Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cailil

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Cailil

Final (66/8/5); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 13:24, 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^Charge! 01:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

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

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.

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 Wikipedia: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 [5] 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 Wikipedia: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.Notability and importance are like verifiability and truth. We measure how truthful a claim is by how verifiable it is. We measure how important a subject is by how notable it is. This is because notability and verifiability are quantitate - we can measure them.
Now of course there are variations in our notability guidelines. This notability must be asserted and demonstrated (wp:proveit). Organizations, web-sites, academics, games/toys, politicians, pornstars, athletes, books, films, etc all have specific criteria for what makes them notable in their fields and what sources are adequate to demonstrate this.
Notability is defined by how well documented something's importance is. If something has 100 academic articles but no newspaper coverage it may be notable but not well known. If something has 100 newspaper articles about it may be widely known and be notable.
In regard to deletion, if notability cannot be demonstrated by the criteria for the specific type of article, that article can be deleted if an AfD finds consensus to do so. For example the subject of a biography about a politician needs to be / have been a major local figure who received significant press attention or have held an international, national or high level local office. If the subject does not meet this criteria they may still be notable if they pass the general rule for notability - that is significant coverage in independent (sometimes called "3rd party") reliable sources. This makes them notable enough for inclusion as long as the article does not violate what wikipedia is not.
If a subject fails to meet the notability guidelines (specific and general) then the article can be deleted if a consensus to do so is found at AfD. After all the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability and we verify how important a subject is through its demonstrable notability. In some cases this may not be included in the article at time of AfD but if sources can be found during the AfD then the article will not be deleted and if they are found afterwards it can be restored at deletion review--Cailil ^talk 21:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

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

A.There are a number of reasons for indefinite blocks. (1) Legal threats. (2) Illegitimate sock-puppet accounts and/or block evasion. (3) Open proxies (which are blocked on sight). (4) Vandalism only accounts - as long as that doesn't mean innocent users are being blocked (ie IPs should never really by indef blocked since IP addresses are "dynamically assigned" - long blocks are better than indefs in these situations). And (5) continued disruptive editing after a full set of warnings, attempts at dispute resolution and a series of fair and proper escalating blocks.
The first 3 are obvious but 4 and 5 are not. Basically there is a consideration that indef blocking IPs is going to hurt an innocent user somewhere down the line so vandal only accounts (ie usernames) are the ones falling under the fourth category for indef blocking. But this can only happen after proper warnings and a series of escalating blocks.
The 5th category is the most difficult and is the last resort. After a user has disrupted the project, received full, fair and proper warnings, has been brought through the dispute resolution process properly, has received a series of blocks and then continues to behave disruptively. Then they would be indef blocked. But that is not the end. It is normal that such a block would be reviewed by the community and if an experienced editor was willing to mentor then the block would be lifted and only reinstated if said mentoring failed to rectify the editor's behaviour.
There have been indef blocks given for harassment as well but this falls under category 4 & 5 and usually involves block evasion or sock-puppetry before indefinite blocking--Cailil ^talk 19:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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/^Discuss 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 ^{t | c} 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  ^T • _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^Talk 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^TALK 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 ^talk 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 ^Talk 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^Tally-ho! 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 ^T_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 ^talk 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)
38. Support, per perusal of contribs, solid answers to questions, and my previous reasoning. S. Dean Jameson 20:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
39. Support - Per answers to my questions. WP:CLUE abounds. Excellent and thoughtful explanations. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
40. Support. Switched from neutral (see below). — Athaenara ✉ 22:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
41. Support per answer to Q10. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
42. Support - Per reponses to questions. Shot info (talk) 06:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
43. Per Jehochman. Rudget (logs) 09:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
44. Support - an all-round decent candidate, who has dabbled in all the right areas. Thoughtful and clear answers to the questions. Lradrama 13:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
45. Support Excellent answers to questions. BradV 15:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

    support Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

    Thanks Gary King. I haven't done that in a while (double support). I must like this guy twice as much (and I swear I didn't mean to !vote twice (my bad)....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

    Double-support. Already at #29. Rudget (logs) 17:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

