Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:09, 4 July 2008

Cailil

Voice your opinion (talk page) (33/6/3); Scheduled to end 13:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Cailil (talk · contribs) - It is a pleasure to present Cailil for your consideration. Cailil first came to my attention over a year ago during the Anacapa investigation, where his patience, tact, and careful documentation led to the siteban of a long term POV-pushing sockpuppeteer. Since then Cailil has undertaken similar problems--usually in hot potato topics such as feminism and always with the utmost courtesy and diligence. People say there aren't enough admins willing to take on the hard issues. Here's a candidate who has been around long enough to weather quite a few storms, and he's unflappable. He has for some time been the editor I've most wanted to nominate for adminship. Long ago he earned my confidence, and he has finally consented to accept this nomination. Durova 01:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Nomination accepted--Cailil 12:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A:First of all I'd like to help out with the back-log. I'm also interested in XfDs and I'm pretty familiar with AN/I so I'll try to respond to as much as I can help with from there. I'm also very interested issues arising from WP:RSN, WP:FTN and WP:BLPN. Also I've recently become interested in the naming of images and transculsion conflicts from the commons as well. All this as well as usual sysop intervention against vandalism duties.

2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?

A:I'm proud of my collaborative work at the Feminism article that has taken it to its current position. I'm also proud of my contributions to the Acid attack, Bride burning, Gender studies, Women's rights articles and to Portal:Men's rights and Project gender studies. I'm in a privileged position regarding these topics because I have access to sources and I can fact-check quickly and easily.
Working on category:feminism has actually made me enjoy dealing with badly sourced and unsourced but notable subjects. Many of the improvements I've made to articles like Black feminism are fact-checks & edits to achieve proper sourcing.
I do edit other things outside these categories and have been involved at the Sarah Kane article.
I'm also proud of the work I try to do at WP:FTN and WP:RS but I can only participate in conflicts that I have knowledge or understanding of. I've also discovered and passed on open calls for meat-puppetry off-wiki regarding various topics.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Well, I edit articles that some people consider controversial (ie feminism) that tend to attract ideologues and a few tigers. If there is a content dispute (which in these articles case usually is around matters covered by WP:UNDUE) I refer to policy ask for a WP:3O or RfC and follow dispute resolution as normal. This is not stressful because wikipedia reflects what mainstream sources say it will never reflect a "way-out" position.
Now another aspect of my work here on WP has led me to intervene in tendentious and disruptive editing problems. The first was User:davidrusher a Men's rights activist and blogger who was pushing his blog as a reliable source on the Men's rights article in December 2006 - January 2007. When I tagged one of his sections as {{dubious}} he responded by making a number of wildly incivil comments. After being warned by a WP:WQA patroller and blocked for ignoring the warnings he made what were considered by sysops to be legal threats against the foundation, and then a call for meat-puppets on his blog. This was a stressful situation - for a user who had only 10 weeks experience. The procedure I followed then is almost exactly the one I follow now in such cases. Direct the user to site policy on article/user talk page. If incivility reoccurs post to WP:WQA / a sysop's page / ANI. Ask for outside input (WP:RfC). If behaviour escalates document it and its history in a report page with reference to applicable site policies.
I was also involved in tracking and documenting the sock-puppeteer and sneaky vandal User:Anacapa. Who was using over 25 different IP addresses to avoid scrutiny on their account when povpushing on gender, feminism & rape related articles (see that report in detail here). I've also reported incidents relating to soapboxing by the User:MoritzB, tendentious editing by User:Jagz, harassment by User:AB Pepper. And a number of other minor cases such as Loneranger4justice and User:RichSatan - who were involved in soapboxing, harassment & povpushing.
I haven't found such matters stressful. I have a lot of faith in the community even when a respected user disagrees with my decisions and opinions whether in relation to behavioural disputes or content matters I trust that the community will find a consensus that improves the project - ultimately that's all that matters and resolutions to disputes should always have that in mind.

Optional question from daveh4h

4.What role do you feel investigations of other editors and groups such as wp-investigations and wp-cyberstalking play in the project? Are investigations of editors an important part of maintaining an encyclopedia? Is this an area where you believe you would be active in, perhaps more so as an administrator?

