→Enforcement: the conversation is closed |
|||
Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
{{discussionbottom}} |
{{discussionbottom}} |
||
{{archivetop| |
{{archivetop| |
||
result=The above conversation is closed Factocop. Please take the hint that's been given to you multiple times - [[WP:STICK|drop the stick and walk away]] |
result=The above conversation is closed Factocop. Please take the hint that's been given to you multiple times - [[WP:STICK|drop the stick and walk away]]. You don't need to reply (SilkTork has already said this to you), in fact doing so after a thread is closed is considered extremely bad [[netiquette]]--[[User:Cailil|<font color="#999999" size="2">'''Cailil'''</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Cailil|<font color="#999999">'''talk'''</font>]]</sup> 20:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)}} |
||
::how is making 2 seperate edits on 2 user pages appalling? If you actually took the time to look into my edits you would see ive made constructive edits, used the talk pages and raised to rfc's and not reverted. This is a complete joke. Well done. Hound and harrass an editor like me yet ignore editors who block constructive edits to promote their POV. Appalling? That's mellow dramatic.[[User:Factocop|Factocop]] ([[User talk:Factocop|talk]]) 19:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC) |
::how is making 2 seperate edits on 2 user pages appalling? If you actually took the time to look into my edits you would see ive made constructive edits, used the talk pages and raised to rfc's and not reverted. This is a complete joke. Well done. Hound and harrass an editor like me yet ignore editors who block constructive edits to promote their POV. Appalling? That's mellow dramatic.[[User:Factocop|Factocop]] ([[User talk:Factocop|talk]]) 19:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC) |
||
{{archivebottom}} |
{{archivebottom}} |
Revision as of 20:02, 23 September 2012
Talk page |
Admin |
Logs |
Awards |
Books |
- This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia you are viewing a mirror site. If that is the case please be aware that the page may be outdated and that User:Cailil may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located here.
- User:Cailil is extremely busy in real life - please do not be offended if your message is not replied immediately. Due to many commitments in real life he is not as available on wikipedia as he once was. In his absence, matters arising from normal administrative decisions taken by him should be brought to the Administrator's Noticeboard, matters arising from arbitration enforcement should be taken to the appropriate noticeboard.
- Cailil has no problem with any other sysop reversing his decisions, as long as they have consensus on the appropriate board or if they have a substantive reason (such as a blocked/banned party's agreement to abide by WP:5) to do so.
- This page is subject to wikipedia's talk page guidelines and civility policies. Violations of these rules will be enforced. In short please remember that wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a forum and not a form of social media - please do not make posts here (or anywhere else) that personally attack, assume bad faith of other editors, or otherwise attempt to use wikipedia for advocacy or to carry on campaigns from other websites or real life.
- If you are a new user and are unfamiliar with wikipedia's codes of conduct, content policies and procedures please familiarize yourself with these rules before asking questions.
FYI
Cailil, your name is being invoked as a threat over at my Talk page relating to some of my edits. I believe the articles in question relate to distribution tables on insect related articles (if you recall the discussions at Wikiproject Insect). Could you clarify if the edits I made at [Cicindela maritima], [nitens] and [Ilybius ater] were against any policies, advice you gave, etc, before this turns into a drama. Thanks. --HighKing (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- OK, this is obviously intended to try to preempt a structured analysis, but I am still building a detailed report on a great many edits that HighKing has carried out since his emergence from the last block, the purpose of which was to remove "British Isles". In the ones cited above, HighKing has deliberately confused the scientific term "Britain I" used in the literature with the common name "Great Britain" and is visiting a large number of articles that contain the phrase British Isles and would be part of the Fauna, adding a ref to the Fauna where he finds the phrase "British Isles", then incorrectly changing "British Isles" to "Great Britain". The two are not precisely the same, as "Britain I" is for example clearly stated to include the Isle of Man, which it has always been accepted (and which Wikipedia also defines as) not being part of "Great Britain". In other words, this is a game, the purpose of which is to delete the phrase "British Isles", wherever it apppears and there is hope of blowing enough smoke to confuse the casual observer. HK is also asking for deletions of articles that contain the said string and not making his motives plain in doing so. As far as I can tell from my survey so far, these AFD requests have been rejected. I will raise this at ANI as HK is very clearly uninterested in engaging honestly and in fact appears to me to be gaming. Thanks for your time. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- James, as a piece of advice, if you say you're going to bring an issue to ANi you should follow through otherwise it will look to a reviewing admin like it's no longer an issue. As regards the edits relating to Fauna Europeana I advised you HK to form a consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals or Wikipedia:WikiProject Insects in May[1] - that advice still stands. If there is a transcription issue a wide view (with many ppl involved) of the matter needs to reached, otherwise ppl will, as James has, object - and it is their right to do so if there is no consensus on how to handle this issue. Indeed such challenges are the beginnings (or should be) of forming a consensus based approach to the issue. I suggest to you both that attempts at discrediting one-another rather than working together is both a short term and long term cul de sac. Instead I'd suggest sitting down and trying to find a policy & source based way forward for the articles--Cailil talk 20:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for the advice. It gets hard to feel reasonable when pretty obvious gaming is taking place though, although I agree with your analysis of the issue, I don't like the way HK is apparently free to resume his campaign despite what looked like a very thorough confirm from you that it was over previously. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- See, it's comments like "HK is apparently free to resume his campaign" that are unjustified and against policy. Comments like these were met with warnings in the past by admins patrolling BISE as a breach of CIVILITY - and James who was involved in BISE is aware of that.
