Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cailil

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Daveh4h (talk | contribs) at 15:36, 3 July 2008 (→General comments: fix contribs link). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Cailil

Voice your opinion (talk page) (3/0/0); 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. DurovaCharge! 01:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Nomination accepted--Cailil talk 12:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, and why?
A:I'm proud of my collaborative work at the Feminism article that has taken it to its current position[1]. I'm also proud of my contributions to the Acid attack[2], Bride burning[3], Gender studies, Women's rights[4] 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.


General comments

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)[reply]
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 administrative actions because he is perfectly capable of making the necessary judgements. 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 Talk 14:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  3. Support per a lack of a reason not to. —  scetoaux (T|C) 14:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Cailil has excellent judgement and a level head, and will make a great admin. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Support. Per your very impressive experience.Gears Of War 15:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
  1. Q3. Naerii 15:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cailil&oldid=223321086"