![]() Talk page |
![]() Admin |
![]() Logs |
![]() Awards |
![]() Books |
Several other editors have drawn my attention to this chappie: User talk:ÓCorcráin. I think he's in the same position I was in when I first started editing. He knows what he wants to write but, like me, he doesn't realise what he's getting himself into when editing articles about the Troubles. He's polite and seems erudite but he's getting frustrated because some of his edits are being reverted. I've looked at his most recent ones regarding the Provisional IRA and I think one of the regular contributors there will revert him. The danger, in my opinion, is that his frustration will cause him to be rash. I've left him a couple of nice messages and invited him to look at the UDR article to see what I've done there but perhaps a couple of pointers from you might save tears for everybody in the long run. We all know what happens when teddy gets thrown from the pram. SonofSetanta ( talk) 08:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
It was a valiant effort to close that topic, but, unfortunately, once a topic devolves into the admin vs. non-admin bottomless pit, it's doomed. Regards.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 14:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Cailil I feel I need to draw your attention to someone who is edit warring at Operation Banner. It is User:Asarlaí. I have not raised any complaint on any notice board because I don't want to start a bout of ill feeling between editors. I respect your judgement in these matters and won't be jumping on any bandwagons. I just want to see this type of thing stopped. The edit warring can be seen here here and I have left a message for Asarlai here. I won't go into the content - you can draw your own conclusions. SonofSetanta ( talk) 10:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
OK Cailil. SonofSetanta ( talk) 15:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I need to draw your attention to here. Unfortunately I know from the many incidents of the past that talking to this individual makes no difference. Rather than having my extremely enjoyable time on here marred by getting involved in a WP:BATTLE I've decided to nip it in the bud. No doubt there'll be some dirt dragged up on me but I'm just going to have to suffer it. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to give me a character reference? I'd be grateful. SonofSetanta ( talk) 11:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
By all means close the discussion at the Arbitration Noticeboard. I've got your message loud and clear and hopefully so has Mo-aimn which was exactly my purpose in raising the complaint. I could have just done what I normally do and alerted you here and sought advice. The thing is though: I AM enjoying myself on Wikipedia now, whereas before I was having to fight all the time to be allowed to edit anything in because you and I know that there are republican and unionist cabals on here and they both fought for a long time to try and establish their own POV on articles to do with the troubles. It was shocking. I wanted nothing to do with it then and I want nothing to do with it now. I belong to NO cabals or tag teams. I work alone or in conjunction with other editors who want me to work with them, and there are a few. I was stupid enough to allow the WP:BATTLE to affect me when I was User:GDD1000 and USER:The Thunderer but I'm not going to allow that to happen under this identity. I want a long history of good editing and Good Articles to speak for me, not a long history of blocks.
You, like me, will have noticed certain familiar names recently, getting involved where they weren't involved; trying to do a hatchet job. I was expecting a probe to follow, just like this one, and I suspect there'll be more. I need your help to stop them getting me banned from Wikipedia and from trying to make a mockery of the articles I work on by introducing POV against the manual of style. I know I've chosen a difficult area to work in but it's where my passion lies and the results are good, the wiki is getting benefit from my work. I'll do my bit by staying out of trouble and not falling for the edit war trick but I have my bad days and that's when they might catch me. I know I'm being stalked by editors who just want to find the right opportunity to get me and I know I'm naive enough in some ways and on some days to get careless. Please help me, as you have done in the past. I know I won't get any special treatment from you and I can expect a metaphoric kick up the arse when I do slip up, but I respect your impartial judgement which is why I'm letting you know my fears, founded or unfounded. SonofSetanta ( talk) 13:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
See here and here. I've also put the information on my homepage here. As I've said above: the past is firmly behind me and I only want to do things in a convivial and collegiate manner. I always did but I got suckered into behaving the same way as those who were attacking me. No more succumbing to WP:BATTLE however. SonofSetanta ( talk) 16:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Cailil you told me to "drop it" as far as the complaint went at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mo_ainm. I've done so. It seems however that there's a bit of knife twisting going on. Mo-aimn doesn't seem to want to drop it and there is support for him from two editors who don't appear to know the history of all this or what degree of freedom Troubles Sanctions give to sysops. Mo has gone straight back to the Ulster Special Constabulary article, without discussion and changed the copy again whereas I would have thought a colling off period would have been more advisiable, which is what I'm doing. He hasn't bothered to link his retired account to his new name as you advised. In addition he is again raising the question of my old accounts. From my perspective it's just more of the same old, same old - Mo-aimn seems to be gaming. It may seem like bad faith on my part but previous history would suggest that his only reason for going back to the USC article time after time is to try and get some sort of reaction from me. Will you please intervene? SonofSetanta ( talk) 12:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
You ask him to "drop it" and this is what his next step is, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mo ainm, along with a sob story on each of the editors who SoS felt were less than sympathetic to him by their comments on ANI. Really is amazing the power given to me by SoS and Mabuska that an edit made to one of SoS articles is an attempt to get a topic ban for him. Serious ownership issues. Mo ainm ~Talk 08:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Wolfe Tone Societies. Thank you. —
Psychonaut (
talk) 12:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
See the ANI thread mentioned above and User_talk:Black_Kite#HighKing. I'd be interested in your take on this. I can't see an obvious topic ban breach (based, of course, on the actual topic ban wording), but the complainant is suggesting it should go further than this. Short of spending a long time digging out diffs of your interaction with HK, I thought pinging you here would be better. Black Kite ( talk) 18:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
While I see that there are issues with deliberate attempts to evade WP:IMOS by some I can also see a serious over use of it by others. I am very concerned that your (and otehrs') behaviour of policing terminology is falling into that category of edit which resulted in GoodDay's ban. The IMOS issue itself is adjacent to 4 ArbCom rulings (RFAR/Article titles and capitalisation, RFAR/GoodDay, WP:Troubles, and RFAR/Ireland article names) and 1 community probation (WP:GS/BI). This is not an area where border line behaviours will be tolerated. Furthermore, there is no authority for the MOS to override any policy or normal consensus editing. I will remind you of the actual position of the MOS vis-a-vis policy:Furthermore an area that I stated as concerning 12 months ago was your policing of iMOS, indeed the volume of WP:IMOS edits you make is reiniscent of "gnoming" by GoodDay, but also of your policing of the phrase 'British Isles' above. This was precisely the issue in the GoodDay RFAR (fait a compli) too many edits to too many articles by a single user, seemingly (or actually) with their own agenda.
