User talk:Cailil/archive17

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

User page

Talk page

Admin

Logs

Awards

Books

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

Newbie on the road to perdition?

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)

Hi SoS. I had a look at this. I think its too early for an intervention from sysops (unless I've missed something). Encourage that user to engage the article talk pages and discuss controversial edits. I think your explanation on his talk page about how controversial some of those changes are is good. If he fails to listen let me know--Cailil ^talk 17:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

OK Calil I'll do that. He seems to be knowledgeable enough, just not experienced yet. I certainly don't want him to fall prey to any tag teamers because that'll just put him off editing and to be honest we need good editors on Irish articles, especially troubles related ones. SonofSetanta (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

AN

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)

sigh I know. It seems to have gone quiet at last--Cailil ^talk 19:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

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)

I need to see the individual diffs SoS, the link you give above goes to the page history (there's a lot to sift through there) can you be more specific? You need to point me to: a) the initial edit (the one Asarlaí is reverting), b) his 1st revert, and c) his second and/or subsequent reverts--Cailil ^talk 13:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok Cailil. The first diff is here at 17:01 yesterday [1] showing where he puts the POV material back in which I've deleted on 1 August. Then I come in here [2] and make a series of edits until here [3] to correct errors, twisted source material and POV, but not reverting him - finishing at 17:37pm yesterday. Asarlai then starts to edit again here at 18:02pm [4] and makes seven edits up until this one at 19:37. [5]. His objective appears to be to slant the article in an anti-British fashion. I've made suggestions to him on his talk page and on the article talk page to try and persuade him to follow the manual of style but instead of taking the guidance he has launched into an epistle of justification on the article talk page. I've replied to that in friendly fashion, again reminding him of how the manual of style works and inviting him to edit with me. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok well unless I'm missing something this[6] is Asarlai's only revert within 24 hours? If so he has not breached the 1RR. If that edit is a repeat of another one do show me when he did that revert before. As it stands I don't see a second revert and thus there is no grounds for action. It looks like a content dispute and I' suggest trying to tone everything down and sort out the differences between the 2 of you. I'm sure you can both work together to improve that article. If direct talk page discussion doesn't help let me know. DRN might be able to help you--Cailil ^talk 15:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

It looked like edit warring to me. I take something out and he puts it back in again. The line between edit warring and content dispute is very thin and perhaps because of my own actions I have prevented edit warring on this occasion (doesn't that make a pleasant change?). There's been nothing today because I can't edit again as it's within 24 hours. I'm a little wary because, whilst exercising good faith, it appears that this chap has an anti-British agenda. Something we've seen less of recently. We'll see does he respond to my invitations. I'm not touching the OP Banner article again until Monday when I will remove the excess text, which I've already put on the 10 UDR article. If he edits it back in then I'll be saying it's an edit war rather than a content dispute. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually SoS you'd BOTH be edit-warring then. In the situation of an edit-war it doesn't matter who started it, all that matters is that ppl are reverting. In short discuss don't revert. Find consensus first then edit the article.
As regards "I take something out and he puts it back in again", he needs to undo your edits twice (within 24 hours) to breach 1RR. In this situation follow the "Bold revert discuss cycle": you were bold, he reverted, & now it's time to discuss. Try to AGF here. If all that fails let me know--Cailil ^talk 15:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

OK Cailil. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Sad but - see below

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)

As you are aware you must notify an editor about an ANI report that you make against them, instead of trying to canvass support for yourself. Mo ainm~Talk 11:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

What's this then? SonofSetanta (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

It is where you notified me after I had responded on ANI and also here, any reason why you are linking to it? Mo ainm~Talk 11:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The place for semantic arguing is here or on my talk page. Not on Cailil's talk page. You've been a Wikipedia editor long enough to know that. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion

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)

Changed information on former identities.

