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
- 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? DurovaCharge! 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. DurovaCharge! 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.[1][2]--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.[3] DurovaCharge! 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. DurovaCharge! 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,[4] 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"[5]. See WP:VANDAL#NOT 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,[6][7] Cailil was completely ignoring rampant personal attacks and incivility by editors on the other side[8][9] (such as grossly uncivil comments by admin Slrubenstein).[10][11][12] 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"[13], 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.[14] 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"?[15] And sure, this diff by Jagz (which Cailil included on his page) is an uncivil comment by Jagz.[16] However, Cailil completely ignored the comment by Slrubenstein immediately before it.[17] 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.[18] Yet Cailil was ignoring the same language[19] 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,[20] which is why I spent so much time at his talkpage. I also have a concern about his apprehension about off-wiki "collusion"[21][22] 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?[23] 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[24]--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 Wikipedia:VANDAL#Types_of_vandalism for a definition of "sneaky vandalism":
which is exactly what was referred to in the Anacapa report and case.--Cailil talk 01:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Vandalism that is harder to spot, or that otherwise circumvents detection. This can include adding plausible misinformation to articles
- 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[25]--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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Still collecting, but how about we start with this diff, especially the edit summary?[23] Is that how an administrator should act? --Elonka 00:13, 9 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. DurovaCharge! 18:44, 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)
- 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)
- 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.[3] DurovaCharge! 18:29, 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)
- 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.[1][2]--Cailil talk 12:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Would appreciate diffs very much, thank you. DurovaCharge! 02:42, 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)
- (unindent) Sure, somebody uninvolved can move it, and leave a link to the discussion. Jehochman Talk 16:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- On what occasion(s) has Cailil done as you allege? DurovaCharge! 01:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)