Talk page |
Admin |
Logs |
Awards |
Books |
Hello, Cailil. I'm not going to give an opinion on this, though I do have one. What I will say is this, why has this gone on so long and in so many places? To be honest, I'm not sure I could have taken the abuse you have taken up to now, but then that's probably a good reason I would never be an admin. I'm actually surprised there are no more admins intervening in this. Don't let it get you down mate. Jack forbes ( talk) 00:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Given the punishments you have handed out to the like of Triton Rocker, I and others for far more minor incivlities, can you explain to me why Dunlavin Green's latest contributions have passed without your comment or action?
"there is number of British nationalist posters here who have an agenda to remove all opposition ... you'll see their purpose on Wikipedia is to advance British nationalist articles like this one ... more bigoted, anti-Irish group of editors ... British nationalist hijacking of an international figure ... Snowded? He was a bright fella too, but got a woeful slew of shíte from the British nationalists for daring to empathise with the Irish on this issue ... all your royalist nonsense is fine online but ... screaming British nationalist pov ... flag-waving John Bull editor ... there is number of British nationalist posters here ... their purpose on Wikipedia is to advance British nationalist articles like this one ... A more bigoted, anti-Irish group of editors you will not find in Wikipedia ... if we could just move all traces of resistance to this British nationalist term from this article everything would be so much more aesthetically pleasing to our jingoistic friends over in Britain."
Examples
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:British_Isles&diff=prev&oldid=384364459
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bono&action=historysubmit&diff=376098659&oldid=375868316
-- LevenBoy ( talk) 00:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I rather belatedly saw the change from M.Litt to PhD. Many congrats... no wonder you've been very busy in the last year or so! It must be a relief to have it done, unless you've now got to adapt the dissertation as a book, when you don't want to look at the bloody thing ever again! -- Slp1 ( talk) 13:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:PLACE only refers to "conventions for determining the titles of Wikipedia articles on places". The problems we have go much further than that. Thank you for the offer, I would like to take you up and report what I and other see as a long-term "campaign to remove the term British Isles" from the Wikipedia. Firstly, as you have such in an interest in my conduct over the conduct of others, could you please inform me clearly and specifically with examples of what you will consider as acceptable reportage and unacceptable reportage? I do not want to make a report in language that is unacceptable to you for it then to be used against me. Obvious to do so I will have to name names and present my assumptions of their intention which you seem to specifically object to. Secondly, regarding your comment at WP:VERIFY. I know very well what your concerns and opinions about my contributions to the Wikipedia are and I have my own opinions about them. You really don't need to follow me around re-stating them in a way others might consider to be "poisoning the well" of other discussions. I approached you respectfully for advice. If I step towards the line of what you consider acceptable, please contact me via my talk page if you must. I am sure others will find such comments if they are interested. LemonMonday's RfCs are entirely separate from mine. I don't think the problem can be resolved by consensus. I don't think there is any point rehashing the British Isles issue with the same individual due to a lack of manual of style and the weak, undefined policy in this area. I think it has to be resolved at a policy level. -- LevenBoy ( talk) 23:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
(undent)LB, HK was perfectly ok to notify myself and BlackKite - we've been active in patrolling the area (also he said in each of his posts that he had contacted both of us) and that was TFOWR's direction. Please try to be more conservative in your descriptions of other user's actions.
Re the mediation yes an RFC before that might help - but if not do contact
the MedCab but have a goal in mind - ie 'to agree on the use of BI or B&I wrt to the WP:MOS'. Generalized not getting along can't be mediated as such.
The 'distractions' will cease if olive branches are extended--
Cailil
talk 13:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Normally I'd ask TFOWR but he's caught up in RL right now. Also posted to BlackKites Talk. Just a heads up on this, this and the creation of this category. What to do? -- HighKing ( talk) 18:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Shall I call 911? LevenBoy seems to have deserted the 'pedia. GoodDay ( talk) 11:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
(Also posted at BlackKite's Talk page) Despite
this discussion at BISE, LemonBoyLemonMonday has immediately
reverted. Reluctant as I am to take this to AN/I, is there any alternative? And if I take it to AN/I, is it right to also bring up the recent
SPI case (at the time I was advised to let it ride because LB had "disappeared", but given what's going on now...) --
HighKing (
talk) 21:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
(undent)No LM you're edit-warring. If GD was wrong ask him to self-revert or ask him his position. You're using the revert function improperly. Stop-- Cailil talk 17:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC) HK my talk-page is not a circus and talk-pages are not for the expression of opinions about others. I will follow my own judgement here-- Cailil talk 17:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Shall I call 911?, LemonMonday seems to have deserted us. GoodDay ( talk) 11:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Cailil. I'd like to point you to the above. It's possible that I just I can't see where you have been notified< so thought I'd do it. Jack forbes ( talk) 16:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Howdy Cailil. I was considering opening up one of those, in order to end all doubts, which would be good for both suspectors & suspectees. However, I'm not entirely certain how to open an SPI. GoodDay ( talk) 16:31, 27 November 2010 (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.
