User talk:Cailil

This is Cailil's talk page. To leave me a new message, please click here.

User page

Talk page

Admin

Logs

Awards

Books

Talk archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22

I am very very busy in real life, so please do not be offended if your message is not replied immediately. I will do my best to answer all messages and deal with all issues as swiftly as possible. However, due to my many commitments, in my work and my personal life, my wikipedia time is limited. Please leave concise and clear messages about any issues that you wish to bring to my attention.

If you're here to leave a message about an article I've deleted, feel free to ask me any questions about such deletions but please check the deletion summary. 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. Thanks--Cailil ^talk 22:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

If you have substantive concerns about any of my edits you are invited to bring issues to sysop attention at WP:AN/I or at an individual sysop's talk page.

Your talk page is all blank and stuff.

My spouse and I love your serious cat. Anyway. Thanks again for the blurb about the criticism section. I had seen them being trouble-magnets, but did not know that their undesirability was formalized. ;) Wikipedia, not surprisingly, is large. All the best.sinneed (talk) 04:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I want to expand on my thank you for the Criticism/Controversy section information.
I spotted some edit warring at Family Foundation School‎, and looked at the article. The article is heavily polarized, with pro-school information presented directly, and anti-school information relegated to a "Controversy" section. I flagged the section, and pointed out the lack of balance of that approach by pointing out how unacceptable the article would be if the situation were reversed. I had noticed that controversy/criticism sections tended to be very ... controversial, but until I read your notes and the criticism essay, reasons why this would necessarily be so did not crystallize for me. Thank you again.sinneed (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome Sinneed. WP:NPOV is a very profound policy and one that people need to be continually reminded of. A very frequent misconception about it is that minor or minority objections/criticisms/oppositions to a subject should be given equal weight (or indeed 'any' prominence) in an article. This is not the case. An encyclopedia records the mainstream scholarly and reliably sourced information about a subject - and that's all. If critical material exists it should integrated into the article rather than being "ghettoized" into a pov-forked section or article (which can serve to give it either less or more prominence than it would deserve).--Cailil ^talk 21:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Cailil and Happy New Year when it comes: sooner to you than to me!!

Anyway, yes, I have watchlisted those articles and will keep an eye out. I am going to do a run through Save Indian Family in a minute to remove the original research etc there in any case.

Hope all goes well in 2009 for you, with all your busyness of life. --Slp1 (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Slp1, and happy new year. I'll run an eye over that article too when I get a moment--Cailil ^talk 21:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The BLP question

Thanks for your note Cailil, and thanks for seconding my attempt to focus on a "common decency" argument for us being humble in how we think about what we do in BLP.

Gutnick

I don't know how much of the Gutnick case you read. I thought the Australian judges showed tons of common sense. I also think Dow Jones did the right thing in the end by paying up without rehashing things in US courts. In their case, it was not a matter of bravely offering criticism against religious zealots abroad, they were simply trying to sell their knowledge of the business world, but got it wrong about Gutnick.

Sampson

By pure co-incidence I have been starting to write up an interesting book I've been reading—Educating Eve: The Language Instinct Debate. I was curious to see what Wiki had on its author Geoffrey Sampson. The very restrained comments and actions of this UK citizen towards the writer of his Wiki biography provide very interesting reading. I encountered them after my first post at the current discussion. They don't change my views, they reinforce them. However, I still don't really know how to handle writing up one of the sensitive issues regarding Sampson. It is interesting that his comments seem to indicate that he himself understands that a full, fair and frank presentation might not look very nice, and he could live with that, what irked him was the way two controversial incidents were being featured, and non-neutrally.

Cailil

What pleased me so much about you joining in at the BLP discussion was the sense that although both you and I might agree UK and Australian laws might go a little far, there are underlying issues of treating people properly. The reality is that US courts would make precisely the same findings as UK and Aussie courts in many cases. In fact, I bet there are more successful defamation actions in the US than the UK and Australia. In the abstract there are "shades of grey", sure, but case by case, even the US will see black as black.

