright free pictures. Discuss it at the Mil History project, but you need to be crystal clear about the non free image policy. NFCC #8 rules this kind of use out. There must be a copyright free image that fits the bill for that nav box?--Cailil talk 15:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Calil the instructions for using a military info box are here: Template:Infobox_military_unit. The instructions are clear: that " an image of the unit insignia (cap badges, tartan or colours), if available". There is only one badge for the Ulster Defence Regiment and its use in military info boxes is acceptable as far as I can see. Each page is about a different battalion or component of the Ulster Defence Regiment and warrants the use of a military infobox - with the correct badge included. This constitutes minimal usage as far as I can see, having found no information to contradict it. If the images were in the body of the text then Werieth would have a case under Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria but as they're being used in military info boxes he doesn't. Plus, if you don't mind me adding, Werieth has clearly engaged in edit warring, long after you cautioned him. Not only that but he has removed all the fair use rationales supplied on the image page. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Here's an example of what I'm talking about Calil. [File:75 Ranger Regiment Distinctive Unit Insignia.svg] a unit insignia being used on 38 different pages. Werieth's complaints don't apply when it comes to military insignia. If the Harp & Crown badge is all the unit is known by then I, along with every editor on Wikipedia, can rightly use it to indicate the UDR, it's battalions, companies, platoons and personnel, without over zealous people jumping down my throat. Minimal usage still applies and usually means the insignia will only be used in the info box. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Wow, I guess you havent actually read NFCC yet. Minimal usage WP:NFCC#3 applies both on a single page, and across wikipedia as a whole. {{Infobox military unit}}'s is for when a particular unit has its own distinctive identification (See 174th Attack Wing for example) You cannot just include the badge of the parent organization to fill the space. Using a copyrighted file across 18 pages isnt minimal usage. We have free images that are used hundreds of thousands of times, I really dont care about how often those are used. Free content has one set of rules, while non-free content has a second set of rules. If you want to avoid issues the easiest thing to do would be to not use/upload non-free media. Werieth (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
These 2 image shave 2 different licenses SoS. File:75 Ranger Regiment Distinctive Unit Insignia.svg is copyright free because it is a drawing of the insignia released to wikimedia commons. The File:Cap Badge of the Ulster Defence Regiment.jpg is a photo from somebody else's website. These are two completely different things. Non-free images are restrictively used. I'm afraid that nav boxes and other transcluded templates do not constitute minimal use. I will look at the edit warring but please step back. My overwhelming suggestion is that you seek a copyright free version. Perhaps ask at commons if somebody could make one (a drawing ala File:75 Ranger Regiment Distinctive Unit Insignia.svg) at commons (I've never done this but I'm assuming that there is a project there that would cover this. Perhaps this File:UDR Sign.jpg could be the basis for it (it's copyright free)?--Cailil talk 16:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
(EC) Or go from otehr elements which are copyright free and make up the badge digitally. This flag has the same harp[12] and you'll easily find the right crown on commons - i found these two without much effort[13][14]. With a little photoshop and a good acknowledgement of the source files you could have a free version of the insignia and use it for the navbox--Cailil talk 16:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
My point is Calil: that minimal usage can mean 100 legitimate uses of the file provided those uses are, in this case, to depict the regimental badge in the military info boxes for each UDR battalion - in other words, minimal as per the situation. (750 men and women approx). The same logic would apply if for example there was a famous UDR soldier; one could still use the image in his infobox to denote service with the regiment. I'd be very obliged if you'd look at the editwarring because I'm getting the feeling that this guy just wants to walk all over me, that I'm being singled out for "special attention". He's even passed comment on my talk page that HE doesn't want to see ME get "banned again". Your suggestion to use a copyright free image seems reasonable so I'll look at that whilst simultaneously awaiting a response from MILHIST. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
In order for it to be a legitimate use the article cannot be understood without it. A really good example of this is Virgin Killer (warning graphic image). There is a distinct reason for having the file. The image itself is part of the discussion about the history of the album. Including a icon just because someone served with that group. Take a look at Bill Gates you wont see the logo of Microsoft, because its not needed. The barrier for WP:NFCC#8 is fairly high. Werieth (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you see where NFCC is coming from. Fundamentally unless a page NEEDS to have a non-free version of an image then it shouldn't have one. If there is ANY other way it should be tried first. In my experience WRT insignia & flags there generally is another option--Cailil talk 16:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I see where he's coming from but I think he's interpreting his rules too narrowly. He doesn't understand the significance of a military capbadge to illustrate a particular unit. The information provided at Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Rationale is clear: NO FREE EQUIVALENT - Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. . There is no free equivalent for this badge therefore it is the only insignia which can be used to identify the subject matter. That the subject unit has 16 battalions is beyond our control. 16 Battalions, 16 fair uses, plus the fair use on the parent article and the list of locations. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Again you are only reading part of NFCC. Why does 9th Battalion, Ulster Defence Regiment require a image? What about the article cannot be understood without it? a link to Ulster Defence Regiment would do the same thing as you are trying to do. The barrier needed to meet all 10 points of WP:NFCC will not be met across the articles you are trying to spread that file. Werieth (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
(ec) @ SoS: Well as above you can see how one could be made, without too much trouble. A free image is always superior to a non-free one on WP. NFCC #8 is very restrictive and it has to be to protect this site from copyright claims. My advice see about getting a free version made - it should solve all the issues--Cailil talk 17:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice and guidance, as always. I will create a free image today and use that. One question though: if the UDR themselves were to request the use of the file would that have any merit? I've been in contact with them and they're quite keen to help. When this has been completed do I have your permission to edit the image into each infobox without falling foul of the 1RR restriction?