Rather than continue the discussion on Jehochman talk page, I would appreciate being able to discuss matters with you directly, just human being to human being, and out from under the usual hail of threats and policy acronyms. Could you step out of the role you have as an admin on the Wikipedia and do just that?
OK, so I did not know what the mediation page did not tell me to do. It is no big deal. I figured that you and half a dozen others have me on your watchlist anyway and so I did not need to, that it was handled as part of the process.
I wanted to discuss matters with you, with a witness involved, so that I could have a second interpretation or third opinion on what was happening and would not be banned unfairly for attempting to do so reasonably by my standards.
Will you do that without someone else being involved? -- LevenBoy ( talk) 16:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, LemonMonday is correct. It is well established. There is nothing incorrect about removing comments from one's talk page. What point are you trying to make?
Secondly, I am absolutely sure that reporting provocative abuses to an admin does fall under "being restricted from commenting on others". I approached a responsible admin first (you, at 03:30, 15 Nov), to AVOID your allegations of becoming personal. Here is another one. I am absolutely sure that if I called someone a "POV driven SPA" I would be instantly banned. [16] Why are these abuses not addressed equally?
OK, so let's stick to honest discussion, and avoid debating or lawyering, because we have much to agree upon. For example, both your sanction and policies are far too broad and undefined. I would still prefer a moderated discussion rather than just one on one as we need to build trust as well.
As a starting point, you are free to asks me any question to clarify what my motivations really are.-- LevenBoy ( talk) 16:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to comment there because I guess I'm "involved". I would say "No" to the LevenBoy civility block and "Yes" to the LemonMonday topic ban. And I heartily "second" your encouraging of both of them to respond there: but I'm not "holding my breath" about it... Doc talk 05:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Then there is nothing to do except keep a record including edit difs of anything that is evidence of WP:DE; and in the meantime hope a consensus holds at the Feminism article. I've no idea what more I can say though on the talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, please can you clarify your COI comments you made on User_talk:Sandstein as that's a very serious issue, many thanks. I'll give you 24 hours to reply, (and you can every single minute of that time period to do so)-- Shakehandsman ( talk) 21:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Feminism 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. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. - Mabeenot ( talk) 20:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up at Dr. Al's Talk. I wasn't sure that admins actually still used a broom and dustpan. Have you any word of my ole mentor? Buster Seven Talk 17:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Buster7 has given you a Nice Koekjes which promote fellowship, goodwill and WikiLove. Hopefully this one 'hits the spot' and has made your day better. While I was here I noticed a Discussion above regarding Incivility. With your permission, I have borrowed your capsulation of what to do and added it to User:Buster7/Incivility#Grenades are NOT UN-Redeemable Please accept this Nice Koekjes as small payment for the use of your words. Feel free to share by giving someone else one. Maybe to a friend or, better yet, to someone you have had disagreements with in the past. Nice Biscuits are very tasty and have been known to be so NICE, they will even bake themselves. Enjoy! Buster Seven Talk 18:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zimbazumba. I had been thinking of starting an SPI myself. I have commented there and requested a checkuser. JamesBWatson ( talk) 20:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
We've now together experienced two editors whose behavior was problematic (you criticized one and maybe you don't agree on the other) and with whom you may had previous contact under other IDs of theirs—one as a previously-blocked user (blocked again since) and the other having previously posted under an IP. The problematic behavior cost me hours for disentangling. Outing is generally inapropos absent a complaint requiring it. I'm not enthusing about seeking their departure via a complaint because, in perennial controversies, like-minded people keep turning up anyway. You're an admin. Are you interested in knowing of either case? The earlier editor does not seem to have returned under another name and the newer editor might or might not reappear, so maybe it's moot, but maybe not. Your thought? Nick Levinson ( talk) 21:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
I, Kaldari, hereby award Cailil The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar for his work on rooting out abusive sockpuppets. Kaldari ( talk) 20:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC) |