I've got to work on my thesis quite intensively for the next month, I'll be pretty inactive at Wiki, though I'd be interested in any further thoughts you might have on the above. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

PS If you haven't already done so, read George Lakoff. There's something in his fresh thinking for everyone, and for all of us. I've got to read more of him myself. I expect I won't agree with all he says, but a couple of his core ideas—metaphor and nurturance—are very close to long-cherished views of my own, metaphor especially. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

advice

Hey, do you happen to know who, among active Wikipedians, is a cultural historian or an expert in cultural history? Ditto cultural studies. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi SLR. Hmm, I'm not sure I know any Cultural historians here but I could advise on the cultural studies field (at least in regard to most areas of cultural studies). Let me have a think and I'll see if I can find a cultural historian on WP--Cailil ^talk 14:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. As for "cultural studies" I could use your help. As of a few days ago, the Culture article was, in my view, a disaster. There was a GA review and two people commented. Their criticisms were good but I don't think they know enough about current research to fix the problems, so I did what looks like a major overhaul. In fact I was conservative: I deleted every redundancy and tangent or fringe view, and then reorganized what was left in an attempt to identify major points of view or approaches. So of course the article needs more work. I spell this out in more detail on the article talk page. I believe that the concept "culture" is most central to cultural anthropology and cultural studies (and perhaps cultural history, hence my question. I know a good deal about the former, and very little about the latter so the article is currently unbalanced. Would you have time to go over it and develop the section on views of culture within cultural studies? Obviously the article should not be "about" cultural anthroplogy and cultural studies, or try to replace those articles. I do however want to provide a good account of the different meanings of culture, the different ways different scholars use the concept, and cutting edge theoretical debates about culture, properly contextualized. I realize this can be a small or a large job - I woulod appreciate your providing whatever help you can. If you are willing to do this, you may feel that some reorganization is needed since I did not create a distinct section on cultural studies. I would only ask (and I trust you to do a good job with this) to keep your eye on "the whole." One reason the article became a wreck was people adding different things ad hoc without ever considering the overall organization of the article. I know a lot more stuff needs to be added; I just want to make sure that as any addition is made the article is reorganized as needed so that there is no redundancy and the overall organization provides every section with a context so that the whole things makes sense. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 17:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Socktag

Hello, I'm going to start an SPI concerning the user mentioned in the sock tag of this diff, and, instead of hunting through the massive article history myself, I was wondering if you could cite the edit that prompted you to add the tag, or, if nothing else, contribute to the SPI when I create it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Daedalus, that tagging is based on edit patterns. If you look at a wannbe kate list for the user in question you can see that the IP matches a number of interests. The points being made also made me a bit suspicious. Drop me a line when you've put the SPI report together and I'll see what I can do to help--Cailil ^talk 02:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I may hold off on the SPI, because I don't know enough about the situation, but, if it matters at all, the user you tagged has now registered an account, re: BoulderCreek12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

okay, lets agf in the case of this user--Cailil ^talk 15:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

another plea for help

Hi. I have now done considerable work on the Culture article. It is my understanding that "culture" as such is the principal object of study of two academic disciplines: anthropology and cultural studies. Our article on culture should provide a good account of how both disciplines think of and use the concept of "culture." I know a lot about anthropology, cut not cultural studies. So right now the article is very unbalanced - mostly anthropology and very little from cultural studies (and what is there could be inaccurate and is certainly partial). I am not sure how many Wikipedians know more about cultural studies than you do, which is why I am asking you to help out with that part of the article. I do know that there are important differences between cultural studies as organized and practiced in the US, and the UK. Can you solicit the help of other editors to make sure fair coverage is given to both US and UK forms of cultural studies? I'd be grateful, but more important I think it would really help the encyclopedia. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi SLR and sorry about my tardiness in response. Things are difficult right now - but I'll have a look at Culture on Saturday. Sorry gain I can't get to it any soon. Best wishes --Cailil

Oky, thanks ... right now I am especially concerned about this proposal - by someone who I believe cannot recognize the difference between mainsream and fringe research, and is anti-academic research. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Content Needed

Hello Cailil, would you mind checking out Gynodioecy. It is a biology stub and needs reliable content for its development.Please help me improve it.I am new to wikipedia and would be glad if you could ask other wikipedians that might be experienced in this field to add content to it.Thank you.Ochawhite (talk) 12:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Ochawhite I have very little time to spend on wikipedia and I know nothing about Gynodioecy so I can't help--Cailil ^talk 23:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Rape and censorship in Wikipedia

I am not so interested in the rape article. However, censorship in Wikipedia may be an unintended result of WP practice among editors.

I think that those accused of rape are mentioned in American newspapers but not British newspapers. I think this is because American tradition, it is not shameful to be accused of rape (it actually is) but in the UK, they wait until conviction.