A.Well first off let me say I am not a member of these mailing lists nor will I be. I don't feel that the mailing lists or IRC channels would be a place for me or my work. And for the record I'm not a member of any lists, channels, forums etc to do with wikipedia.
That said cyber-stalking is an issue, not one that will effect every user but it will effect users who are not very careful about what clues they leave to their identity and place of employment on the web, and those who use their real names to edit here. I myself had to take some action to preserve my privacy earlier this year. I had some minor internet stalking and harassment - so I take this matter seriously. However it is rare, very rare, that one meets a bully who feels it necessary to go to these lengths, and we have an onsite process for this Misplaced Pages:STALK#Dealing_with_harassment and this is what I personally regard as best practice.
As regards the investigations list I prefer to keep my reports open and onsite. The Anacapa report had to be semi-protected recently because he was vandalizing it but other wise I believe in giving people the opportunity to see what I am presenting, and respond to it appropriately. I don't know what happens at wpinvestigations-l so I can only comment on my preferences and what I do.
There are only 6 reasons I would undertake an investigation. (1) ArbCom, user-RFC or ANI discussion. (2) Complex sock-puppetry. (3) Sneaky vandalism (misrepresentation of sources etc). (4) Harassment. (5) Tendentious / Disruptive editing (including sopaboxing, wikistalking, and abuse of sysop privelages). (6) Reporting disputes that are difficult for others to find or see the connections with (conflicts of interest, pov-pushing or other disruption that may be "spread-out" over a number of pages, or sneaky / subtle distortions of sources that need full and clear reference to sources to show vandalism). I am of the belief that we do so much reporting in relation to RfAr and WP:RFC/U that we should have a form report with a guideline about what we should include - like we have for checkuser rquests. Such reports are for dispute resolution not escalation.
On a personal note I don't like doing report pages - I only do it when I have to. The main reasons I have had to was to show how big a problem was, how far it went back and why the behaviour was disruptive. I will continue to do this when I have to, whether I'm promoted or not. As above the role of such reporting is WP:DR and emphasis on resolution - they should be used to help improve the encyclopedia by resolving disruption where and when it exists.
If I am promoted I would like to help out in dispute resolution process but I would not limit that to reporting and would rather help in other ways before it becomes necessary to make such reports.

Optional questions from User:Filll

5. What should be done to encourage calmer environments around RfAs and similar polls? For example, would you support the Peaceful Polling Pledge?

A. A few weeks ago I made a post to WP:RFC's talk page about tightening up how we do RFC/Us. IMHO it's a matter of being a bit stricter on civility at RfC/Us, ANI, admin recalls etc, but also establishing clear parameters about what is evidence and what is not.
RfA is a bit different I suppose. Perhaps we should encourage users leaning towards oppose to ask questions first.
However people feel less inhibited to say/do things in cyberspace that would not say/do in face to face situations I'm not sure wikipedia policy can alter that. Beyond enforcing WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL we can only ask people to treat each other with respect and to keep an open mind.

6. Answer two of the exercises at the AGF Challenge 2 and post the answers here or a link to your answers.

A.

Optional boilerplate questions from Wisdom89

7. Under what circumstances would you invoke WP:IAR for deletion and blocking, respectively?

A. I would never ever ever invoke WP:IAR for either. Blocking and deleting are serious privelages.
A user can only be blocked to prevent disruption, to protect the project (ie violations of privacy, BLP, copyright or for compromised accounts); to prevent blocks/ban evasion; to block an open proxy. Blocks are never at a whim of a sysop they are always policy based and in some cases (e.g indefs that may be contentious) need consensus to remain in effect. There is no ignoring these criteria.
Deletion is likewise never an IAR issue. A deletion must be within policy (see Misplaced Pages:DELETE#Reasons_for_deletion) or it should be contested at WP:DRV. The only other reason to delete a page would be user space deletion under the right to vasnish terms.
In short WP:IAR does not apply to using sysop privileges to block users or delete pages.

