User talk:Cailil/archive5

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.

VAWA - Immigration Information
Adding information about VAWA in regards to immigration would be a worthy addition to the VAWA topic. Civil rights attorney Roy Den Hollander is challenging portions of VAWA which allow immigrants ( men and women ) to circumvent the U.S. immigration process with false abuse complaints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.3.102.227 (talk) 07:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info, but you know anyone can edit articles so if you have reliable sources for this information you could add it. There is a summary of wikipedia's policies for attribution at WP:ATT and verification at WP:V--Cailil   talk 12:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

anacapa comments
Thanks for the heads-up. I have no problem with my comments being removed. I had no idea he was a baned user. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The only reason I know is because I've been dealing with this guy's disruption for over 18 months - *sigh* . Anyway thanks for the reply and for understanding--Cailil   talk 18:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Michel Foucault Talk Page
Please refrain from leaving troll messages on my talk page. The place to discuss the Foucault issue is in the discussion page for the article. Additionally, your claim that the issue is closed is far from true. There has been no consensus reached, and no rebuttal of the sources provided. Cheers, 38.117.213.19 (talk) 20:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You have already been directed to relevant site policy. Please review it--Cailil   talk 12:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Insisting on the acceptance of your personal unsourced opinion is unhelpful. Please provide sources if you would like a specific viewpoint included in an article. Perhaps this issue would be better dealt with in the talk page for Michel Foucault. Best, 38.117.213.19 (talk) 05:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Anon you have it backwards -you have to prove your additions are up to site standard - please stop editing tendentiously--Cailil  talk 09:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also consider this a warning, calling users trolls incorrectly - that is without evidence showing bad faith additions or refusal to hear site policy or consenus - is uncivil and carries a template warning if you do it again I will ask for sysop attention in regard to behaviour here and on the talk page of Michel Foucault. If you have a serious rather than spurious concern about my editing contact a sysop for their views on it--Cailil   talk 22:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Just "hey,"
Well, that was pretty quick, huh? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It'd be great if all the trolls under the bridge were as obvious wouldn't it. But I think I need a day off now after all that though--Cailil   talk 19:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You deserve a little break! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW did you see my suggestion for the reword of the lede of feminism at the bottom of the 2nd section break. It's probably lost somewhere in my 18 or so edits to the talk page :/ --Cailil   talk 19:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I would write, "Feminism comprises a number of social, cultural and political movements, theories and moral philosophies united by the politics of women's rights, gender difference, and gender inequality" which I think would cover more flavors of feminism. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Gender difference *slaps forehead* - the lede doesn't address that properly at all yet. Generally it sounds good to me except I verge on saying "equality of the sexes" rather than "gender inequality"--Cailil  talk 20:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hows about this as a compromise suggestion--Cailil  talk 23:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice Work
I just noticed the work you are doing on the Feminism page and wanted to thank you for your thoughtful efforts. Kuk i ni  háblame aquí 14:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note Kukini, much appreciated :)--Cailil  talk 14:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

re:question about final fantasy wiki
Yes, if the user request it, or if the userpage has elements which administrators feel is not suitable to be placed in the Wiki. Might I ask why? &mdash; Blue. 15:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Type on top of the page. An admin will delete it when they make their cleanup bit. You could also contact an admin in the wiki to do it for you, and put in reasons so that they'll understand why you want to have it deleted. &mdash; Blue.  15:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

History
Thanks for the note and the historical information. I agree with Mastcell that a user conduct RfC is in order regarding those two editors. However, if the conduct continues as it has been, I will take appropriate action - with or without an RfC in place. Dreadstar †  18:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to follow up, I see Dreadstar blocked Jagz for 24 hours for Jagz' continued inappropriate behavior, after which Jagz put up the "retired" template. I'll keep an eye on this. If Jagz resumes editing, then I think a finite topic ban (3-6 months) on any article even loosely tied to race/intelligence would be appropriate, and I'd be willing to impose this and take it to WP:AN/I for feedback. MastCell Talk 16:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To answer your question about meatpuppetry: it's hard to do much pre-emptively, other than be aware. Off-wiki solicitation is an extremely common phenomenon (come visit AIDS denialism sometime if you want to see it in action). It's difficult to "prove", and we can't do anything about what people do off-wiki. In the past I created the recruiting template, and I've used it on affected talk pages, but again there isn't much that can be done other than to be wise to the situation. ArbCom is grappling with the issue in a fairly high-profile case at the moment: Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying. Happy editing. MastCell Talk 16:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Crews
I have made some more comments on the talk page of the Crews article. I think that you, and DGG, ought to respond to them. DGG made a mistake in saying that I had placed negative comments about someone sourced only to blogs; this was not the case. I have made some comments about this on my talk page. Skoojal (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