With WP, if I edit that, others will immediately accuse me of being Anacapa and ban me. On the other hand, I am not interested in the article and don't care if it is or is not included. However, you could insert it. I got to the article simply by clicking "random article" while looking for something to edit. (Later, I found a small Kansas town which I found interesting and will write more on it later!) Chergles (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Redaction

Calil -- thanks for at least addressing my concern. This was the first time that I'm aware of that you actually responded in a semi-direct way to my concern (that is "I did so elsewhere"). Before that all I was getting on Alastair's page was "you aren't being helpful." Well, as far as I could tell your response wasn't being helpful either. I think there are legitimate concerns all around. Alastair originally asked for an apology, then asked for administrative help, then asked for an apology from the administrative help that wasn't helping, etc. Was that the most pragmatic way to go about it? No. Idealistic would be a better word.

Here's what I think is going on: Admins are trying to keep Wikipedia functioning. That's about it. It's not a question of justice but of function. If an editor is disrupting the function of Wikipedia by being abusive, he gets blocked. On the other hand, if an editor is disrupting the function of Wikipedia by seeking redress from abuse, he gets blocked. The concern is for Wikipedia instead of truth justice and the american way -- because editors are volunteers with limited time and not supermen.

As I said on the talk page I do not fault you. I think the problem is process instead of people, and may NOT be solvable. If that's the case we should all be up front about it so that all of us -- Alastair included -- can shrug our shoulders and move on.

Alastair still believes that Wikipedia is fixable. I don't think it's fixable. And I'm not convinced that you care (or even need to). But I DO think that we all need to come to some kind of understanding of the DE FACTO functioning of Wikipedia instead of the DE JURE functioning. As long as you and Alastair are arguing about right and wrong, everyone will be mired in this. What he needs -- and what you and I need -- is the simple honesty of "no it isn't perfect, but we don't have the time or ability to make it perfect -- we're just trying to clunk along as best we could with a bunch of good hearted volunteers (and yes a few powerdrunk ones in the mix)."

If we can GET to that, then we can get PAST this. But as long as Alastair thinks you guys are capable of fixing the problem, he'll keep escalating the language trying to get your attention so that you will do so. Just be up front and tell him, like you said on my talk page -- that you aren't the right people to do this (and maybe there are no right people to do this because it isn't doable).

Again, thanks for at least ADDRESSING my concern on my talk page. I'd like to see this quickly, amicably, honestly, and pragmatically resolved. I think you probably do as well. If you need me to redact something elsewhere I'm very happy to do so. I'm always glad to know where I've made a mistake regarding someone so that I can correct it.

Best.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Tim, you need to understand that this a very difficult situation because rather than Alastair being gagged because of the legal rhetoric we are. Sysops are just the janitors not the police. We don't have the right, or the ability to comment on what Alastair has asked for comment and upon that's just one of the problems here.
Secondly, the reason I wont respond to anyone else's remarks about Alastair is becuase I want to see Alastair communicate with the Foundation or ArbCom in a clear and direct fashion that means that everyone needs to stop talking around him.
Thirdly, Alastair's use of the revert function was limited by ArbCom. He was seen to breach this restriction on a number of occassions and each time has protested that he has done nothing wrong - this is the nub of the problem. Alastair repudiates the ArbCom ruling because he sees his behaviour as exemplary - ArbCom sees it another way.
Finally I take Alastair's complaint about Abtract VERY seriously but I can do nothing about it if Alastair wont help me find the problematic remarks - he can email me a list of diffs and I will examine them asap or he can post them in a new thread on his talk page. Personally I believe that Alasatir was painted into a corner but I know that he has to take the first step to get out of it. The ongoing issue between yourself and Lisa and Lisa and Alastair isn't going to help and may come under severe scrutiny when the ball starts to roll here - I'm just giving you a heads-up on that.
By way of a 'road map' I have two suggestions: #1 Alastair conducts his concerns with the Foundation through the Office relating to WP:Libel off-line and when that is resolved comes back to wikipedia. Then he can ask them or ask me or ask ArbCom to investigate the behaviour of others (in this case I mean Abtract not the sysops - who for the record are/were just doing their job) that led to this issue. I believe that Alastair might have been wikibullied here but I need diffs to prove or discount my belief. #2 Alastair retracts any and all legal threats unequivocally. He and all those associated with him stop using any and all legal sounding terms and language (ie slander, libel, defamation, 'your on trial here'). He requests oversight of a series of diffs after they are submitted to me/another admin or admins/ArbCom.
For this to happen and for either solution to work Alastair has to accept that his use of the revert funstion was restricted because of a tendency to slow-edit war. If he is to return he may have to go for a period without undoing or reverting (in any way). If he is interested he can always, and I mean at anytime, email me to discuss it--Cailil ^talk 17:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Just as a side note I have provided Alastair with the links and in fact I'm assuming due to his silence these past days that he is talking to the foundation directly. If not I will post what I said to you on his talk page as well--Cailil ^talk 17:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Calil -- thanks so much. That sounds much more thought out and helpful than anything I've been able to come up with (I really don't understand all the Wiki-process and am having trouble learning it for some reason; even on the admin noticeboard all I'm getting is annoyed stonewalling). Of all the admins I've encountered on this issue -- I think you're much closer to some kind of real solution than anything I've heard. In any case, other than staying off of his talk page, what else can I do to help? Could I try to encourage Alastair toward some of these ideas? And I'll attempt a redaction now -- please let me know if I need to improve it after I post it. Thanks. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I just tried a redaction -- if that's not enough, I'll be happy to tweak it. As for some implied scrutiny regarding Lisa and myself, I'm open to it, although I don't have the time or the ability she does for diffs. My own solution has been to remove my real name from my signon and reduce my time on Wikipedia. I'll restore some sourced text occasionally when a vandal comes along, but I don't do that much any more. It hasn't really been worth it. If I do go active again I'll find some subjects she has no apparent interest in and use a brand new screen name. Not sure I have the time to go there yet, but if I do go fully active again that's a better solution than dragging a bunch of admins into a decision.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid Tim that the 'stone-walling' is because we're between a rock and a hard place. Alastair wants us to do something we don't have the power to do. He's also broken a rule that is treated with zero tolerance. At this juncture the other sysops see no-way out. But I would suggest that Durova's words on ANI are salient. If you want to help I would say that suggesting Alastair read our exchanges might be helpful. This situation is eminently fixable but it's going to be a process of give and take--Cailil ^talk 19:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