There is no authority for anyone enforcing or imposing Style elements anywhere, in any situation. WP's MOS is not used in the same way as journals or other publications use a Manual of Style (these are in fact rigid an enforced). Furthermore I have stated this twice in 2 years. We've seen what happens when you don't heed such advice. The IP and Zoombox21 (both now blocked as obvious socks) are engaged in harassment BUT the edit they highlighted at ANI is way out of line. You changed info from a direct quote. You didn't check. Making drive-by terminology policing edits IS A PROBLEM not a positive. Although this isn't a direct breach of your ban it is a problem and if part of a pattern a reason for concern. I don't see a reason to act here but for your own sake I suggest you step back from this type of edit and focus on improving articles holistically rather than gnoming like this - you can see what happened to GoodDay-- Cailil talk 15:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Style guides are used as a means of creating a consistent end result. They do not affect content, but rather how that content is presented. The English Wikipedia's Manual of Style (MoS) is a guideline, or a set of "best practices" supported by consensus. The MoS is not a collection of hard rules." [8]
Cailil the fallout from this copyright lark won't go away. Despite the fact that I've cleared it all up. I wrote a new article, Wolfe Tone Societies and was remiss in not using quotation marks to show where I'd copied and pasted from CAIN and where I'd quoted from several books. User:Psychonaut took exception, blanked the page and accused me of deliberate plagiarism. Because the link for the discussion page didn't work I took it to ANI and asked for the page to be restored so I could fix the errors, as well as moaning about it. Did I open Pandora's Box or what! I've been beaten so hard for daring to take my case there. The culmination of it is that Psychonaut is calling for me to be banned, using the issues I had over copyright a month ago as the basis for it. If you have time, I know you're busy, could you comment on the proposed ban please here. For once I've done nothing wrong. SonofSetanta ( talk) 13:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
You need to depersonalize this SOS. And as general advice don't reply to everything on the ANI thread and don't ask multiple admins the same question. All in all SOS I suggest disenaging from this type of edit. Being able to collaborate is an essential aspect of working here. If you want to keep doing thes eedits you NEED to sort out your relationship with the others, despite what you think they aren't 'out to get you'-- Cailil talk 01:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Calill, I firmly believe SoS is learning, and I am willing to take it on board to help them out as much as possible as they do make many good contributions to Wikipedia, and SoS does appear to appreciate my help compared to the behaviour of some of the editors who do seem to be out to get him. SoS is not the troublesome editor you usually get in Ireland related articles, and through direct showing of how to paraphrase etc., such as I am at the Wolfe Tone Societies article, they will avoid future problems in that area as that is all it seems to be the problem. It makes quite a change! If needs be I will be SoS's mentor as I know and understand the subject field and issues affecting it better than most of those who could be appointed. I also have a greater deal of patience and willingness to work out differences with editors who are willing to do the same and SoS has been showing as of late they are able too compared to other editors you have had to deal with. I will stake my own reputation on it. Mabuska (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Cailil this editor Psychonaut is still lobbying for a ban against me at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_for_CIR_enforcement, despite so many editors opposing his views. Is it just me or does it appear vindictive? His allegations are at best a corruption of the truth. May I ask you to intervene please? SonofSetanta ( talk) 09:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
It's sorted. Kim Dent-Brown stepped in. I've left him a message of thanks. SonofSetanta ( talk) 10:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
You honestly feel that removing two incorrect tags added by an editor after they were told they were wrong is worth a block under 1RR sanctions then knock yourself out but in no way will it "serve to protect the project from harm". And will be to say the least punitive. I have never been an edit warrior in spite of what others scream a quick check will prove that.
