User talk:Cailil
 Talk page |
 Admin |
 Logs |
 Awards |
 Books |
- This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia you are viewing a mirror site. If that is the case please be aware that the page may be outdated and that User:Cailil may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located here.
- User:Cailil is extremely busy in real life - please do not be offended if your message is not replied immediately. Due to many commitments in real life he is not as available on wikipedia as he once was. He will have limited time for wikipedia until early May 2012. In his absence, matters arising from normal administrative decisions taken by him should be brought to WP:AN or WP:ANI, matters arising from arbitration enforcement should be taken to WP:AE. And by way of clarity he has no problem with any other sysop reversing his decisions, as long as they have consesus on the appropriate board or if they have a substantive reason (such as a blocked/banned party's agreement to abide by WP:5) to do so.
- This page is subject to wikipedia's talk page guidelines and civility policies. Violations of these rules will be enforced. In short please remeber that wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a forum and not a form of social media - please do not make posts here (or anywhere else) that personally attack, assume bad faith of other editors, or otherwise attempt to use wikipedia for advocacy or to carry on campaigns from other websites or real life.
- If you are a new user and are unfamiliar with wikipedia's codes of conduct, content policies and proceedures please familiarize yourself with these rules before asking questions.
This notice is being sent to you because you participated in this RFC, which was placed on indefinite hold when the user who was the subject abruptly retired from Wikipedia. As of today that user has announed that they are no longer retired and are retuning to the project. This does not mean that the RFC must be re-opened, but it can be if anyone feels there is a need for the discussion to continue. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
MSU Interview
Dear Cailil,
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
- Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
- Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
- All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
- All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
- The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Topic Ban Review
Hi Cailil, I think the 6 months has come to an end a short while ago. I am aware that the entire "British Isles" area has been remarkably stable over that period, so it's only fair that I acknowledge that. Equally noteworthy is that those editors that warred with me have pretty much disappeared. I'd like the Topic Ban lifted if you get a chance to do a review. It's also given me a chance to look back over my editing at "British Isles" - with the benefit of being older and wiser and less "involved". Some of my editing was .... let's say extremely pedantic. Perhaps (arguably) not technically incorrect if you "rules lawyered" the policies, but sometimes one needs to acknowledge and conform to the spirit of everyday usage. As to the future of "British Isles" editing. I believe I've a very firm grip of what is required, the most important of which is to ensure that references are provided for any changes. --HighKing (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hi HighKing. I'll have a look at this over the next few days--Cailil talk 23:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've reviewed the ban[1] but I'm afraid I haven't lifted it at this time. As I said in the review I'm happy to look at this again in 3 months--Cailil talk 15:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm keen to get this cleared up - I've asked as AN/I for another opinion here. --HighKing (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- No problem HK - I'm glad you went to a board rather than to MRG, an action like this needs a consensus of uninvolved sysops to overturn it (rather than just 1). And like I said I'm happy to look at this again at the end of May--Cailil talk 17:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Cailil, if this ever happens in the future, I'll not volunteer for a long break and go quietly into the night. In my opinion, this is a breach - on your part - of the spirit of my break. I regret agreeing to 6 months, and I regret not fighting the original imposition of the Topic Ban. Had I been a bollix and fought, I'd probably have received a week, tops. This isn't fair or right. And adding three months from the original date takes us to the middle of May, not the end of May. If I am forced to eat this, not one extra day will I concede. If (and it's looking likely) nobody is willing to dare speak up an AN, can I take it to Arbcom for review. Because nobody is answering any of my questions, and as I've said, this isn't fair. --HighKing (talk) 22:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've replied at AN[2]. I'm not giving this issue any more time than I already have and I will not be swayed by threats. Protest as you wish but the community sanction that I imposed, and reviewed has been upheld as appropriate by other sysops on AN. If I were you I'd consider learning from this rather than anything else. I have no further comments--Cailil talk 23:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Cailil, I regret my outburst above, sincere apologies. I felt angry because I believed I was being hard-done by and not treated fairly or consistently with other editors. My anger was directed at the perceived unfairness, and not at the Topic Ban. Your explanation at AN has shown me the error of my thinking - I was completely wrong about the difference between a ban and a block, and I realize I'm not being treated differently. Now that I realize this, I've no problem with a review at the end of May. --HighKing (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've replied at AN[2]. I'm not giving this issue any more time than