8. In your own words, can you intimate the difference between "importance" and "notability" with regards to deletion criteria.

A.

9. Under what conditions would it be appropriate to set an indefinite block?

A.

Question from Chetblong

10. When if ever would you use a cool down block?

A. Looks like the cheat-sheet will have to be changed. Having read the current discussion I would still say that I would never block somebody for being angry. If they violated WP:POINT or WP:DE while angry they'd be blocked to prevent further disruption. If they violate WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL while angry they'd be blocked to prevent further incivility. Block length (ie 1 hour or 5 hours) for minor infractions is already at a sysop's judgment call. If somebody is being incivil a short block may be okay but it depends on many factors such as the length of time that that incivility/disruption has been on-going, but importantly a user must have had a proper warning before any such block - and if done right the warning can have the same effect.
In principle short blocks (of a few hours) may help some editors to get the point but I have seen it make things worse rather than reducing/preventing disruption so it is a serious matter of judgement. In short, I'm against the idea of "cool-down" as a blocking criteria but short blocks (ie between 1-5 hours) have their place. There are situations that are made worse because of this and it's a matter of a sysop using their best judgement.

General comments

• See Cailil's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Cailil: Cailil (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Cailil before commenting.

Discussion

Before anyone manages to get any questions in, I suggest the candidate take a look at the RFA cheatsheet if he hasn't already. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

And before you have a chance to answer my question Cailil, I would prefer that you not use the generic answer provided there, especially now that there is a discussion going on about cool-down blocks. --Chetblong (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong Support - Cailil is self-possessed and committed to high standards of accuracy, neutrality and verifiability. He would make an excellent administrator. I was going to nominate, but Durova's already provided a perfectly good nomination, so I'll state my opinions here. I first met Cailil on the User:Anacapa situation, and Cailil has since come to me a few times for help with sock puppets of that user, or other issues requiring administrative attention. My strong feeling is that Cailil does not need to come to me for routine administrative actions because he is perfectly capable of making the necessary judgments. In my experience, Cailil's reports have always been accurate and well supported by evidence. Cailil's edit count shows 6800+ edits, 2000+ in mainspace and the rest nicely distributed, including substantial noticeboard and WikiProject participation, and he has a clear block log. Jehochman 14:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Support because you see, atheism-related userboxes are just fine when they aren't disrespectful towards others. Keepscases (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Support per a lack of a reason not to. —  scetoaux (T|C) 14:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Support Cailil has excellent judgement and a level head, and will make a great admin. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Strong Support. Per your very impressive experience.Gears Of War 15:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
6. You're ready. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 16:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
7. Support Looks ok. America69 (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
8. Strong Support I've worked with Cailil through various issues, and Cailil was very impressive with jkeeping their temper and never making empty appeals to authority.. all of their arguments were very firmly grounded in WP's policies. SirFozzie (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
9. Strong support: Per Jehochman, Akhilleus, and SirFozzie. I'm sure if you looked at my history, you'd find some dodgy AfD comments as well, but the bottom line is that Cailil has a solid track record of mature, sensible, and level-headed editing. He's worked in the trenches already and handled himself well. Those are really the most (only) necessary characteristics for an admin. The rest follows. MastCell  17:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
10. Support A fine candidate. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
11. Full Support If all you have done wrong in the last year is make a few a comments that only some users feel may be a little shaky, then man your going to be the perfect admin. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 18:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
12. Support. Seen you around a bit, I believe. I'm sure you'll use the tools to the 'pedia's benefit; good luck. --Mizu onna sango15/ 18:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
13. looks okay. Dlohcierekim 18:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
14. Support Checks out by me. Will get the jobs done and admirably so. Plutonium27 (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
15. Support, per great history of calm resolution of problems, and an excellent answer to question 3. I've opposed RfA's in the past for candidates that make dodgy AfD arguments, but the few that have been raised are a while ago and are pretty borderline. No problems here, good luck. ~ mazca 19:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
16. Support: Candidate seems like they would do a good job. I don't see a problem with the AfDs mentioned below. Sometimes articles need to be deleted and I'm sure that even with articles deleted if notability surfaces then the article can be recreated or information could be added to appropriate articles. Candidate seems civil and has plenty of experience and edit summary usage is excellent as well. I think candidate would make an excellent admin.  Orfen  • _C 20:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
17. Support: Gonzo's reply to Wisdom below sums ny thoughts up. Good candidate. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
18. Support Cant see any reason not to. BigDunc 20:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
19. Oppose: Candidate's signature is too bright and too green. On the other hand, what I've seen of Cailil leads me to believe they wouldn't abuse the tools - and I do not think the AfD contribs raised by the opposers have any bearing on that question. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