Mo ainm
~Talk 18:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I have already asked Sandstein if I can comply with a notice put on File:Ulster_Defence_Regiment_Insignia.jpg. This requires me to change the file from .jpg to .png. Of course that means that on all 18 articles where the file is used the infobox will have to be changed. They're all UDR articles. Sandstein says no. I fail to see why. I have no intentions of breaking my topic ban. What harm can it do to change this image with prior permission? Would you be kind enough to raise the subject with him? SonofSetanta ( talk) 12:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Cailil, could you look at both Owenfighter1000 contribes and my reverts I havent discussed anything yet or than using edit summaries, he seems to have idea of production "nationality" yet ignores when suits. He also has been adding British where ever he can, whether its appropriate or not. Also as mentioned in the first sentence check out my reverts, and pass comment on them aswell, if they where approriate or in appropriate. BTW, Mabuska has post a 1RR and other editors have interacted on his talk page. I have post a message on his last revert since I started this discussion here. Thanks. Murry1975 ( talk) 14:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey Cailil. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.
We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.
Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 22:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Romeo Castellucci, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Accademia di Belle Arti ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh, right, three is edit warring. I thought I might have one left. Anyway, per Kaldari's talk page, I don't really have anything to take up on Feminism's talk page as I'm not familiar with the relevant WikiProjects' requirements for notability, which is the last reason my edit was reverted and which is the only one I can understand so far. In my personal life, I happen to think men's rights concerns are underrepresented (although not really the job of the feminist movement), but if I had nothing but my own insights I'd take the issue somewhere other than Wikipedia. Tezero ( talk) 18:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Cailil, just a note to say thank you very much for the barnstar. It was a nice thing waiting to greet me today when I came online. :) SlimVirgin (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
You dealt with this before judging by user page. [9]. Blitz editing 15 IMOS edits in 5 minutes. New record? Dubs boy ( talk) 21:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello admin Cailil,
I was ever topic banned by you on June but I quite trust you to fairly carry out admin management on this topic and enforce the discretionary sanctions mandated by Arbcom decision in the Senaku Islands RfAr if it is needed. Now an ongoing discussion has been involved in starting a new RfC regarding the sensitive naming issue [10] [11]. May I request you to pay some attention on that talk page. I plan to draft the new RfC so just in case I may ask your help for some technical issue, and hope I can get such help. Thank you in advance. -- Lvhis ( talk) 01:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
When you have a moment, take a look at this new article. As an aside, the link to their website is on the blacklist.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 01:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey Cailil, happy new year. Last we wrote, you said you'd review the topic ban after 6 months, which I believe might have been up last month. I know it takes a lot of time and you like to look over the edits I've made for the past 6 months, so no panic, take your time. I've no compelling reason for asking for you to do a review, I've no plans for any editing in that topic area and I've just been plodding along really. Distracted by other stuff. But the topic ban kinda hangs over like a black cloud and I'd like for it to be lifted. Thanks. -- HighKing ( talk) 22:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
The approach to editing cannot be based on erasure if one source isn't good enough. The prime directive on WP beyond all other rules is the Editing policy which is summarized as: "Preserve the value that others add, even if they "did it wrong" (try to fix it rather than delete it)." Removing an explanation as to the fact that Cecil Day-Lewis was Anglo-Irish does not improve wikipedia. Something being in the lede is not enough. The lede summarizes the article's contents. I mentioned this the last time I granted an appeal of your ban - you should be sourcing material to better books rather than finding a way to remove and/or insert the opposite POV.
Now you were correct that the material which was sourced to the Bloomsbury book probably came from a wiki (TBH I suspect it came from wikipedia initially and was then copied to goodreads and then put in the book and then back on wikipedia) but what was needed here was another approach.
I will be looking at many more edits but I'm not happy with this approach to editing (by anyone) in the WP:TROUBLES area or topics adjacent to it, and the fact is whether someone is or is not, how, and the definition of, Anglo-Irish, does fall within that ambit because the portrayal of individuals as British or Irish who have a more complex status is British Nationalism related to Ireland and/or Irish Nationalism related to Britain-- Cailil talk 13:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Finding a better reference and adding it is step 2. Building on that to improve the article in a holistic fashion is step 3. When we have 6+ years of step 2 & 3 never being taken and instead a pattern of deletion or deletion and insertion of contra-POV material in a drive-by manner then we have a problem.
On the matter of edits around the term Anglo-Irish: you took part in an RFC on talk:Francis Bacon regarding it 14 months ago. There have also been intermittent edit wars about this issue at C. S. Lewis, and while you did not take part in those you must have been aware of them, the article should be on your watchlist, especially considering you first edited it in 2011 [14] and jumped in with a revert in October 2013.
I'm happy to review the edits since your ban was reinstated HK but you need to listen to the feedback. One of my biggest pieces of advice was for you to move away from "gnoming" and approach article development in a more in-depth fashion. That's what I'm looking for - it's something you can still work on-- Cailil talk 00:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Maybe calling him English rather than Anglo-Irish would make more sense seeing as he grew up (aged 2 when he moved to England) and spent most of his life in England, just like Oxford Dictionaries have classified him as. Britannica cites him as a British poet. Mabuska (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
To users other than HK please leave this discussion alone. I am very capable of searching HK's edit history on my own. Also this is not a place to rehash content issues.