I already have and I will not be swayed by threats. Protest as you wish but the community sanction that I imposed, and reviewed has been upheld as appropriate by other sysops on AN. If I were you I'd consider learning from this rather than anything else. I have no further comments--Cailil talk 23:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Cailil, if this ever happens in the future, I'll not volunteer for a long break and go quietly into the night. In my opinion, this is a breach - on your part - of the spirit of my break. I regret agreeing to 6 months, and I regret not fighting the original imposition of the Topic Ban. Had I been a bollix and fought, I'd probably have received a week, tops. This isn't fair or right. And adding three months from the original date takes us to the middle of May, not the end of May. If I am forced to eat this, not one extra day will I concede. If (and it's looking likely) nobody is willing to dare speak up an AN, can I take it to Arbcom for review. Because nobody is answering any of my questions, and as I've said, this isn't fair. --HighKing (talk) 22:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- No problem HK - I'm glad you went to a board rather than to MRG, an action like this needs a consensus of uninvolved sysops to overturn it (rather than just 1). And like I said I'm happy to look at this again at the end of May--Cailil talk 17:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm keen to get this cleared up - I've asked as AN/I for another opinion here. --HighKing (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've reviewed the ban[1] but I'm afraid I haven't lifted it at this time. As I said in the review I'm happy to look at this again in 3 months--Cailil talk 15:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- HI HK, I hadn't forgotten - will look at this in the next few days--Cailil talk 12:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't forgotten about this and will have the review done by Friday night-Saturday morning (RL work-load issues)--Cailil talk 21:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- OK, no panic, I can see you've been busy on another related issue. I've studiously avoided editing any articles that involved the British Isles, so hopefully no misunderstandings on my part this time around. --HighKing (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't forgotten about this and will have the review done by Friday night-Saturday morning (RL work-load issues)--Cailil talk 21:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
You have blocked this user in the past for issues regarding editing on articles with racial issues. I believe he is causing problems again, repeatedly making accusations that well sourced photographs have been Photoshopped, to affect their skin tone, citing a blog, and disregarding RS that contradict him. Thank you for your attention. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I'm unavailable to deal with this (please see the note on teh top of this page re: my limited availability on wikipedia) so I will recommend you seek dispute resolution via WP:DRN or outside input via WP:TO.
If there is a behavioural issue, and you can substantiate, it might be better to speak to User:Future Perfect at Sunrise or User:EdJohnston but I would recommend only doing so if you can show (ie with diffs) that there is a problem - rather than just claiming that there is one--Cailil talk 15:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Dispute resolution survey
 Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Cailil. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
I would say this is invalid, as no reason for such an interaction issue is given, and given that as an administrator you may be required to post on any user's talkpage. I will, however, point this conversation out to the user for comment. Black Kite (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks BK. You'll understand my hesitance to take it directly to Shakehandsman in that I don't want to disregard their wishes. I'll also point-out that SLP1 is also a sysop and the evidence used to justify her ban from Shakehandsman page do not show any inappropriate conduct - Shakehandsman may (and is free to) disagree with her and everyone else's perspectives but that does not justify the accusation of inappropriate conduct and the apparent attempt to poison the well for others dealing with any issue related to this. Furthermore it is not acceptable usage of the user talkspace to ask "anyone with [insert whatever POV] outlook or background is respectfully asked not to post" on a user talk page - we don't own these talk pages. I don't want it to seem like I am against the legitimate use of user talk page 'bans' as such - but this type of action makes a mockery of those legitimate instances--Cailil talk 17:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes - that's the problem I have with that talkpage as well. It reads to me like "I don't want anyone who doesn't share my POV to post here" which is clearly unacceptable. Black Kite (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- I've let KC know about this[3] as she seems to have came back from her wikibreak. I also noted how Shakehandsman interpreted her last intervention--Cailil talk 16:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Just to be clear BK I don't see a commenting out of my name from the list as an appropriate conclusion to this[4]. I believe the inclusion of other ppl on that list (especially Slp1) is just as problematic as my own.
I would also say that Shakehandsman's response to you illustrates my points perfectly and shows again that he is not listening to what you & I have said here, or what KC said months ago.
One does not have the latitude to use a talk page to draw-up lines of ideological battle against other users for what one supposes are their personal opinions. And I emphasize the speculative aspect of Shakehandsman's claim that those who edit in a subject area in concert with WP:5 are in anyway biased for or against any ideology at all.