SPA
I most certainly have not arrived here from Stormfront, good God. No, this is an account which is somewhere between 3 and 4 on the list of valid reasons for sock accounts -- and hence providing a clear link between the accounts would totally defeat the purpose of them. As it happens, my old account has not made an edit in quite some time, so this is the only account I am using at the moment. The reason for it is simply because my old account is very easily linkable to my IRL identity, and frankly this topic is so ridiculously over-politicised -- both ways -- that I would rather avoid problems before they start. I'm quite happy for someone trusted, like Thatcher, to run a checkuser on me to establish that I am not a sock of any other editors of these topics (evidently those sorts of voluntary checkusers are frowned upon, but the offer stands).
 * My reason for drawing attention to this at all is that this account is new, and yet would appear to be blessed with an uncanny understanding of Wikipedia process/policy, etc. for such a new one...I know enough about Wikipedia as well to understand that that would arouse suspicion, so I reckoned that a full disclosure right from the beginning would be a good policy; if I were a newly canvassed meat-puppet from some Nazi forum, as you suggest might be a possibility, then I would say it would be unlikely that I would be as familiar with Wikipedia as it should be obvious I am. --Plusdown (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I mean no disrespect by what I said Plusdown and I do AGF towards you. In regard to RFCU thsi kind of check cannot be done. I also understand your wish for privacy and it is 100% legitimate (especially in regard to this topic). Again I understand why you would not link you accounts but such links or some kind of confidential verification is recommended for alternative accounts but not demanded--Cailil  talk 00:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My old account is so outdated that a checkuser would come back as saying that only this account is active on my current IP anyway. It isn't even really a 'sockpuppet' account anyway, but since I did quite a bit of editing before, I felt it would be right to point out that I am not a 'newbie'.
 * So the 'sinister' options here are
 * I am a sockpuppet of another current editor on these articles. If things get really nasty, a checkuser could easily clear that up, at least. OR
 * I am a meatpuppet with no prior contribution history here on Wikipedia -- perhaps, but unlikely given that we are having this conversation in these terms.
 * I really don't care, actually. Unless I do something that gets me into serious trouble, there is no good reason why this should be problematic.  On the contrary, I would have thought that being honest and straightforward about it on my userpage would be a good thing.  Maybe I should have just left an ominous red link...  --Plusdown (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Plusdown, I am merely pointing out what is on WP:SOCK. I'm not accusing you of anything. As I said I am AGFing in regard to you--Cailil  talk 00:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, then :P --Plusdown (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

AN/I
Thanks for the heads up. BTW, how did you figure I liked lolcats?--Ramdrake (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah the user-boxes give you away - also I love the things myself :)--<font color="grey" size="2">Cailil  talk 01:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

