Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Cailil

Edit count for Cailil
User:Cailil

run at Thu Jul 3 13:35:36 2008 GMT

Category talk:        7 Category:             13 Mainspace             2074 Portal talk:          27 Portal:               131 Talk:                 1432 Template talk:        9 Template:             49 User talk:            1161 User:                 993 Wikipedia talk:       235 Wikipedia:            702 avg edits per page    5.92 earliest              14:37, 17 November 2006 number of unique pages 1154 total                 6833

2006/11 1  2006/12 13   2007/1  538   2007/2  349   2007/3  77   2007/4  541   2007/5  438   2007/6  193   2007/7  286   2007/8  798   2007/9  428   2007/10 139   2007/11 251   2007/12 432   2008/1  327   2008/2  156   2008/3  569   2008/4  271   2008/5  438   2008/6  574   2008/7  14

(green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red  denotes edits without an edit summary)

Mainspace 617 [2]Feminism 100 [3]Feminist theory 89 [4]History of feminism 81 [5]Gender studies 60 [6]Save Indian Family 54 [7]Bride burning 52 [8]Women's rights 49 [9]Acid attack 42 [10]Sexism 31 [11]Men's rights 26 [12]Third-wave feminism 24 [13]Morathi 22 [14]Women's suffrage 22 [15]Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy 20 [16]Archaon, Lord of the End Times

Talk: 393 [17]Feminism 68 [18]Gender studies 52 [19]Men's rights 48 [20]Games Workshop 43 [21]Judith Butler 43 [22]Save Indian Family 40 [23]Misandry 38 [24]Michel Foucault 38 [25]Sexism 27 [26]Bride burning 20 [27]Women's rights 19 [28]History of feminism 18 [29]Gender/Archive 2 18 [30]Frederick Crews 18 [31]Equity feminism

Category talk: 2 [32]Feminist artists

Category: 2 [33]Start-Class Gender Studies articles 2 [34]Feminism task force articles 2 [35]A-Class Gender Studies articles

Portal: 17 [36]Feminism 12 [37]Men's rights 9 [38]Feminism/Selected article archive/January 2008 6 [39]Feminism/Selected article archive/March 2008 6 [40]Feminism/Selected picture archive/January 2008 5 [41]Feminism/Selected article archive/Nominations/criteria 5 [42]Feminism/Selected picture archive/March 2008 5 [43]Feminism/Selected article archive 5 [44]Feminism/Feminism Task Force 4 [45]Feminism/Selected article archive/Nominations 4 [46]Men's rights/box-header 3 [47]Feminism/Related portals 3 [48]Men's rights/Selected article archive/Nominations 3 [49]Men's rights/Categories 3 [50]Men's rights/Selected biography archive/Nominations

Portal talk: 15 [51]Feminism/Feminism Task Force 10 [52]Feminism 2 [53]Men's rights

Template: 11 [54]WikiProject Gender Studies Navigation 8 [55]WikiProject Gender Studies Collaboration 7 [56]WikiProject Gender Studies Tasks 6 [57]WikiProject Gender Studies 4 [58]Feminism 4 [59]Feminismfooter 2 [60]Gender-stub

Template talk: 4 [61]Discrimination 2 [62]Archive box 2 [63]WikiProject Gender Studies

User: 303      [64]Cailil/Sneaky vandalism on feminism and gender studies related arti cles 233 [65]Cailil/cailil sandbox 3 140 [66]Cailil/Miaers disruptive behaviour 59 [67]Cailil/StatusDiv 40 [68]Cailil/Status 29 [69]Cailil/header 27 [70]Cailil/toolbox 26 [71]Cailil/pepper 22 [72]Cailil 18 [73]Cailil/cailil sandbox 1 17 [74]Cailil/cailil sandbox 4 17 [75]Cailil/cailil sandbox 2 14 [76]Cailil/awards 12 [77]Cailil/cailil sandbox 6 10 [78]Cailil/monobook.js

User talk: 205 [79]Cailil 62 [80]Durova 43 [81]Jehochman 35 [82]SirFozzie 21 [83]Slrubenstein 21 [84]BrownHairedGirl 17 [85]MastCell 17 [86]Coelacan/Archive 6 15 [87]Alastair Haines 14 [88]Elonka 13 [89]Akhilleus 12 [90]Awadewit 12 [91]Lost Angel 11 [92]117.200.224.164   10  [93]John Broughton