His text reads:
This is both a wild claim that anyone involved with the wikiprojects LGBT, Feminism or Gender studies are all POV pushers (and directly alleges that they all personally hold "anti-gender equality" povs), and a soapbox against ideologies, which alone would be wildly inappropriate. Furthermore it labels a list of editors as having a "record of anti-gender equality contributions" and conflates that with having real world experience/knowledge of a subject--Cailil talk 13:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)I really don't appreciate sexism or those with a record of anti-gender equality contributions (particularly if working together in organised groups). Regrettably, due to the present biases on Wikipedia, anyone with a gender feminist outlook or background is respectfully asked not to post here please. For the avoidance of doubt anyone involved in gender studies is included in this request unless there is evidence of neutral editing or they reject current prevailing gender studies ideologies.[5]
- Just to be clear BK I don't see a commenting out of my name from the list as an appropriate conclusion to this[4]. I believe the inclusion of other ppl on that list (especially Slp1) is just as problematic as my own.
- I've let KC know about this[3] as she seems to have came back from her wikibreak. I also noted how Shakehandsman interpreted her last intervention--Cailil talk 16:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes - that's the problem I have with that talkpage as well. It reads to me like "I don't want anyone who doesn't share my POV to post here" which is clearly unacceptable. Black Kite (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
A way forward
I noticed your edit. Since the whole thing went into a general slinging match I agree that some clarification is needed. At least the focus of the trouble went away from the RfA. I have been mulling over the idea of an ammendment myself basically leaving us two options: 1) removing the "any uninvolved admin can topic ban" passage as no-one in their right mind would touch the subject after seeing this debacle due to the fallout even in the most clearcut cases, or 2) replace that passage with a restriction to just !voting whilst admonishing other editors not to comment. Do you think either would work? Agathoclea (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- It's really a matter for the committee. IMHO a simple wording change ("under probation" rather than "topic banned" in the ruling quoted at the AE case) would clear things up. In those circumstances I would see sysops enforcing it--Cailil talk 19:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Van Speijk
Cailil I was wondering if you could have a look at the actions of Van Speijk with regards to the insertion of the term British Isles without the support of references. Since your warning in November 2011 he has continued to add/re-add the term without regard for any restrictions or indeed WP policy:
- Town and gown - Replaced a 2 month old fact tag and the term British Isles [6]
- Thomas Coville - In an attempt to keep/include the term British Isles Van Speijk when to the extremes of making up a non existence world record: [7] and [8].
- Rosie (given name) - Re-added British Isles without any supporting reference and made any excuse in the talkpage to include it. [9], [10]. He concluded that the use of Great Britian wasn't right as it missed out some islands and that United Kingdom couldn't be used as it included Northern Ireland. He however was happy to use British Isles which not only included Northern Ireland but the Republic of Ireland, Channel Isles and Isle of Man. Talk page logic can be observed here.
As you are well aware I have been active in the area of Irish/British articles for years and have on many occassions removed the term British Isles when it was either inappropriate or not supported by references. I stand by these edits and if you or anyone else feel that there are outwith the quidelines and policies of this project I am more than willing to be pointed in the direction of my indiscretions. Bjmullan (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for brining these to my attention BJ. Re: the 3 articles there is a problem here and its the toxicity of the interaction between you and Van Speijk. The British Isles probation was established to prevent edit warring in articles over the the term British Isles, and to prevent it spreading/spilling over into other articles & topics. The histories of the 3 articles you list above are warped by a slow edit-war by both you and Van Speijk. For example almost 20% (11 out of 57 edits) of Rosie (given name) is the edit war between the two of you. Just under 50% of the article's history at Thomas Coville, and 7 of the 10 edits this year at Town and Gown and the two of you edit-warring.
Dealing with the substance of the 3 instances you listed:
1) The Town and Gown edits are original research by Van Speijk inserted and reinserted without sourcing contrary to core policy and WP:GS/BI. But you BJ should not have edit-warred with him about it. Being correct does not justify edit-warring.
2) Regarding the Thomas Coville editsVan Speijk is correct - the sources do use the term 'British Isles' and do not use "Britain and Ireland". But again[see below--Cailil 08:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)] you were both edit warring and he was wrong to edit-war even if hewas correcthad a point in terms of sourcing.
3) On Rosie you're both wrong - the source says "England" not "Great Britain" and not the "British Isles".
All in all the project is not served by either or both of you engaging in this type of edit war. A comparison of main-space (article) edits in which you and Van Speijk have reverted one another (within the last 10 months) includes: UK & Ireland; HSS 1500; River Shannon; Ulster Banner and the 3 you mentioned above.