RE the StormFront sockpuppets/meatpuppets thing
Would appreciate a note on my talk page if anything happens with it now that you have reported it to the admins. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Adminship?
Would you like to be nominated for adminship? You see to have avoided it somehow, but you've now been cornered. Jehochman Talk 13:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's not a big deal but I'd like to think about it for a day or two. Poke me on Friday if I haven't replied--<font color="grey" size="2">Cailil   talk 13:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (keeping an eye on this discussion) :D SirFozzie (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe Cailil would make a good administrator. Maybe in a few years. --Jagz (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC) comment restored by User:Cailil
 * The RfA process can be a bit... punishing, so make sure you have a few reserve canisters of emergency self-esteem handy before you start. Anyhow, I think you'd do good work, and I'd certainly support you if you decide that you're interested. MastCell Talk 08:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just as a heads-up, an RfA might not be wise when there's current controversy swirling around you. The recent actions by Jehochman and MastCell in regards Jagz are not as, how shall I say, "clean" as they might have been, and that would probably be an issue that would be brought up at an RfA.  Which doesn't mean don't make a run, but I just wanted to make you aware that it might make things messy.  --Elonka 14:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You may also be interested in this ANI thread. --Elonka 02:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note Elonka - I've left a message on your talk page regarding this situation--<font color="grey" size="2">Cailil  talk 12:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not think there is any controversy swirling around you. While Elonka has been diverting the discussion, unhelpfully branding editors as "opponents", you have stayed calm and measured. I found this impressive. Good luck. Mathsci (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their replies - I am flattered that even this many people would be interested in me standing at an RfA. I would like to take Jehochman's offer up but I would also like to see how the community feels about Jagz's block. So I will decide about exactly what and when after the community has resolved the Jagz block/unblock. I welcome comments at my RfA by any one with substantial concerns about my editing and/or behaviour - including Jagz if unblocked. Thanks to all--<font color="grey" size="2">Cailil  talk 12:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In light of the Jagz block, I may not be the most strategic person to nominate you, but I would do it at the drop of a hat. And frankly, I'd be ashamed of the community if anyone challenged your judgement in the Jagz case, I suspect it is a small number of patisans and you just need to be prepared to provide a clear and straightforward account of your actions.  Anyway, I would nominate you at the drop of a hat.  If you want me to just say so; if you want someone else to, fine, but honestly, it is about time. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that SLR, I really am flattered. But I'm afraid some-one else called dibs on any RfA nom a while ago :)--<font color="grey" size="2">Cailil   talk 19:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein, so if I challenge Cailil's judgment, that makes me a partisan in your eyes? --Elonka 16:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you challenging my judgment Elonka or are you questioning the length of Jagz block? AFAIK these are unrelated, since as you have said yourself I am not responsible for his block.  If you have a concern about my judgment please express it to me and I would be very happy to take it on board--<font color="grey" size="2">Cailil   talk 16:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you? I did not read your comment above to be saying you question his judgement.  Is that what you intended to say? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I see that Cailil has agreed, and requested that we wait for the Jagz thread to run its course before posting the nomination. Whoever would like to co-nominate can contact me. Jehochman Talk 01:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Advice
Hi, some more "constructive criticism" for you... I'd recommend that you re-examine your comments at the ANI thread about Jagz's block. As I see it, you seem to have a tendency to zero in on an editor that you think is doing something "wrong", and then you look for proof of that, while completely ignoring similar things that other editors are saying in the same venue. For example, you are claiming that my use of the words "enemies" or "opponents" is inappropriate, but if you'll look through that thread, you'll see that the terms "opponents" and "opposing editors" have been in common usage by many others, including the starting post by administrator MastCell. So I recommend you ask yourself why you felt it was appropriate to ask me to refactor, but you're not asking the others the same thing? I see this as a similar problem to what you were doing with your subpages, where you were looking for proof of "trolling" and "complex vandalism", and providing diffs that often had nothing to do with either of those concepts. Further, when you were gathering evidence on Jagz, you appeared to be completely oblivious to the rampant incivility that was being generated by the other editors in the dispute, especially Slrubenstein. It is not really fair to chastise one person for being rude, when they are just responding to rudeness by another editor. Granted, neither one of them should have been rude (especially Slrubenstein, since he is an admin), but in such a case, if you were gathering evidence about Jagz, you really need to be gathering evidence of policy infractions from the other side too, otherwise you can give an appearance of being biased towards one side or the other.