BTW The reason 9th Battalion, Ulster Defence Regiment would need an image is purely from the aesthetics and protocol of using an image in the military info box. Each info box identifies the article for the reader, in addition to the header. This is contained within the instructions for using a military info box. One tries to create a corporate image (for want of a better term) for each subject. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
New image uploaded at Ulster Defence Regiment infobox. Is this ok? May I use it to fill the remaining UDR battalion articles? SonofSetanta (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I missed the second paragraph of this post, You need to take a step back and go read NFCC, would need an image is purely from the aesthetics and protocol of using an image means that you shouldn't use the image. There is no automatic right to use copyrighted material on a article. We do not under any circumstance use a non free file solely for its aesthetic value. If a unit has its own distinct branding (which is unique from the parent group) then justification for identification can be asserted. Otherwise their isn't a need to repeat the same branding. Using NFCC isn't automatically allowed, take a look at both parts of NFCC#8. The barrier for using NFC is very high. Something you dont seem to be getting. Werieth (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
On the 1RR: I can't give you permission to break the rule - wait till the time has elapsed, maybe even wait a few more hours - then add the new free image.
RE: the UDR & the file. If a group has an image they would be willing to donate to the world free of copyright they can upload it to commons. The owner's request for use of a file on Wikipedia (and wikipedia alone) is actually incompatible with our licenses (creative commons & GFDL). So actually, no. Any group would have to upload an image they own free of copyright or under GFDL or Creative Commons.
Most ppl are used to uploading any image to a website but wikipedia can't do that - it has to obey copyright laws--Cailil talk 14:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that Calil. The UDR would be unable to donate the badge as it's ultimately Crown Copyright. They have certain rights under that usage which they can't waive. From what I have read (and replied to) below it would seem that Werieth is still unhappy even though I'm simply using a Maid of Erin with a crown on top now. Would you have any further comment or advice to offer vis-a-vis his current objections? SonofSetanta (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm happy with the image I have created and believe it fits the bill. I believe my colleagues in Military History would agree. If it looks nothing like the original then that means it's copyright free and NOT a derivative. FYI: the "Maid of Erin" or "Angel Harp" is hundreds of years old and does not require copyright. If I fancy putting a crown on top of a Maid of Erin then that's my business. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Again two points, Just because you created something that kinda looks like their emblem means we shouldnt use it. By using it we are lying to our readers, we are portraying something that is not their emblem as if it was. Two, just because the elements are free doesnt mean that you can combine them and avoid copyright issues. Regardless of how it was created if you create something visually similar enough to pass as the original you run into copyright issues. If you want an hour lecture on the intricacies of copyright law, Derivative works, Threshold of Originality, and Verifiability I can do it but its boring and complex. Werieth (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Hang on Werieth - he needs to obey commons policy yes. I don't know where he got that harp from but *IF* its a free (creative commons or GFDL) image, he just needs to identify and license it properly. The crown is the Crown of St Edward and is free and appropriate for this use. And no the image does not look "nothing like the official badge".