    I'm sorry about the green-ness SheffieldSteel - the sig's supposed to be "grey" (that's what it's saying in the code) and it's showing up on my Mac as grey. That said I did see it appear green on a Windows system - I just thought that computer's monitor was badly calibrated : / Will see if I can do anything about that green-ness--Cailil 20:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

    In your sig, change color="grey" to color="#999999". Lower numbers will make the gray darker. Higher numbers, in hexadecimal, such as #aaaaaa or #cccccc with be even lighter. #ffffff is pure white. Jehochman 20:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

20. Support Solid candidate, nothing to indicate possibility of misuse of tools. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
21. Support. Looks good to me. Good luck! Malinaccier (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
22. support Have noticed around as a sane & reasonable contributor, I trust Durova to nominate quality wikipedians, and I am not at all troubled by diffs cited by those !voting oppose. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
23. Strong support: level-headed, not afraid to speak up when needed, and diplomatic with the people with whom he has a disagreement, and has a sense of humor and self-derision when required. All the qualities we need in a good admin. Now, about that green signature... ;) --Ramdrake (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
24. Strong support, Cailil seems to be very levelheaded, and certainly used to staying calm in disputes. Although never having heard of him until today, I am completely impressed reading about the work that he has done, and he seems responsible, rational, and considerate - so very important. -- Natalya 21:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
25. Support - trustworthy editor. The oppose arguments aren't remotely convincing. PhilKnight (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

    Should people oppose by saying "the support arguments aren't remotely convincing"? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 00:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

26. Support I've seen you around before, and like how you generally keep cool. Your diligence and experience lead me to trust you with the responsibility. Yamakiri _C § 07-3-2008 • 22:26:29
27. Support. I see no indication of any trust issues, and this user has a fine, long, edit history. I will take my standard position of support. ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 22:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
28. Strong Support. I have watched Cailil for a long time at the Feminism page - an articl on a controversial topic which has attracted its share of dit warring in the past. Cailil has handled himslef in an exemplary fshion and has done a great deal to make this a great article. He is clam and patient with all other editors and works well when there is a need for compromise. He has a thorough grasp of our core policies. He is commited to serious research to develop encyclopedia articles of the highest standards. He has intervened in conflicts in measured and constructive ways. But in the end for the most important thing is his comitment to quality scholarship. This is how we write a great encyclopedia. We need more Cailil's!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slrubenstein (talk • contribs)
29. Support, meets my criteria. Excellent editor, civil, thorough and patient. Also direct and consistent. What's not to love? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 02:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
30. Support I've seen him around, seems level-headed and knowledgeable. AfD cites seem picky in opposes, and not representative. King Pickle (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
31. Support net positive. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
32. Support per candidate's edit history and answers, particularly 7 above. He is an article-builder as well as a patient vandal-fighter, is calm and civil, and shows he sees the rationale behind rules and policies as well as what they actually say. --Karenjc 08:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
33. Strong support I'm on the other side of the aisle (inclusionist), but his edits to articles that I've worked on have been nothing but helpful and constructive. JCDenton2052 (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
34. Fully trust Durova's judgement. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
35. Support MBisanz 17:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
36. Strong Support - Your answer to question 10 strengthened my support for you 100 fold, it shows that you will think through your decisions before making them, which is a vital part of being an admin. And of course, you pass my criteria. --Chetblong (talk) 18:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
37. Support per answers to q7 & q10; clearly clueful. –xenocidic (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)