User talk:Cailil

This is Cailil's talk page. To leave me a new message, please click here.

User page

Talk page

Admin

Logs

Awards

Books

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

If you're here to leave a message about an article I've deleted, feel free to ask me about such deletions but please check the deletion summary first. If that summary links to wikipedia's Criteria for speedy deletion please read that page and bring any issues arising from such deletions to the deletion review noticeboard. Similarly if it is label as an "Expired PROD" please read our criteria for deletion and again please bring any issues arising from that to deletion review rather than here.

If you are here about a page that I have protected please read this essay before asking me about it.

Finally if you are here in relation to a user I have blocked, banned or in any other way sanctioned please refer to WP:SANCTIONS, WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK before asking a question. Thanks--Cailil ^talk 03:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If you have substantive concerns about any of my edits or use of sysop tools you are invited to bring issues to sysop attention at WP:AN/I or at an individual sysop's talk page.

Zimbazumba

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)

whether to note IDs of same editor

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)

Feel free to send me an email Nick. I might be precluded from taking direct action (depending on the topic area) but I can definitely advise you and/or report any problem I see - I've had to deal with this kind of issue in many topic areas on wikipedia so I'm very happy to look at any information you have wrt this sort of issue.
So do send me an email and I'll have a read of it and an investigation into it--Cailil ^talk 21:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		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)

Matriarchy Talk

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)

Hi Nick - I'll have a look. I'm afraid I'm extremely busy at the moment so if I think this needs more attention I'll pass it on to another sysop--Cailil ^talk 03:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Theatre Project collaboration

Edit summaries

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? ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 15:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Try WP:CIVIL and WP:EDITSUMMARY TreasuryTag. I warned you for your use of edit summaries and your incivility. You've had warning and direction now, so if you fail to act accordingly then it's your problem. Take ownership of your own actions and stop complaining about other people. If you want to sort this out with SoV try dispute resolution not dispute escalation--Cailil ^talk 15:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting, because neither of those pages say anything of the sort (indeed, WP:NICE says, "Editors are generally not blocked for minor incivility,") so I guess you're mistaken. I know who you were warning, that's what a lifetime of speaking English has taught me. And since you have essentially decided to rebuke me but not make any criticism of Sarek's ludicrous behaviour, you will pardon me for considering you biased and not valuing anything you have to say. ╟─TreasuryTag►Acting Returning Officer─╢ 15:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually TT they do. Line 1 of the nutshell of WP:CIVIL: "avoid directing profane and offensive language at other users". And watch your acusations of bias - that is an accusation of bad faith and I take it very seriously.
You've had a final warning, don't be tendentious, and by the way don't post here again--Cailil ^talk 15:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh and before I forget you must have missed the part of my first comment on ANi that stated: "I don't care care if you were baited..."[1] - which is a reflection of my views on SoV's comments to you. And I'm sure with 'a lifetime of speaking English' you will understand that when you read my remarks again--Cailil ^talk 15:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You're quite right, and I apologise. I did indeed miss the comment where you explicitly rebuked Sarek in the same way that you explicitly rebuked me. I'll have to read things more carefully next time. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 15:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Note about AN/I topic ban proposal

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)

Racism

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)

Daicaregos, I have to be honest my first reaction to this was "wow". You're absolutely right this is problematic - it's probably a little late to do anything about but I'll warn the user in question.
What to do about this - report it, it's soapboxing and pointy--Cailil ^talk 21:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate your swift response. Would you see anything similar to this as an AN/I matter, or elsewhere? Daicaregos (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

If you can show a pattern ANI, otherwise a sysop would be enough deal with one offs--Cailil ^talk 21:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Daicaregos (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:British Isles

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:

• British Isles
• British-Irish Council area
• Great Britain, Ireland, and related islands
• British Isles — or Great Britain, Ireland, and related islands

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)

hey

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)

Hi SLR, that sounds great!--Cailil ^talk 16:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Topic Ban

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: [2]. 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)

