Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:58, 25 September 2010

User page

Talk page

Admin

Logs

Awards

Books

Cailil is extremely busy in real life, so please do not be offended if your message is not replied immediately. Due to his many commitments, in work, personal life and elsewhere on the internet, he may be occasionally inactive on wikipedia. He will do his best to check in daily but has less time available for wikipedia at the moment. In the event of his absence anything urgent should be brought to WP:ANI or another sysop, but you are still welcome to leave a message here if you wish..

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

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

NPOV proposal

Cailil, I think the NPOV policy needs to provide more guidance about how properly to identify a view. I would like to know what you think. I want to propose something to the NPOV policy along these lines: that (1) we should identify the POV of texts, not authors (as we cannot read people's minds only what they write) and (2) POV should be detemined by explicit statements about one's view made by the author of the text, or descriptions of the the text's point fo view found in another reliable source. (3) one cannot assume POV based solely on biographical information about the author; the value of biographical information depends on (1) and (2). Do you see the sense in this? If so, could you take a stab and coming up with an elegant, clear, and appropriate way of wording it? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a good proposal - it reminds me of Barthes' 'The author is dead' approach to literature. Let me have a think on this for a day or two and I'll drop a line to the NPOV talk page soon. Thanks for the heads-up--Cailil 23:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not want to propose it at NPOV until we have carefully worked out the wording. One editor - Vecrumba - has already declared this a doctrine of POV-pushers although I cannot imagine why he thinks that! So we need to work it over carefully! Slrubenstein | Talk 09:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps they've misunderstood what you're proposing - from reading their user page I would have thought that this is exactly what they'd want to see added to NPOV?
But no problem we can thrash this out on our talk pages beofer bringing it to NPOV.
Basically this approach mirrors how we assess the reliablility of a source - we look at how others cite and assess it. All this proposal adds to that research is recording how they position it ideologically.
People might be thinking in two dimensions about this proposal (pro and anti views) but its a much grander than that. For instance if we were writing for the Role article, we would categorize POVs (and the arguments within them) on "role" in terms of sociology, antropology & ethnography, cultural studies, theatre and film studies, biology, maybe game theory. We should do the same in an article like Patriarchy etc.
And if we were writing about String theory we'd do an analagous process and group the major views onit as they are discussed in reliable sources. Seems logical to me to identify from what angle a source is coming from and it seems perfectly in harmony with our policies on attribution--Cailil 12:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

So, do we need a proposal, or does the policy already cover it? If we need a proposal, how would you word it (given your point)? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion for a wording of the first part would be: "When assessing the point(s) of view presented in a source other reliable sources should be used." Or "In the event that a source's point of view needs to be described editors should verify and attribute the description of that point of view to other reliable sources as per WP:PROVEIT." Both of these are a little clunky and need work--Cailil 19:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

As regards the second: "When describing the point of view of a source the biography and/or ideological stance of the author is not necessarily relevant (except as contextual information). A single source may contain multiple points of view and each of these should be described and that description attributed." This is a very clunky wording and I'm not happy with it yet--Cailil 19:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