=) Thanks Kaladari- Cailil talk 20:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Could you please take a look at Talk:Matriarchy? You can guess which editor and I are in substantial and, repeated disagreement. We agree on a few things. The editor, who is not an admin, is being a flamethrower and continues to repeat and exaggerate charges and to charge pre-emptively. Apparently, my inclusion of one controversial writer has led the editor to try to destroy as much else as possible, and to believe that it is impermissible for me to do research that might result in re-adding the writer. There are continuing accusations of my misrepresenting sources without finding a single instance of my doing so. There are repeated efforts to have me justify including something neither of us wants to include and, to my knowledge, has never been in the article. There is a gradual narrowing of the areas of disagreement, but not by much, and now the editor plans to not respond anymore but merely to edit without discussion ("I'm taking a break from this conversation so knock yourself out with your replies.... When I come back, I'll delete the [list item] ..."), which suggests refusing progress toward consensus. The subject itself attracts a lot of hostility and editors usually want to remove, not fix; gradually the editorial relationship among many editors is improving, but very, very slowly. Thank you in advance for your advice. Nick Levinson ( talk) 17:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello! You are invited to participate in the
Theatre Project's
Collaboration of the Month. This time it's the
Theatre article. In the last 30 days, this article received 52,500
hits, or roughly 2,000 every day. Hope you can help! Nominate an article that could be greatly improved. |
I'd be fascinated to receive a link to whichever policy says, "Editors who swear in edit-summaries are liable to be blocked," because I've got a whole drawer full of diffs of people who need to be dealt with on that basis, and I'll get it over to you straight away. However, I'm more interested at the moment in what is your opinion on this comment of Sarek's. Do you think it was appropriate/useful/constructive/permissible? ╟─ Treasury Tag► voice vote─╢ 15:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Per SoV's request I added language to specify the scope of the proposed ban. Please have a look to make sure you still support the proposal. Thanks. Griswaldo ( talk) 16:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Cailil, I saw your post here, noting your intolerance of overt racism (“if I see anyone using or endorsing (whether tacitly or openly) racist, bigoted, sectarian, or any other form of hate speech or chauvinism they will be indefinitely blocked in line with WP:CIVIL, WP:DE and WP:BATTLE”). Would you mind taking a look at edits at David Haye here, the User:Talk page discussion here and the response at my Talk page here. I expect this is far too late to act on now, but I would appreciate your advice on how to handle anything similar in the future if you have the time. Many thanks, Daicaregos ( talk)
You recently comment on an issue to do with Template:British Isles. The template has been protected to allow for discussion of its title.
It has been possible to change the title of this template on a page-by-page basis. Titles that have been used on different pages being:
A user has raised the question of whether this practice is a violation of NPOV.
A list of alternative solutions (aside form those being reverted between) is invited also. --RA ( talk) 21:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I will try to but i am pretty busy these months myself. Real life, major work. Hope you are well, I may write more, Slrubenstein | Talk 17:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, so you've topic banned me. You were entitled to do so based on the wording of the sanctions, but I would appreciate your explanation of the the following: The sanction states "Any editor who systematically adds or removes the term "British Isles" from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification, or who edit-wars over such addition or removal, may be added to the list of topic-banned editors.. ". However, since 10th May 2011 User:HighKing has removed seven instances of British Isles and fact tagged one other. Some of the removals are straight unsourced substitutions with an alternative term and some are sourced. Bear in mind, however, that it's relatively easy to find sources providing an alternative usage of most terms if one looks hard enough. I suggest that these recent removals are systematic in their nature and are therefore a breach of the sanction. It is widely understood now that the sanctions are still in force. It's also perhaps worth drawing your attention to this edit: [18]. HighKing is obviously keen to develop standards for BI usage and by his self revert has indicated that a moratorium on removals would be in order during their development. However, since no other editor has been forthcoming with ideas, rather than put forward his own suggestions he's recommenced removal - on a systematic basis. As I noted earlier, even the sourced replacements are systematic in nature.