Please read over your ban description - you are in fact banned from discussing or involving yourself in discussions of British, Irish, and British Isles naming disputes and this includes discussing those involved in these disputes. There are a number of sysops now reviewing editing in the topic area thanks to Sarah777's recent outbursts and events prior to that. All editors' actions will be reviewed. Bear in mind that the topic's probation is based on removals/alterations/insertions of the term British Isles without a proper source based reason - fact tagging unsourced instances of any term/claim etc is not an inappropriate action. In your instance you were warned and you repeated the same behaviour after that warning. Please be aware that discussing the topic, including other editors' actions, further will, I'm afraid, be a breach of your topic ban - hence I cannot discuss this with you but again all editors' actions will be examined--Cailil ^talk 22:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I see HighKing has been allowed to continue his crusade to remove British Isles from wikipedia and nobody has stopped him yet his opponents find themselves topic banned. Seems things never change around here. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest stepping back BritishWatcher. Nobody has "crusades" or "opponents" on wikipedia. That kind of battleground rhetoric is exactly what the topic probation is designed to prevent. You and others have been advised to follow dispute resolution practices and processes if you want to resolve disputes with HighKing and others--Cailil ^talk 18:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/dispute resolution

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)

Another interaction ban proposal for Sarek and TT

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)

WP:AE#MarshallBagramyan

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)

Request

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 andMOS: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 just read some of WP:UKNATIONALS & MOS:FLAG. Seems to me, those were put together by & promoted by devolutionists. Just another example of the devolutionists 'group ownership'. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 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)

UKNationals is just an essay with the caveat "Consider these views with discretion." - in other words, it can be ignored. MOSFLAGS seems to have more than one interpretation, looking at Tennis articles in breach of MOSFLAG:#Tennis articles in breach of MOSFLAG. Dougweller (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it's frustrating, when UKNAT & MOSFLAGS are thrown at me as though they were Wiki-policies. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• Okay I'm seeing this Daicaregos. Immediately this a WP:V and WP:NOR issue. WP:MOSFLAG is a guideline - that does not mean it can be ignored but rather changes need to be consensual. In this case I would ask you GD what is the source based reason for these changes?
  Secondly GD, please avoid edit summaries like this[3] - don't use edit summaries to reply to others--Cailil ^talk 23:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Wiki-personality conflicts between myself & Daicaregos, is the core of these spats. Rightly/wrongly, I sometimes feel as though Dai is merely attempting to provoke me. I made these changes per BOLD; in the past, editors complained that I took everything to the talkpages & advised that I simply go forward with any deletions/additions. It just seems that as soon as you go near anything British (particulary Wales), there's misery from that editor. I just wish he'd stop waving his 'British is bad' flag in my face & let someone else bring their concerns to me. GoodDay (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, the source based reason. England, Scotland, Northern Ireland & Wales are not independant - they make up the United Kingdom. These attempts to hide British & United Kingdom from infoboxes of British boxers, seems quite peculiar to me. GoodDay (talk) 13:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• • GD, I understand that the truth is simple (ie Boxers in the Olympics fight for Great Britain etc) but WP:V asks for verification of that where disputes arise. I would ask you to assume there is no political motivation in Daicaregos message here. While it is clear to me that you're both following WP:BOLD I would remind you both that there are Manual of Style criteria in existence for these kind of disputes and that in line with WP:OPENPARA a biography should be named/defined principally by how the subject is most commonly known/described (this should be easily sourcable). And WP:MOSFLAG is there to help too, however, if you feel the MOS is wrong GD, simply seek consensus to ignore it (where your IAR/Bold action is challenged) either on an article by article basis or at WP:MOSICON.
    Having said that about the MOS, I can see where confusion may arise based on it, in that WP:MOSBIO asks for: "Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity)". But it places a caveat that: "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.". This is a clear case where consensus needs to be reached. If you guys can't agree I would use article RFCs (again on article by article basis or at the policy) for wider input and consensus.
    Separately if there is (and I can see there is) a more personal issue between the both of you I would seriously suggest mediation to resolve the dispute--Cailil ^talk 14:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