Please, if you want to be an admin (and I think that someday you could be an excellent one), work harder at looking at everything with impartiality. Don't focus on just one editor that you think is "the problem", but instead consider that things happen in context. Multiple editors may be involved, and it is not a good idea to warn one, while ignoring similar behavior by everyone else. You appear to have a good ability to do research, and I encourage that. I'm just asking you to work on broadening your scope, and to be more evenhanded about what you say. Remember, it is better to understate than to overstate. And when giving warnings, it can be better to be ambivalent about who you are referring to. For example, instead of entering a dispute and saying, "Merlin, stop being uncivil" (even though you think that he is the prime instigator), it can actually be more effective to say, "Okay everyone, please remember that civility is policy." Hope that makes sense, --Elonka 15:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Elonka, I'd like to ask how aware of the history of the European people / white people / eugenics / dysgenics / race and intelligence dispute are you? Are you aware of the organized off-site involvement and investment in that topic here on wikipedia?  Do you realize that editors have been singled out as enemies of white nationalism on wikipedia by sites such as stormfront.org, majorityrights.com & vnnforum.com?
 * Addressing your response I do stand over my remarks at ANI - mentors are not advocates - Jagz is & should be free to use ANI or ArbCom to discuss matters pertaining to his edits since being unblocked. And As far as I'm concerned it remains inappropriate to describe editors as "enemies" or "opponents" of any editor in any dispute. I do accept that you were not alone in using the term "opponents" - so let me restrict this point to the use of the term "enemies" (I have striken parts of my WP:ANI post to reflect this) - this type of language is incompatible with finding resolutions to disputes. I do not understand why it is appropriate for you to use that terminology in this case--<font color="grey" size="2">Cailil  talk 16:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * PS I'm sorry if the above sounds snappy at all - that was not my intention. I do take your points on board Elonka but I'm also making 2 points that you have not addressed. I also think it could also be helpful for you to consider the history of the Race topic dispute - I'm currently passing on information of off-site collusion and disruption (to another admin) in areas tangential to this and I uncovered a call for meat-puppets on stormfront.org made in January 2008 when the Race and intelligence page was protected.
 * Also to clarify I never accused Jagz of misrepresenting sources - if you have a read of my responses to you at the week-end I was sure that I made that clear - frankly we disagree about the use of trolling in the previous Jagz report - talk space griefing may be a better label for patterns of disruptive yet civil baiting and I'll be using "griefing" rather than "trolling" in like circumstances should they arise--<font color="grey" size="2">Cailil  talk 23:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but the term griefing, which comes from my industry of multiplayer games (where my dayjob is as a professional online commmunity manager), is just as bad as trolling. It implies that an editor's only purpose in posting something, is not to work towards the mission of the project, but instead simply to cause "grief" to other participants.  That is a major accusation, which again, I do not see as applying to Jagz's edits.  As for the off-wiki rumbling, yes, I am aware of it, but in most cases I think we should avoid being too suspicious of other editors because of off-wiki threats, otherwise we risk going off on a witch-hunt.  Generally the wiki culture is well able to deal with SPAs.  Their short contrib lists and single-minded activities give them away very rapidly.  As for your point about mentors, I disagree, and feel that mentors should be encouraged to find a communication style that works with the person that they are mentoring.  Sometimes this may be very civil, sometimes it may be very direct, some mentors use humor and pictures of Lolcatz, others speak very professionally.  The key is to find a method that efficiently communicates information to their target, in such a way that the target is able to understand the concerns that required mentorship in the first place, and then moderate their behavior accordingly to better adapt to the social niceties of wiki-culture.  I once saw a mentor effectively tell another editor, "look, I know it seems that you have to be a hypocrite when you talk, but if a little controlled hypocrisy makes you seem like a more civil editor and everybody gets along, well okay."  Which doesn't mean we want to encourage everyone on Wikipedia to be a hypocrite, but that particular statement did get across what it needed to, for that particular editor.  So I don't think we should micromanage specific words that mentors use, in the limited venue of a user's talkpage.  There are limits of course in terms of civility and personal attacks on other editors, but even there we need to consider the context.  For example, though Wikipedia has a strict NPA policy, if a User Conduct RfC or ArbCom case (or RfA!) is opened, this restriction is usually almost completely lifted except for truly egregious statements.  But there's a reason for this, which is that sometimes in order to actively communicate about an issue in such a venue, we have to be able to discuss things openly.  So, in my judgment, using the word "enemies" (just as MastCell used the term "opponents" and "opposing editors") was appropriate, because it was effective communication in that venue.  Within the context of an article talkpage though, it probably would not be appropriate for one editor to say, "I want the article to say XYZ, and my enemies disagree."  We'd probably caution about civility in that case.  But in an ANI thread, an ArbCom case, an RfA, or in behavior-based communication on a user's talkpage, it might well be acceptable.  --Elonka 14:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to draw this out as the difference between us is largely semantic - for me its a matter of pragmatic competence (what people read between the lines). It can look (and I emphasize it can look rather than be the case) as if a mentor is compounding a dispute by using battle-field terminology. It would simply be a matter of pre-fixing the word "perceived" to a phrase like "enemies" to make it clear that it is not a view one necessarily holds - this merely my view and opinion and I don't expect you to accept it BTW.  I do think you are being very generous with your time and experience in this mentoring project and I wish you the very best of luck with it.
 * It looks from your post that you may not be aware of the scope or depth of the off-site problem in regard to the specifics of this topic (Race articles on Wikipedia). It is far more than chatter at sites like wikipedia review - frankly it may be just as serious as the CAMERA issue.  I'm assuming Jagz and Zero g are not involved in this BTW.
 * Also and in case you haven't already done so it may be worth looking at matters relating to User:Hayden5650, User:Lukas19 & User:Fourdee so you can get as full a picture as is possible about the dispute at race and intelligence and other race topics - this may help explain the context in which Jagz was brought to wp:rfcu mistakenly. Also I would expect to see an ArbCom case about this whole matter (not Jagz et al but Race and white nationalism) in the future - whether that's sooner or later I don't know--<font color="grey" size="2">Cailil   talk 17:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