46. Support --Vhoscythe^chatter 18:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
47. Strong Support I've known this user ever since I first started editing on Wikipedia. He is the first person I talked to on Wikipedia. I must say he is very qualified and has really good answers to questions. He has lots of experience and has made lots of great edits, especially on Feminism related articles. He is always helpful if I have questions and he doesn't mind giving me feedback. He seems to know alot about Wikipedia. I only have good things to say about him. --Grrrlriot (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
48. Support per Jehochman. Good luck! --Cameron* 19:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
49. Strong support Has kept a cool and balanced head in some very difficult situations. He appears to have much clearer powers of judgement about problematic editors than some established administrators. Mathsci (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
50. Support for thoroughly and thoughtfully handling a very, very difficult editor. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 23:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
51. Support - seen this user around, have been impressed. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
52. Per Q&A. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
53. Anacapa supports I am officially proven to be Anacapa [See line just above "move to close" at the bottom] and [[6]] and User talk:Hotpotatoes (see comment on talk page) I support Cailil for admin! Chergles (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
54. Fine, fine. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 23:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
55. Support per Jehochman, MastCell & per Durova's nomination. Excellent thoughtful answers to the questions showing knowledge, skill & good judgment. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
56. Support - Garion96 (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
57. Support Has experienced some of the ugly parts of the wiki and still maintained himself with a high degree of professionalism. Answers indicate a good head and lots of clue. GlassCobra 19:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
58. Support He has done great work around here. I'm glad to support! Gary King (talk) 04:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
59. Support Someone who is skilled, well informed, and is not afraid to venture into contentious articles in the interest of objective, sourced neutrality is of great value to the project. Cailil appears to be just such a person. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
60. Support This Rfa has been going on for a little while, and nothing has been brought up that indicates this user will cause unneeded drama, be very rude, misuse the tools, etc, thus I trust them with the tools. Good luck!--SJP _Chat 18:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
61. But of course! Al Tally ^talk 21:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
62. Support—I am sure this is not what Elonka intended by raising her concerns, but in fact her research made it easier for me to decide my vote here. What I see is an editor who is willing to dig in to the trenches, research, compile facts and evidence, and present them. Editors should not be asked to give up their opinions when they are handed the mop, and I doubt Cailil will. What I would expect is that Cailil would not take any action against a user that he has taken an active part in discussing. Everything I see leads me to believe that my expectation would be met, leading to my support. Livitup (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
63. Support Sumoeagle179 (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)s
64. Support We need more academically inclined editors to become administrators. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
65. Support I have had excellent interactions with Cailil, and have observed many other respectful conversations with editors he strongly disagreed with. A smart, informed, committed editor who has engaged not to use tools inappropriately in areas he feels strongly about (though that's a given for all, surely?)--Slp1 (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
66. Read and understood the opposes - but I think the project would be better off by having Cailil as an administrator. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose. Although a reasonable comment in this discussion, [7] is inconsistent with the close and saying “No reason to keep” can be regarded as insulting to those who argued to merge, i.e. as if they offered “no reason.” With [8] without being able to re-look at the article as I am not an admin it is little difficult to judge the comment left here, although as a general suggestion, it is helpful to make some effort to improve the article in question as well, so that you can say, “I did the best I could with it,” as opposed to only exhorting others to do so. With [9], please note WP:JNN and [10]. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

   Maybe I'm a rampant deletionist, but I don't see anything problematic in those AfD comments. They seem entirely reasonable. Sometimes there is no reason to keep an article, or at least a reasonable person might think so. MastCell ^Talk 17:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

   LGRdC, please see my reply to Wisdom89 just below, as it is also a response to your oppose, and how if you have to pull up a few shaky comments from 3 and a half months ago, and two from 1 year ago, then why are you opposing? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 18:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

   One of the most important roles of an administrator is how they will close deletion discussions as they can undo years worth of work in an instant. The best way to gauge how they will likely close such discussions is by looking at their reading of policy and guidelines when making arguments. Saying "no reason to keep" in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soren (Guardians of Ga'Hoole) in which three editors offered reasons to keep and three others offered reasons to merge and in which the discussion in fact closed as merge is somewhat disconcerting as clearly there are reasons to keep. Now if it was a snowball delete and the candidate said that okay, but in this case that statement was not accurate. And again, I'm saying "weak" oppose here. If evidence can be presented of more valuable or on point comments after the ones I posted above (I looked at the ones in which we both commented) then I am always willing to take that into account, but I am going with my own experience. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

   I understand your point completely. I just wanted to point out that the examples you provided, although they may be misinterpretations of policy, etc., they were all quite a while ago. And judging a candidate on a few diffs out of thousands of quality edits is a little harsh for me. Especially since he was right about the final decision on some of those. I go into an WP:RFA saying I am going to support this candidate unless I find a reason not to, not the other way around. But hey guys, I have to go to work, so cheers! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 19:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