I have not edit warred on the majority of these articles, engaging in just one revert in each case, with one exception where the article was also subject to edit warring by two other editors. My question is simple; why do my actions warrant a topic ban when HighKing's actions don't even draw a comment? I again suggest his BI removals are systematic in nature and therefore subject to sanction. LevenBoy ( talk) 21:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Had you noticed this has reopened? I only did today. I stopped looking in after discussion faded away. Now I've put it on my watchlist. I've just checked and find the preceding one was opened just over two years ago and has still not been closed and archived. Peter jackson ( talk) 14:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I have proposed another interaction ban between TreasuryTag and SarekOfVulcan. Since you commented in the last ban discussion that failed to gain consensus I am notifying you of this one. See - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Propose_interaction_ban_between_TreasuryTag_and_SarekOfVulcan_2. Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 21:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Dear administrator,
I am not really sure if you are in fact an administrator at AE or not, but I am posting this message anyway since I found your name among the decision-making administrators in AE cases. If it's not too much to ask, could you please review the AE case on MarshallBagramyan? The whole case is based on an imposed indefinite restriction for not labeling authors any names or dismissing them based on their nationality, place of birth or publication, ethnic group, religion or similar general characteristic (and the report clearly said “This restriction is to be enforced by blocks or other discretionary sanctions”) and violation of another topic ban earlier in 2010 when the user violated his ban twice and went unnoticed? The reported user MB has taken this report out of context by posting long blocks of replies which had already wrote last time he was reported and diverting the attention of the readers and administrator away from the subject which is an imposed ban and his violation of it. All I am asking is for administrators to take action on the violation of restriction for fair and just decision. Angel670 talk 17:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Cailil, I need some advice. I just do not know what to do about GoodDay. His latest wheez is to change a series of infobox nationality fields to British, directly against WP:UKNATIONALS and MOS:FLAGS. He is aware of both of these. I left a note on his Talkpage requesting that he self-revert, which he deleted (with a charming edit summary). I don't want flame what appears to be a volitile situation, but something should be done. I just don't know what. Thanks, Daicaregos ( talk) 13:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what to do with Daicaregos. If he wants to revert my changes per BRD, so be it, as I'm finished with boxing article infoboxes. He's forever shoving English, Scottish, Northern Irish & particulary Welsh in my face & on top of that, continously seeking somekinda banishment on me. His OTT Enforcement report on me, was only another example of his attempts to be rid of me. GoodDay ( talk) 13:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
PS: If Daicaregos want to continue to ABF, fine. Meanwhile, I'm not reverting my edits for his sake. GoodDay ( talk) 14:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
That sounds good but if you can't get any progress there open an RFC on the issue-- Cailil talk 22:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of the merits of this particular case, the fact remains that we have a pattern of behaviour. If GoodDay gets frustrated on one article, we have seen a mass of small edits related to the the theme. The sheer number of people going to GoodDay's talk page and asking him to modify his behaviour is becoming legion. Sooner or later that behaviour is going to result in another ANI report, or possibly a series of such reports. Its a lot to ask Cailil, but I think it would be a service to the community if you could have a look at the general pattern of edits and provide some advice as a neutral party with some knowledge of the area. Fully understand if you have better things to do! -- Snowded TALK 05:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Cailil, you say GoodDay's changes were made in good faith. I would like to draw your attention to a few things that led up to him changing these boxing articles. There was a discussion concerning the intro of the UK article in which GoodDay took a particular stance. At one stage in the discussion it looked probable that GoodDays preferred choice would be the one to prevail. At this stage he left this rather smug post at Daicarego's talk page who differed in opinion as to how the intro should be written. After some time opinion changed and the editors involved came to an agreement that did not include GoodDays choice of words, so he posted this message on the article talk page. Obviously not too pleased. Now, take a look here at the date he started on the boxing articles, articles that he knows Daicaregos takes a specific interest in. Coincidence that it is not long after he knew his preferred version of the intro would not be introduced? I know what I think but I'll leave it to you to decide what you think. Cheers. Carson101 ( talk) 15:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Toug ma Tojer appears to be a new editor, blissfully unaware of the dangerous waters in which they tread. Perhaps you could keep a weather eye out? RashersTierney ( talk) 18:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Howdy Cailil. I'll go the safe way & merely delete comments from my talkpage. Though it would seem rude to the posters who's post would be deleted, it would keep the temperature down. Also, in exchange, I'll refrain from futher comments at the Naming convention-in-question. GoodDay ( talk) 15:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Talk page |
Admin |
Logs |
Awards |
Books |
Hello, Cailil. I'm not going to give an opinion on this, though I do have one. What I will say is this, why has this gone on so long and in so many places? To be honest, I'm not sure I could have taken the abuse you have taken up to now, but then that's probably a good reason I would never be an admin. I'm actually surprised there are no more admins intervening in this. Don't let it get you down mate. Jack forbes ( talk) 00:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Given the punishments you have handed out to the like of Triton Rocker, I and others for far more minor incivlities, can you explain to me why Dunlavin Green's latest contributions have passed without your comment or action?