*''when you were gathering evidence on Jagz, you appeared to be completely oblivious to the rampant incivility that was being generated by the other editors in the dispute, especially Slrubenstein. It is not really fair to chastise one person for being rude, when they are just responding to rudeness by another editor.''
 * Elonka, you keep bringing this up and forgetting the facts. Indeed you have never addressed the facts. The facts are that the ban was for disruption and edit waring, not for incivility. You constantly ignore the facts and continue to deliberately distort what happened. I've nicely asked you before to remember that although you are correct that everyone was incivil, the question was never about Jagz's incivility, and to pretend that it was is to be guilty of the utmost bias. Furthermore your statement that "It is not really fair to chastise one person for being rude, when they are just responding to rudeness by another editor" is again totally out of order, Jagz was not incivil only in response to other editors, there is plenty of evidence of his incivility without any provocation whatsoever. You have consistently mischaracterised this at both AN/I and on other users pages. You have never addressed his pov-pushing and disruption but have used the tactic of trying to change the subject by going on ad infinitum about civility, which Jagz was not blocked for, and trying to paint a distorted picture of Jagz as a poor little angel who was only defending himself. He's a grown man who was active in the ongoing incivility on the page, but you don't want to acknowledge his active role in being incivil, because you seem to have something to personally prove here. I am increasingly of the opinion that you are far from a neutral or unbiased party in all of this and am thinking of questioning your suitability to be his mentor because you seem to think that mentor means the same as apologist or defender. Indeed you should not be his mentor because it is increasingly clear that you will allow Jagz to do whatever he wants and then do your utmost to defend him come what may. You seem to ahve some sort of personal crusade here. And if you want to throw your weight around as an "admin" as you did before, so be it, but I'm fed up of reading your biased, inaccurate and often ignorant comments. Alun (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Alun I have disagreed with Elonka on this matter as well but I don't think she is distorting anything nor do I think she is being biased. It is much more likely that she has looked at the situation and is responding to as she sees it.  I'd respectfully ask everyone to AGF in regard to this - further escalation wont help resolve it--<font color="grey" size="2">Cailil   talk 18:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wrote the above when I was annoyed. I do think Elonka is acting in good faith. I just wish we could put this situation behind us and stop the finger pointing, I want to move on. Apologies to both you and Elonka. All the best. Alun (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Cailil, as a followup, I've been thinking hard about whether or not I would support you for adminship. To be honest, based on some of your views of the Jagz situation, my opinion is still somewhat negative, for two primary reasons:  One was your tendency to zero in on what you felt was misbehavior or inappropriate language by one participant in a dispute, while you ignored equal or worse behavior on the part of others; Two, your tendency to refer to things as "vandalism" and "trolling" which I did not feel met that definition.  However, I am willing to continue to review some of the other situations in which you are engaged, to see how you are handling them, and determine what you have learned from the Jagz dispute.  Could you perhaps point me at a couple cases where you are involved?