   Well, again, that's why it's not a regular oppose, but my hope here if nothing else is for the candidate to rexamine these kinds of comments and think of how to approach AfDs in a better fashion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

   Oppose - Per shoddy AfD work shown above and [11]. Lack of notability has nothing to do with WP:CSD. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

   WP:CSD#A7 says a heck of a lot about notability. Maybe he was just stating that the article lacked any notability, or assertion of notability, and let me tell after reading that deleted article, he was correct, that article should and was deleted. I also want to point out the dates on all the diffs that LGRdC provided: July 25, 2007, August 30, 2007, March 28, 2008 and March 28, 2008 again. That means he may have made a few shaky comments, and I stress may because he was mostly right on all them, but none of these comments are within the last 3 months, with two of them going all the way back to the Summer of 2007. I mean seriously people, let's give the candidate a break, because if you cant find anything bad in the last 3 months, and those diffs are the worst you can find in the last year, then dammit Cailil you have my full support. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 18:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

   A7 is not a question of notability. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

   (ec) His rationale is still wrong. If he wanted CSD A7, he should have explicitly stated that the article fails to make an assertion of notability. By using WP:N as his rationale, he's shown that he believes the subject has some sort of notability, but not enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

   Basically, yes. I'm concerned that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of CSD and WP:NOTE here. It appears as though the CSD criteria is worded differently now than how it was in the past. Nevertheless, you don't speedy delete because of lack of notability. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

   You know what I'll do? Sometime today I will drum up some question for the candidate to see if they can alleviate my concerns. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

   One more thing, it also doesn't help that the candidate wishes to work at WP:AIV, yet has edited that page no more than a single time from what I can see. Not WP:EDITCOUNTITIS, but experience. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

   (to Wisdoms comment that comes before Nishkids per a hell of a lot of ec's)I like how you replied to just a small part of my comment. Anyways, of course WP:CSD#A7 is about asserting notability, whether it be truthful or not, not whether a subject is notable. My point was that you statement "Lack of notability has nothing to do with WP:CSD" was wrong, in that it does deal with the assertion of notability. My point is not whether Cailil was right or wrong. My point is that your opposing a candidate because of one comment, and some old diffs provided above. Adminship is not about perfection, Wisdom. It is about providing a net benefit to the community. So if you can honestly tell me that those comments are enough to make you feel that it will be a net negative to the community, and that you do not trust Cailil to right any mistakes he may make as an admin (and we admins all make mistakes), then I honestly have no reply to that. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 19:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

   That's all I ask, a question about your concerns should give you a reasonable estimate of whether Cailil will be a good admin or not. I just felt that the evidence provided was shaky at best, and that a neutral with a question for clarification could have been better. But that's just mho. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 19:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose Weak AfD arguments (as expected from a deletionist), doesn't show any knowledge of policy.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 19:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose per my only interaction with the user, in a discussion on Talk:Gender studies (top section onwards), which I visited as a mediator via WP:Third opinion. I am particularly concerned about the editor's neutrality when editing topics close to themselves, probably the #1 cause of admin abuse of the tools in the past. User:Krator (t c) 22:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

   I do take your concerns on board Krator and this discussion and this one link to other parts of the same dispute to which you are referring. I would like to say however that I understand WP:CRIT to apply to criticism sections and to criticism articles, and that WP:NPOV applies to criticism sections too.
   Since that dispute (which was almost 15 months ago) I have come to the position that (as per {{criticism-section}}) critical material should be integrated into articles to achieve NPOV rather than creating content forks or coatracks--Cailil ^talk 00:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

   Oppose until this AFD is explained. Failing WP:N is not a criteria for speedy deletion, and admins who act on that assumption ultimately do harm. --Rividian (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

   My comment below to Wisdom89[12] refers to that AFD--Cailil ^talk 00:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

   Fair enough. --Rividian (talk) 00:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

4. Agree with the above arguments, and (relatively minor issue) I was a bit irked by the transclusion. More so by the two comments related to it being hidden on the talk page. —Giggy 00:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

   That was my doing, not Cailil's. Please don't count my actions against him. Feel free to post your concerns at WP:BN and ask for a review. Jehochman ^Talk 12:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

   I also concur with Bwrs and Daniel below. —Giggy 06:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