PS, thank you for the redaction--Cailil ^talk 19:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay -- I'll try to email him. Sometimes he's not online for weeks at a time, though, either through travel or computer/network problems. And I'll read what Durova has posted on the ANI. Glad to know there's some interest in a well rounded resolution, and I appreciate the time you've given me to point me where to look.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm done now. Thanks again for correcting me about the Arbcom. I even missed it when I looked at the link you gave me and finally saw it when I looked the second time. I'll sit back for a while and see how nice everyone wants to be. You've really helped out my faulty memory on the Abtract thing. Funny how easy it is to miss something like that.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

My only problem at this point is that the admins not unblocking him are requiring him to do something that is far beyond Wikipedia policy, AND requiring him to lie -- withdrawing a threat he does not believe he has made. He can withdraw a statement (which he has done), assure people that he is not seeking legal action (which he has done), and promised to not speak of legal things at all (which he has done). Now, if he WERE to accept the wording imposed upon him, he would be breaking his word, lying about the past, and bowing to a threat regarding a legal waiver (which is itself a violation of Wikipedia policy). Alastair's gone as far as he can go without lying. We have to back off. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add that the admin not unblocking him is not being helpful at all. Someone has to fix this.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Alastair Haines

Hi Cailil. Alastair has now posted a new unblock request as suggested, but was unable to archive his talk page to remove prior discussion. Skywriter and LisaLiel continue to contribute extremely unhelpfully after the unblock request. Just to let you know. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 08:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mathsci, thanks for the heads-up - I'll see what I can do--Cailil ^talk 22:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, Cailil, and Happy Easter! There seem to have been some question-marks over Coren's recent NLT blocks. One of these blocks was just overturned by fellow arb Roger Davies. A number of people are asking for more details of his block of User:SkyWriter on Coren's talk page. The block was justified by exactly the same OTRS ticket as the block of User:Alastair Haines, something unexplained so far (User:John Carter and you also raised this point on WP:ANI). Just to let you know. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 09:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

SkyWriter (Tim) has just been unblocked. Coren - apart from ruling out Tim as the originator of the OTRS ticket as an error on his part - has not explained what proof there is that Alastair Haines had anything to do with the email. I hope that this can be clarified, because if the email was anonymous, it's not clear what weight can be attached to it. The email could possibly have originated from a malicious third party. Mathsci (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I want to be careful here so I'm going to say very little. Alastair has emailed me. The OTRS email in question is not a fraud, Alastair has verified that it was his publisher who sent it. I think that matter has gone out of our remit and is really for the office to deal with now. Sorry if I sound terse I'm trying to be very very careful here--Cailil ^talk 17:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)