 * Or, if you'd simply like to go for RfA anyway (and you may indeed have enough support to do so), that is of course your choice. I just wanted to give you a clear indication of where I stood on things.  Anyway, let me know, --Elonka 15:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would sincerely welcome your review of Cailil's editing. If you look at the pages Cailil edits frequently, I am sure you will see how he handles situations. There is a bit of irony here, you must admit, Elonka.  If I remember correctly, you passed RFA, at 74%, after I caused two oppose votes cast against you by sock puppets to be wiped out in the final hour. The difference between 74% and 73% is material when 75% - 80% is commonly viewed as the discretionary zone.  I am not sure if you are aware of this sequence of events:   Fairness at RFA is one of my most important causes. Jehochman Talk 17:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was very aware, but I disagree strongly with calling them sockpuppets and what you are calling "fairness". Behind the scenes during my RfA, I was arguing vehemently that even though those two accounts were opposing my adminship, that they should not have been blocked. They were (and are) two respected academics, who were treated with great discourtesy when they wandered into my RfA.  Even though they opposed, I actually went to both of them afterwards and apologized for how they had been treated. As for your actions, Jehochman, if you are somehow trying to claim credit for getting their votes discounted and therefore assuring the success of my adminship, I fear you are gravely misinterpreting the situation, as well as disregarding the efforts and comments of many other fine editors. --Elonka 17:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Too bad you couldn't voice your opinions in the open where we all could see them. We might have learned something. As I said, an ironic situation then, and now. Jehochman Talk 18:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Elonka if indeed you intend to oppose based on my view that before being unblocked Jagz had trolled talk pages would you mind then noting that my view was shared by a number sysops. I'd also ask that if you have a problem with the term "complex vandalism" that that be taken up with the person who coined the term - Durova (see here).
 * Now, if you want to review another situation I've been involved with since the Jagz issue look at Talk:Michel Foucault for a long running dispute by User:Skoojal & User:Commodore Sloat, see my interventions from a few days ago - I haven't been able to follow-up there due to being away and being busy but will do so if the problems continue--<font color="grey" size="2">Cailil   talk 17:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Without going into too much detail, let me assure you that it would not be the first time that I disagreed with Durova's perception or language. Don't get me wrong, Durova has done many fine things on Wikipedia, but she is no longer an admin, and there are many reasons why she is perhaps not the best example to pattern yourself after in terms of administrative judgment. And that link, btw, is from 2006, so is not representative of current practice. Better is to review WP:VANDAL. As for the other links you provided, thanks, I'll take a look! --Elonka 17:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Elonka I was here for all of that !! stuff BTW - I do know what happened and why--<font color="grey" size="2">Cailil  talk 18:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Elonka has a lot of experience growing and managing online communities. If she has advice, you should be all ears.  Hopeful you can see each other's perspective and put this dispute into your scrap books and have a laugh at it once in a while. Jehochman Talk 18:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a lot of respect for Elonka and I am interested to see what she thinks of my edits in other situations--<font color="grey" size="2">Cailil  talk 18:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note we are using the term "Sneaky vandalism" which means exactly the same thing as complex vandalism: "Vandalism that is harder to spot, or that otherwise circumvents detection. This can include adding plausible misinformation to articles, (e.g. minor alteration of facts or additions of plausible-sounding hoaxes), hiding vandalism (e.g. by making two bad edits and only reverting one), using two or more different accounts and/or IP addresses at a time to vandalize, or reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages. (see VANDAL)" I'll remember to use this term in the future and will refactor the Anacapa report to reflect this.  I also want to say this - Jagz was never accused of misrepresenting sources, nor was there a section in the report (before or after I refactored some of it) that accused him of vandalism.  There is a mention of the word in the heading of the report and I do apologize if that caused confusion--<font color="grey" size="2">Cailil   talk 19:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) You might want to say something to Jagz if there was a possibility of misunderstanding. It is very important to try to resolve things amicably whenever possible. Jehochman Talk 02:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah the irony. ;) --Elonka 06:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Elonka, why did your friend Jagz rudely intervene in the conversation I was having with Cailil on this page? Why then did you involve yourself in my conversation.  I thought we had agreed to avoid each other (which is why I had erased your post to my talk page).   Perhaps you would like to virtually "shake hands" and let go of past disputes and see if we can cooperate. Jehochman Talk 13:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Jehochman, perhaps it is time to review WP:CIVIL. I had no personal relationship with Jagz, I was simply reviewing his contribs, as I was reviewing the contribs of several other editors involved with some articles that I am watching.  It was my concern that he was being unfairly accused of "trolling" and "vandalism", even though he was not actually engaging in those activities.  And when I saw an administrator (yourself) remove one of Jagz's comments from someone else's talkpage, especially when the admin was using uncivil edit summaries, and when that admin was engaging in an edit war, I spoke up on that administrator's talkpage.  I would have done the same for any admin that I thought was starting to stray into inappropriate incivility, or was misusing the terms of "trolling" or "vandalism". --Elonka 17:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL indeed. Et tu. Elonka, I do not think you can be fair and impartial in matters where I am involved.  I'd really rather not talk to you again, not because I am unwilling to talk, but because I think talking will only make matters worse.  For the future, if you have any concerns with my behavior, please ask another administrator to intervene.   I have a list available here, at footnote 1.  I will provide the same courtesy to you, in that I will not confront you, but instead find a mediator to help, should that be necessary. Thank you.  Jehochman Talk 01:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

RFA
Are you ready to go now? Jehochman Talk 00:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I think I'm ready - but I'm away from base until late on Monday so I'd prefer not to get things rolling until Tuesday, my on-line time will be sporadic until then--<font color="grey" size="2">Cailil  talk 16:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Feminism
FIrst off, save your bullshit about blocking my editing...this is the internet!!! I have more names than you could handle.

