![]() Talk page |
![]() Admin |
![]() Logs |
![]() Awards |
![]() Books |
Hello,
I noticed that you tagged 82.152.165.79 as a possible sock puppet of RichSatan, but you have not taken any further steps to pursue the matter. I just had the person behind the IP right now talk to me on IRC saying that he/she is not RichSatan. I strongly recommend that if you wish to further pursue this that you start an WP:SPI case and allow the accused IP to presume his/her innocence. Regards, – MuZemike 17:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I am not that user. As I said, prior to this discussion (having been an occasional wikipedia user for many years) I had no idea what an "ANi" was.
"how did you know I ever edited the Games Workshop article?"
Because it's documented in the talk page.
"Third, are you accusing me of removing something?"
You later admit that you did. Please don't ask timewasting questions just to wind people up.
"Fourth, FYI removing original research is not vandalism"
Please refer to the material I mentioned above. It is not original research, it is properly sourced and it is entirely encyclopaedic.
"And accusing another editor of vandalism (which is what you have just done above and the talk page of the article in question) when they were following site protocol and policy is completely
inappropriate and uncivil"
So are many of the things that you have incorrectly accused me of doing, and you will note that to date I have put up with it without comment. This is the most appalling hypocrisy.
"the content matter with which you disagree reached a
consensus"
That consensus does not address the matter in question and is not relevant to my concerns about either the content I described above or, now, your conduct.
"The matter is closed unless you present properly
sourced,
due and properly integrated material."
Properly sourced material is in the history of the page.
"your continued and continuing attacks on me - which brought you to my attention again and which mirror exactly RichSatan's behaviour - is
harassment"
No, it isn't. All I've done is disagree with your position. You can't try to paint this as harrassment; it is the very core upon which wikipedia operates. The only way in which my behaviour is in any way similar is in that I am supporting the inclusion of material critical of Games Workshop in a Wikipedia article. I entirely accept that much of what is in the history of that page is inappropriate. However, some of it is perfectly OK, and it should be in the article.
I should also point out that it is now a matter of absolute public record that you have been far more personally unpleasant to me than I have ever been to you - inasmuch as the only criticism I have ever offered you is to point out that your position on the article in question is incorrect. Making this statement cannot reasonably be considered harassment. Also on public record is your history of using threats of censure to quell opposition, clearly deliberate misapplication of the rules, and other unpleasant smear tactics. I have done nothing wrong, but you most certainly have.—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
82.152.165.79 (
talk •
contribs) 10:50, 19 July 2010
Cailil, I think the NPOV policy needs to provide more guidance about how properly to identify a view. I would like to know what you think. I want to propose something to the NPOV policy along these lines: that (1) we should identify the POV of texts, not authors (as we cannot read people's minds only what they write) and (2) POV should be detemined by explicit statements about one's view made by the author of the text, or descriptions of the the text's point fo view found in another reliable source. (3) one cannot assume POV based solely on biographical information about the author; the value of biographical information depends on (1) and (2). Do you see the sense in this? If so, could you take a stab and coming up with an elegant, clear, and appropriate way of wording it? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
My suggestion for a wording of the first part would be: "When assessing the point(s) of view presented in a source other reliable sources should be used." Or "In the event that a source's point of view needs to be described editors should verify and attribute the description of that point of view to other reliable sources as per WP:PROVEIT." Both of these are a little clunky and need work-- Cailil talk 19:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
As regards the second: "When describing the point of view of a source the biography and/or ideological stance of the author is not necessarily relevant (except as contextual information). A single source may contain multiple points of view and each of these should be described and that description attributed." This is a very clunky wording and I'm not happy with it yet-- Cailil talk 19:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments at my RfC. But to be frank, I was really hoping for a community discussion about bigotry, and not just a discussion of me (or even Noloop, personally). I really believe bigotry is a real problem at Wikipedia and not just a "personal attack." I feel the same way about "racism." I even once floated the idea of a policy against "impersonal attacks" (which would be our equivalent of a sanction against hate speech) i.e. attacks against entire groups or classes of persons rather than specific individuals - and NO ONE expressed any interest. As for bigotry, well, obviously a few other people agree with me, but not many. I was hoping with my reply to Noloop's complaint against me that I could open up a serious conversation about whether bigotry is a problem, how one might recognize bigotry (as opposed to another valid point of view among editors). I wouldn't even mind if the discussion ended up largely going against me, if at least there were a thoughtful discussion of the concept. But it seems like there is no space or not enough editors who even wish to talk about it ... Slrubenstein | Talk 10:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Saying Fuck is not incivility (even if you say fucking civilit yppolice). [ [6]] I quote “You were fine until you directed the incivility at someone” in relation to [ [7]] the swearing bu8t not at some one [ [8]] [ [9]]. None of thi8s was considered uncivil by admins. Some even say they were sorry he was blocked for it [ [10]]. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation and the advice on using talk pages -- it made a great deal of sense and is much appreciated. After using talk pages very briefly when I first started editing I had actually forgotten they existed altogether and conflated them in my mind with editing other users user-pages. Admittedly, I am working on the "assume good faith" and "be polite" policies (and have improved). Habits acquired from years of using usenet and internet forums and a general penchant for debate can be hard to overcome (wading into some of the more controversial topics hasn't helped..) I was also entirely unaware of the sensible issues surrounding edit summaries. Kind regards,-- Cybermud ( talk) 21:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the help cleaning up this article. Unfortunately the creator of the game which the article is about is back to reverting all edits to the article. Just a heads up. Thanks! Spigot Map 17:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
This, this and this are totally unacceptable. Each is more outrageous than the one before. I have raised your conduct at AN/I. You may respond here. Scolaire ( talk) 20:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Cailil
Re: your edit here, I'm pretty certain that it was me who had "tlx"-ed the resolved tag. That said, I did ping Black Kite for input and I'd welcome input from you, too, if you feel the resolution is acceptable. TFOWR 13:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
concerning meatpuppetry and so on, was the hypothetical just a general curiosity thing or were there more specific circumstances that you were basing it on? The latter is easier to answer so wanted to check. :) Ncmvocalist ( talk) 04:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry Cailil, but that is intelligent discussion between TRFWOR and I about what exactly defines "personal comments".
Please allow him to respond to it and clarify.
It would help me to know which part EXACTLY you consider inappropriate. -- Triton Rocker ( talk) 03:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Also the last paragraph of that post is inapprioriate for the same reasons:TFOWR, I am sorry but, no. Including in the discussion one's political motivations is relevant and not "a personal comments". This is why I argued before that all participants, any individual wishing to be part of this workgroup, should list themselves and where their nationalist interests lie as a guide and courtesy to others.
People's personal details, perspectives etc are irrelevant as long as they are acting in good faith. We assume good faith of all editors on a prima facie basis here, regardless of their point of origin - there is no special derogation for WP:BISE to be excluded from this. Arguing against policy in order to make a point is disruptive, inappropriate and tendentious. It is also off-topic, that board is for discussion of "specific examples" not for generalized discussion, or discussion of policy.In my book, it is one degree to having nationalist sympathies but to feel strongly enough to have to advertise them is another level all together. It is a very strong indicator of POVs and the politicisation we are discussing here. One has to filter accordingly.
Together these comments are harrassing, as well as in breach of AGF. A small number of editors in this topic area seem to think wikihounding and talk page policies are a joke - they're not and breach of policy will be prevented.-- Cailil talk 13:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Self-declared Welsh nationalist Snowded, acts as a self-appointed policemen, provokes the issue by habitual, unnecessary and even erroneous reverting any corrections. They are supported by other minor Irish editors, such as Brendanjmullan who persistently "troll" to game the system unquestioned and unchallenged.
I think we will have to quietly agree to disagree on some of these matters Cailil. And, I promise you, my capitals are not screaming, they are quietly adding emphasis to my sentences where I want it. Please, I do not go about tell you how to write.
Yes, one has to assume good faith, and it is wise to be polite, but it is also fair to:
a) To examine whether one or more individuals are on nationally and politically motivated campaign or not and discuss it with others. b) To ask them plainly what their motivation is and examine their response with others. c) To discuss within the wider community the implications of such campaigns on the greater balance of the encyclopedia.
That, again, is not harassment. It is intelligent and necessary discussion in such an area which we have not yet been able to have and inspection which would certainly take place in academic contexts.
One of the issues I have often raised is how strangely asymmetric the punitive actions is; the threats, the blocking and the banning. In my opinion, there is clearly collusion, and collusive provocation going on between the others (although I agree it is probably not coordinated, just arising from mutual interests).