"there is number of British nationalist posters here who have an agenda to remove all opposition ... you'll see their purpose on Wikipedia is to advance British nationalist articles like this one ... more bigoted, anti-Irish group of editors ... British nationalist hijacking of an international figure ... Snowded? He was a bright fella too, but got a woeful slew of shíte from the British nationalists for daring to empathise with the Irish on this issue ... all your royalist nonsense is fine online but ... screaming British nationalist pov ... flag-waving John Bull editor ... there is number of British nationalist posters here ... their purpose on Wikipedia is to advance British nationalist articles like this one ... A more bigoted, anti-Irish group of editors you will not find in Wikipedia ... if we could just move all traces of resistance to this British nationalist term from this article everything would be so much more aesthetically pleasing to our jingoistic friends over in Britain."
Examples
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:British_Isles&diff=prev&oldid=384364459
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bono&action=historysubmit&diff=376098659&oldid=375868316
-- LevenBoy ( talk) 00:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I rather belatedly saw the change from M.Litt to PhD. Many congrats... no wonder you've been very busy in the last year or so! It must be a relief to have it done, unless you've now got to adapt the dissertation as a book, when you don't want to look at the bloody thing ever again! -- Slp1 ( talk) 13:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:PLACE only refers to "conventions for determining the titles of Wikipedia articles on places". The problems we have go much further than that. Thank you for the offer, I would like to take you up and report what I and other see as a long-term "campaign to remove the term British Isles" from the Wikipedia. Firstly, as you have such in an interest in my conduct over the conduct of others, could you please inform me clearly and specifically with examples of what you will consider as acceptable reportage and unacceptable reportage? I do not want to make a report in language that is unacceptable to you for it then to be used against me. Obvious to do so I will have to name names and present my assumptions of their intention which you seem to specifically object to. Secondly, regarding your comment at WP:VERIFY. I know very well what your concerns and opinions about my contributions to the Wikipedia are and I have my own opinions about them. You really don't need to follow me around re-stating them in a way others might consider to be "poisoning the well" of other discussions. I approached you respectfully for advice. If I step towards the line of what you consider acceptable, please contact me via my talk page if you must. I am sure others will find such comments if they are interested. LemonMonday's RfCs are entirely separate from mine. I don't think the problem can be resolved by consensus. I don't think there is any point rehashing the British Isles issue with the same individual due to a lack of manual of style and the weak, undefined policy in this area. I think it has to be resolved at a policy level. -- LevenBoy ( talk) 23:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
(undent)LB, HK was perfectly ok to notify myself and BlackKite - we've been active in patrolling the area (also he said in each of his posts that he had contacted both of us) and that was TFOWR's direction. Please try to be more conservative in your descriptions of other user's actions.
Re the mediation yes an RFC before that might help - but if not do contact
the MedCab but have a goal in mind - ie 'to agree on the use of BI or B&I wrt to the WP:MOS'. Generalized not getting along can't be mediated as such.
The 'distractions' will cease if olive branches are extended--
Cailil
talk 13:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Normally I'd ask TFOWR but he's caught up in RL right now. Also posted to BlackKites Talk. Just a heads up on this, this and the creation of this category. What to do? -- HighKing ( talk) 18:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Shall I call 911? LevenBoy seems to have deserted the 'pedia. GoodDay ( talk) 11:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
(Also posted at BlackKite's Talk page) Despite
this discussion at BISE, LemonBoyLemonMonday has immediately
reverted. Reluctant as I am to take this to AN/I, is there any alternative? And if I take it to AN/I, is it right to also bring up the recent
SPI case (at the time I was advised to let it ride because LB had "disappeared", but given what's going on now...) --
HighKing (
talk) 21:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
(undent)No LM you're edit-warring. If GD was wrong ask him to self-revert or ask him his position. You're using the revert function improperly. Stop-- Cailil talk 17:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC) HK my talk-page is not a circus and talk-pages are not for the expression of opinions about others. I will follow my own judgement here-- Cailil talk 17:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Shall I call 911?, LemonMonday seems to have deserted us. GoodDay ( talk) 11:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Cailil. I'd like to point you to the above. It's possible that I just I can't see where you have been notified< so thought I'd do it. Jack forbes ( talk) 16:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Howdy Cailil. I was considering opening up one of those, in order to end all doubts, which would be good for both suspectors & suspectees. However, I'm not entirely certain how to open an SPI. GoodDay ( talk) 16:31, 27 November 2010 (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.