   Oh dear, Q7 is a bit disturbing. Never using IAR on blocking/deletion is not the best of ideas. We are run on common sense not on blindly adhering to policy. —Giggy 03:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

5. Very strong oppose. I have serious concerns about his neutrality. Bwrs (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

   Could you explain those concerns more specifically? Durova^Charge! 02:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

   Seconded, a "Very Strong oppose" should be more than a seven word comment, and it would be helpful to know what your concerns are so other people !voting on this RFA can know. --Chetblong (talk) 05:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

   Thanks for the opportunity to explain. Editor enforces the WP:NPOV policy in a one-sided manner, saying that somebody who questioned[13] the neutrality of controversial material was soapboxing and being tendentious,[14] instead of assuming good faith. Also, he defended POV wording by saying that the POV is the only one supported by mainstream sources, and suggested that the opposing view may be a fringe theory,[15] even when the underlying issue is extremely controversial (public opinion in the U.S. is split 60/40; surely 40% is not WP:FRINGE.) To his credit, he eventually consented to neutral wording, but only after quite a bit of controversy.
   

   Editor defends WP:V well, but while WP:NPOV and WP:V complement each other, WP:NPOV imposes requirements that articles be written in a fair tone and "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves"; these requirements are in addition to, rather than being satisfied by, WP:V, and one should not create a hostile environment for those who are concerned about this. Bwrs (talk) 03:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

   I've reviewed the context for both of the two diffs you supplied. Please see the full first discussion for context: the editor Cailil was interacting with had been resetting IP addresses within the same range and posting follow-ups to previous parts of the same discussion, resuming the same points as previous IPs within the range and using the same prose style. The first of the IPs to that thread had been posting to Calil's talk page nearly a week before. The second example occurs late in a thread where Cailil's primary point is WP:NOR: an editor had attempted to source a statement to two reliable sources, but neither of those sources actually substantiated the editor's assertion. Cailil pointed this out and responded that the other editor needed reliable sources that actually said what this editor wanted to assert in the article, and Cailil suggested that noticeboard as one of the ways of resolving the editorial discussion with independent feedback. Taken in context, both of Cailil's posts look quite reasonable to me. Cailil's tone is polite and appropriate. I don't see the problem you assert; is there some other example? Durova^Charge! 07:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

   I understand that the two 69.106 IPs in that discussion are likely the same individual; however, the point that the IP user was trying to make was that the lead as it then existed was not neutral. I think that is a reasonable concern to raise on a talk page (or a user talk page); to silence it strikes me as being a non-neutral act. Bwrs (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

   The IP editor had been ignoring Cailil's invitation to provide sourcing for the proposed change. The way that conversation looks to me, it was a WP:V issue. When a person repeats the same idea for eight days both on the article talk page and on Cailil's user talk page without acknowledging the invitation to get sources or otherwise adjusting to site standards, then a mild caution is a normal response. Durova^Charge! 17:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

   Weak oppose. There are lots of small issues with the candidate's interpretation of various policies and guidelines. Here he refers to the external linking guideline as "site policy". Here [16][17][18] he applies all kinds of content guidelines to a redirect. (Some of the principles can reasonably be alluded to in the context of RfD, but several of the comments suggest lack of knowledge of RfD standards.) Here and and here he suggests speedy deletion when it's clear that no CSD apply. I can't really tell if these are genuine mistakes or the results of tendentious interpretations, but neither is good. Also, the candidate's experience has been rather narrow. Well over half of his mainspace edits are in the same 10 articles, all of which are gender related. This is troubling given the candidates extensive involvement with controversies in that area -- exercising sysop tools in an area one is active, opinionated and notorious in tends to lead trouble in spite of good intentions. There are lots of good things to be said about Cailil and his editing as well, but I think I'm already on the brink of tl;dr so I'll stop there. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 09:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

   Daniel, about the two speedy concerns - the AfD has been discussed below with Wisdom89 and was a mistake. The other was a speedy !vote - under reason to delete no. 7 at WP:REDIRECT (the "Editcount fairy" is a obscure synonym for huggle) - but I should have elaborated my position.
   In this [19] case back in January a number of editors wanted to call an event in recent Indian history the "Red Terror in India". I asked for sources showing that it was used I was provided none and I could find none only a trivial mention in a newspaper. I was wrong to link WP:REDIRECT to naming conventions however.
   On the matter of involvement I wouldn't be able to use the tools in areas that I am involved. And since I have made a number of serious contributions in category:feminism I would consider myself "involved" there and thus unable to use the tools except in the case of obvious blatant vandalism (and even that I would submit for over-view)--Cailil ^talk 13:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