Flying an Irish Tricolor yourself, would it not be more safer and fairer to recluse yourself from this particular dispute? -- Triton Rocker ( talk) 09:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Thought this was sorted. RashersTierney ( talk) 23:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
You might want to comment here user is denying the evidence found by CU claiming The CheckUser obviously is not working or is not without its faults as I have never used another account. VirtualRevolution ( talk) 11:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I have commented on your actions regarding the above at AN/I. Please see the thread here. LemonMonday Talk 15:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- LevenBoy ( talk) 23:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.Thank you. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Joker264 (
talk •
contribs) 12:53, 9 October 2010
![]() Talk page |
![]() Admin |
![]() Logs |
![]() Awards |
![]() Books |
Hello,
I noticed that you tagged 82.152.165.79 as a possible sock puppet of RichSatan, but you have not taken any further steps to pursue the matter. I just had the person behind the IP right now talk to me on IRC saying that he/she is not RichSatan. I strongly recommend that if you wish to further pursue this that you start an WP:SPI case and allow the accused IP to presume his/her innocence. Regards, – MuZemike 17:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I am not that user. As I said, prior to this discussion (having been an occasional wikipedia user for many years) I had no idea what an "ANi" was.
"how did you know I ever edited the Games Workshop article?"
Because it's documented in the talk page.
"Third, are you accusing me of removing something?"
You later admit that you did. Please don't ask timewasting questions just to wind people up.
"Fourth, FYI removing original research is not vandalism"
Please refer to the material I mentioned above. It is not original research, it is properly sourced and it is entirely encyclopaedic.
"And accusing another editor of vandalism (which is what you have just done above and the talk page of the article in question) when they were following site protocol and policy is completely
inappropriate and uncivil"
So are many of the things that you have incorrectly accused me of doing, and you will note that to date I have put up with it without comment. This is the most appalling hypocrisy.
"the content matter with which you disagree reached a
consensus"
That consensus does not address the matter in question and is not relevant to my concerns about either the content I described above or, now, your conduct.
"The matter is closed unless you present properly
sourced,
due and properly integrated material."
Properly sourced material is in the history of the page.
"your continued and continuing attacks on me - which brought you to my attention again and which mirror exactly RichSatan's behaviour - is
harassment"
No, it isn't. All I've done is disagree with your position. You can't try to paint this as harrassment; it is the very core upon which wikipedia operates. The only way in which my behaviour is in any way similar is in that I am supporting the inclusion of material critical of Games Workshop in a Wikipedia article. I entirely accept that much of what is in the history of that page is inappropriate. However, some of it is perfectly OK, and it should be in the article.
I should also point out that it is now a matter of absolute public record that you have been far more personally unpleasant to me than I have ever been to you - inasmuch as the only criticism I have ever offered you is to point out that your position on the article in question is incorrect. Making this statement cannot reasonably be considered harassment. Also on public record is your history of using threats of censure to quell opposition, clearly deliberate misapplication of the rules, and other unpleasant smear tactics. I have done nothing wrong, but you most certainly have.—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
82.152.165.79 (
talk •
contribs) 10:50, 19 July 2010
Cailil, I think the NPOV policy needs to provide more guidance about how properly to identify a view. I would like to know what you think. I want to propose something to the NPOV policy along these lines: that (1) we should identify the POV of texts, not authors (as we cannot read people's minds only what they write) and (2) POV should be detemined by explicit statements about one's view made by the author of the text, or descriptions of the the text's point fo view found in another reliable source. (3) one cannot assume POV based solely on biographical information about the author; the value of biographical information depends on (1) and (2). Do you see the sense in this? If so, could you take a stab and coming up with an elegant, clear, and appropriate way of wording it? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
My suggestion for a wording of the first part would be: "When assessing the point(s) of view presented in a source other reliable sources should be used." Or "In the event that a source's point of view needs to be described editors should verify and attribute the description of that point of view to other reliable sources as per WP:PROVEIT." Both of these are a little clunky and need work-- Cailil talk 19:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
As regards the second: "When describing the point of view of a source the biography and/or ideological stance of the author is not necessarily relevant (except as contextual information). A single source may contain multiple points of view and each of these should be described and that description attributed." This is a very clunky wording and I'm not happy with it yet-- Cailil talk 19:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments at my RfC. But to be frank, I was really hoping for a community discussion about bigotry, and not just a discussion of me (or even Noloop, personally). I really believe bigotry is a real problem at Wikipedia and not just a "personal attack." I feel the same way about "racism." I even once floated the idea of a policy against "impersonal attacks" (which would be our equivalent of a sanction against hate speech) i.e. attacks against entire groups or classes of persons rather than specific individuals - and NO ONE expressed any interest. As for bigotry, well, obviously a few other people agree with me, but not many. I was hoping with my reply to Noloop's complaint against me that I could open up a serious conversation about whether bigotry is a problem, how one might recognize bigotry (as opposed to another valid point of view among editors). I wouldn't even mind if the discussion ended up largely going against me, if at least there were a thoughtful discussion of the concept. But it seems like there is no space or not enough editors who even wish to talk about it ... Slrubenstein | Talk 10:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Saying Fuck is not incivility (even if you say fucking civilit yppolice). [ [6]] I quote “You were fine until you directed the incivility at someone” in relation to [ [7]] the swearing bu8t not at some one [ [8]] [ [9]]. None of thi8s was considered uncivil by admins. Some even say they were sorry he was blocked for it [ [10]]. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation and the advice on using talk pages -- it made a great deal of sense and is much appreciated. After using talk pages very briefly when I first started editing I had actually forgotten they existed altogether and conflated them in my mind with editing other users user-pages. Admittedly, I am working on the "assume good faith" and "be polite" policies (and have improved). Habits acquired from years of using usenet and internet forums and a general penchant for debate can be hard to overcome (wading into some of the more controversial topics hasn't helped..) I was also entirely unaware of the sensible issues surrounding edit summaries. Kind regards,-- Cybermud ( talk) 21:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the help cleaning up this article. Unfortunately the creator of the game which the article is about is back to reverting all edits to the article. Just a heads up. Thanks! Spigot Map 17:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
This, this and this are totally unacceptable. Each is more outrageous than the one before. I have raised your conduct at AN/I. You may respond here. Scolaire ( talk) 20:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Cailil
Re: your edit here, I'm pretty certain that it was me who had "tlx"-ed the resolved tag. That said, I did ping Black Kite for input and I'd welcome input from you, too, if you feel the resolution is acceptable. TFOWR 13:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
concerning meatpuppetry and so on, was the hypothetical just a general curiosity thing or were there more specific circumstances that you were basing it on? The latter is easier to answer so wanted to check. :) Ncmvocalist ( talk) 04:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry Cailil, but that is intelligent discussion between TRFWOR and I about what exactly defines "personal comments".
Please allow him to respond to it and clarify.
It would help me to know which part EXACTLY you consider inappropriate. -- Triton Rocker ( talk) 03:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Also the last paragraph of that post is inapprioriate for the same reasons:TFOWR, I am sorry but, no. Including in the discussion one's political motivations is relevant and not "a personal comments". This is why I argued before that all participants, any individual wishing to be part of this workgroup, should list themselves and where their nationalist interests lie as a guide and courtesy to others.
People's personal details, perspectives etc are irrelevant as long as they are acting in good faith. We assume good faith of all editors on a prima facie basis here, regardless of their point of origin - there is no special derogation for WP:BISE to be excluded from this. Arguing against policy in order to make a point is disruptive, inappropriate and tendentious. It is also off-topic, that board is for discussion of "specific examples" not for generalized discussion, or discussion of policy.In my book, it is one degree to having nationalist sympathies but to feel strongly enough to have to advertise them is another level all together. It is a very strong indicator of POVs and the politicisation we are discussing here. One has to filter accordingly.
Together these comments are harrassing, as well as in breach of AGF. A small number of editors in this topic area seem to think wikihounding and talk page policies are a joke - they're not and breach of policy will be prevented.-- Cailil talk 13:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Self-declared Welsh nationalist Snowded, acts as a self-appointed policemen, provokes the issue by habitual, unnecessary and even erroneous reverting any corrections. They are supported by other minor Irish editors, such as Brendanjmullan who persistently "troll" to game the system unquestioned and unchallenged.
I think we will have to quietly agree to disagree on some of these matters Cailil. And, I promise you, my capitals are not screaming, they are quietly adding emphasis to my sentences where I want it. Please, I do not go about tell you how to write.
Yes, one has to assume good faith, and it is wise to be polite, but it is also fair to:
a) To examine whether one or more individuals are on nationally and politically motivated campaign or not and discuss it with others. b) To ask them plainly what their motivation is and examine their response with others. c) To discuss within the wider community the implications of such campaigns on the greater balance of the encyclopedia.
That, again, is not harassment. It is intelligent and necessary discussion in such an area which we have not yet been able to have and inspection which would certainly take place in academic contexts.
One of the issues I have often raised is how strangely asymmetric the punitive actions is; the threats, the blocking and the banning. In my opinion, there is clearly collusion, and collusive provocation going on between the others (although I agree it is probably not coordinated, just arising from mutual interests).
Flying an Irish Tricolor yourself, would it not be more safer and fairer to recluse yourself from this particular dispute? -- Triton Rocker ( talk) 09:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Thought this was sorted. RashersTierney ( talk) 23:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
You might want to comment here user is denying the evidence found by CU claiming The CheckUser obviously is not working or is not without its faults as I have never used another account. VirtualRevolution ( talk) 11:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I have commented on your actions regarding the above at AN/I. Please see the thread here. LemonMonday Talk 15:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- LevenBoy ( talk) 23:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.Thank you. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Joker264 (
talk •
contribs) 12:53, 9 October 2010