User talk:Cailil/archive18

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

User page

Talk page

Admin

Logs

Awards

Books

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

Will you comment here?

Since you seemed to be open minded to me editing again, will you say something positive here? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The Patriarchal Code

Cailil, I deleted refs that were "selfcite". I wasn't understanding secondary sources. Now I have to change 'argument' and present material in factual form.

Cailil, I was doing some things wrong. I deleted the refs called 'selfcite'. I had a hard time understanding what secondary sources were. (still do)

Now, I'm accused of making an argument, which I tried to change a while ago, by presenting the material in a more factual form.

But I still need help in the form of criticism. It appears this is the only way I'm learning _Called the hard way, I guess.

Louise Goueffic Louise Goueffic (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Louise. I think you may have fallen into one of the steeper learning curves of Wikipedia. Please correct me if I'm wrong. You've done some research in this area and published on it. On Wikipedia it's considered a bad idea to write about your own work here. We call that original research. I understand how counter intuitive that is but what wikipedia does is summarize the most notable research in a field rather than publishing new knowledge or ideas--Cailil ^talk 15:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Advice needed

I want to say if different Human beings use same computer in Cyber Cafe then can the first user be accused of Sock Puppetry.--ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 06:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Review

Hi Cailil, it is time to review the topic ban. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi HK I'm afraid I have almost zero WP time right now so I'm going to recommend you take this to one of the admin boards, AN or ANi--Cailil ^talk 23:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Also please direct any one who has time to conduct this review to the last one (here)--Cailil ^talk 23:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Personal labels

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

Hi Cailil, If I understood correctly, you called me a "men's rights editor" at ANI. Please read WP:WIAPA: Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream.

If you want to know about me, I haven't been a member of any "MRM" community nor considered myself one. Personally, I'm not a feminist and I don't agree with all of their views, if that's what you wanted to know.

I've never called any other editor "feminist", "conservative", "communist" or whatever, and I suggest you leave such labels off as well. Thanks. --Pudeo' 14:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Pudeo you did misunderstand me but that was my fault. I left out an S it should read "what has become a repeat pattern of Men's rights advocate editors". There have been a number of attempts by editors from that POV to have Bbb23 removed from the area all were completely unfounded (for example[1]) - that's a matter of record not opinion. But FYI calling a "manual geomorphological modification implement" a spade is not a personal attack it's just a fact. Calling editors like Memills, CS Darrow et al MRA editors is not an insult neither is it ad hominem. Adding a negative term to it like troll or POV pusher etc - words I didn't use btw - would be ad hominem however--Cailil ^talk 18:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore I might add that given the fact that you have been defending Memills and advocating for Bbb23's removal from the men's rights area since 2012[2] associating you with editors like Memills, CSDarrow and Arkon would be an innocent mistake--Cailil ^talk 19:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

OK. Yes, I've known Memills' sanctions since that, and I've certainly thought it's problematic there are only so few active admins enforcing the probation - in that case KillerChihuahua (you might remember when I was blocked in error and I appealed the block twice and it was overturned and discussed at ANI). I'd still like to be associated only as Pudeo, an independent editor, but if you want to draw some kind of battlelines for some reason, you of course are free to do so. But I recommend reading Kyohyi's comment on such identifiers: [3]. BTW I'm neither an advocate for Memills. I think his behauvior has been stubborn, although I agree with him that the article probation is flawed. --Pudeo' 20:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Cailil, you have no business attaching a label to me as an editor, especially when there is no evidence that I am an MRA. All my edits on gender related pages have been in regards to the Five Pillars. Never once have I expressed support for MRM causes. Much as you personally interpret such a label as a matter of fact and not a pejorative, others may not and may be unduly influenced. The honorable thing to do is for you to withdraw your statement and apologise. CSDarrow (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2014 (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.

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

1RR Inquiry

Cailil, it's not clear to me that my edits constituted a 1RR violation -- though I do leave open the possibility that I'm not interpreting the policy correctly. You write:

On first sight this didn't look like a 1RR violation until you look at this diff from October 17th[4] its edit summary is a direct reflection of the first revert on November 2nd[5]. So there is a violation of 1RR and obviously a slow edit-war.