    @SoS I don't think the image looks "nothing like" the badge that is a huge overstatement but where the Harp image comes fom IS important. If where that harp comes from is not free then you CAN'T use it. With that in mind, perhaps this image[15] or a modification of it (with the same elements) would be better given Wereith's concerns about the harp source--Cailil talk 15:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    Ah I was under the misconception that the UDR was set-up circa 1922. See WP:LOGO SoS. In term of the likeness I disagree with Werieth. I also wonder whether this should actually be discussed at MilHis with others with experieence of working with historical regiments' insignia. As this involves a British insignia I don't know whether its likeness is copyrighted--Cailil talk 15:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Another person I'd talk to is Sodacan he's created many of teh British insignia on Commons so he may know. I've asked them to have a read of this thread--Cailil talk 15:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

A good example of what I was referring to about Derivative works can be explained using File:Challenge ProMode Arena logo.png which is basically a bio-hazard symbol with a circle. Yes I can create something visually almost identical using only free works, however because the original is copyrighted what ever I create would fall under the same copyright as it would look almost the same. Because I used File:Challenge ProMode Arena logo.png as a reference and attempted to create my own free version of it anything that resulted from that would be a Derivative work. Werieth (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Werieth what is going to satisfy you in this instance? You say the badge isn't representative of the UDR whereas Calil and I say it is close enough. At the same time you say it's too close to be classed as a free image. There must be a way to settle this and provide a corporate image for the Ulster Defence Regiment on Wikipedia inline with the concept recommended at MILHIST where a badge or symbol, recognisably that of the unit, occupies the top of the info box. As things stand I have created a free image which arguably could be construed as that of many Irish regiments in the British Army but it isn't; it's a home construct designed to be the corporate image of the UDR on Wikipedia and inform readers that each article is connected with the parent article at Ulster Defence Regiment. We are not lying to our readers and can inform them even better by placing a copy of the original badge in the parent article.
@Calil. I will get in touch with Sodacan as you suggest. I note many copyrighted images on his page and think he will have the nouse to sort this one out. I await helpful suggestions from Werieth too and meanwhile the discussion continues at Military History. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I want to put something to Werieth. Above you state: Minimal usage WP:NFCC#3 applies both on a single page, and across wikipedia as a whole. {{Infobox military unit}}'s is for when a particular unit has its own distinctive identification (See 174th Attack Wing. I agree with you. The problem being faced here is that the UDR wasn't just one unit. It was so big it had a brigadier commanding and it's impossible to compress the history into one Wikipedia page. It was tried but because there is so much notable information it was decided to split the individual battalion histories away from a general regimental history. With a normal infantry regiment it would be sufficient to include the histories for the 2nd and 3rd battalions on one page but this regiment had 16 battalions over its history and the only insignia it ever used was the Maid of Erin badge. It didn't have divisional or formation signs or individual battalion badges - just that one which is causing so much fuss at the moment, which is why I'm trying to impress upon you that, bizarre as it might sound, the use of the badge 18 times is actually minimal use. So to recap: the UDR as a regiment used the maid of erin and each battalion of 500+ men and women ALSO used the badge, in their hats, on their flags, their paperwork, their vehicles - this is the ONLY symbol that can be used. I believe it acceptable to use a representation as a corporate image on the wiki because it's similar enough to identify the regiment the regiment as Irish Infantry in the British Army by doing so. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
SoS I'm closing this here as it REALLY is best to have 1 conversation not multiple ones. Talk to Sodacan. British Regiments and their insgina are a little more complex than Werieth seems to understand in terms of the image rights. But that doesn't mean that in the end the image WILL be free. They're from differnt armies but Irish Army's Ranger Wing insignia is Non-free as are some Canadian unit's emblems. This is a very complex area and frankly being as conservative as Werieth suggests is a good call: please read WP:LOGO it does apply here even to recreations of logos. There is a possibility though that as a British military insignia there are otehr rules. I'm not an expert on British military emblems and copyright law. Talk this out at MilHist and chat to sodacan.