As you previously advised, this issue was discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Insects in the past, and the "consensus" reached there was that it was OK to fix the transcription errors. In fairness, there wasn't many ppl involved - only one editor User:Stemonitis responded, but I asked several times for others to contribute if they had any opinions. Not sure what more I can do, to be honest. Dya think I'd have more success at "WikiProject Animals"? I've reposted again at "WikiProject Insects" and at Stemonitis's Talk page asking him to reconfirm the consensus of the previous discussion. Stemonitis isn't very responsive at times. Also as a BTW, I have not tried to discredit James.
Now that James is responsive to this issue once more, I'm happy to engage. I'd appreciate it greatly if James dropped the ad hominen comments and threats. --HighKing (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- See, it's comments like "HK is apparently free to resume his campaign" that are unjustified and against policy. Comments like these were met with warnings in the past by admins patrolling BISE as a breach of CIVILITY - and James who was involved in BISE is aware of that.
- OK, thanks for the advice. It gets hard to feel reasonable when pretty obvious gaming is taking place though, although I agree with your analysis of the issue, I don't like the way HK is apparently free to resume his campaign despite what looked like a very thorough confirm from you that it was over previously. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- James, as a piece of advice, if you say you're going to bring an issue to ANi you should follow through otherwise it will look to a reviewing admin like it's no longer an issue. As regards the edits relating to Fauna Europeana I advised you HK to form a consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals or Wikipedia:WikiProject Insects in May[1] - that advice still stands. If there is a transcription issue a wide view (with many ppl involved) of the matter needs to reached, otherwise ppl will, as James has, object - and it is their right to do so if there is no consensus on how to handle this issue. Indeed such challenges are the beginnings (or should be) of forming a consensus based approach to the issue. I suggest to you both that attempts at discrediting one-another rather than working together is both a short term and long term cul de sac. Instead I'd suggest sitting down and trying to find a policy & source based way forward for the articles--Cailil talk 20:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- OK, understood. I apologise if I said things that were out of order in the heat of what I perhaps mistakenly took to be something it wasn't. I am looking now at the Fauna page and will have a think about a more constructive response. I do however remain opposed to a blanket removal of BI from Wikipedia as a principle, in that it is not a prohibited term - we did get thwarted in the past, despite sustained reasoned effort, not least to be fair on HK's part, to produce a coherant policy on it - but that does not excuse continuing with a programme of deletions without very solid grounds. I am prepared to accept though that HKs grounds may be solid in this instance. He is a very good editor but I find the sheer persistence of this issue frustrating. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for getting involved Cailil. Progress is being made. Oh, and yes I absolutely "get" it 100% - that hasn't changed. --HighKing (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
AE message (talknic)
11:00, 10 September 2012 ... talknic (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Q
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi Cailil, question here [[4]]. As Silktort has said, i have done nothing wrong. Made a constructive edit, 5 days after notifying the talk page. This case had nothing to do with my edit and more to do with who I am and the user trying to get me re-blocked. [5] here Mo has finally joined the convo and despite logic still doesnt wish to play ball. pure POV. What sanctions is Mo going to face?Factocop (talk) 08:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Help regarding admin attitude
Hi Callil, I'am DagosNavy, one of the users temporarily banned from topics related to the Troubles in NI. First of all, I acknowledge that the sanction was fair, therefore I will not appeal the decision. The reason for bothering you is that an admin removed a fair-use pic from a troubles-related article, and then claimed in the file's page that the image was "orphaned" and should be deleted. He also failed to notify it to my talk page (I was the original uploader, although the image was later modified by a bot). I find this unfair, but I am powerless to intervene because of the ban. The admin is currently engaged in a dispute with me regarding another fair-use photo. Can you help, please?. Thanks in advance.--Darius (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Dagos you're banned from any editing and/or commentary on issues related to WP:TROUBLES, there is no way around this - all such topics and discussions about them are off limits to you for the duration of your ban.