Not sure how my first edit on Nov. 2 is a "direct reflection" of the edit from Oct. 17. I removed an an entire sentence and all corresponding refs on Oct. 17. On Nov. 2, I removed one of three references and no text in the body of the article. WP:REVERT states, "Any method of editing that has the practical effect of returning some or all of the page to a previous version can be considered a reversion." I don't see how my first edit on Nov. 2 was restoring the article to any sort of previous version. This was an entirely new version. And if I was aware that I had violated 1RR, I would not have made the edit in the first place or would have self-reverted if I had made the edit. Nableezy did not give me the opportunity to do so and instead went straight to AE, and blew up a situation that could have been easily resolved without taking to AE.

Your consideration is appreciated. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see my edit notice I only deal with WP:AE issues at AE. I wont spread discussion out in multiple fora. Also I think I've been quite clear on this at AE and really don't have anything further to add--Cailil ^talk 22:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

SPI

Hi Cailil, Can you raise an SPI against me? Just Murry1975 is insinuating that I am rogue Factocop. Obviously no evidence and there is nothing like a good old piss party. I'm just wondering if getting banned for personal attacks is something that only applies to me or can other users be banned for this aswell? I'm sure you will do the necessary after reviewing these edit summaries [6], [7].Dubs boy (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Re, your comment..

I added the source you quoted calling my edit disruptive just today. The infobox title was already sourced by Canberra times and The Australian, would you consider retracting that remark? --lTopGunl (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Please see my edit notice. I deal with WP:AE conversations at WP:AE - not here. Conversations about enforcement issues should be kept in one place--Cailil ^talk 15:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for the haste, I'm copying this over there. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions were by OccultZone

Hi,

For some reason there was an Discretionary Sanction which prohibit me from Wikipedia pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. This was done by user named OccultZone and it seems to be related to what is happening between OccultZone and TopGun. I was not even notified that there was a discussion on Discretionary Sanctions against me and when I search the Arbitration enforcement archives I cannot find any record of any appeal related to me (this is weird because I donnot think Occultzone is an Administrator).

It is interesting that the same week that the Discretionary sanctions were placed, I was thanked 3 times by 3 different users for my edits related to India and Pakistan pages. I think OccultZone has a problem with me due to my edits related to the battle of Chawinda and it seems OccultZone is going after everyone who disagrees with him. Even in the Battle of Chawinda I have not engaged in edit a war or any sort of that thing and responded by giving valid reasons for the changes I made and providing way for people view the references, TopGun sums it up well:

Sigh, this is a content dispute and many editors have said that the source is okay, I'm not even the editor who originally added the sources, Nawabmalhi did when he saw a sock vandalizing content against the sources and I asked him about verification before adding them where he responded positively. OZ on the other hand hasn't even verified the source that atleast two editors have and turns to use a scanned copy of the newspaper provided by Nawabmalhi that I showed him as a courtesy, against me.

The reason I have come to you is I don't even know the administrator who placed the discretionary sanctions, cannot find any record in the archives, and you seem to be dealing with a case related to mine. --Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Nawabmalhi please get your facts straight. There are no discretionary sanctions on you. OccultZone is not an admin. They have merely notified you of the existence of Sanctions in the India, Pakistan and Afghanistan topic areas. That's all. There was nothing wrong with OccultZone doing this and getting such a notice is NOT an accusation of misconduct. Furthermore if you actually read the message OccultZone left you this is all spelt out quite clearly with the words: "This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date." If there is a WP:COMPETENCE issue here with your level of English - that is your issue and your choice to edit English Wikipedia--Cailil ^talk 23:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank You for the clarification, I thought maybe misconduct was not needed for the application of these sanction, that is why I thought he was acting like an administrator.--Nawabmalhi (talk) 00:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

"unconscious racism" charge by Myopia123

Was used at the shooting talk page:

To be quite honest, I am starting to see some unconscious racism creep in this manner in articles on wikipedia. Two white guys who shot up a school are boys but an unarmed black guy is a man. Just like missing white girl syndrome -Myopia123 (talk) 12:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

FCAYS was by no means the first to comment on that position, DWPaul and RMosler made comments demurring with it. The claimby Myopia appeared to charge Wikipedia editors with being "unconscious racists" as far as I can tell. FCAYS made what appeared to be a cogent third response to what was likely a problematic claim by Myopia (sigh). Collect (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Collect. I'll note this point and this thread here at AE--Cailil ^talk 09:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Shooting of Michael Brown