Wikipedia: 136 [94]Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 78 [95]Community sanction noticeboard 46 [96]WikiProject Gender Studies 30 [97]Reliable sources/Noticeboard 22 [98]WikiProject Gender Studies/Collaboration 19 [99]WikiProject Gender Studies/Notice Board 17 [100]Administrators' noticeboard 16 [101]Fringe theories/Noticeboard 16 [102]Requests for checkuser/Case/Edgerunner2005 10 [103]WikiProject Gender Studies/Countering Systemic Gender Bias 10 [104]Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Hightower 10 [105]WikiProject Gender Studies/to do   9   [106]WikiProject Gender Studies/translation 8  [107]Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement 8  [108]Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Workshop

Wikipedia talk: 134 [109]WikiProject Gender Studies 18 [110]No original research 9  [111]WikiProject Gender Studies/to do   8   [112]WikiProject Discrimination 7  [113]WikiProject Gender Studies/Countering Systemic Gender Bias 5  [114]Community sanction noticeboard 5  [115]Requests for comment 5  [116]Banning policy 5  [117]Conflict of interest 5  [118]Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Workshop 4  [119]WikiProject Human rights 4  [120]WikiProject Gender Studies/Archive 4 4  [121]WikiProject Spam 4  [122]WikiProject Gender Studies/Archive 3 4  [123]WikiProject Deletion sorting

If there were any problems, please [124]email Interiot or post at  [125]User talk:Interiot.


 * The edit count was retrieved from this link at 13:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC).

Giggy's question
Out of curiosity, why did Jehochman transclude this RfA? —Giggy 13:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I was going to nominate, but Durova beat me to it, and I am opposed to this trend toward multiple co-nominations (in general), so I instead transcluded the otherwise complete request and added my support. Jehochman Talk 14:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka oppose