HK you don't get it. Searching the web is not the best way to create a high quality biography. I stated above the biography I cited isn't available on the net. Library work is necessary. Really and truly there is a problem with jumping into a topic that one has only read minimally about and assuming one can debate the merits of deleting material without replacing it with people who have read on the topic. IMHO many of the users who frequented WP:BISE and its successor pages are guilty of this kind of editing/thinking. It is the opposite of best practice for creating high quality encyclopedic material (please read the linked article of Anti-patterns - it is illustrative of the issue here). Again as per WP:IMPROVE even when somebody does something wrong every effort should be made to "preserve the value that others add". You saw what happened to GoodDay - you need to move away from edits of this type and editing from this position of in-depth & technical Wikipedia guideline knowledge but comparatively shallow topic/subject research. Google does not have all the answers and relying on it is bad practice. You're position above is that the exact text is not reproduced in a google search. You should be going to biographies and reading broadly and citing them - whatever they say. Not trying to prove or disprove the text which was removed.
Also yes arguing with me about this will only delay the process-- Cailil talk 17:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
HighKing, on review and in light of my comments and those of a second sysop last time I’m not over-turning my decision to topic ban you from edits relating to changes of the term “British Isles”. This is due to the lack of change in patterns of behaviour identified by both myself and EdJohnston. Last time around Ed said that "[you] should leave it to other editors to fix any style issues involving Great Britain, Ireland or the British Isles". This is advice you have not followed.
One of the key issues for me in the reinstatement of your ban was that "The problem is not that you get it wrong on occassion, it's that you think it appropriate to edit an article just to change instances of the use of a term". This approach to edits seems to have continued. Gnoming can be a net positive to Wikipedia but as I have repeatedly stated (and as ArbCom pointed out vis-à-vis GoodDay) mass changes without consensus that police a terminology/styling issues are not helpful. Given that the current ban was reinstated in light of a return to inappropriate behaviours after a period of good editing I would need to see a substantial change in practice to remove the ban.
I’m not at all saying these are bad edits. But what I am saying is what I’ve said for a long time: indefinite topic bans are by definition not lifted on the basis of passage of time. Indefinite topic bans are lifted based on change in patterns of behaviour and diversification in areas of editing. You need to broaden the topics you edit in and avoid mass gnomish edits. Currently you’re not in that position, but there is progress. Most recently however there has been some backsliding (the CS Lewis issue and the Belfast/Good Friday agreement edits). My suggestion is take some time (at least 6 months from now – no earlier than June 20th 2014) and implement these suggestions. Edit articles holistically, improve one article consistently to a high standard and avoid mass changes to terminology or MOS “enforcement” and come back to me-- Cailil talk 00:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment over the draft text for DS. Would you mind chatting here about my idea for bot logging? The idea is neither to canvass nor to create chaos of WP:MULTI but to help me understand my own shortcomings in conception or presentation of the concept.
The general idea is to tell a bot a few of the top-level articles squarely within jurisdiction of a DS ruling. For example, Global warming would fall under the "climate change" ruling. For each new edit at the article or talk page, the bot looks at the username, and checks the alert log for that subject area. If the user is not listed, the bot issues the alert and logs it. And that's it. With my very limited knowledge of wiki programming, this seems technically super simple. Some eds have said it requires too much discretion, but that answer suggests to me that these eds are thinking the alerts mean some sort of problematic edit instead of just an FYI that is merited after the first edit, even if the first edit is helpful!
Concerns were also expressed that lots of articles only have overlap. For example, one can write a lot about Hurricane Sandy without crossing into ARBCC territory. My proposal has a simple solution for these: on these articles we just do what we are already envisioning doing without a bot.
Thus, without a bot, eds would issue and log the alerts on each other for all articles. Several eds have opined that no matter what words are used, people would still view the giving of alerts as being something more significant than an FYI. They would be wrong, of course, because the alerts are envisioned to be just and FYI. Nonetheless, if the only way we do this with eds issuing/logging on each other, a false badge-of-shame impression will endure.
If instead we rely on a bot to issue & log alerts to users at top articles, many eds will be auto-alerted by the bot upon their first edit in the subject area, rather than by an opposing disputant. The articles the bot can't handle (like Hurrican Sandy) will have to still be monitored by eds, but they'll be doing that in a culture molded by use of the nonjudgmental bot, which should destigmatize the issuance and logging of alerts even by eds on cross-over types of articles.
Thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 18:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
That "people would still view the giving of alerts as being something more significant than an FYI" is not resolvable by argument. The fact is an alert is an FYI not a warning. People can believe what they like - it doesn't change facts. Up to now ppl were formally warned now they wont be expect as a result of Arbitration enforcement action. In other areas where community probation is in force such a system already exists and has done so for some time - it has yet to run into problems (see template:uw-probation)-- Cailil talk 16:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
To respect your request for other users to leave the HK review discussion alone, I'm posting this in a new section. In response to your comment which is directed at me: "Also this is not a place to rehash content issues." - I must explicitly state that I have never been involved in a dispute over the Cecil Day Lewis article never mind with HK over it and having never ever made an edit to it or it's talk page. I was simply stating as a talk-page stalker a simple resolution that seemed non-controversial. In fact I can't remember when I was last in dispute with HK, oddly me and him have agreed more on things over the past couple of years we have interacted than not agreed. So I think the tone you took was slightly over the top. Not in regards to Dubs boy though as they where flinging things up. Mabuska (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() Talk page |
![]() Admin |
![]() Logs |
![]() Awards |
![]() Books |
Several other editors have drawn my attention to this chappie: User talk:ÓCorcráin. I think he's in the same position I was in when I first started editing. He knows what he wants to write but, like me, he doesn't realise what he's getting himself into when editing articles about the Troubles. He's polite and seems erudite but he's getting frustrated because some of his edits are being reverted. I've looked at his most recent ones regarding the Provisional IRA and I think one of the regular contributors there will revert him. The danger, in my opinion, is that his frustration will cause him to be rash. I've left him a couple of nice messages and invited him to look at the UDR article to see what I've done there but perhaps a couple of pointers from you might save tears for everybody in the long run. We all know what happens when teddy gets thrown from the pram. SonofSetanta ( talk) 08:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
It was a valiant effort to close that topic, but, unfortunately, once a topic devolves into the admin vs. non-admin bottomless pit, it's doomed. Regards.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 14:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Cailil I feel I need to draw your attention to someone who is edit warring at Operation Banner. It is User:Asarlaí. I have not raised any complaint on any notice board because I don't want to start a bout of ill feeling between editors. I respect your judgement in these matters and won't be jumping on any bandwagons. I just want to see this type of thing stopped. The edit warring can be seen here here and I have left a message for Asarlai here. I won't go into the content - you can draw your own conclusions. SonofSetanta ( talk) 10:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
OK Cailil. SonofSetanta ( talk) 15:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I need to draw your attention to here. Unfortunately I know from the many incidents of the past that talking to this individual makes no difference. Rather than having my extremely enjoyable time on here marred by getting involved in a WP:BATTLE I've decided to nip it in the bud. No doubt there'll be some dirt dragged up on me but I'm just going to have to suffer it. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to give me a character reference? I'd be grateful. SonofSetanta ( talk) 11:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
By all means close the discussion at the Arbitration Noticeboard. I've got your message loud and clear and hopefully so has Mo-aimn which was exactly my purpose in raising the complaint. I could have just done what I normally do and alerted you here and sought advice. The thing is though: I AM enjoying myself on Wikipedia now, whereas before I was having to fight all the time to be allowed to edit anything in because you and I know that there are republican and unionist cabals on here and they both fought for a long time to try and establish their own POV on articles to do with the troubles. It was shocking. I wanted nothing to do with it then and I want nothing to do with it now. I belong to NO cabals or tag teams. I work alone or in conjunction with other editors who want me to work with them, and there are a few. I was stupid enough to allow the WP:BATTLE to affect me when I was User:GDD1000 and USER:The Thunderer but I'm not going to allow that to happen under this identity. I want a long history of good editing and Good Articles to speak for me, not a long history of blocks.
You, like me, will have noticed certain familiar names recently, getting involved where they weren't involved; trying to do a hatchet job. I was expecting a probe to follow, just like this one, and I suspect there'll be more. I need your help to stop them getting me banned from Wikipedia and from trying to make a mockery of the articles I work on by introducing POV against the manual of style. I know I've chosen a difficult area to work in but it's where my passion lies and the results are good, the wiki is getting benefit from my work. I'll do my bit by staying out of trouble and not falling for the edit war trick but I have my bad days and that's when they might catch me. I know I'm being stalked by editors who just want to find the right opportunity to get me and I know I'm naive enough in some ways and on some days to get careless. Please help me, as you have done in the past. I know I won't get any special treatment from you and I can expect a metaphoric kick up the arse when I do slip up, but I respect your impartial judgement which is why I'm letting you know my fears, founded or unfounded. SonofSetanta ( talk) 13:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
See here and here. I've also put the information on my homepage here. As I've said above: the past is firmly behind me and I only want to do things in a convivial and collegiate manner. I always did but I got suckered into behaving the same way as those who were attacking me. No more succumbing to WP:BATTLE however. SonofSetanta ( talk) 16:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Cailil you told me to "drop it" as far as the complaint went at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mo_ainm. I've done so. It seems however that there's a bit of knife twisting going on. Mo-aimn doesn't seem to want to drop it and there is support for him from two editors who don't appear to know the history of all this or what degree of freedom Troubles Sanctions give to sysops. Mo has gone straight back to the Ulster Special Constabulary article, without discussion and changed the copy again whereas I would have thought a colling off period would have been more advisiable, which is what I'm doing. He hasn't bothered to link his retired account to his new name as you advised. In addition he is again raising the question of my old accounts. From my perspective it's just more of the same old, same old - Mo-aimn seems to be gaming. It may seem like bad faith on my part but previous history would suggest that his only reason for going back to the USC article time after time is to try and get some sort of reaction from me. Will you please intervene? SonofSetanta ( talk) 12:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
You ask him to "drop it" and this is what his next step is, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mo ainm, along with a sob story on each of the editors who SoS felt were less than sympathetic to him by their comments on ANI. Really is amazing the power given to me by SoS and Mabuska that an edit made to one of SoS articles is an attempt to get a topic ban for him. Serious ownership issues. Mo ainm ~Talk 08:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Wolfe Tone Societies. Thank you. —
Psychonaut (
talk) 12:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
See the ANI thread mentioned above and User_talk:Black_Kite#HighKing. I'd be interested in your take on this. I can't see an obvious topic ban breach (based, of course, on the actual topic ban wording), but the complainant is suggesting it should go further than this. Short of spending a long time digging out diffs of your interaction with HK, I thought pinging you here would be better. Black Kite ( talk) 18:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
While I see that there are issues with deliberate attempts to evade WP:IMOS by some I can also see a serious over use of it by others. I am very concerned that your (and otehrs') behaviour of policing terminology is falling into that category of edit which resulted in GoodDay's ban. The IMOS issue itself is adjacent to 4 ArbCom rulings (RFAR/Article titles and capitalisation, RFAR/GoodDay, WP:Troubles, and RFAR/Ireland article names) and 1 community probation (WP:GS/BI). This is not an area where border line behaviours will be tolerated. Furthermore, there is no authority for the MOS to override any policy or normal consensus editing. I will remind you of the actual position of the MOS vis-a-vis policy:Furthermore an area that I stated as concerning 12 months ago was your policing of iMOS, indeed the volume of WP:IMOS edits you make is reiniscent of "gnoming" by GoodDay, but also of your policing of the phrase 'British Isles' above. This was precisely the issue in the GoodDay RFAR (fait a compli) too many edits to too many articles by a single user, seemingly (or actually) with their own agenda.