bigotry

I appreciate your comments at my RfC. But to be frank, I was really hoping for a community discussion about bigotry, and not just a discussion of me (or even Noloop, personally). I really believe bigotry is a real problem at Misplaced Pages and not just a "personal attack." I feel the same way about "racism." I even once floated the idea of a policy against "impersonal attacks" (which would be our equivalent of a sanction against hate speech) i.e. attacks against entire groups or classes of persons rather than specific individuals - and NO ONE expressed any interest. As for bigotry, well, obviously a few other people agree with me, but not many. I was hoping with my reply to Noloop's complaint against me that I could open up a serious conversation about whether bigotry is a problem, how one might recognize bigotry (as opposed to another valid point of view among editors). I wouldn't even mind if the discussion ended up largely going against me, if at least there were a thoughtful discussion of the concept. But it seems like there is no space or not enough editors who even wish to talk about it ... Slrubenstein | Talk 10:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that that can still happen SLR. I think any kind of disruption / misrepresentation of sources whether racist, bigoted or ideological is serious and needs dealing with. In my experience this most commonly happens (with all 3) in arguments about competing nationalisms. I see a place along side WP:POINT, WP:NPOV or WP:NOT for something like "WP:NOAGENDA" - that editors cannot deliberately misrepresent a source to further a POV on Talk pages or in articles. I also think we could probably apply WP:BLP to edits that claim incorrectly that sources are biased/wrong/disregarded as it is a negative comment about a living person's work. Perhaps the thing to do is write an essay and propose it as a guideline--Cailil 11:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Now is not the right time for me to do that but if at some point you would wish to collaborate with me on such an essay I would like that. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. Sorry if my above suggestions are a bit sub parr btw - I'm going to revisit them in teh coming days--Cailil 01:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

its an F jim but not as we know it

Saying Fuck is not incivility (even if you say fucking civilit yppolice). ] I quote “You were fine until you directed the incivility at someone” in relation to ] the swearing bu8t not at some one ] ]. None of thi8s was considered uncivil by admins. Some even say they were sorry he was blocked for it ].Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's not! It's very crude but it's not ad hominem. However, once warned to stop it needs to stop. Ignoring a warning is probably what happened here.
This is actually comparing apples with oranges. Or rather apples with Iguanas. Crudity is not at issue what is is calling a duck a duck. Look if, someone said "Cailil is a chauvinist" based on nothing but speculation about motives etc that would be a personal attack. However, if after weighing evidence (based on diffs) users come to the conclusion that an editor is making anti-woman edits then IT IS fair to call their edits "chauvinist" or "anti-woman".
It is not against site policy to call a duck a duck. Some people might call it a 'bipedal water-going avian that quacks' or even 'Anas platyrhynchos' but it is not uncivil to call it a duck! (BTW that last sentence is both humourous and serious.)--Cailil 13:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If you want more clarification on this I suggest you use teh talk page at WP:DUCK--Cailil 13:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

But what about the fact that admins say he should not have been bloked, or syperthised with him (which is my point lack of consistancy)? Also Duck says we should still stay civil. Indeed I bleive it says it is not a justifcation for personal attacks.Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

RE: that block - that happens one admin takes a stricter view than another. basically if one gets asked to stop doing something border-line disruptive it's best to stop. Not stopping after being warned is disruptive and therefore blockable.
RE: Duck: yes, but calling a racist remark racist isn't a personal attack. Calling a good faith one racist is. It's about context. Even a person saying "you've made a personal attack" when there was no attack IS technically a breach of civility. Being civil and being polite are not always exactly the same. Generally they are, but when someone does something demonstrably offensive and abusive calling their behaviour offensive and abusive IS appropriate (within the bounds of common sense). However, labelling someone's good faith edits as abusive is not appropriate--Cailil 13:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

But if Edd A says that Eds B's remark is rascist and Edd C says its not is it? Who determines if something breaches civility or is PA? For example if I now use the racist word to demonstrate a remark that may not be racis does tyhat mean its racist or not?Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Diffs. If an edit IS problematic experienced editors will see it in diffs when they examine the conversation's/article's history. That's why when we use article RFCs, wikiProjects, and where necessary WP:Ani or WP:RfAr we ask for diffs. Anything out of context is meaningless--Cailil 14:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