In the past, I brought up a source (TSN) backing David Haye as British, but he wouldn't accept it. It doesn't help aswell, that there's usually no more then 5 editors, who take part in these discussions. I'm trying to be patient, but things just seem to be titled towards the devolutionist side. That doesn't mean that every editor, who pushed for English, Welsh, Northern Irish, Irish & Scottish usage over British usage, is a devolutionist. It just that, the result doesn't appear overly neutral. There's no reason why we can't have atleast something British in those infoboxes - whether it be the Union Jack, British or United Kingdom. Total exclusion, doesn't seem very NPoV. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay does not accept that England, Scotland and Wales are verifiably countries. No amount of reliable sources will convince them. GoodDay is entitled to that opinion. However, looking at the David Haye Talkpage it is clear that GoodDay has no respect for consensus on that article. Despite having failed to achieve consensus for their prefered version, GoodDay returns to the article again and again, replacing 'English' with 'British' in the infobox. On individual articles it is irritating, but GoodDay seems to have embarked on a mission to replace English, Scottish and Welsh with British on dozens of articles, with no attempt to gain consensus, and even where GoodDay knows very well that it is against consensus. That is why I sought advice. It has nothing to do "Wiki-personality conflicts" and everything to do with consensus editing. Daicaregos (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Howdy Cailil. To answer the concerns to the above, I'm currently seeking a consensus at WP:BOXING, for adding something British, to the British boxer bios infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Can I chip in here, about the flags. At the moment there are various discussions going on about the use of flag (icons) in info boxes and elsewhere. There are definite moves to limit the use of flags and some users are stating that the MOS means there's an automatic consensus and that it should therefore be slavishly followed. I for one don't accept that and as Cailil says above, it can be ignored. I'd be very interested in seeing the views of those editors who really care about boxing, tennis, darts and other sports-related articles. I maintain that if their consensus is to use flags then that should carry a lot of weight. Maybe more weight than an apparaent consensus of those many editors who don't real;y care for the subject of these articles. I know Wikipedia is for everyone to edit and articles are not owned, but it is dismaying to see editors who are not concerned with a subject move in on articles and cause difficulties with peripheral issues such as flags. Look at 2011 UK Open Darts. The competition is about to start but the article is blocked, all because of the peripheral flags issue. I did ask the blocker to think again about this but so far he's not responded. GoodDay, maybe leave the flags at least for a while and see what the boxing editors think. WizOfOz (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave the infoboxes alone, until we can get something clarified at WP:BOXING. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 29 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)

Progress? Well, yes. In that GoodDay says s/he's going to stop doing something disruptive. But GoodDay saying they're going to do something is not the same as that thing happening (I can provide numerous examples if requested). You may not have noticed GoodDay's continual disruptive editing: e.g. at David Haye, where GoodDay simply disregards the consensus reached at the David Haye Talkpage. And have you looked at GoodDay's Talkpage? Few editors could have so many complaints against them without attracting Admin action. If you don't have time to become involved, fair enough. But please don't pretend everything's hunky dory, or that this is an isolated incident. Daicaregos (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

When I closed the AE thread last week Daicaregos I stated that other issues should be dealt with as normal by dispute resolution. Above I mentioned mediation. If you don't want to do that then I suggest WP:RFC/U or other dispute resolution avenues should be attempted--Cailil ^talk 23:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Daicaregos (talk) 07:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The consensus at David Haye, which Daicaregos is harping about, was quite weak. Of the English usage supporters, only Daicaregos showed much interest in boxing, the other registered account had more interest in Cricket & the IP account was on Wikipedia for just that month (February 2011). PS: As Daicaregos often harps about reliable sources (i.e countries), it surprised me that he rejected my TSN source. I could bring forth more Haye is British sources. GoodDay (talk) 01:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I've also opened a discussion at UKNAT, concerning boxing bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 01:21, 30 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)