There is no authority for anyone enforcing or imposing Style elements anywhere, in any situation. WP's MOS is not used in the same way as journals or other publications use a Manual of Style (these are in fact rigid an enforced). Furthermore I have stated this twice in 2 years. We've seen what happens when you don't heed such advice. The IP and Zoombox21 (both now blocked as obvious socks) are engaged in harassment BUT the edit they highlighted at ANI is way out of line. You changed info from a direct quote. You didn't check. Making drive-by terminology policing edits IS A PROBLEM not a positive. Although this isn't a direct breach of your ban it is a problem and if part of a pattern a reason for concern. I don't see a reason to act here but for your own sake I suggest you step back from this type of edit and focus on improving articles holistically rather than gnoming like this - you can see what happened to GoodDay-- Cailil talk 15:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Style guides are used as a means of creating a consistent end result. They do not affect content, but rather how that content is presented. The English Wikipedia's Manual of Style (MoS) is a guideline, or a set of "best practices" supported by consensus. The MoS is not a collection of hard rules." [8]
Cailil the fallout from this copyright lark won't go away. Despite the fact that I've cleared it all up. I wrote a new article, Wolfe Tone Societies and was remiss in not using quotation marks to show where I'd copied and pasted from CAIN and where I'd quoted from several books. User:Psychonaut took exception, blanked the page and accused me of deliberate plagiarism. Because the link for the discussion page didn't work I took it to ANI and asked for the page to be restored so I could fix the errors, as well as moaning about it. Did I open Pandora's Box or what! I've been beaten so hard for daring to take my case there. The culmination of it is that Psychonaut is calling for me to be banned, using the issues I had over copyright a month ago as the basis for it. If you have time, I know you're busy, could you comment on the proposed ban please here. For once I've done nothing wrong. SonofSetanta ( talk) 13:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
You need to depersonalize this SOS. And as general advice don't reply to everything on the ANI thread and don't ask multiple admins the same question. All in all SOS I suggest disenaging from this type of edit. Being able to collaborate is an essential aspect of working here. If you want to keep doing thes eedits you NEED to sort out your relationship with the others, despite what you think they aren't 'out to get you'-- Cailil talk 01:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Calill, I firmly believe SoS is learning, and I am willing to take it on board to help them out as much as possible as they do make many good contributions to Wikipedia, and SoS does appear to appreciate my help compared to the behaviour of some of the editors who do seem to be out to get him. SoS is not the troublesome editor you usually get in Ireland related articles, and through direct showing of how to paraphrase etc., such as I am at the Wolfe Tone Societies article, they will avoid future problems in that area as that is all it seems to be the problem. It makes quite a change! If needs be I will be SoS's mentor as I know and understand the subject field and issues affecting it better than most of those who could be appointed. I also have a greater deal of patience and willingness to work out differences with editors who are willing to do the same and SoS has been showing as of late they are able too compared to other editors you have had to deal with. I will stake my own reputation on it. Mabuska (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Cailil this editor Psychonaut is still lobbying for a ban against me at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_for_CIR_enforcement, despite so many editors opposing his views. Is it just me or does it appear vindictive? His allegations are at best a corruption of the truth. May I ask you to intervene please? SonofSetanta ( talk) 09:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
It's sorted. Kim Dent-Brown stepped in. I've left him a message of thanks. SonofSetanta ( talk) 10:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
You honestly feel that removing two incorrect tags added by an editor after they were told they were wrong is worth a block under 1RR sanctions then knock yourself out but in no way will it "serve to protect the project from harm". And will be to say the least punitive. I have never been an edit warrior in spite of what others scream a quick check will prove that.