But in (for example) the Rubbers situation some experianced edds felt he had a case to answer and some did not, who is right? Thats the problom with subjective terms, they are subjective. This is where I think some of Noloops probloms stem from. He was involved in the Webbhammster case. He sawe double standerds from admins, and still (rightly or wrongly) sees them. The defence of Rubbers is an example. He has (Noloop) said that if he had called Rubbers a bigot he would have been blocked, but Rubbers has not (he may not be wholey right there, Noloop has himslef benifited from the same kind of indlugence I am talking about). As such there is (and I do not entirely disagree) an appearance of the double standerds that noloop has seen before (its not what you say its who defends it). Moreover if (as I suspect will happen) Noloop and Civedd start to play the system and just call edits bigoted (or whatever lable they happen top fancy) it will have the appeance of hypocricy if tehy are then blocked. Ther is something to be said (unfair though it is) for justice appearing to be done.Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Slatersteven, Griswaldo answered this at 14:11, 20 August 2010 on the RFC talk page. You need to let it go. If you don't understand policy I recommend rereading it and considering how it'd work in real life (eg in work - if somebody is sexually harassing you it is appropriate to call them out for sexual harassment - it is 100% inappropriate not to). Calling a duck a 'duck' is never an attack because it is an accurate description. There is nothing more to say--Cailil 14:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I would also appreciate not being called Rubbers. Slatersteven, why do you do it? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

talk pages

Thank you for the explanation and the advice on using talk pages -- it made a great deal of sense and is much appreciated. After using talk pages very briefly when I first started editing I had actually forgotten they existed altogether and conflated them in my mind with editing other users user-pages. Admittedly, I am working on the "assume good faith" and "be polite" policies (and have improved). Habits acquired from years of using usenet and internet forums and a general penchant for debate can be hard to overcome (wading into some of the more controversial topics hasn't helped..) I was also entirely unaware of the sensible issues surrounding edit summaries. Kind regards,--Cybermud (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem - it's very understandable. Misplaced Pages's ruleset is a bit different from the cut and thrust of the rest of the internet =)--Cailil 21:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Vis-a-vis your recent warning

Note this edit made after your warning. Nandesuka (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Sarek of Vulcan seems to have dealt with it--Cailil 17:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

mail

PlaneShift (video game)

Hey, thanks for the help cleaning up this article. Unfortunately the creator of the game which the article is about is back to reverting all edits to the article. Just a heads up. Thanks! SpigotMap 17:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Your conduct at User talk:Scolaire

This, this and this are totally unacceptable. Each is more outrageous than the one before. I have raised your conduct at AN/I. You may respond here. Scolaire (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

WT:BISE, james Kay

Hi Cailil

Re: your edit here, I'm pretty certain that it was me who had "tlx"-ed the resolved tag. That said, I did ping Black Kite for input and I'd welcome input from you, too, if you feel the resolution is acceptable. TFOWR 13:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah sorry TFOWR. I've restored that now. I had just noticed your re-arrangements and archiving and thought I'd give the page a once over. I saw that that discussion had a 'reopened section' who's last comment was on "August 30" but missed the arbitrary break (which starts on Sept 6th). Which brings me to a suggestion. Would it be better for very very long discussions to have some collapsed sections (ie the old closed sections of teh Flora or Republic of Ireland debates) just so it is quickly apparent which sections are current?--Cailil 13:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone (GoodDay, perhaps?) has suggested collapsing discussions, and I've floated the idea (somewhere, not sure where, and it's highly likely to have got lost amidst all the noise). I'm up for it - even for still-current discussions - just to aid navigability. For now, I think collapsing resolved/closed discussions is an excellent idea. I'll pop off now and collapse the bottom three (resolved) discussions. TFOWR 13:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it was me. GoodDay (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: your hypothetical

concerning meatpuppetry and so on, was the hypothetical just a general curiosity thing or were there more specific circumstances that you were basing it on? The latter is easier to answer so wanted to check. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi NCM and thanks for responding. It's more hypothetical I'm afraid. There's an interesting SSPI here - it looks more like WP:TAG or WP:NINJA than socking to me personally. There's no direct evidence of requesting edits here - but it made me wonder what exactly is the policy position on this for topic banned / edit restricted users. My own understanding is WP:RBI does apply if you can prove that the edit is solicited but in a situation where the editor who makes the edit is working in that area already the waters muddy significantly--Cailil 09:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

intelligent discussion

I am sorry Cailil, but that is intelligent discussion between TRFWOR and I about what exactly defines "personal comments".