Rather than continue the discussion on Jehochman talk page, I would appreciate being able to discuss matters with you directly, just human being to human being, and out from under the usual hail of threats and policy acronyms. Could you step out of the role you have as an admin on the Wikipedia and do just that?
OK, so I did not know what the mediation page did not tell me to do. It is no big deal. I figured that you and half a dozen others have me on your watchlist anyway and so I did not need to, that it was handled as part of the process.
I wanted to discuss matters with you, with a witness involved, so that I could have a second interpretation or third opinion on what was happening and would not be banned unfairly for attempting to do so reasonably by my standards.
Will you do that without someone else being involved? -- LevenBoy ( talk) 16:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, LemonMonday is correct. It is well established. There is nothing incorrect about removing comments from one's talk page. What point are you trying to make?
Secondly, I am absolutely sure that reporting provocative abuses to an admin does fall under "being restricted from commenting on others". I approached a responsible admin first (you, at 03:30, 15 Nov), to AVOID your allegations of becoming personal. Here is another one. I am absolutely sure that if I called someone a "POV driven SPA" I would be instantly banned. [16] Why are these abuses not addressed equally?
OK, so let's stick to honest discussion, and avoid debating or lawyering, because we have much to agree upon. For example, both your sanction and policies are far too broad and undefined. I would still prefer a moderated discussion rather than just one on one as we need to build trust as well.
As a starting point, you are free to asks me any question to clarify what my motivations really are.-- LevenBoy ( talk) 16:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to comment there because I guess I'm "involved". I would say "No" to the LevenBoy civility block and "Yes" to the LemonMonday topic ban. And I heartily "second" your encouraging of both of them to respond there: but I'm not "holding my breath" about it... Doc talk 05:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Then there is nothing to do except keep a record including edit difs of anything that is evidence of WP:DE; and in the meantime hope a consensus holds at the Feminism article. I've no idea what more I can say though on the talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, please can you clarify your COI comments you made on User_talk:Sandstein as that's a very serious issue, many thanks. I'll give you 24 hours to reply, (and you can every single minute of that time period to do so)-- Shakehandsman ( talk) 21:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Feminism 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. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. - Mabeenot ( talk) 20:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up at Dr. Al's Talk. I wasn't sure that admins actually still used a broom and dustpan. Have you any word of my ole mentor? Buster Seven Talk 17:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Buster7 has given you a Nice Koekjes which promote fellowship, goodwill and WikiLove. Hopefully this one 'hits the spot' and has made your day better. While I was here I noticed a Discussion above regarding Incivility. With your permission, I have borrowed your capsulation of what to do and added it to User:Buster7/Incivility#Grenades are NOT UN-Redeemable Please accept this Nice Koekjes as small payment for the use of your words. Feel free to share by giving someone else one. Maybe to a friend or, better yet, to someone you have had disagreements with in the past. Nice Biscuits are very tasty and have been known to be so NICE, they will even bake themselves. Enjoy! Buster Seven Talk 18:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zimbazumba. I had been thinking of starting an SPI myself. I have commented there and requested a checkuser. JamesBWatson ( talk) 20:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
We've now together experienced two editors whose behavior was problematic (you criticized one and maybe you don't agree on the other) and with whom you may had previous contact under other IDs of theirs—one as a previously-blocked user (blocked again since) and the other having previously posted under an IP. The problematic behavior cost me hours for disentangling. Outing is generally inapropos absent a complaint requiring it. I'm not enthusing about seeking their departure via a complaint because, in perennial controversies, like-minded people keep turning up anyway. You're an admin. Are you interested in knowing of either case? The earlier editor does not seem to have returned under another name and the newer editor might or might not reappear, so maybe it's moot, but maybe not. Your thought? Nick Levinson ( talk) 21:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
I, Kaldari, hereby award Cailil The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar for his work on rooting out abusive sockpuppets. Kaldari ( talk) 20:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC) |