Mo ainm
~Talk 18:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I have already asked Sandstein if I can comply with a notice put on File:Ulster_Defence_Regiment_Insignia.jpg. This requires me to change the file from .jpg to .png. Of course that means that on all 18 articles where the file is used the infobox will have to be changed. They're all UDR articles. Sandstein says no. I fail to see why. I have no intentions of breaking my topic ban. What harm can it do to change this image with prior permission? Would you be kind enough to raise the subject with him? SonofSetanta ( talk) 12:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Cailil, could you look at both Owenfighter1000 contribes and my reverts I havent discussed anything yet or than using edit summaries, he seems to have idea of production "nationality" yet ignores when suits. He also has been adding British where ever he can, whether its appropriate or not. Also as mentioned in the first sentence check out my reverts, and pass comment on them aswell, if they where approriate or in appropriate. BTW, Mabuska has post a 1RR and other editors have interacted on his talk page. I have post a message on his last revert since I started this discussion here. Thanks. Murry1975 ( talk) 14:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey Cailil. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.
We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.
Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 22:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Romeo Castellucci, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Accademia di Belle Arti ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh, right, three is edit warring. I thought I might have one left. Anyway, per Kaldari's talk page, I don't really have anything to take up on Feminism's talk page as I'm not familiar with the relevant WikiProjects' requirements for notability, which is the last reason my edit was reverted and which is the only one I can understand so far. In my personal life, I happen to think men's rights concerns are underrepresented (although not really the job of the feminist movement), but if I had nothing but my own insights I'd take the issue somewhere other than Wikipedia. Tezero ( talk) 18:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Cailil, just a note to say thank you very much for the barnstar. It was a nice thing waiting to greet me today when I came online. :) SlimVirgin (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
You dealt with this before judging by user page. [9]. Blitz editing 15 IMOS edits in 5 minutes. New record? Dubs boy ( talk) 21:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello admin Cailil,
I was ever topic banned by you on June but I quite trust you to fairly carry out admin management on this topic and enforce the discretionary sanctions mandated by Arbcom decision in the Senaku Islands RfAr if it is needed. Now an ongoing discussion has been involved in starting a new RfC regarding the sensitive naming issue [10] [11]. May I request you to pay some attention on that talk page. I plan to draft the new RfC so just in case I may ask your help for some technical issue, and hope I can get such help. Thank you in advance. -- Lvhis ( talk) 01:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
When you have a moment, take a look at this new article. As an aside, the link to their website is on the blacklist.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 01:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey Cailil, happy new year. Last we wrote, you said you'd review the topic ban after 6 months, which I believe might have been up last month. I know it takes a lot of time and you like to look over the edits I've made for the past 6 months, so no panic, take your time. I've no compelling reason for asking for you to do a review, I've no plans for any editing in that topic area and I've just been plodding along really. Distracted by other stuff. But the topic ban kinda hangs over like a black cloud and I'd like for it to be lifted. Thanks. -- HighKing ( talk) 22:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
The approach to editing cannot be based on erasure if one source isn't good enough. The prime directive on WP beyond all other rules is the Editing policy which is summarized as: "Preserve the value that others add, even if they "did it wrong" (try to fix it rather than delete it)." Removing an explanation as to the fact that Cecil Day-Lewis was Anglo-Irish does not improve wikipedia. Something being in the lede is not enough. The lede summarizes the article's contents. I mentioned this the last time I granted an appeal of your ban - you should be sourcing material to better books rather than finding a way to remove and/or insert the opposite POV.
Now you were correct that the material which was sourced to the Bloomsbury book probably came from a wiki (TBH I suspect it came from wikipedia initially and was then copied to goodreads and then put in the book and then back on wikipedia) but what was needed here was another approach.
I will be looking at many more edits but I'm not happy with this approach to editing (by anyone) in the WP:TROUBLES area or topics adjacent to it, and the fact is whether someone is or is not, how, and the definition of, Anglo-Irish, does fall within that ambit because the portrayal of individuals as British or Irish who have a more complex status is British Nationalism related to Ireland and/or Irish Nationalism related to Britain-- Cailil talk 13:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Finding a better reference and adding it is step 2. Building on that to improve the article in a holistic fashion is step 3. When we have 6+ years of step 2 & 3 never being taken and instead a pattern of deletion or deletion and insertion of contra-POV material in a drive-by manner then we have a problem.
On the matter of edits around the term Anglo-Irish: you took part in an RFC on talk:Francis Bacon regarding it 14 months ago. There have also been intermittent edit wars about this issue at C. S. Lewis, and while you did not take part in those you must have been aware of them, the article should be on your watchlist, especially considering you first edited it in 2011 [14] and jumped in with a revert in October 2013.
I'm happy to review the edits since your ban was reinstated HK but you need to listen to the feedback. One of my biggest pieces of advice was for you to move away from "gnoming" and approach article development in a more in-depth fashion. That's what I'm looking for - it's something you can still work on-- Cailil talk 00:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Maybe calling him English rather than Anglo-Irish would make more sense seeing as he grew up (aged 2 when he moved to England) and spent most of his life in England, just like Oxford Dictionaries have classified him as. Britannica cites him as a British poet. Mabuska (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
To users other than HK please leave this discussion alone. I am very capable of searching HK's edit history on my own. Also this is not a place to rehash content issues.