Now, as well as these articles' histories showing edit-warring, it also shows wikihounding by Van Speijk. While I found an example of you following Van Speijk (Public house in October 2011), the 7 articles above show clear wikihounding of you by Van Speijk, and another 4 (Mary_McAleese in August 2011; Coleraine in March 2012; British National Party in May 2012; and Outline of Northern Ireland in May 2011) show possible hounding. I've excluded talk pages from this analysis for the moment, but given that Van Speijk admits that he is doing this on a routine basis [11] the matter is clear.
The hounding/stalking is covered by WP:TROUBLES (see the RFAR principles harassment and tit for tat and the explanation of the scope of WP:Troubles), as that is the main locus of the hounding (ie Coleraine, Ulster Banner, UK & Ireland, and widely British nationalism & Irish nationalism in relation to each other).
With regard to the British Isles dispute both of you have been engaging in insertions/removals of the term British Isles contrary to the terms of the topic's probation neither of you is worse than the other, and I have, after looking at this for some hours and going back through 10 months of contribs, that under WP:GS/BI's terms you should both be banned from any article edits or discussions (of any type anywhere) relating to the term 'British Isles' widely construed for an indefinite period (this time period is consistent with all other WP:GS/BI sanctions). I am open to review each ban individually in 6 months time. I will notify you both individually within the next hour with a formal ban notice.
I will be looking further into the matter of the harassment and am considering an interaction ban (between the both of you) as a possible solution but will post about that separately tomorrow after looking at more diffs--Cailil talk 01:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)- Just correcting myself above this source"[12] for Thomas Coville does say "Britain and Ireland" however all the news media sources say "British Isles". Again rather than reverting one another you should both have attempted to find consensus. The problem here remains both of you edit-warring regardless of who is right or how right one is. An RFC on article content or a WP:3O would have solved this - edit-warring as you and Van Speijk have been doing just disrupts articles' histories and the project generally--Cailil talk 08:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Cailil, I emphatically refute the suggestion that I've been wikihounding anyone. I watch the contributions of people who edit in my area of interest (nothing wrong with that) and if they are making edits that I disagree with it's more than likely that I'll make an edit of my own in the same article. Bjmullan makes some edits that I disagree with and so I'm attracted to his editing. How that becomes wikihounding is just beyond me totally. If I was wikihounding him I'd be at his talk page and following up his edits in other areas; I'm not doing that. The other edits you were mulling over are coincidences, again as a result of BJM and me having a common area of interest. As for the sanction, at least this time you have been even-handed, so I retract my previous criticism of you. However, I feel you have gone too far. There is no need to freeze me out (or BJM for that matter) on all areas related to British Isles. I want to contribute in other areas where there's no suggestion of addition or removal of the term, and where I can make a useful contribution. I therefore ask you to reconsider the scope of the current sanction and suggest you might consider something similar to that imposed on HighKing. Thanks, Van Speijk (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- This site defines wikihounding as: "the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work." The bright-line wrt hounding edits is that the hounder has never edited an article before. This is the case with all the cases I listed above. As WP:HARASS states when "following" another user's edits "should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight." As you said above: "Bjmullan makes some edits that [you] disagree with and so [you're] attracted to his editing." This is the definition of hounding, especially in the circumstance that around 25% of your main-space edits during April-May 2012 are reverts of users (Bjmullan and others) that you are following.
Indeed a full analysis of your main-space revert percentage shows that 20% of all your main-space edits are reverts of such users, rising to 30% for main-space edits since Jan 1 2012. Thus this behaviour is a set pattern extending back into 2010. For somebody with a total of 175 mainspace edits (on May 27 2012) this is significant, and needs to be examined. The revert function is not for casual, pointy or repetitive use - hence the rules on edit-warring. Even without there being a probation in place the behaviour both you and Bjmullan have engaged in, especially since February-March 2012, is not constructive. The fact that there is a probation in place here makes it clearly unacceptable.
The reasoning behind including discussions in the ban is that both your talk contribs have been circular, not aimed at consensus building and thus not in line with wikipedia's interests. Besides staying away from the topic while making positive contributions elsewhere for a sustained period are all arguments for lifting the ban. But please note this ban is indefinite it cannot be waited out. Behaviour must modify for it to be lifted--Cailil talk 21:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- This site defines wikihounding as: "the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work." The bright-line wrt hounding edits is that the hounder has never edited an article before. This is the case with all the cases I listed above. As WP:HARASS states when "following" another user's edits "should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight." As you said above: "Bjmullan makes some edits that [you] disagree with and so [you're] attracted to his editing." This is the definition of hounding, especially in the circumstance that around 25% of your main-space edits during April-May 2012 are reverts of users (Bjmullan and others) that you are following.