• Thanks for the posts Snowded and Carson101. I will have a further look but this will take time. I remain of the position today (and be aware that I could come back to you in a week with the same answer) that if you have substantive concerns that GD needs to modify his behaviour an RFC/U is the first appropriate action. That said, all edits not based on sources (WP:NOR) are problematic and I'll have a look at all involved. Diffs like the ones Carson101 provided are helpful (as there is a significant amount to go through considering all involved) so if you want my attention brought to something in particular show it to me--Cailil ^talk 16:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I've no more interest in the British and Irish political articles & things linked or supposedly linked to them. If Snowded, Carson & Daicaregos want to open a Rfc/U on me, they should do so. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, upon reflection, I wish to point out that Carson's assumptions about why I made the edits I did at the British boxing articles, are accurate. I was infuriated by the current results of discussion about the UK intro & second paragraphs & thus 'in a fit of anger', moved onto the British boxing articles - looking for a fight. Therefore, due to my inability to control my temper around these topics, I request that I be restricted from such articles - except for on my own talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok GD well if you feel you can't control yourself in this area stay away from it. I wont be placing a restriction (topic ban) on you by request, as that would be as inappropriate as blocking on request (see WP:BLOCK). Also if you see that your edits in an area are problematic and are willing to stay away such a sanction is rendered moot. Therefore I will ask you to agree to stay away from this area ("disengage") for as long as you feel necessary until you can control yourself. I would suggest 3 months of a holiday from the area. However, if you make another series of edits "looking for a fight" anywhere I or an another sysop will be forced to take action to prevent disruption to the project--Cailil ^talk 19:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm really trying to avoid the drama of an RfC Cailil and was hoping a word from an uninvolved admin might help, but I do realise its an imposition. If you want to get a sense of the issue then this exchange on my talk page shows examples of slurs on the motivation and actions of other editors with a good track record. We then have the most recent exchange on GoodDay's talk page not to mention an earlier one where even Jeanne Boleyn moves from trying to support to frustration. GoodDay's honesty above is helpful, but I won't make a recommendation on wether you should follow it or not. --Snowded ^TALK 04:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

New kid on the block

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)

Am looking at this--Cailil ^talk 22:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Would you still be just looking if the user name were spelled "Tug my todger"? That's the way it is pronounced, as far as I can tell. Bielle (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes Bielle, they've been left a warning and I'm waiting for a response and will proceed after that as appropriate--Cailil ^talk 23:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I had seen your warning, Cailil, before I wrote about the name. Together, the type of edits plus the name, shout "troll" to me. Bielle (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Diacritics discussions on GD's talkpage

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)

Email

Hello, Cailil. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Recent BISE Stuff

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.

---

Hello, Cailil! I've followed the BISE mess for awhile and know many of the players. Most of the "pro" BI editors have been SPAs and socks using guerrilla tactics. The main target of their stalking, of course, is "anti" BI editor HighKing. HighKing makes many different types of contributions to the wiki and couldn't nearly as easily be considered a SPA.

But here's the thing: he does target the term "British Isles" and remove it or tag it (often for later removal). There's no question about it, and recent edits confirm this. I could care less which term is preferred: but there is a question about serial removal of the term here. There's a reason all these socks are going after him, and whether or not removal of the term is considered disruptive is up to those who've been dealing with this for a lot longer than I've seen it. I'd like any feedback you have, and Cheers :> Doc talk 09:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey Doc, any particular edit you think is wrong? Or any tag? Let me know. --HighKing (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Doc. I will admit that I am, to say the least, uneasy about any account that focuses on one issue (particularly semi-political ones, which tend to be "hotter" than actual political ones, in my experience). As regards HighKing's taggings, removals, etc there are a few principles that I try to weigh when looking at BISE edits
1) There is nothing wrong with an editor tagging an inaccurate, unsourced, or otherwise challengable (in WP policy terms) entry
2) Over tagging terms/entries that are not any of the above is disruptive and pointy
3) Correcting misconstrued or misrepresented sources (ie "sneaky vandalism") is of benefit to the encyclopaedia
4) Finding alternative sources to back one's POV on a subject and replace other reliable sources is contrary to editing policy and specifically WP:NPOV
5) Changing terms simply to fit one's POV is original research
6) Removing original research is essential to retaining WP's credibility
7) Misleading Pipe linking is disruptive and borders on "sneaky vandalism".
Below is a tiny sample of HK's edits from yesterday (July 5th 2011) to June 5th 2011 and notes comparing them with the above 6 principles.