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)

Help me out here

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)

Blatant attempts to get SoS liable to be topic-banned full-stop. Same old tactics they used on Mooretwin which the admins willingly obliged. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:36, 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)

ANI notice

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)

HighKing

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)

By way of explanation, check the history of actions here. The anon IP reverted twice with a blank edit summary, and twice more with a "breach of sanctions" edit summary (over a period of 8 days). The piece of text in question - "the quote" - was not referenced. I (or any other editor) had been given no reasons for objecting to the edit, which was in line with WP:IRE-IRL and WP:IMOS. The anon IP didn't respond to two notices on their Talk page over the space of a week. Nobody could have known what reason the anon IP had for reverting, and in fact the anon IP has not once mentioned the "direct quote" as a reason - this was something brought up at AN/I. The anon IP's AN/I notice was a complaint that I was breaching my Topic Ban, which clearly I'm not. Since then, a brand spanking new editor has tried to make this into some sort of a breach of the topic ban, and deserving of some punishment. The anon IP has since reverted [7] WP:IMOS related edits by other editors. So to reiterate - the anon IP left no reasons for reverting, didn't respond after I posted a notice on their Talk page (or anywhere), and the text in question wasn't referenced. Taking into account the other warnings on their Talk page, at this stage it looked like a (normal) anon IP petty vandalism account.

But something fishy is going on here. The new editor, Zoombox21, is clearly not a new editor, and appears very very familiar with my editing history. If the anon IP was simply "fixing" a quote, why start edit warring on other articles with reasons at odds with the general community? Or make accusations of sockpuppetry between myself and Murry1975 (we've heard that one before?). Or dig back into my past (very very familiar with my editing history) and post notices about an alternative account that was used in the past (again - we've seen this before from a certain banned editor). --HighKing (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

HK I did in fact highlight that your policing of IMOS is not constructive. To reiterate myself from my comments at the time of your current topic-ban:

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.

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:

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]

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)

Amen. Whenever HighKing feels the urge to make an edit citing Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles as a justification, he should think again. He should leave it to other editors to fix any style issues involving Great Britain, Ireland or the British Isles. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks Cailil for the even-handed analysis. For me, making drive-by terminology policing edits is a (my) problem, not a positive. --HighKing (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

BTW, just noticed 99.232.63.163 wasn't blocked but is another address used by the socks. --HighKing (talk) 15:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

An eye will be kept on it but with 1 edit there's no need to block at this point--Cailil ^talk 17:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Again

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 back off this type of edit SoS. I wont close that thread because I have not the time to look into it. But my last close DID say that if old habits were returned to the matter would pick up from the last ban discussion. I suggest disengaging from these discussions and issues for the moment--Cailil ^talk 14:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Glad to see you back. I can promise you faithfully I have not returned to any old habits. I've done nothing disruptive and all the image copyright issues are well gone. I worked hard to ensure that. It seems that some people won't let it rest however. It's all being dragged up again to try and have me banned indefinitely. I'll take your advice though and leave the discussion until you or one of the other two sysops I've contacted can have a look at the problem. Thank you for agreeing to do so. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

It's probably worth noting that, despite high hopes of help from other users, the assistance to resolve most of the copyright issues actually came direct from OTRS. The editors who complained about me just kept tagging images for deletion if I made the slightest error. OTRS helped me understand the more complicated licences, like British Crown Copyright, and the result was that I got to keep most of my images, although some had to be reuploaded in different versions with new licencing. Plus, all the images taken by me: despite those other editors calling me a liar over and over again, I was able to prove they were mine and kept them all. I learned a lot from the experience. I just wish it hadn't been as a result of a witch hunt. I think that goes to prove that some editors here are quite happy to give someone like me a bad name when in actual fact I'm always more than happy to learn something new which helps me enjoy the wiki even more. Have you seen my user page now? In the absence of grief from others I spent a little time learning how to tart it up, something I've wanted to do for a long time. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:43, 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)

I didn't realise it was coming across as personal. I was certainly annoyed about the way the errors on Wolfe Tone Societies were handled by User:Psychonaut. I'd never come across anything like that before and it threw me - a touch of neophobia. I would have preferred that he contacted me directly about the problem and I would have fixed it. I believe you know my commitment and I also believe Psychonaut does too. I'm collaborating all over the place to an extent that I've never done before, it's very evident on the articles I'm working on, which is more than I've ever worked on before too. I don't think Psychonaut's style helped, but there is ample evidence that I co-operated with him, and others, in a collegiate manner on multiple occasions to sort out copyright concerns. Where I got paranoid was over the free use UDR badge. When he started questioning the validity of the UDR sign I had created some years ago I thought that was a prelude to having it deleted and for him to then get the UDR badge derivative removed too. I admit my paranoia. It was a consequence of having my own self taken pictures questioned and having to prove they were mine. I know I posted too much on the ANI board but I couldn't help myself. When I saw all the criticisms, some of them very inaccurate, I felt I couldn't let them lie unchallenged. I know I'm far too wordy. It doesn't show in articles (I hope) but it does in discussion, like this. Far too long but my mind is so busy I've got to get it out. SonofSetanta (talk) 07:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the situation has calmed down now and is probably resolved going by the comments on the ANI board. I also see the Wolfe Tone Societies article is restored. No doubt you've had a hand in all of this and once again I need to thank you for your kind intervention. I was right though when I said I'd done nothing wrong this time - wasn't I? Or was I? I note your comments above and see no real scolding in it, just friendly advice, which I appreciate very much and will take, but the lack of a block or a good telling off seems to suggest that, for once, I was not at fault? SonofSetanta (talk) 10:25, 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)