Hi Cailil, hope you enjoyed your new year. Before taking action (or take it to AE for other input) I wanted to get your opinion on something. One of the big problems on the talk page seems to be the dispute between ChrisGualtieri and Cwobeel (see the hatted section at the bottom and the links in the last comment, as well as the argument in the section above) over flowing to the talk page in addition to the edit wars on the article (see the last 50 revisions alone). I was considering IBANing them however since they are both active on the article that just gets difficult to enforce, so it likely means an IBAN and a topic ban for one or both of them. What's your opinion? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Callanecc. Sorry I'm only seeing this now - I had a very quick look and will say more tomorrow but my initial feeling is (and unless I've missed that this has already happened) they could both be informed that their interaction is a problem and given firm final warnings. I think full protection was a good step. I'd hold off on the IBans until the warning is ignored but if the warninsg are ignored then I think both users have "made their beds" and if the solution is an effective page ban they'll have had WP:ROPE--Cailil ^talk 18:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I issued a block and a couple warnings yesterday as well so hopefully that calms it down given that users know we're willing to use the tools. The talk page just needs to constantly monitored and stuff dealt with straight away. It has (on the whole) been more civil since the full prot, but any time you've got to help keep an eye (and respond to requests) would be appreciated. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Will take a look over the weekend. I'll have more time soon (next 9-10 days I'll be on and off though)--Cailil ^talk 08:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Recent sanctions via ARE

Normally I'm content to let civility infractions fall by the wayside, as you may have seen. But due to an escalating series of enforcement attempts against me, with the result that I am on a "last and final" civility warning before real sanctions ensue, I would like to point out that in his very first interaction with me since the ARE case closed, User:Cwobeel has attempted to poison a perfectly reasonable content discussion — though admittedly not one that was snark-free — with thinly veiled accusations of racism. Worse, in my opinion, this seemingly bald attempt to cow others into silence or acquiescence by attacking their character seems to cut a very clear parallel to his repeated attempts to remove opponents from a content discussion via initiating non-content-related enforcement actions against them. I believe a firm wrist slap and a reminder to discuss content, rather than attacking the off-Wiki moral character of opposing editors, is in order. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I have not attacked anyone. I asked a relevant question, given the long discussion about what photo to showcase for Michael Brown. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I was perturbed in particular by your own comment Why not use a more recent photo that shows the additional 75-100 pounds of threat he posed to the officer whom he was attacking? [8]. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

FCAYS - Cwobeel's comment may not exactly have been the most constructive but your report here is worse. He did not accuse you of anything, whereas your comment here is a litany of ad hominem abuse. Step back the both of you. Disengage from one another. And stop trying to get the other one banned - it will back fire--Cailil ^talk 13:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Interview for The Signpost

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Discrimination

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Discrimination for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (vent) @ 20:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the offer but I'm so busy in RL that I really don't have the spare time right now. Sorry about that--Cailil ^talk 13:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a note about a past Enforcement

I have mentioned you by name in an Arbitration request: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Cwobeel. The mention concerns a previous admonishment that you issued concerning the subject of the new enforcement request. Sorry, if this was unneeded. Just wanted to extend the courtesy notification as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Blue

Thank you out of the blue, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if you noticed on my talk the help request for the new article Gerechtigkeitsspirale, - please see the spectacular image, and imagine how amused I was when I translated. I have been asked if anybody else has a restriction of 2 comments max, - do you know? I may have invented it myself, and still think it would be a good one if applied more evenly ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

My name

Thank you for the reminder, of counting to three - or better not. Please advise me what to to in the case of a famous actor whose name I probably may not pronounce without risking to have overstepped my restriction. (I try to stay seriuz.) I made my 2 comments there in 2013. Now my name appears on the talk in March 2015, I counted to 8, and I can't reply that I would recommend to assume a little bit good faith towards a new editor to the field who is in the process of finding out how comfortable a discussion is about whether an infobox should be collapsed. (The latter question was raised in 2013, the link is on my talk.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, I'd suggest you ask User:Timotheus Canens if you have specific questions like this re: your restriction. My advice is leave it alone--Cailil ^talk 15:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Will follow the first. Once my name is in miscredit why care about more dirt ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

ps: Kafka, - someone wants to include him in Category:Surrealist writers, - I disagree, find him a realist, but can't possibly take that example, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Confused about iban

You are one of the editors who recommended an iban on WarKosign an myself. I am confused about how it is suppose to work. WarKosign reverted my edit on the Israel article. When I complained on the admin notice board, WarKosign self reverted his possible iban violation with the comment "Self-reverting possible violation of an iban. Someone else should apply this change." His self revert with the message to other editors is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel&diff=657360828&oldid=657331946