Both of you try to drop the interpersonal issues. It will rebound on both of you if it continues--Cailil talk 16:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


(edit conflict)There is no entitlement to have an image in an article. I think your whole approach to NFC is backwards. Just because we have an article on a sub-entity doesnt mean that we need to include branding information on their article. If the sub-entity has no unique branding its assumed that they inherit the branding of the parent entity. When using the badge most people will not associate it with a particular sub-entity, they will associate the badge with the parent entity. One sort of example where things where split to its own article. Take a look at Juneau, Alaska, it uses File:Seal of the City and Borough of Juneau, Alaska.svg and has several spinoff articles, yet none use the seal as its not needed. The barrier for NFCC#8 is extremely high. You will just have to live with the fact that you cannot have a badge in the battalion articles. The usage of non-free media is highly restrictive, and you will have to live with that, or get policy changed (something that will not happen). Your point of view in regards to 'would need an image is purely from the aesthetics and protocol of using an image so far from current policy. Your perspective needs to shift from that to, why am I required to include a non-free file? is there anything I can do to avoid it? can I link to where a similar example is? Can I replace it with text? Is there anything I can do so that I do not need to include said file? If after answering those questions you still need the file in order to comprehend the article, that's when the bar for NFC usage is met. Right now you just want to include the file in the sub-entities as eye candy. That cannot be done. Werieth (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I understand your frustration Werieth but you need to understand too - this may actually be more complex than you suggest. Talk it out at the MilHist Project. And furthermore I am serious about the interpersonal stuff. Drop it. WP:TROUBLES does cover that and frankly given that I've already warned you not to treat the 3RR exemptions as a straight forward license to revert further editwarring will be sanctioned.
If SoS persists with inappropriate use of non free images do not revert first take it to WP:AE under the WP:Troubles ruling and outline the history here. Let uninvolved sysops decide then follow through after that decision. Also please respect the closure templates - this discussion is archived-Cailil talk 18:23, 17 July 2013 (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.

Discussion[edit]

I would be very grateful if you were to examine the discussion at commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:The_Badge_of_the_Ulster_Defence_Regiment.jpg and perhaps even give an opinion?

As regards the interpersonal difficulties you made mention of in the above (archived) discussion, I have placed a request on my talk page asking for assistance from Dispute Resolution. I think you would agree that dialogue is the best way forward? SonofSetanta (talk) 12:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Commons has its own rules SoS. I'm an admin here on English Wikipedia not there. I really have nothing more to add to that discussion.
Also please read what I said above. You need to have identified where you got the two copyright free elements from - epecially the harp. I can't find that harp on commons. The one used to represent the harp that the UDR badge uses is the same as the one used here[16]. Sodacan has recommended this file[17] as an alternative BTW.
At this point I need to advise you to step back. Both you and Wereith are talk at one another rather than to each other. Neither of you will win this argument because neither of you are listening. Dispute resolution may not help - this is about policy. It is black and white. Insignia like this are either covered by WP:LOGO and/or NFCC or not. There is nothing to debate. There are no opinions that can change the fact that these policies either apply or not - simple as that.
I closed the thread above so that you would centralize your discussions at the MilHist Project - I insist you do that and keep the deletion discussion at commons-Cailil talk 13:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Subject to the outcome of the discussion at commons I may well decide to use the image Sodacan has recommended - thank you for that. I've started a dispute resolution case to try and resolve the growing interpersonal problems between Werieth and I, not to resolve the badge issue. The issue with the existing badge doesn't appear to be one of copyright infringement but more personal dislike of the image by Werieth, going by his comments so I've drawn the attention of the MILHIST people to the discussion at commons. Other suggestions are now forthcoming too including the one by Sodacan which you've kindly shown me. At the moment I've done as much as I can (I think) to avoid a repetition of edit warring and to try and mend fences with Werieth. I note your comments about "stepping back" and I will try to do so, bearing in mind the manifold ongoing discussions. I keep coming back to you because I know you will give me straight answers. Sorry for taking up so much of your time. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem SoS. I can see that you both are working in good faith. It's just a highly complex issue. Wereith is making some excellent points to you re: image policy. They might be unpalitable in that image policy is restrictive but as I've said above WP has to have very high standards due to our licences. Wereith is only acting in a way that he sees as protecting the site. And you are acting in a way that you see as improving the site. The twain can meet - I hope your DRN re the personal issues will help resolve this. Just stay on the safe side of 1RR and don't revert. Discuss and reach consensus first--Cailil talk 14:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you.SonofSetanta (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