HK you don't get it. Searching the web is not the best way to create a high quality biography. I stated above the biography I cited isn't available on the net. Library work is necessary. Really and truly there is a problem with jumping into a topic that one has only read minimally about and assuming one can debate the merits of deleting material without replacing it with people who have read on the topic. IMHO many of the users who frequented WP:BISE and its successor pages are guilty of this kind of editing/thinking. It is the opposite of best practice for creating high quality encyclopedic material (please read the linked article of Anti-patterns - it is illustrative of the issue here). Again as per WP:IMPROVE even when somebody does something wrong every effort should be made to "preserve the value that others add". You saw what happened to GoodDay - you need to move away from edits of this type and editing from this position of in-depth & technical Wikipedia guideline knowledge but comparatively shallow topic/subject research. Google does not have all the answers and relying on it is bad practice. You're position above is that the exact text is not reproduced in a google search. You should be going to biographies and reading broadly and citing them - whatever they say. Not trying to prove or disprove the text which was removed.
Also yes arguing with me about this will only delay the process-- Cailil talk 17:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
HighKing, on review and in light of my comments and those of a second sysop last time I’m not over-turning my decision to topic ban you from edits relating to changes of the term “British Isles”. This is due to the lack of change in patterns of behaviour identified by both myself and EdJohnston. Last time around Ed said that "[you] should leave it to other editors to fix any style issues involving Great Britain, Ireland or the British Isles". This is advice you have not followed.
One of the key issues for me in the reinstatement of your ban was that "The problem is not that you get it wrong on occassion, it's that you think it appropriate to edit an article just to change instances of the use of a term". This approach to edits seems to have continued. Gnoming can be a net positive to Wikipedia but as I have repeatedly stated (and as ArbCom pointed out vis-à-vis GoodDay) mass changes without consensus that police a terminology/styling issues are not helpful. Given that the current ban was reinstated in light of a return to inappropriate behaviours after a period of good editing I would need to see a substantial change in practice to remove the ban.
I’m not at all saying these are bad edits. But what I am saying is what I’ve said for a long time: indefinite topic bans are by definition not lifted on the basis of passage of time. Indefinite topic bans are lifted based on change in patterns of behaviour and diversification in areas of editing. You need to broaden the topics you edit in and avoid mass gnomish edits. Currently you’re not in that position, but there is progress. Most recently however there has been some backsliding (the CS Lewis issue and the Belfast/Good Friday agreement edits). My suggestion is take some time (at least 6 months from now – no earlier than June 20th 2014) and implement these suggestions. Edit articles holistically, improve one article consistently to a high standard and avoid mass changes to terminology or MOS “enforcement” and come back to me-- Cailil talk 00:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment over the draft text for DS. Would you mind chatting here about my idea for bot logging? The idea is neither to canvass nor to create chaos of WP:MULTI but to help me understand my own shortcomings in conception or presentation of the concept.
The general idea is to tell a bot a few of the top-level articles squarely within jurisdiction of a DS ruling. For example, Global warming would fall under the "climate change" ruling. For each new edit at the article or talk page, the bot looks at the username, and checks the alert log for that subject area. If the user is not listed, the bot issues the alert and logs it. And that's it. With my very limited knowledge of wiki programming, this seems technically super simple. Some eds have said it requires too much discretion, but that answer suggests to me that these eds are thinking the alerts mean some sort of problematic edit instead of just an FYI that is merited after the first edit, even if the first edit is helpful!
Concerns were also expressed that lots of articles only have overlap. For example, one can write a lot about Hurricane Sandy without crossing into ARBCC territory. My proposal has a simple solution for these: on these articles we just do what we are already envisioning doing without a bot.
Thus, without a bot, eds would issue and log the alerts on each other for all articles. Several eds have opined that no matter what words are used, people would still view the giving of alerts as being something more significant than an FYI. They would be wrong, of course, because the alerts are envisioned to be just and FYI. Nonetheless, if the only way we do this with eds issuing/logging on each other, a false badge-of-shame impression will endure.
If instead we rely on a bot to issue & log alerts to users at top articles, many eds will be auto-alerted by the bot upon their first edit in the subject area, rather than by an opposing disputant. The articles the bot can't handle (like Hurrican Sandy) will have to still be monitored by eds, but they'll be doing that in a culture molded by use of the nonjudgmental bot, which should destigmatize the issuance and logging of alerts even by eds on cross-over types of articles.
Thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 18:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
That "people would still view the giving of alerts as being something more significant than an FYI" is not resolvable by argument. The fact is an alert is an FYI not a warning. People can believe what they like - it doesn't change facts. Up to now ppl were formally warned now they wont be expect as a result of Arbitration enforcement action. In other areas where community probation is in force such a system already exists and has done so for some time - it has yet to run into problems (see template:uw-probation)-- Cailil talk 16:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
To respect your request for other users to leave the HK review discussion alone, I'm posting this in a new section. In response to your comment which is directed at me: "Also this is not a place to rehash content issues." - I must explicitly state that I have never been involved in a dispute over the Cecil Day Lewis article never mind with HK over it and having never ever made an edit to it or it's talk page. I was simply stating as a talk-page stalker a simple resolution that seemed non-controversial. In fact I can't remember when I was last in dispute with HK, oddly me and him have agreed more on things over the past couple of years we have interacted than not agreed. So I think the tone you took was slightly over the top. Not in regards to Dubs boy though as they where flinging things up. Mabuska (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)