After other editors responded to his message and reverted to his revert of my edits, I tried to discuss the revert of my edits on the Israel article talk page by creating a new section titled ""The borders of the new state were not specified.", not a NPOV". I found it impossible as WarKosign continued to comment on every aspect of the revert of my edits. WarKosign also continued to modify the revert of my edits in the article. I am confused as to how to respond to this, can you explain it to me? Thanks, Gouncbeatduke (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Cailil, I'd also appreciate if you could advise Gouncbeatduke not to stalk my edits. The limited amount of edits he does are directed to editing articles I've recently edited (a number of which are wholly non-IP related) which he has never edited himself. In just the past week, just see the following:[9][10]. I don't know if some sanctions are necessary or some kind of interaction ban, but it is very unseemly. Appreciate your consideration. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Cailil, Gouncbeatduke continues to stalk my edits[11]. What is my recourse to this kind of WP:Wikihounding? Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

FYI Dubs Boy Comment

Hi Cailil, just FYI in case I'm criticized for not pointing this out to you. This behaviour was something you noted previously. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cailil, again in case I'm criticized for not pointing it out - [12]. Previously you warned him for this type of behaviour here. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 10:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Highking, I suspect Cailil is tired of the troubles area. I wouldn't expect any action, certainly given that no action was taken here. As they say - Dry_Your_Eyes mate.Dubs boy (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

HK I'm looking into it but my time on WP is short. And Dubs Boy, goading like the above is problematic all on its own. Don't make assumptions, don't speak for me (or anyone else) and stop making comments like HK listed here - WP:ASPERSIONS is an ArbCom ruling and it will be enforced--Cailil ^talk 13:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I just didn't like the fact that HKs friend Murry1975 was allowed to do exactly what you say I've been doing to HK. That doesn't seem fair. Murry1975 was constantly calling me Factocop with no evidence. At least with Highking the SPI speaks for itself. If you are going to take action against me then I suspect you will also be paying Murry1975 a visit.Dubs boy (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Just in regards with your discussions with Ricky81682, and reference to WP:ASPERSIONS. There has been no attack and no bending of the truth. User:Highking was/is banned from British Isles disputes. A topic that is intrinsically linked with The Troubles dispute, so forgive me for get them confused. User:Highking was and is User:Popaice. That is not a lie either. If you are trully concerned with casting WP:ASPERSIONS then you will also need to speak to User:Bastun about these comments, a user who has been linked with HighKing in the past.Dubs boy (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

This coupled with attempts by U:Scolaire, assisted by HighKing to have me blocked. Thankfully no action was taken against me but having presented evidence on Scolaire, no action was taken. I just need to know if everyone but me is immune in The Troubles area? If you are to ban me then you will also have to ban Bastun, Murry and Scolaire.Dubs boy (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Cailil, what action will take against the users listed above?Dubs boy (talk) 02:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Community desysoping RfC

Hi. You are invited to comment at RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. A little birdie forgot to do this. Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 03:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

ANI

You have left me with no choice.Dubs boy (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I can see why you asked for help following the Text Julian incident. Maybe a few people just need to be taken to WP:AE once or twice and they'll learn a lesson. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Reminder

Friendly reminder to stick to own section on the arbcom PD talk page. I know I'm not a clerk or anything. I just figured you forgot and could use a friendly reminder. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

TY EvergreenFir - it's been a long time since I commented at a PD talk page--Cailil ^talk 19:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

About Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FergusM1970

The funny thing here is that it isn't a random IP, it is clearly the sockpuppeteer. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe - I'll have a look at the evidence later. Also BTW CFCF (and on a purely beauruacratic note) unless I'm mistaken you're not an admin or CU clerk so you shouldn't be posting in the admin/CU/clerk section at SSPI either. If everyone posts there it makes reading the issue very hard for uninvolved sysops who may need to check for sock evidence in the future--Cailil ^talk 10:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

IP blocked per DUCK - obviously attempting to avoid scrutiny via dynamic IPs. Inconclusive that it's FergusM at this point but I have an open mind. It is a sockmaster in the very least--Cailil ^talk 11:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

"Women are everywhere"

Hi Cailil. I'm an editor (not very active till now) of the Italian Wikipedia. I'm trying to participate to an IEG with the project "Women are everywhere". You will find the draft at this link https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Women_are_everywhere It would be great if you could have a look at it. I need any kind of suggestion or advice to improve it. Support or endorsement would be fantastic. Many thanks, --Kenzia (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)