You'll be glad to hear that the fur has stopped flying as regards all of this copyright stuff. I have requested closure of the discussion at the Administrators Noticeboard and am discussing outstanding issues with Werieth and on the respective talk pages. The discussions have helped my understanding of copyright to a great degree as has the remedial work I've carried out. I have to admit to being a bit taken aback when the three "vultures" appeared out of the blue but I ignored them which I think you'll agree was the best thing to do. I want to thank you again for your advice and guidance which is always helpful, even when you get exasperated. I'm sorry if you felt I was creating a scene, I know I can be hard work at times but I am genuine, just maybe a little slow on the uptake when it comes to technical matters. Working on Wikipedia means a lot to me, more than you can imagine, so I am very keen to avoid the type of knee-jerk behaviour which has got me into trouble in the past. I would like to think I can call on you for further advice in the future if the need arises? SonofSetanta (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I saw that on Wereith's talk page. It's a very good step - keep it up. My advice is to take it slowly (in terms of images). Use the rest of your time to do other things needed for improving the article(s)--Cailil talk 10:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
You've probably noticed but I have a much more collegiate approach than in the past. It has to be said though, it's much easier to work on articles when there's no fighting going on. Nobody trying to prove a point, no POV pushing etc. I would be interested to know however if you think I have created an NPOV article at Ulster Defence Regiment? I've done my best just to stick to the facts. I had considered deleting all the political stuff but I kept it deliberately to show POV from both sides of the NI community. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────As an uninvoled sysop it's best for me not to get into content SoS so my advice on that is try Good article review. An experienced reviewer will give feedback on how to improve the page towards Good Article status. There is a process to go through so please read it all first and good luck--Cailil talk 12:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you again Calil. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"uninvolved sysops"[edit]

I have withdrawn my objection[18] to this particular RfE appeal, which I hope, proves that the consensus building process (however difficult) can work. However, there is a larger issue I wish to discuss. I don't agree that only the opinions of uninvolved admins matter. Perhaps that's not what you intended to imply when you said "uninvolved sysops" (as opposed to "uninvolved editors"). AFAIK, being an admin is no big deal, and admins simply carry out the consensus of the larger community. But I am troubled by the fact that we are apparently creating a two-class system. To the best of my knowledge, there is no policy that states this. Can you please change the wording of this post[19] to say "uninvolved editors"? Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually if you read my user page you'll see I 'm one of the few sysops who actually believe that it's a not a big deal. However WP:AE has segregated discussion for a reason. One of the sysops has to take responsibility for taking action. They have to perform the block/ban etc. It's on them if it's wrong. And yes the policy for discretionary sanctions (and every single ArbCom enforcement section in every RfAr) states that: "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions...".
The only analogy I have is that WP:AE threads are like being on a road trip with 8 of your friends in the back (you'd need a big car for the AE crowd). Stan and Bob want to take the Freeway, but Steve and Sean want to take the back-road, and now their arguing and throwing empty beer cans at one another. Evin and Paul want you the driver to have a bud with them and aren't wearing seat-belts so they can lean in to talk to you (wearing seat-belts is mandatory for all passengers here). Carlo wants to stick his head out the window and Eric is mooning other cars from the front seat. All this is going on but you're the driving. If you get distracted real people suffer. There are real consequences. If cops decide to caution Eric you'll get a slap on the wrist too - because you're the one driving (that at least is how it works here) - the driver is accountable for their passengers actions. If the passangers are out of control the driver answers for it too. The comparison with AE is this: it's the driver's responsibility to make all the calls. To decide where to go, to get Eric and others to sit down and behave, etc. The driver has to take action because they're accountable. They can't say "oh... well... Steve said it'd be ok" or "Bob convinced me...".
Any one who hasn't gone through RFA hasn't had the community consider whether their judgement is fit for deciding when and when not to block. The sysop is (and this is actually true at WP:AE) accountable for their actions. ArbCom will desysop or ban an admin from AE if they actually make inappropriate calls. It needs to be borne in mind that AE is not democratic, and it's an imperfect system so I 100% understand where you're coming from AQfK, but as it stands unless or until editors who aren't sysops are held accountable for actions/opinions/decisions at AE they wont have input on that final decision. In short it's actually far more complex than you're suggesting becuase:
1) there are matters of accountability, and
2) it is actually policy/Arbcom's call that this is how it's done.