Extended content

{{These[4][5][6] tagging should have been about whole sentences not just the location. However this one[7] is different (British Isles is not a political entity, the United Kingdom Of Britain and Ireland, was and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is) HK is right to query this but it shouldn't be fact tagged rather the wording sould be questioned and if indeed the source uses "British Isles" (which is entirely possible) it should be quoted/attributed so that it isn't challenged again. I'm genuinely unsure of this one[8] I doubt racewalk.com is a reliable source but would have sent things like this to WP:RSN. These ones[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] should be sourced either way not just changed. Then we see things like these[18][19] where HK is correct. These ones[20][21][22] should be obvious enough. These[23][24][25][26][27] are correct per the sources (which don't mention "British Isles" anywhere). Assuming AGF he's right with these [28][29] but would need access to sources to double check. There are also 2 instances of him correcting (and not removing) the term British Isles[30][31]}}

So from the above months' worth of edits we can see that HK is mainly fixing some sneaky vandalism, correcting some obvious errors, querying challengable material relating to teh term British Isles - none of which is incompatible with site policy. However there are a number of edits that should have been sourced, but I'm honesty unsure if they fall into the "chnaged to fit POV" category. That said in light of the community topic probation (WP:GS/BI) their lack of sourcing may be problematic and I'll take a closer look at them tonight. But at this point I don't think HK's edits meet the standard of disruption as stated in WP:GS/BI:

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.

Nevertheless it is plain that there is a huge focus on the term from HK's end, one that I am uncomfortable with (and I’m sure HK knows that). The question for me is, whether HK's focus on the term, or the SPA sock's focus on him, is the source of the problem for wikipedia. That said I must say that I'm aware of off-site attention on HighKing in particular, and the British Isles thing in general, on at least 2 websites which I find deeply & intrinsically problematic.
So in short, would I prefer HK not focus on the term 'British Isles'? - yes. Is he in breach of site policy? - not that I can see right now.
Speaking more generally, I have for years asked that editors in this field make proper use of the dispute resolution functions of this site rather than as you put it resorting to "guerilla" tactics. Sysops are just volunteers we cannot handle intractable issues - this dispute has burned out a number of great admins and the primary reason for that is the refusal of parties involved to engage with others in order to reach a resolution for the benefit of this project (wikipedia). I would sincerly suggest that if anyone feels that there is a long running issue with another user's conduct, and can evidence it properly, that WP:RFC/U should be used. Where disputes have become intractible mediation is an option. At present I don't see Arbitrartion as a solution or an option. Too many ppl will come with too many diffuse and divergeant issues & if that happens ArbCom will (rightly) reject the issue.
All in all Doc, I'm not here to defend or prosecute any user. I have always looked upon the British Isles edit war in the light of User:Moreschi/The_Plague and User:Dbachmann/Wikipedia and nationalism. I can only deal with what I can see, so if you want to put diffs to me (for example, instances of edits that are unsourced, and not 'obvious', since mid-March 2011) my mind remains open, otherwise RFC/U is probably a better option--Cailil ^talk 14:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a fair summary. I acknowledge that some editors are "uncomfortable" with a focus on the term "British Isles", but I don't believe any of the symptoms outlined by Moreschi are attributable to my editing.