The matter regarding that picture is raised very publicly at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion; Future Perfect At Sunrise's actions seems appropriate to me - he has opened discussion on pictures regarding their copyright/fair usage criteria, other editors will comment on this. This is a run of the mill action and I don't see where or what Future Pefrect has done that needs any discussion - if he's wrong the files wont be deleted. Unfortunately Dagos disagreements XFD boards like this are not an extraordinary occurrence, and if they do get deleted you can bring them to deletion review when your ban is up--Cailil talk 18:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Personal attacks
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi Cailil, Can we move my enforcement case to close, otherwise I will have to continue to face personal attacks like this one [6], from Baseball_bugs. Factocop (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- That comment is not directed at you Factocop. That comment is directed at Carnival Fred. The ArbCom enforcement will be closed by another sysop after they review it, as normal--Cailil talk 21:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- The comment is quite clearly a response to my last comment. Apparently I have no integrity. That is a personal attack.Factocop (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Your integrity is in question, which is why you are on probation, a situation entirely of your own making. RashersTierney (talk) 23:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- The comment is quite clearly a response to my last comment. Apparently I have no integrity. That is a personal attack.Factocop (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Could you ask Factocop to stay off my talk page, I have asked him not to post unless it is a constructive, I dont think this type of baiting is constructive, thanks. Mo ainm~Talk 21:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Im sorry but I did not recall receiving a message from Mo informing me that I was not allowed to comment on his page. I don't think Mo can complain about baiting. He could set up a fishing shop with the bait that he has cast into wikipedia. Its a bit rich coming from him. Factocop (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Cailil do I have to put up with the comments above and others like this if Factocop felt the need to inform editors that I had retired and so had BJMullen, then at least tell them that the other major contributor to the discussion was himself as a sock, he has been asked to AGF, obviously he isn't listening. Mo ainm~Talk 22:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- How have I not AGF? There was no checkuser done on the account and if you look at all those SPI's cases against me, only a handful of the accounts were me, the rest were either mimics or innocent users. Please stop slinging mud in my direction. Please make a contribution to the discussion rather than stage a side show. Hackney was not me, and I was simply saying that the 3 users were no longer active. No harm in that!!!!!!!!Doubts still linger over you and Bjmullans relationship so don't start!!!!Factocop (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Enforcement
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Hi Cailil, I am really really disppointed at your comments at my enforcement case. I had posted a comment on Rashers page in response to one of his comments at another page. That is not hounding. I was not aware that I was not allowed to post on his wall. And posting one comment, 1 comment on Mo-aimn page is not hounding. Also I was not aware of WP:POLELAC was a rule. How is posting two unrelated comments on my own wall a crime. not least breaking a rule that I was not aware of. Please help me for once, help work through these rules. You have to note that once I receive notification of WP:POLELAC from silktort, I removed the comments, but you didnt mention that in the enforcement case.Factocop (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- You were told repeatedly by multiple sysops (including Silk Tork) to stop the ad hominem - you didn't. You were cautioned by myself and Silk Tork to drop the battleground attitude - you haven't. Your conduct, as Tim Canens noted, wouldn't be accepted from anyone - especially from someone who has had strict conditions for unblock, as given by Silk Tork on behalf of the BASC.
My comments to the AE thread at the start based on Mo's complaint were that your edit did not require sanction. However your conduct since then as been appalling. That conduct is why Tim & I are suggesting a topic ban.
Now I've already stated that if you want to discuss an on going Arbitration Enforcement thread to do so at the appropriate notice-board in order to keep issues together, so this thread is closed.
And for your information "ignorance of the law excuses no one" it is up to you to learn the rules not test their limits. And frankly someone who posts a link to WP:5 gives the distinct impression that they have in fact read it--Cailil talk 18:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- how is making 2 seperate edits on 2 user pages appalling? If you actually took the time to look into my edits you would see ive made constructive edits, used the talk pages and raised to rfc's and not reverted. This is a complete joke. Well done. Hound and harrass an editor like me yet ignore editors who block constructive edits to promote their POV. Appalling? That's mellow dramatic.Factocop (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)