 * 1) Oppose. I am concerned about Cailil's quickness to call other editors "trolls" and "vandals", even when they are clearly not.  He may be a good admin at some point, but I would like to be sure that he breaks some bad habits first. --Elonka 01:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * On what occasion(s) has Cailil done as you allege? Durova Charge! 01:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll pull up a set of diffs. I've recently been having long talks with him on his talkpage about this, so you might want to check the history there. --Elonka 01:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Would appreciate diffs very much, thank you. Durova Charge! 02:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Elonka is referring to the first indef block of User:Jagz. Who incidentally was blocked indefinitely a second time for this.  I asked Elonka when she made her concerns known to me that she would state the fact that the sysops Slrubenstein & Jehochman expressed the same position as I did, and that a number of other editors did so too.-- Cailil   talk 12:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Cailil is in line with the opinion of at least four well respected administrators. The blocks were the result of a long term pattern of content disruption, ownership, racist POV pushing, and personal attacks. I appreciate Elonka's efforts to rehabilitate the editor in question, but I hardly think it warrants an oppose here against Cailil. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope Elonka has a more substantive reason than this, because based upon the talk page discussions she refers to it appears that she is opposing this candidacy because Cailil supported an indefinite block she undid, even though the community reinstated the indef two weeks after she lifted it. Durova Charge! 18:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In fairness to Elonka she was one of the first to endorse Jagz's second indef block. I believe she also had problems with the term "complex vandalism" which is the same as "sneaky vandalism" (but only "sneaky" is used in WP:VANDAL) and that she does not consider Jagz to have trolled talk-pages or user-space before his first block-- Cailil   talk 18:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If I may... Jagz appeared to quite a few people (including myself) to be a problem editor. Words like "troll" were used to describe him, and they probably shouldn't have been, but on the other hand the behavior in question could reasonably be described as "trolling" - that is, editing with the primary purpose of getting a rise out of others instead of improving the encyclopedia. Elonka (to her credit) believed that Jagz had the potential to improve with mentorship and Jagz was unblocked on that basis, with my consent as the original blocking admin. In the end, Jagz proved unworthy of Elonka's good-faith efforts at rehabilitation and was again indef-blocked. Elonka chose to extend a conditional last chance, whereas others (myself and Cailil included) felt that this editor had already demonstrated incorrigibility. In other words, this isn't an issue of bad judgement vs. good to me, but of two different, reasonable perspectives on how to handle a disruptive user. Elonka can of course oppose on any grounds she chooses; I provide this in the way of context. MastCell Talk 18:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're very tactful, Cailil. MastCell, if this is the only instance then it does stretch the interpretation to assert--without diffs--that the editor in question was clearly not a troll or a vandal.  My impression (I watched the thing unfold from a distance) was that reasonable editors came down on both sides of the fence until that individual's actions demonstrated Cailil had been right. I await Elonka's explanation. I also await the other instances she refers to, since she indicated her reason for opposing in the plural.  Durova Charge! 18:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My concerns are that Cailil tends to play favorites, and I feel that this is a very dangerous quality in an admin. As an example, I saw Cailil focusing on a "wrongdoer" (such as Jagz), and then going to a great deal of effort to compile proof of wrongdoing, setting up a semi-attack page accusing Jagz of trolling and vandalism, but without sufficient diffs to back up these charges. Jagz was a longtime editor who even had a Featured Article to his credit, though I agree that he had gotten involved in a dispute where he was losing his temper.  However, Jagz's behavior, though inappropriate, was a long way from something that should be referred to as "vandalism" or "trolling". See WP:VANDAL and WP:TROLL. Further, while compiling his diffs, on a page initially titled User:Cailil/Jagz report (deleted now, but admins can look at the history), and while Cailil was accusing Jagz of incivility and tendentious behavior, Cailil was completely ignoring rampant personal attacks and incivility by editors on the other side (such as grossly uncivil comments by admin Slrubenstein). Just because Slrubenstein was repeatedly calling Jagz a "racist troll", did not mean that Jagz was a troll, and Cailil should not have started from the assumption of "Jagz is trolling, I just need to find proof." There are multiple other such pages in Cailil's userspace focusing on different editors, with titles such as "sneaky vandalism", though I have not gone through all of them in detail. I did bring up the fact that Cailil was referring to these editors as "vandals", and he has toned down some of the language since then. However, I stand by my assertion that his diffs on his sandbox page which he claims are "proof" of trolling, are no such thing.  Does this diff rise to the level of "trolling"?  And sure, this diff by Jagz (which Cailil included on his page) is an uncivil comment by Jagz. However, Cailil completely ignored the comment by Slrubenstein immediately before it. Especially as Slrubenstein is an administrator, should any admin refer to an editor, even a disruptive one, that way?
 * Language aside, it is crucial that administrators be able to stay neutral when wading into a dispute, and deal with all issues of user conduct fairly, regardless of which "side" that someone is on. It is also important that admins not immediately take charges at face value (such as Slrubenstein's accusations of "racist troll"), especially when such charges are clear personal attacks.  Administrators need to be able to take a look at a dispute, disregard a lot of the hyperbole and venom that's being thrown around, and help calm the situation.  Administrators are not supposed to jump on the "witch hunt" bandwagon and repeat the attacks.  Another venue where I saw Cailil taking sides, was at ANI, where he was criticizing just one editor (me) for using certain language (the words "enemies" or "opponents") while I was mentoring Jagz. Yet Cailil was ignoring the same language by other editors in the same thread, including the administrator who had started the thread. I did mention my concerns to Cailil a couple weeks ago, and he asked me to go into detail, which is why I spent so much time at his talkpage.  