Extended content

Regarding the edits you highlighted above: No.8 - Parish Walk. I reverted this claim based on the fact that there's simply no sources for this claim whatsoever, so going to WP:RSN would have done little good. I found one claim and put that in the article. It's still "open" but the editor who made the claim is an infrequent editor and I'm waiting to discuss. You point out that the following should be sourced either way and not just changed. Well, for these, the existing references already have the claim but it's misquoted. In those cases I change to match the reference and point it out in the edit summary. I'm happy to reference the changes if you think that would cause less fuss. But it's certainly not an "unsourced" change as the existing references suffice. No.9 - King Arthur game. The existing references including the game website (on the FAQ page) invariably describe the map as either "Britannia", "Britain" or "Roman Britain". No.10 - Titan (cave). The existing reference describes the shaft as the highest pitch in Britain. No.11 - The Skystone. This a fictional character in a series of historical fiction books. In the book he (and Publius Varrus) discover they were both born in Colchester. No.12 - Albion's Seed. The four groups - first was an exodus of Puritans from the east of England to Massachusetts (1629-1640). The second was the movement of a Royalist elite and indentured servants from the south of England to Virginia (ca. 1649-75). The third was the "Friends' migration,"--the Quakers--from the North Midlands and Wales to the Delaware Valley (ca. 1675-1725). The fourth was a great flight from the borderlands of North Britain and northern Ireland to the American backcountry (ca. 1717-75). No.13 - Company rule in India. Between 1825 and 1835, Ireland had 1 railway of about 6 miles, build in 1834, and it was not inter-city. England, on the other hand, had "rapidly" built the Liverpool/Manchester railway and the Leeds/Selby railway, and the London/Birmingham railway company in 1833. No.14 - I removed "Western Europe" seeing as how the preceding list of countries already included France, and I changed "British Isles" because the references included in the book only mention Bogomilism in England. No.15 - The website for the magazine states that it covers the genre in Wales and border areas in England. Since the lede already makes this point, and the website already referenced, I simply redid the sentence (as per my edit summary). No.16 - This was a pretty simple editing job to remove the tautology of the "Britain and Europe" type. No.17 - The reference uses UK and Ireland and Holland. I'm pretty sure we don't want to get into a big discussion on your Talk page about each edit, so any comments or questions can go on the appropriate article Talk page.

What external websites? --HighKing (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't link to the sites HK,[32] but google will bring at least one of them up quickly. My advice stay away from them and deny recognition engagement is likely to make it worse--Cailil ^talk 17:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

WRT to the edits I queried - I'll look at all that later tonight--Cailil ^talk 17:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying HighKing should be in trouble. But one thing I do know is that we have an editor who's been blabbing about HighKing (from even before he was known as HighKing) and socking over at WR for years. Surprise, surprise - they've started up again about the LevenBoy block. Like the SPA socks here, this person's focus is pretty much solely on HighKing and his targeting of the term. They admit to socking extensively, they are suspected of being LevenBoy over there: and are most active when HighKing is actually going after the term. @HighKing - it's not that any particular edit is bad, it's the fact that you are doing searches for the BI term and going to articles based on the search results. This person who is feverishly watching your edits usually reacts rather quickly with sock activity when this occurs, and disruption ensues. It would drive me nuts if certain edits I made were almost guaranteed to cause a reaction from a person who's been obsessively watching me for years and using reams of socks to revert me. I don't feel sorry for the "pro-BI" group, but I do kind of see their frustration and reasons for reacting. I have no stake in the term and make no judgements on who is "wrong or right". I guess we'll just wait and see who the next socks are. Doc talk 22:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Doc I think that's one of the most reasoned and reasonable summations of the problem I've seen and I tend to agree. WR is indeed one of the sites I mentioned and that person uses one of those usernames from there elsewhere. I'm pretty sure at this point there is an open & shut case of harassment/wikihounding targetting a number of anti-BI editors (mainly HighKing), and sysops so I am looking at things VERY carefully. But I too am uneasy about the practice by accounts who do searches for a "term and [... edit] articles based on the search result". But for me these have really become 2 seperate issues (and by saying that I'm not diminishing either's importance)--Cailil ^talk 00:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate where you're coming from. I also don't feel sorry for the "pro-BI" group (or individual to be more accurate, if the truth be told). He got away with wholesale disruption for (literally) years and made it pretty hellish here. I'm not hiding anything, or socking, or sneaking around. I'm not on a campaign of wholesale removal of "British Isles" from Wikipedia - I'm sure Cailil and you and anyone else who've looked at my edits will see that. Not am I off-wiki trying to whip up support at WR, etc. I'm not entrenched in my views, edit-warring or reverting or refusing to discuss my edits. I'm happy to discuss any of my edits. And I'll also add that my editing has improved greatly, and I've learned tons, and I AGF as much as possible because, well, most editors here are actually trying to improve things. It's not even about being right or wrong - it's about verifiable facts with civility and respect, and a reasonable dose of commonsense. I appreciate your comments aren't personal - I'd just ask for a fair crack of the whip, and a nod to the reality of the situation as opposed to the bad press and mudslinging put out by the "pro-BI" individual. --HighKing (talk) 00:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Definitely nothing personal: you've always been a more "broad" editor than, say, LevenBoy, LemonMonday or Triton Rocker. Thanks for both of your considered responses, and you both know I'm on the wiki's side - there are rules everywhere, you know ;> I'll keep watching the BISE stuff because I like to see things through, and hopefully the editor who continues the harassment and wikistalking will realize that it will not work. Cheers :> Doc talk 05:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like we didn't have to wait long. User:Spanking Tart has resumed where the previous sock left off. Is the best thing to file an SPI? --HighKing (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