=) Thanks Kaladari- Cailil talk 20:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Could you please take a look at Talk:Matriarchy? You can guess which editor and I are in substantial and, repeated disagreement. We agree on a few things. The editor, who is not an admin, is being a flamethrower and continues to repeat and exaggerate charges and to charge pre-emptively. Apparently, my inclusion of one controversial writer has led the editor to try to destroy as much else as possible, and to believe that it is impermissible for me to do research that might result in re-adding the writer. There are continuing accusations of my misrepresenting sources without finding a single instance of my doing so. There are repeated efforts to have me justify including something neither of us wants to include and, to my knowledge, has never been in the article. There is a gradual narrowing of the areas of disagreement, but not by much, and now the editor plans to not respond anymore but merely to edit without discussion ("I'm taking a break from this conversation so knock yourself out with your replies.... When I come back, I'll delete the [list item] ..."), which suggests refusing progress toward consensus. The subject itself attracts a lot of hostility and editors usually want to remove, not fix; gradually the editorial relationship among many editors is improving, but very, very slowly. Thank you in advance for your advice. Nick Levinson ( talk) 17:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello! You are invited to participate in the
Theatre Project's
Collaboration of the Month. This time it's the
Theatre article. In the last 30 days, this article received 52,500
hits, or roughly 2,000 every day. Hope you can help! Nominate an article that could be greatly improved. |
I'd be fascinated to receive a link to whichever policy says, "Editors who swear in edit-summaries are liable to be blocked," because I've got a whole drawer full of diffs of people who need to be dealt with on that basis, and I'll get it over to you straight away. However, I'm more interested at the moment in what is your opinion on this comment of Sarek's. Do you think it was appropriate/useful/constructive/permissible? ╟─ Treasury Tag► voice vote─╢ 15:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Per SoV's request I added language to specify the scope of the proposed ban. Please have a look to make sure you still support the proposal. Thanks. Griswaldo ( talk) 16:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Cailil, I saw your post here, noting your intolerance of overt racism (“if I see anyone using or endorsing (whether tacitly or openly) racist, bigoted, sectarian, or any other form of hate speech or chauvinism they will be indefinitely blocked in line with WP:CIVIL, WP:DE and WP:BATTLE”). Would you mind taking a look at edits at David Haye here, the User:Talk page discussion here and the response at my Talk page here. I expect this is far too late to act on now, but I would appreciate your advice on how to handle anything similar in the future if you have the time. Many thanks, Daicaregos ( talk)
You recently comment on an issue to do with Template:British Isles. The template has been protected to allow for discussion of its title.
It has been possible to change the title of this template on a page-by-page basis. Titles that have been used on different pages being:
A user has raised the question of whether this practice is a violation of NPOV.
A list of alternative solutions (aside form those being reverted between) is invited also. --RA ( talk) 21:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I will try to but i am pretty busy these months myself. Real life, major work. Hope you are well, I may write more, Slrubenstein | Talk 17:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, so you've topic banned me. You were entitled to do so based on the wording of the sanctions, but I would appreciate your explanation of the the following: The sanction states "Any editor who systematically adds or removes the term "British Isles" from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification, or who edit-wars over such addition or removal, may be added to the list of topic-banned editors.. ". However, since 10th May 2011 User:HighKing has removed seven instances of British Isles and fact tagged one other. Some of the removals are straight unsourced substitutions with an alternative term and some are sourced. Bear in mind, however, that it's relatively easy to find sources providing an alternative usage of most terms if one looks hard enough. I suggest that these recent removals are systematic in their nature and are therefore a breach of the sanction. It is widely understood now that the sanctions are still in force. It's also perhaps worth drawing your attention to this edit: [18]. HighKing is obviously keen to develop standards for BI usage and by his self revert has indicated that a moratorium on removals would be in order during their development. However, since no other editor has been forthcoming with ideas, rather than put forward his own suggestions he's recommenced removal - on a systematic basis. As I noted earlier, even the sourced replacements are systematic in nature.