6. Oppose, per Q7. Nakon 22:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
7. 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? Durova^Charge! 01:12, 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 (talk · contribs)), 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,[20] 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"[21]. 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,[22][23] Cailil was completely ignoring rampant personal attacks and incivility by editors on the other side[24][25] (such as grossly uncivil comments by admin Slrubenstein).[26][27][28] 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"[29], 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.[30] 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"?[31] And sure, this diff by Jagz (which Cailil included on his page) is an uncivil comment by Jagz.[32] However, Cailil completely ignored the comment by Slrubenstein immediately before it.[33] 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.[34] Yet Cailil was ignoring the same language[35] 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,[36] which is why I spent so much time at his talkpage. I also have a concern about his apprehension about off-wiki "collusion"[37][38] 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)

   Discussion moved to talk page. --Chet B. Long^Talk/_ARK 18:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

8. Oppose per Le Grand and unacceptable answer to Q7. SashaNein (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Q3. Naerii 15:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

   Could you please elaborate? —  scetoaux (T|C) 16:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

   I have trouble supporting anyone that leads 'investigations' against other users. Naerii 03:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

2. Neutral, leaning to support. I want to take time to look closely at this candidate, but I don't see anything that would indicate any problems with them as an admin. I've had dodgy comments at AFD too, and I've had a dodgy nomination or two; Holy crap, he/she is a person! I plan to review and (likely) switch to support later this weekend, but wanted to note my leaning on the off chance I don't get to it rapidly. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

   I'm a little concerned about Question 7; Though I don't intend to oppose for it, I'm not going to support at this time. I concur that the use of WP:IAR should be limited, otherwise why bother with rules and policy? But deletions are another matter; Consider, for example, that an article tagged for AfD might actually meet the criteria for Speedy Deletion. WP:AFD would dictate that, once the debate is open, it should remain open for 5 days. WP:SNOW, while providing a means to close early, requires overwhelming support for deletion (or for keeping the article) before doing so. So, with three comments running as Delete, Speedy Delete per G12 (url), and Speedy Delete per G12, I want to have an admin who will close as Speedy Delete and pull the trigger on the article without waiting for 5 days to pass. I echo Giggy's sentiments, above, on this one. Let me sit on the fence for a while longer, then, as the candidate is a good one otherwise. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral - Switching to Neutral from above per Gonzo Fan. Should not be an oppose if I plan to ask for further clarification later. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

   I look forward to your question Wisdom89. But I'd like to respond to your concerns about the above diff. This was a mistake on my part. It wasn't a speedy candidate - it should have been "strong delete". It slipped my attention & tomasz's edit pointing out my mistake was made only 50 minutes before the discussion was closed. The now deleted article failed WP:NOTABILITY as no objective evidence was provided - I could have stated that more clearly at the time--Cailil ^talk 23:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral. Would this candidate keep his admin tools away from articles and editors in the contentious subject areas in which he has been most deeply involved? — Athaenara ✉ 19:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

   I see now that he responded to this concern above. — Athaenara ✉ 19:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

   [13:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC) post in Oppose section. — Athaenara ✉ 19:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)]

   I'll elaborate a little Athaenara since my response to XDanielx was short. I have been and am involved in a number of content and structural changes to category:feminism & category:gender studies (mergers and application of summary style to a number of articles) so I would not use tools there. Nor would I use them in category:domestic violence. I am also involved in work at Sarah Kane so I would not use privileges there or in any of that page's sub-articles. Nor would I use them in relation to portals, projects etc that I am (or have been) involved in building. As per WP:UNINVOLVED it would be up to uninvolved sysops to make decisions about such areas and I would continue to work in said areas as a normal editor. Also I would recuse myself from using the tools in regard to editors which I had or will have a content dispute regardless of the topic area that is in. If promoted I would add myself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall so that if neutral editors found that I was using tools where I was involved I would resign or stand for RfA again--Cailil ^talk 19:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

   That's very clear, thanks. — Athaenara ✉ 21:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

3. Switching to neutral. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Neutral I agree with Naerii regarding Q3 and Q4. tabor-^{drop me a line} 22:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Neutral - I am concerned about the deletionism, but otherwise meets my usual standards. Bearian (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

   I've always considered myself a mergist personally - but I respect your position--Cailil ^talk 01:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.