At this point I don't think so but that's my opinion. User:SpankingTart is an obvious duck-sock[33] of one or other of 'The Troubles' SPA accounts[34][35][36] and has been blocked for harassment, socking, disruption & block evasion--Cailil ^talk 15:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

HighKing, you are 100% entrenched in your views. Not once, not ever, have I ever seen you concede that on any BI issue, that an edit of yours was simply wrong. At best, after making the same point 5 or 10 times, you will begrudgingly leave the issue alone, while still declaring your opposition to the consensus, only for you to raise it again a month or even a year later. And you most definitely have edit warred, particularly when you look at article histories over months and years. He is, and always has been, an SPA in this area. A couple of edits about cheese now and then never has and never will change the basic fact of what lies behind his main reason for being here - in his own words, he is here to "correct" other people's "incorrect" use of the English language, as regard this specific term. And those other people number in the thousands, he is not here battling a single sock, the sock/s are largely only engaged in reverting changes he makes to third party's original choice to use the term - pick any article and that's largely what you will find if you go back far enough in the history. On all levels, policy and common sense, it is unacceptable, totally unacceptable, that through his singular presence on Wikipedia, a source is now required for every single usage of a term that is in common use in the English language, and is not seen as controversial at all when, as NPOV requires, the entire body of literature on it, and its representative usage in sources, is properly examined, i.e. not just the cherry picked sources in the POV pushers wet dream that is our 'dispute' article. It's dislike by some people in the Republic, and by extension of course, its avoidance by those outside it who want to deal with it, is frankly irrelevant to Wikipedia, the global encyclopoedia, save for the tiny few places where the Republican world view is to be appropriately mentioned in articles. That is how you neutrally deal with this dispute, such as it can even be called one. Our core principle of NPOV is not and never has been about levelling that playing field to suit their minority world view, at the expense of the actual world view. And even calling this a leveling of the playing field is innacurate - the current use of the term on Wikipedia, and more importantly the phenomenon of active avoidance, is now, thanks to HighKing, totally out of whack compared to its usage/avoidance in the real world, in proper, authorative sources, aswell as natural language. When a single editor like HighKing is attempting to, by sheer grit and determination, achieve widespread change in the natural usage of a term on Wikipedia by thousands of other casual editors via systematic searching, then they are unquestionably POV pushing. Anyone who says otherwise simply doesn't understand the concept. He has never restricted his edits solely to simply correcting other people's willfull or accidental misrepresentation of sources, that's not true in the slightest. It stretches the basic collaborative purpose of this site to breaking point to remotely suggest that he is allowed to do that just because everyone who wants to dispute it has eventually found that talking to a brick wall is a more rewarding past time. There is real opposition to HighKing out there, from experienced non-sock editors, it's all on record in the various past arenas. Not once, not ever, has his viewpoint been sanctioned by a large community forum, or by any editor who has a respected record in NPOV writing. The implementation of a Guideline that incorprorates his views on the term and how it should be used is an eternal fantasy, for good reason - the proposals do not follow policy and as such never get community support when put to them for examination. Thus, we are in perpetual 'HighKing management' mode, setting up special rules and venues and probations and witch hunts simply to mitigate his presence on Wikipedia. Discussion might have worked if HighKing's idea of how that goes had been properly monitored and guided away from his incessant tendentious approach, but administrators like yourself have failed in their duty to not reward his WP:TE as a modus operandi, so interest in discussion has now well and truly dissappeared, while he continues to do what he's always done since year dot - search and change, search and change. In the game of POV pushing, that's classed as a win. MickMacNee (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