But thanks for dropping by, I think there a number of policies and procedures that could be updated to at least help ppl understand why sysops have the role they do, and of course some could be changed to be more inclusive--Cailil talk 18:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Cailil, I'm never giving a ride to any of your friends, but that explanation should be on an FAQ at the AE page somewhere. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
That's why I don't give my friends lifts either ;)--Cailil talk 21:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
@Cailil: Just to clarify, you're referring to WP:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions? If so, that does answer my query, although it flies in the face of WP:CONCENSUS (which, unlike WP:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, is an actual Wikipedia policy). I guess the way I've always viewed this is that if an AE admin action is uncontentious (for example, a clear violation of 1RR), an AE admin can assume consensus already exists, and can act boldly. But where an AE action is contentious and significant disagreement exists among uninvolved editors, the normal consensus building process should be followed. To me, that lives up to the ethos that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. What you are saying creates a two class system of haves and have nots. Perhaps I'm being far too idealistic in this regard, but I don't believe that some editors are more equal than others. I'm not sure how to proceed at this point. Should we have an RfC to formally establish a two-class system? While I wouldn't agree with such a system, I would rather have it explicitly stated, than implied. Or maybe I should just remove AE from my watchlist if the contributions of uninvolved editors are less equal than others. It's time for me to take my own chill pill, LOL. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
(Apologies for the long response) Actually no AQfK, AE doesn't work by consensus (I know that sounds crazy but) because it's an enforcement board for existing sanctions/procedures the admins are acting with pre-authorization, and the closer is the one who acts (and acts alone). The only question actually being asked by an AE thread is "do the edits shown in this report meet the standard for action or not". Another aspect to AE is that sanctions from it are (obviously) not always preventative - they are coercive (see the big red box at the top of WP:AE). It's a whole different system, because its a subset of RFAR.
Just look at the way we do RFAR - only a few people become Arbs, only a few become clerks. Only clerks can manage pages. Only Arbs can make decisions. The question: why do we do this? is important. RFARs are very serious. Look at the many many nationalist dispute cases. There are real world issues that bleed into the actions of groups of people on this site. People working, sometimes covertly to use this website to advertise/promote their agenda or inflame real world tensions. The WMF has a real world responsibility to stop that. In fact I'm sure its charitable status would be at stake if it didn't act to prevent such activities. Thus a very rigid and formal system was created - one that flies in the face of how the rest of WP and indeed the internet works. I understand why ppl feel excluded I'm not an Arb (and have zero ambitions to be one) and I get frustrated every-now-and-then by decisions they make. I'm sure others feel the same about some of my admin decisions. But frankly when one is accountable for decisions the action we take is often different to what we wish it would be.
Re: the two class system, well it only creates that in the same way that a driver's license does (some people have had their driving vetted and checked that it's up to safety standards, some people haven't - thus who haven't can't drive until they get a license). The block button and decision to ban need that vetting in the same way driving needs testing. The bit is not a status symbol - it makes one a functionary with responsibilities. Now I know there are admins maybe some who were RFA'd later than myself and others who seem to feel it is a status symbol or a police badge, it's not. The way I look at it is if I drop the ball by not fulfilling my functions (AE being one, CSD being another, unblock requests another and XFD etc) the whole website suffers, perhaps just a bit. But its like having a traffic light not working, it holds up the progress of people trying to do things.
I think there is a general lack of knowledge of how ArbCom sanctions work and how they are different from Community Sanctions. Community sanctions are based on uninvolved editors and the consensus at ANI but have (unfortunately IMHO) lacked the same respect from some quarters. Also I don't mean it to sound like I or other sysops don't listen to uninvolved editors I at least do (I don't always agree or respond but I read everything) and often some of the best points are made by people who aren't sysops, so I would not encourage you to de-watchlist AE. It's always good to have people there to sanity check decisions even if they can't !vote on the outcome. And if you wanted there's always RFA, although in all honesty (and I've gone through tough things in RL), RFA was one of the worst experiences of my life (and I had a relatively easy time)--Cailil talk 10:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
No offense, but I don't want to waste my time examining someone else's dispute if I am not allowed to be a part of the consensus-building process. I'd rather just remove AE from my watch list and pretend that AE doesn't exist. Good luck, but I feel that this is an area where we have failed ourselves. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Well that might change: see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests#Update_on_discretionary_sanctions_review. All in all though I think the idea that there is a two class system on WP is not in fact a reality: "the bit" doesn't create that anymore than a drivers license does. Indeed sysops here have far far more oversight and less autonomy than admins at other websites. WP admins are not government or police, but then on the flip side WP isn't a democracy - sysops just take the actions mandated by policy.
I do understand why you think AE is a failure. In a sense I personally think that every time we have an RFAR we're failing, but IMHO it's not the RFAR/AE system that has failed its the community's ability to deal with something/someone. AE is a response to that failure. And yeah it's not perfect, but unless we understand why it's the way it is we are prone to forgetting why it's there in the first place. Anyway it's your call about commenting/watch-listing AE but thoughtful responses are always welcome (anywhere)--Cailil talk 12:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)