I have not edit warred on the majority of these articles, engaging in just one revert in each case, with one exception where the article was also subject to edit warring by two other editors. My question is simple; why do my actions warrant a topic ban when HighKing's actions don't even draw a comment? I again suggest his BI removals are systematic in nature and therefore subject to sanction. LevenBoy ( talk) 21:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Had you noticed this has reopened? I only did today. I stopped looking in after discussion faded away. Now I've put it on my watchlist. I've just checked and find the preceding one was opened just over two years ago and has still not been closed and archived. Peter jackson ( talk) 14:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I have proposed another interaction ban between TreasuryTag and SarekOfVulcan. Since you commented in the last ban discussion that failed to gain consensus I am notifying you of this one. See - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Propose_interaction_ban_between_TreasuryTag_and_SarekOfVulcan_2. Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 21:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Dear administrator,
I am not really sure if you are in fact an administrator at AE or not, but I am posting this message anyway since I found your name among the decision-making administrators in AE cases. If it's not too much to ask, could you please review the AE case on MarshallBagramyan? The whole case is based on an imposed indefinite restriction for not labeling authors any names or dismissing them based on their nationality, place of birth or publication, ethnic group, religion or similar general characteristic (and the report clearly said “This restriction is to be enforced by blocks or other discretionary sanctions”) and violation of another topic ban earlier in 2010 when the user violated his ban twice and went unnoticed? The reported user MB has taken this report out of context by posting long blocks of replies which had already wrote last time he was reported and diverting the attention of the readers and administrator away from the subject which is an imposed ban and his violation of it. All I am asking is for administrators to take action on the violation of restriction for fair and just decision. Angel670 talk 17:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Cailil, I need some advice. I just do not know what to do about GoodDay. His latest wheez is to change a series of infobox nationality fields to British, directly against WP:UKNATIONALS and MOS:FLAGS. He is aware of both of these. I left a note on his Talkpage requesting that he self-revert, which he deleted (with a charming edit summary). I don't want flame what appears to be a volitile situation, but something should be done. I just don't know what. Thanks, Daicaregos ( talk) 13:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what to do with Daicaregos. If he wants to revert my changes per BRD, so be it, as I'm finished with boxing article infoboxes. He's forever shoving English, Scottish, Northern Irish & particulary Welsh in my face & on top of that, continously seeking somekinda banishment on me. His OTT Enforcement report on me, was only another example of his attempts to be rid of me. GoodDay ( talk) 13:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
PS: If Daicaregos want to continue to ABF, fine. Meanwhile, I'm not reverting my edits for his sake. GoodDay ( talk) 14:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
That sounds good but if you can't get any progress there open an RFC on the issue-- Cailil talk 22:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of the merits of this particular case, the fact remains that we have a pattern of behaviour. If GoodDay gets frustrated on one article, we have seen a mass of small edits related to the the theme. The sheer number of people going to GoodDay's talk page and asking him to modify his behaviour is becoming legion. Sooner or later that behaviour is going to result in another ANI report, or possibly a series of such reports. Its a lot to ask Cailil, but I think it would be a service to the community if you could have a look at the general pattern of edits and provide some advice as a neutral party with some knowledge of the area. Fully understand if you have better things to do! -- Snowded TALK 05:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Cailil, you say GoodDay's changes were made in good faith. I would like to draw your attention to a few things that led up to him changing these boxing articles. There was a discussion concerning the intro of the UK article in which GoodDay took a particular stance. At one stage in the discussion it looked probable that GoodDays preferred choice would be the one to prevail. At this stage he left this rather smug post at Daicarego's talk page who differed in opinion as to how the intro should be written. After some time opinion changed and the editors involved came to an agreement that did not include GoodDays choice of words, so he posted this message on the article talk page. Obviously not too pleased. Now, take a look here at the date he started on the boxing articles, articles that he knows Daicaregos takes a specific interest in. Coincidence that it is not long after he knew his preferred version of the intro would not be introduced? I know what I think but I'll leave it to you to decide what you think. Cheers. Carson101 ( talk) 15:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Toug ma Tojer appears to be a new editor, blissfully unaware of the dangerous waters in which they tread. Perhaps you could keep a weather eye out? RashersTierney ( talk) 18:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Howdy Cailil. I'll go the safe way & merely delete comments from my talkpage. Though it would seem rude to the posters who's post would be deleted, it would keep the temperature down. Also, in exchange, I'll refrain from futher comments at the Naming convention-in-question. GoodDay ( talk) 15:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)