Please allow him to respond to it and clarify.

It would help me to know which part EXACTLY you consider inappropriate. --Triton Rocker (talk) 03:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This part of this edit is (after you have been told to stop making personal remarks) is inappropriate as it fails AGF and attempts to wikilawyer that policy:

TFOWR, I am sorry but, no. Including in the discussion one's political motivations is relevant and not "a personal comments". This is why I argued before that all participants, any individual wishing to be part of this workgroup, should list themselves and where their nationalist interests lie as a guide and courtesy to others.

Also the last paragraph of that post is inapprioriate for the same reasons:

In my book, it is one degree to having nationalist sympathies but to feel strongly enough to have to advertise them is another level all together. It is a very strong indicator of POVs and the politicisation we are discussing here. One has to filter accordingly.

People's personal details, perspectives etc are irrelevant as long as they are acting in good faith. We assume good faith of all editors on a prima facie basis here, regardless of their point of origin - there is no special derogation for WP:BISE to be excluded from this. Arguing against policy in order to make a point is disruptive, inappropriate and tendentious. It is also off-topic, that board is for discussion of "specific examples" not for generalized discussion, or discussion of policy.
Furthermore, for future reference please do not confuse the fact of a person's nationality with a political or content position - just because someone “advertises” (ie displays in a user box) where they come from, or which religion, gender, or race they are does not mean that their content position will be chauvinistic – assuming so is assuming bad faith--Cailil 13:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, these edits discuss other users in a manner (ie "HighKing's strategy") that ascribes bad faith to them and their intensions. This is especially inapriorate:

Self-declared Welsh nationalist Snowded, acts as a self-appointed policemen, provokes the issue by habitual, unnecessary and even erroneous reverting any corrections. They are supported by other minor Irish editors, such as Brendanjmullan who persistently "troll" to game the system unquestioned and unchallenged.

Together these comments are harrassing, as well as in breach of AGF. A small number of editors in this topic area seem to think wikihounding and talk page policies are a joke - they're not and breach of policy will be prevented.--Cailil 13:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Also for your benefit - after being warned for breaching talk page guidelines it is best to avoid using "screaming caps" inyour reply - it can be taken the wrong way--Cailil 13:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Cailil, your continuing assessments of other editors' comments are getting beyond a joke. As an administrator your job is to oil the wheels of Misplaced Pages by undertaking certain janitorial tasks. It is not especially to assess and pontificate on the comments of others, unless there are clear violations of policy. Triton's comments, to which you have taken exception, are a very long way from that - maybe not in your opinion, but I assure you they are. Please dissist from your harrassment of this user or I may have to raise the issue at AN/I or some other appropriate forum. LevenBoy (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we will have to quietly agree to disagree on some of these matters Cailil. And, I promise you, my capitals are not screaming, they are quietly adding emphasis to my sentences where I want it. Please, I do not go about tell you how to write.

Yes, one has to assume good faith, and it is wise to be polite, but it is also fair to:

a) To examine whether one or more individuals are on nationally and politically motivated campaign or not and discuss it with others. b) To ask them plainly what their motivation is and examine their response with others. c) To discuss within the wider community the implications of such campaigns on the greater balance of the encyclopedia.

That, again, is not harassment. It is intelligent and necessary discussion in such an area which we have not yet been able to have and inspection which would certainly take place in academic contexts.

One of the issues I have often raised is how strangely asymmetric the punitive actions is; the threats, the blocking and the banning. In my opinion, there is clearly collusion, and collusive provocation going on between the others (although I agree it is probably not coordinated, just arising from mutual interests).

Flying an Irish Tricolor yourself, would it not be more safer and fairer to recluse yourself from this particular dispute? --Triton Rocker (talk) 09:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Cold dead hand rising

Thought this was sorted. RashersTierney (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It is - just hadn't revoked talk page access - have do so now--Cailil 23:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)