Thank you so much Mabuska. I would be very pleased to have you as a mentor as well as an editing partner. I joined the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration as a direct result of my interface with you and as I have outlined elsewhere am really enjoying editing the wiki now in a way I've never done before. As an historian with a neutral POV and a third level education to go with it, I firmly believe I have much to offer. I can certainly cope with the more disruptive editors on Irish articles much better. That was always my downfall in the past. SonofSetanta (talk) 08:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

He won't let go

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)

I second what Kim said here. Please listen to him. If you keep butting heads like this you WILL end up restricted/topic-banned or worse. In the strongest possible terms I urge you to avoid copyright sensitive areas completely for a while. And again de-personalize this, if you keep approaching the issue from the mindset that others are 'out to get you' you'll miss the point and the learning opportunity. Sometimes the copyright editors get it wrong BUT just as its up to the editor adding content to articles to source it properly it's up to the image uploader to provide the exact and fully correct licensing information. It both cases casual approaches lead to disaster--Cailil ^talk 11:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I've listened to him, and I've listened to you. There is no issue surrounding copyright. There hasn't been for several weeks. The outcomes prove that I was treated unfairly by some, and when I stood up for myself they tried to show me as disruptive instead of trying to educate me. OTRS taught me more in a few e-mails. It's over now because I wouldn't give up and kept asking for help from the right people, including you. Wikipedia politics don't interest me and I'm never going to be as good at them as others but when the boot was put in this morning I should have complained about WP:WIKIHOUNDING and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I didn't because I felt you and Mabuska would disapprove and had both told me to back off. Which proves I do listen.

The WP:BATTLE between myself, others and disruptive POV editors on Irish articles put me off Wikipedia for long periods and got me a bad name. To have had copyright issues shoved up my nose too was unwelcome. I'm still here though and I'm better for the experiences. I should at least get brownie points for perseverance. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Your Comments on AE

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

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)

There's a red sentence in the editnotice, which comes up when you try to edit this page or add a new message (see User_talk:Cailil/Editnotice), asking that "any matters or comments relating to arbitration enforcement threads I am involved in should be made at WP:AE not here." I wont reply in substance Moanim but if you want to see others sanctioned for placing tags and thus breaking 1RR logically those breaking 1RR by removing are equally guilty. Furthermore if you read WP:NOT3RR your edits are not covered. There was no need for you to revert more than once - others removed the tags too. Furthermore please see the big red box at WP:AE. Arbcom enforcement blocks are not preventative or punitive, they're "coercive"--Cailil ^talk 18:17, 20 August 2013 (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.

Whinge

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)

You're "asking the other parent" SOS which is a kind of canvassing. The matter is closed. The change of file type can be carried out by anyone - you don't need to be doing this. Seriously, step away from all activities related to the WP:TROUBLES area (images, articles, discussions, RFCs, talk pages etc etc). Editing one would be a breach of your topic ban. Find other areas on WP to work on, there's a list of WikiProject MilHist tasks that need doing (see here) you could start there. But please research how processes work and avoid hitting Undo--Cailil ^talk 13:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you look at this?

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)

As per the box at the top of my page I'm under to much time pressure in real life to deal with new issues. my best advice is report any violation of 1RR on WP:TROUBLES articles to WP:AE. And if there is a long standing issue with editwarring (and you can evidence it) bring that to AE--Cailil ^talk 15:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update

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)

Disambiguation link notification for September 2

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)

Re: Feminism

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)

FGM

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)

Normal Service has resumed

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)

Request your attention and help on this topic

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)

Hi Lvhis, I'm sorry but due to real life pressures I'm not in a position to take on any new issues or requests at the moment. It would be better for you to seek advice from an admin that is more active on wikipedia right now--Cailil ^talk 14:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