I also have a concern about his apprehension about off-wiki "collusion" making him regard on-wiki editors with more suspicion than necessary.  As many of us know, Durova (his nominator here, I might add), ran into trouble for that, and was de-sysopped for it. To wrap things up though:  I think Cailil has many qualities which would be very useful in an admin.  But I am concerned that he is not yet able to view disputes with sufficient neutrality, and that he has a tendency to take sides and make unsupported charges with pejorative terms at the editors on "the wrong side".    Until I am sure that he can break this habit, I would not be comfortable supporting him as an administrator. --Elonka 19:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (reworked above post, and added some diffs) --Elonka 00:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Elonka, you're the one who unblocked User:Jagz, which resulted in further attacks and harassment against good faith contributors. While not your fault, subsequent events showed that Cailil's perception of Jagz was spot on. You appear to be harboring a disagreement with Cailil over Jagz. It would probably be better to move forward in the spirit of cooperation. Jehochman Talk 20:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC) (reworked above post) 01:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Still collecting, but how about we start with this diff, especially the edit summary? Is that how an administrator should act? --Elonka 00:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Elonka and Jehochman I know you have a "history" but I would appreciate it if the difficulties between you were not continued here - it discredits the RfA process. Elonka if you have diffs about me (the above being one of jehochman's) please present them - if you don't, I still respect your right to oppose based on your opinion / personal view, as MastCell said you have the right to oppose on any basis-- Cailil  talk 00:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record I criticized Elonka at ANI and on my talk page for using the term "enemies" (we talked about the use of opponents and I agreed she was not alone in using the term) - as far as I'm concerned topic bans are part of dispute resolution and the term enemy is incompatible with dispute resolution and I explained further to Elonka that it would be as simple as inserting a phrase like "percieved" when using such words to make sure that nobody would misunderstand that usage-- Cailil  talk 00:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also Moreschi has been given all the evidence of off-site issues that I have found - please ask his opinion on the matter-- Cailil  talk 00:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW this is not the original for the Jagz report but it's pretty close. The latter rewords were at Elonka's request-- Cailil  talk 00:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And I'm going to refer readers to VANDAL for a definition of "sneaky vandalism": "Vandalism that is harder to spot, or that otherwise circumvents detection. This can include adding plausible misinformation to articles" which is exactly what was referred to in the Anacapa report and case.-- Cailil  talk 01:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just on a note about Elonka's claim that I accused Jagz of Vandalism. There are two mentions of the term "vandalism" in my original report about Jagz.  The first in the heading "complex vandalism and & disruptive editing report" the second is in the quote from WP:AGF.  There was never an argument made, nor ever a statement made and no section in said report accusing one of Jagz's edits of being vandalism.  The words "complex vandalism" should not have been in the report title I explained this to Elonka 12 days ago-- Cailil   talk 01:19, July 2008 (UTC)
 * Elonka herself made a significant error in judgement about the highly problematic editor Jagz which she has never admitted; this was compounded by her repeatedly threatening Cailil about adminship at the time of MastCell's first block of Jagz here and here. She continues to make a big thing over the use of "trolling" or "vandalising" as adjectives and the use of "troll" and "vandal" as nouns. Making such fine distinctions does not help this encyclopedia: it creates wikidrama and generates considerable bad feeling amongst good faith editors, such as administrator Slrubsenstein (whom she continues to bully about this) and now the excellent editor Cailil. If Elonka repeatedly demands exemplary behaviour from administrators or potential administrators, asking them to set an example, perhaps she might in future not allow editors "on parole", like Jagz, to edit WP policy pages and might also resist the temptation of editing articles on the products of her own company, like  HeroEngine. Mathsci (talk) 07:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with the comments that Cailil's judgment was "spot on" about Jagz. Cailil and several other editors were repeatedly calling Jagz a troll (and worse).  However, Jagz was a longterm editor who had even created a featured article.  He was not a troll.  He did an admirable job of dealing with a lot of the attacks, but eventually, yes, he lost his temper, he cursed, he posted foul messages to people's talkpages.  To which his opponents cry with glee, "Look, see, we were right, he really was a troll!"  But I don't see it that way, I see his opponents, such as Slrubenstein and Mathsci, as forming a kind of lynch mob. They put so much pressure on a good editor, and generated so many accusations and attacks, that the editor finally snapped.  That still doesn't make him a troll, it makes him someone who was goaded into incoherence.  My concerns about Cailil are that he joined this "lynching" activity, including the name-calling, but that he still doesn't see anything wrong with it. And one of the reasons I am so concerned about this, is that it's not just this situation with Jagz, I see this same "tactic" being repeated across Wikipedia, as people form teams to attack an opponent, and level an unbelievable number of false attacks on one editor.  The feeling seems to be that if they generate enough attacks, other people may start believing it, or they'll get lucky and one of the attacks will "stick", or the editor may react with incivility, in which case the attackers can then pounce on the incivility as their "proof".  But often the problem is not with the person being attacked, it is with the methods of the attackers.  Jagz had multiple editors, including Cailil, generating personal attacks on him.  Cailil even went to the trouble of creating an entire subpage in his userspace about Jagz's "vandalism" and "trolling".  It's not surprising to me that Jagz responded with attacks of his own.  But that still doesn't make him a troll. --Elonka 16:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Can all of this back and forth please be moved off this RFA to the RFA talkapge? It's distracting.  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  16:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (unindent) Sure, somebody uninvolved can move it, and leave a link to the discussion. Jehochman Talk 16:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)