- Cailil, I emphatically refute the suggestion that I've been wikihounding anyone. I watch the contributions of people who edit in my area of interest (nothing wrong with that) and if they are making edits that I disagree with it's more than likely that I'll make an edit of my own in the same article. Bjmullan makes some edits that I disagree with and so I'm attracted to his editing. How that becomes wikihounding is just beyond me totally. If I was wikihounding him I'd be at his talk page and following up his edits in other areas; I'm not doing that. The other edits you were mulling over are coincidences, again as a result of BJM and me having a common area of interest. As for the sanction, at least this time you have been even-handed, so I retract my previous criticism of you. However, I feel you have gone too far. There is no need to freeze me out (or BJM for that matter) on all areas related to British Isles. I want to contribute in other areas where there's no suggestion of addition or removal of the term, and where I can make a useful contribution. I therefore ask you to reconsider the scope of the current sanction and suggest you might consider something similar to that imposed on HighKing. Thanks, Van Speijk (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Just correcting myself above this source"[12] for Thomas Coville does say "Britain and Ireland" however all the news media sources say "British Isles". Again rather than reverting one another you should both have attempted to find consensus. The problem here remains both of you edit-warring regardless of who is right or how right one is. An RFC on article content or a WP:3O would have solved this - edit-warring as you and Van Speijk have been doing just disrupts articles' histories and the project generally--Cailil talk 08:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
bjmullan topic ban
Cailil, I decided on seeing the Topic ban that you gave to give WP a rest for few day rather than react immediately.
From what I can see the only thing that I am guilt of is slow edit warring against a SPA and my very own hound. I have NEVER knowingly removed the term British Isles if it was supported by references. In the three cases I brought to you I was in the right: Town & Glown - OR by Van Speijk. Thomas Conville - the original reference was to a French website and the translation was inaccurate. Rosie (given name) - my initial edit when with the correct reference at the time, English. But was changed when references to Wales and Scotland where included.
I noticed that one of your criteria for HighKing was for him to develop interests outside of the BI sphere. I think that you can see by my edit history that I already have many other areas of interest.
I have never been warned by you or any other editor with regards to the British Isles General Sanctions (unlike Van Speijk). Rather than take this further I am coming to your talkpage to ask that you remove the ban completely. I in return will not edit anywhere near British Isles for a period of three months and in addition I will stay clear of all interaction with Van Speijk. If he appears at an articles which I am editing I will seek guidance on what best to do. I look forward to your response. Bjmullan (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not negotiating a sanction for you BJ, there is no excuse for edit-warring - the probation is there specifically to prevent such disruption - I will review this ban in 6 months time. You could and should have reported Van Speijk in the beginning rather than edit-waring with him, instead when you came here your hands were not clean. In these circumstances you were in pari delicto with Van Speijk by breaching the probation just as much. Given that you had warned Van Speijk of said probation only days beforehand (and had been active at WP:BISE and taken part in many an enforcement thread on ANi and AN going back years) you cannot plead ignorance of that community sanction - furthermore there is no requirement to be formally warned of WP:GS/BI before being sanctioned - the topic of the British Isles is under probation, not individual users. On top of all this given that you had been blocked under the Troubles RFAR, on 22 February 2012, for "relying on a technicality to edit war, and for using AE as a weapon in a content dispute" this is not the first time that a sysop has made this kind of determination. Again I am happy to look at the sitaution at the end of November 2012.
I have not closed off further action against Van Speijk there's a lot of talk diffs to unpick and you are not the only editor he was "following" - I hope to get that closed-off this week--Cailil talk 21:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)- I still feel a six month topic ban for edit warring against an SPA and hound is a bit steep. Not sure why you brought up the Carlingford Lough block, nothing to do with this and if you take time to look at the history of that article you will see it littered with socks and drive-by IP's that I and other editors have had to deal with. I've still to make a decision on whether to take this further but I'm in no rush. On a completely separate point Cailil, I seem to have difficulty viewing your talkpage in Google Chrome. What browser do you use and has anyone else brought this to your attention? Bjmullan (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- I sporadically use all browsers including Chrome/Chromium on mac and PC and I've had no problems, but I'll look into it - although I haven't checked this page on any mobile devices & it could be that if you're using one.