A Voice for Men

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)

created by an editor who declares a COI and who's whole history is just this one article. When this goes to AFD (because on a first and second look none of the sources are up to standard) that site will flood the discussion with SPAs and COI accounts. It's not a good sign for AFC that it let this through without checking a) that the site is blacklisted and b) that that topic is under probation but that's a side issue - the point remains this is purely a promotional exercise without encyclopedic merit. I'm still AWOL and may have to prolong my absence till March but I'll try to keep an eye on this too--Cailil ^talk 18:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hope everything is OK in your real life. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Topic Ban

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)

I will get to this in the next few weeks. The issues I will be looking at are the related to the pattern of behvaiour examined at the time of the ban reinstatement. I have pressing real life matters that I need to focus on right now but I will try to resolve this around January 18th--Cailil ^talk 13:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

With that in mind I have to say (and I mentioned the continual pedantic edit warring at Cecil Day-Lewis in one of the previous bans - probably the first one) that the removal of material from Cecil Day-Lewis without trying to replace it with a better source[12][13] is precisely the same problem as before. Any academic quality Cecil Day-Lewis biography will state something similar to the removed text. Page 4 of C Day-Lewis: A Life (that isn't available online but should be in any good library) contains a (very) brief genealogy of the family and a paragraph describing them feeling British but also British-Irish, and the complexities of that.

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)

Cailil, the piece in question was actually removed by another editor because it had a "Citation Required" tag in place for 2 years. When the exact same text was put back into the article - this time with a reference, after I checked I saw that the reference was not a good one. I reverted the re-addition and explained why the reference was flawed. I've no problem with Day-Lewis being described as Anglo-Irish, but what is annoying is that you imply that *do* I have a problem with describing Day-Lewis as Anglo-Irish - or maybe the term Anglo-Irish in general. That is untrue, and I've no issue with the term. To the best of my knowledge I've never made an edit to any biography/article relating to the term before. I think you're reading far too much into that edit. Also you have linked my edits with WP:TROUBLES topics in the past - it's a topic area I really don't have an involvement with or interest in. --HighKing (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

No HK the problem is that this is the same pattern as all the "gnoming" that got you in to hot water last time and the same kind of stuff that got GoodDay banned. Removing something without a citation is ok but it is only step 1.

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)

Cailil, I know this process takes time and I wanted to allow you some peace to make progress since I know that disagreeing/arguing with you on your Talk page steals whatever scarce time you have. Some points you raised above initially, I didn't respond to initially. But with respect, I feel I have to respond to make matters clear. The text in question wasn't merely making a claim that he was Anglo-Irish (as you suggest above), but made a particular claim that Cecil chose British nationality after WW1 because he figured out where his roots lay. That's far and away a much different claim. It was not, as you suggest above, a simple claim that he is Anglo-Irish.
Also, despite what you say above, I searched diligently for something/anything on those lines (given in the claim). I looked specifically for any reference that discusses Cecil choosing British nationality and specifically was interested in anywhere Cecil provides a reason. I found nothing other than a lot of places repeating the same text with minor variations, all of which appear to be created after Wikipedia published the "fact" in the first place. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:59, 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)

Despite Highking apparently not having an active interest in WP:Troubles, he did feel the need to make edits to the WP:Derry page back in September. Must of slipped his mind.Dubs boy (talk) 17:22, 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)

• Just to say I haven't forgotten about this - I should have the review completed by Wednesday--Cailil ^talk 13:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Review

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.

• Issues around "gnoming"

• Mass changing of terminology/names without consensus. As I said last time: "Making drive-by terminology policing edits IS A PROBLEM not a positive". Also with regard to common names and MOS as I said in August "there is no authority for the MOS to override any policy or normal consensus editing".
• Focus on British/Irish nationalist topics (WP:TROUBLES) - both Ed and I advised you to stay away from gnoming edits in this topic area. You haven’t. I explained that gnoming in the Troubles area is not grounds for removal of this topic ban
• Good Friday/Belfast Agreement
• Islands_of_the_North_Atlantic [15] – edit made after British Isles category added to article.
• [16]
• [17]
• [18]
• [19]
• 15 edits of this type on 14 December 2013

• Edits/comments around Derry/Londonderry naming issue

• [20]
• [21]
• [22]

• The point I'm making here is that you remain entangled with the TROUBLES area terminology debates - you need to move away from this.