MMN - HK was just warned by me a matter of hours ago. Contrary to your opinion MMN the community sanction on the addition/removal/alteration of the term British Isles is to prevent disruption by both "sides".
MMN do not post to this page in the above fashion. If you want to post here do it with short, diff based points or not at all. This will be your only warning wrt to that - this talk page is not a forum and will no be used as such--Cailil ^talk 18:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My mistake. I saw the warning, I found this discussion, and I added my opinion based on my many years of subject knowledge. Your hostility and threats toward editors who act in this most outrageous manner on a talk page is duly noted, I shall leave you to what you apparently see as 'your' talk page, and shall endevour to observe your unique requirements from now on, or maybe find a more open admin. I'll give you a free pass on the whole 'forum' slur for now, but kindly don't repeat it either directly or indirectly, unless you mean to intentionally aggravate me. MickMacNee (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Your filing in response to this is noted. I would welcome the committee examining your involvement in that dispute, and your claims about what motivates me in it. I note your inflammatory use of words like "targetted", interesting choice. I would welcome the committee examining whether the claims I make about HighKing are true, as let's face it, that's not really something you've ever bothered to do is it? If I find a golden diff that proves HighKing is a relentless POV pusher whose tendentious tactics are achieving systematic change on this site, aided and abetted by admins who are unable or unwilling to stop him, then I'll be sure to present it to you, but I'd rather the committee saw this demand for what it was. I would welcome the committee examining your claim that I have never once made a policy or diff backed argument against him, or my involvement in this dispute is even half as personalised or hostile as you make out. There is no policy against me highlighting you or anybody else's failings as regards content or behavioural policies frankly, that's real wishful thinking on your part. And it's frankly perverse that you think schools would be bothered about the internal disputes on Wikipedia, but not the POV pushing of our content that triggers it. I would love it, love it, if schools were made fully aware of what impact single editors like HighKing are achieving on the content of ths so called global encyclopoedia, and what role admins like yourself are playing in sweeping it under the carpet. As always, it's nice to see someone trusted to stop large scale POV pushing on this site, simply describe it as a "lame" issue. You've made some seriously strong claims about me in that evidence, not backed up by any of the diffs you've presented, and the committe would do well to examine exactly what you've done about them up to know if they are minded to believe it, because I cannot for a minute think that if you had infact ever seen other editors or even admins be "verbally abused, threatened and personally attacked" by me, that you would have waited until now to highlight it. Not you, maybe others with a thicker skin and a real talent for pragmatic administration in highly charged areas of dispute like nationalist POV pushing, but not you. It's a nice story, but that's about it. If the committe finds that I have intimated you, HighKing, or anyone else, simply by holding you to basic standards or pointing out some uncomfortable truths, then they can ban me right now, and I'll be glad of it. I would want no part in such a backward project frankly. MickMacNee (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

My only regret infact is not filing an arbitration request on HighKing once the stupidity that was trying to engage with him through BISE/SE met its inevitable end, and he simply resumed where he left off, free to act the victim yet again, with your help. Instead of wasting time on your ideas of topic bans and civility restrictions while pretednign this was a content issue and waiting for mythical Rfcs that nobody was ever going to file, not least you, we should have just we got right down to it - file the case and ask the committe to rule whether what HighKing does over months and years, and how he has done it, with the facade of 'using sources' and 'civil discussion' (only the bits relating to fake politeness of course, ignoring all the parts that relate to WP:TE), constitutes POV pushing or not. For me, well, obvious campaign was and still is obvious, but it's a sad truth of this site that you often have to go all the way to a case to get obvious things recognised, particularly when dealing with editors like Highking who have been here long enough to know what all the weaknesses of this site are against the tacits he employs, which are not, and never have been, about collegialism or consensus, let alone respect for basic content policies like NPOV. He has been doing this for years, and like all good nationalist POV pushers, he doesn't give a fuck whether it takes him years to achieve his goal or not. MickMacNee (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)