The reason I mention the other block is because the net result is the same - there is no exemption for edit-warring, there is no point at which such action is ever appropriate. Edit-warring is one of the 2 reasons WP:GS/BI exists (along with WP:NOR)--Cailil talk 01:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- I sporadically use all browsers including Chrome/Chromium on mac and PC and I've had no problems, but I'll look into it - although I haven't checked this page on any mobile devices & it could be that if you're using one.
- I still feel a six month topic ban for edit warring against an SPA and hound is a bit steep. Not sure why you brought up the Carlingford Lough block, nothing to do with this and if you take time to look at the history of that article you will see it littered with socks and drive-by IP's that I and other editors have had to deal with. I've still to make a decision on whether to take this further but I'm in no rush. On a completely separate point Cailil, I seem to have difficulty viewing your talkpage in Google Chrome. What browser do you use and has anyone else brought this to your attention? Bjmullan (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- I have not closed off further action against Van Speijk there's a lot of talk diffs to unpick and you are not the only editor he was "following" . Have you nothing better to do? I already told you; I don't "follow", as you put it, editors, but I do follow content and that inevitably gives the impression that editors are being followed in certain contentious topic areas. Carrying out a detailed examination of my talk page contributions at this stage really is hounding! You do seem intent on nailing me one way or another and I resent it. Here's some advice for what it's worth; concentrate on content rather than admin stuff. Virtually all of your admin work involves some sort of attempt at conflict management and I have to say - others are better at it than you. Van Speijk (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Investigating the inappropriate behaviour of users under restriction via a community sanction and/or warned for breaches of ArbCom sanctions is not hounding it is enforcement of this site's policies & standards, and as the policy states: the contrib history *is* "for editorial and behavioral oversight", it however, *is not* for following users whose edits you disagree with to edit-war with them[13]. If you have kept to wikipedia's standards in your interactions with others and edits to articles then you wont have a problem--Cailil talk 01:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem, but I'm not sure about you. Since you've quoted "what harrassment is not" at me, and since this all stems from your perception that I'm harrassing other editors, let's examine the text of that policy, should we? For your convenience I've highlighted relevant statements:
- Investigating the inappropriate behaviour of users under restriction via a community sanction and/or warned for breaches of ArbCom sanctions is not hounding it is enforcement of this site's policies & standards, and as the policy states: the contrib history *is* "for editorial and behavioral oversight", it however, *is not* for following users whose edits you disagree with to edit-war with them[13]. If you have kept to wikipedia's standards in your interactions with others and edits to articles then you wont have a problem--Cailil talk 01:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- I have not closed off further action against Van Speijk there's a lot of talk diffs to unpick and you are not the only editor he was "following" . Have you nothing better to do? I already told you; I don't "follow", as you put it, editors, but I do follow content and that inevitably gives the impression that editors are being followed in certain contentious topic areas. Carrying out a detailed examination of my talk page contributions at this stage really is hounding! You do seem intent on nailing me one way or another and I resent it. Here's some advice for what it's worth; concentrate on content rather than admin stuff. Virtually all of your admin work involves some sort of attempt at conflict management and I have to say - others are better at it than you. Van Speijk (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- This policy is aimed to protect victims of genuine harassment which is meant to cause distress to the user, such as repeated and unwanted correspondence or postings. Like the word stalk, harass carries real-life connotations—from simple unseemly behavior to criminal conduct—and must be used judiciously and with respect to these connotations. However, there is an endemic problem on Wikipedia of giving "harassment" a much broader and inaccurate meaning which encompasses, in some cases, merely editing the same page as another user. Therefore, it must be emphasized that one editor warning another for disruption or incivility is not harassment if the claims are presented civilly, made in good faith and in an attempt to resolve a dispute instead of escalating one. Neither is tracking a user's contributions for policy violations (see above); the contribution logs exist for editorial and behavioral oversight. 'Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly'.
- So I'd be very careful if I was you. My actions at worst constitute disruptive editing (though I fervently disagree with such an assessment) and no way constitute harrassment or hounding. The very thought that any of my editing might cause "genuine harrassment and distress" to the likes of Bjmullan and HighKing is ludicrous beyond belief. You know of the sanctions at BI, and so does Bjmullan. My checking of his edits is in connection with, as the policy states, "policy violations", which manifest themselves as rampant POV pushing to remove from the encyclopedia a term that he doesn't like.
- Now you can go and trawl through the mass of policies and procedures 'till your heart's content, and my contributions as well. If you find something genuine to level against me then you go ahead and level it (I don't think you'll find anything). However, if insinuations of harrassment (or the wikihounding subset) from you and Bjmullan don't stop (see 'bold AND italic above') it will be me taking it further. Van Speijk (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)