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)

Cailil, I wasn't aware any of my edits were against consensus on any Topic. Nor was I aware that I wasn't to comment or participate in any article where there might be the slightest contention over terminology. The "behaviour" problem you point our above assumes my edits were contentious or against consensus, but I haven't a clue how you come to that conclusion. But if you're saying that it part of the problem then I'll avoid that type of editing. I believe an additional 6 months is extremely harsh. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 03:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

No HK, first of all there is a difference between there being no consensus for a mass change and it being against consensus. Did you start a discussion about why the term Belfast Agreement should be changed over a mass number of articles with the term Good Friday Agreement. Did it end in a broad consensus? You've had all this explained 4 or 5 times now. You need to change tack in how you approach editing in this area. Indeed you were advised by two sysops to avoid terminological changes in the British/Irish area altogether. Similarly with the CS Lewis edits rather than seeking to follow WP:Preserve and find a better source and record what it says you just removed material. I made a big issue of this practice when I reimposed the ban and 6 months when BlackKite asked me to review edits adjacent to this ban. In order for an indefinite ban to be lifted measurable change on your side needs to occur. I've been saying for at least a year you need to approach editing holistically for the community to see that kind of change. Focus on one article (preferably that is not directly related to British/Irish/Northern Ireland terminology disputes) and improve it to a higher status (see WP:GA? for advice). This is the way forward, mass changes related to gnoming about terms and/or MOSs wont help - that shows you not breaking the ban, but it doesn't show you changing how you approach editing--Cailil ^talk 12:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict):You just beat me to posting. On reflection, I can see where you're coming from. It's always clearer in hindsight... Let's revisit in June and see where we are. There's an area I've already started to focus on and I've started a stub article Sir Walter Coppinger (an infamous character around parts of Cork) and I'm thinking of starting other related articles (perhaps one on "Sir Fineen O'Driscoll"). Thanks for taking the time, I appreciate you're busy and this steals your time from you. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Bot logging

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.

• If there is no bot at all, if someone shows up at Hurricane Sandy to edit or comment on the climate change connection to the storm, eds will have to issue and log alerts for newcomers to the climate change subject area.
• If there is a bot for the main articles, then if that same person comes to Hurricane Sandy, we simply do the exact same thing i.e. eds issue and log those alerts.

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)

Honestly NewsAndEventsGuy because Arbcom rulings usually effect behavior not content bots are not the best judge. The reason discretionary sanctions are called "discretionary" is because it requires human judgment, a bot cannot be programmed (as yet) for such actions. There is a technical impossibility also where style issues or behaviours are involved. If a problem from one dispute is brought to another topic area completely a bot will miss it. For example an edit-war in a physics category article about Israeli-Palestinian issues would be covered by ARB:PIA even though it may not be in a category that has any relationship to the topic (because said issue is about editor animosity or nationalism and has NOTHING to do with the subject of the article). The behavior and actions of the editors fall under that ruling NOT the articles per se.

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)

Thanks but you are talking about judgment needed to impose a sanction. My proposal for a bot has nothing to do with that part of the process, so I guess I have failed to express myself well. But this has been very useful because I see the need to produce a table that will chart out the idea, so thanks! I'll work on the table in my userspace over the next x number of days. I'm grateful for the ear. Cheers, NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually I'm not just talking about imposition of sanctions. Identifying where a ruling begins and ends requires judgment that bots cannot be programmed to have. Knowing that edits in a category that is unrelated to a topic are introducing behaviours forbidden by an Arbcom ruling is beyond bot intelligences. Editing an article on homeopathy and being notified of the ArbCom ruling on that is easy (but equally unnecessary a big edit notice flashes up when you try to edit articles that are obviously cover like this) it's the less obvious ones that are the problem. Again rulings usually cover behaviours NOT content and this requires a human eye--Cailil ^talk 16:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's say Jane Wiki Doe (talk · contribs) is brand new, and arrives at top-level article Global warming where she spots a {{cn}} tag. Saying to herself, "Hey, I just read something about that!", she pulls out her copy of Scientific American and fills in the citation template. My first response is to thank Jane for her edit. QUESTION: Under the new DS system, am I also allowed to "alert" Jane that DS applies and then log it, even if she makes no additional edits? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Under the new system you should alert them. The discussion I replied to you in is advocating no logging is necessary. There is a lot of support (inlcuding my own) for *not logging*. It's up to the ArbCom drafters but I'd expect that when the draft is implemented no logging would be necessary--Cailil ^talk 01:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Dope slap! Suppose we told a bot to alert Jane, but not log it. Further, we only told the bot to do this on top-level articles where there is no question about the entire article falling under a ruling? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Clarification

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)