Second, it would be nice if foreigners stuck to editing things in their own country, or in your case, sub-country. Only americans should be involved with this here, mate.

Third, if I may be a gay-nerd like you for a moment, maybe their should be a place on pages such as 'feminism', 'Illegal immigration' and 'homosexuality' for posts that give more than the ultra- liberal perspective of promoting insteading of explaining the subject.

Tariqbiz89 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tariqbiz89 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've dealt with the above problem. Your talk page is quite the honeypot (computing). Jehochman Talk 13:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Now Calil knows how flypaper feels :) Sorry Calil, if I wasn't dealing with my fun little crapstorm of my own, I would've been more help :( SirFozzie (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Will you help me write up the nomination when you are done, whenever Cailil gets back from his trip? Jehochman Talk 14:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, Jehochman. I have a feeling Cailil will at least have a third co-nominator (or at least very very early strong support :D ;) SirFozzie (talk) 14:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are you both intervening instead of letting Cailil reply? If you think they should be an administrator then they should be able to reply to posts on their Talk page without assistance. --Jagz (talk) 06:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read DefendEachOther. The original poster on this thread is quite clearly a troll. In fact, it appears that they may be a sock of a banned user. It is quite right for Cailil not to feed the troll. Jehochman Talk 19:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Disputes concerning Foucault article
Cailil, on the Foucault talk page you referred me to Arnold I. Davidson's Foucault and His Interlocutors. This book does not appear to mention Durkheim, either to say that he was an influence on Foucault or that he was not. Its relevance to the dispute is therefore unclear to me. Could you please clarify this? Skoojal (talk) 04:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A number of those books don't refer to Durkeim but they do refer to other inflences. I agree with you that all the entries in the influence list need citations. Now while I'm away I can't give you a word for word account but the current list of influenced can be sourced from the books I've listed.
 * Now the books that do refer to Durkeim are interesting it might be worth while if you and Csloat can get a hold of Cladis's book. While personally I haven't read Dews's book, from everything I have read I would say that Durkeim is not an influence on Foucault.  However there are significant areas of overlap in the subject matter their work - with that in mind Durkheim could be mentioned on the page somewhere--<font color="grey" size="2">Cailil   talk 12:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: the clock
When I put up the clock on my page, it also would not keep time for the first day or so. L eft it there and eventually the problem vanished. However, I haven't checked if your clock is using the same code as mine, but I suspect it's likely (I lifted mine off Alun\Wobble's talk page). Hope it helps!--Ramdrake (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a shot again later this week. Thanks for the advice Ramdrake--<font color="#999999" size="2">Cailil   <font color="#999999">talk 21:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Feminism
Just wanted to say that the Feminism article is looking better everyday. --Grrrlriot (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

RfAdm
Good luck! (Not that I think you'll need it, though).--Ramdrake (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Some questions for you
Well, I gave you a few short questions that I'd like answered in your own words. Answer them at your leisure! Cheers. : ) <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 00:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks for the questions wisdom89 - I've answered two of them and will answer the last one after I have something to eat--<font color="#999999" size="2">Cailil  <font color="#999999">talk 19:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Something I'm Thinking of Creating
I got this idea from here. I started making a little of it here. I just want to know what you think and what articles and such should be listed on the open task template? If you want to discuss this outside of Wikipedia, send me an email, the email address is listed on a userinfobox, towards the middle of the page. Hope to get your feedback, as usual! :) --Grrrlriot (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it'd be great either at the task force or the portal or linked from both. As regards what goes there - that could be built as we go along, but there's also a recod of the old WP:GS to do list here - it might be some help--<font color="#999999" size="2">Cailil   <font color="#999999">talk 19:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Great! :) Glad you like the idea! That's true, It can be built as we go along and some stuff could come from the old WP:GS to do list as well. Also, Good luck on your RFA! --Grrrlriot (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a few templates to the FTF. --Grrrlriot (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

good luck
good luck on your RFA. I added my support. Chergles (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC) (formerly known as Anacapa)