Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jytdog (talk | contribs) at 21:03, 3 January 2015 (→Your advice for when compromise is not an option...: typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Callanecc is busy and may not respond swiftly to queries.

User talk:Callanecc/Header

Hatting

You missed this comment by an SPA.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

In a related inquiry, why haven't the case pages been semi-protected to avoid these kinds of intrusions? The "previously involved IP" editor has disappeared already.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there has been enough (on the workshop page at least) to warrant it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Another tangent, do you would it be useful to point out the events that happened at Eggslut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in the workshop?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Why? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Because an IP editor disrupted the article because I had edited it and the IP's only other contributions on Misplaced Pages concern the greater Gamergate topic.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you need to add it, it's very unlikely that the Committee will sanction an IP. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Well I thoughtit would be a useful example of showing harassment and disruption directed at established editors rather than trying to sanction a single user of an IP. So much is happening that would fit into the evidence now that it's been closed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

My opinion is that it might have been worth it when the evidence was open, but now the case is firmly in the workshop proposal stage so it's best to focus on that (hence why the evidence page was protected). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to raise this again. Why aren't the pages semi-protected? Errastas85 is now the 3rd account with edits in the single digits trying to pile onto the case after Starke hathaway and ChronoAnon from at least what I've seen.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

First unhelpful/disruptive one on the PD talk and I'll semi it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Callanecc, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

Violation?

Landmark DS

Fyi, I noticed that the votes on Landmark discretionary sanctions (1) or future discretionary sanctions (1.1) are actually split 5:5 without Newyorkbrad. Nyb indicated an equal preference, but passing both doesn't make sense. I would probably change this back to neither passing yet, until he makes the call either way. Ignocrates (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I miscounted. It's actually 4:5 w/o Nyb, so good to go with 1.1 the way you have it. Ignocrates (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

User:titusfox

Gamergate workshop

Hi Callan, I've just returned from a brief break over Christmas and looked at the workshop in the Gamergate case. As you saw, I was active briefly on Christmas Eve to reply to messages on my talk page and to comments on my workshop proposals, knowing that the workshop was due to close that evening and that I wouldn't be around for a few days. Having just read through the workshop to see what has changed over the last few days, I have multiple problems with this proposed finding by TDA. It seems to me that it's entirely baseless mud-slinging, and it makes unsubstantiated and outright false allegations. If it were ANI, I'd just let it go, but I feel its presence in the workshop is damaging in itself (which, having seen TDA's interaction with other admins in the area, I strongly suspect was precisely the intention). I did support a proposed siteban for Tutelary, though I didn't "call for" it in the sense of instigating anything, and I was far from alone. Beyond that, the allegation is complete nonsense. Yes, I blocked an obvious troll and probable sock, for which the only criticism I got was from TDA and Tutelary, and noted the block in an ANI thread; I did not "insinuate" anything or in any way suggest that I believed the account belonged to Tutelary. TDA's comment I think it should be clear that HJ has also played a part in the kind of administrative misconduct that has typified this case is a direct attack on my reputation and is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. TDA's allegation of some grand conspiracy of admins is beyond absurd despite his frequent repetition of it.

Normally I wouldn't be bothered, but because I have participated in the workshop as a neutral observer and I have taken admin actions (against editors on both sides) and I may well continue to act in an admin capacity in the area, I feel the need to rigorously defend my reputation so that there is no ambiguity or question surrounding my admin actions. For that reason, please could you or another clerk remove the entire section. It's also worth noting that it was posted in the late evening on Christmas Eve, with just a few hours before the scheduled closure of the workshop, though TDA had ample opportunity to put it up earlier in the proceedings when I could have asked him to withdraw it and sought clerk intervention if necessary. I'd also point out that, unlike the other admins TDA is accusing, I'm not a party, I've never edited the article, never expressed an opinion on the subject, no evidence has been presented against me, and nobody but TDA has questioned my impartiality. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest sending an email to the Committee, with your rebuttal to the argument and include a request for you to edit through the protection and leave a comment on the proposal. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Per your request, I've looked briefly, and understand your concerns. Unfortunately, I have not been pulling my weight re Gamergate, which means I am not fully conversant with all the evidence. TDA did not specifically cite evidence in the claim, but I'd like to review the evidence before taking any action. In addition, Callanec has been doing the heavy lifting, and I do not intend to take action with conferring with Callanec. My initial reaction is that a claim of admin misconduct should not stand unless supported by clear evidence. As that seems to be the main thrust of the proposed finding, I want to look for evidence, ask TDA for such evidence if I do not find it it, and if it is not found, either edit the finding (which if the non-supported items are removed, may make it a useless finding) or remove it. As mentioned, I want input from Callaenec, partly because there may be precedence issues I do not know about, or there may be things I have missed. Will investigate more in the morning.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me S Philbrick, other option is to bring it up on clerks-l and ask the drafting arbs for a decision. I'd probably do that even after you look for evidence/ask TDA as removing proposals from workshop pages (barring BLP etc) is something we'd normally check with the drafting arbs. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Of course you're welcome to look for evidence; I won't begrudge you your due diligence, but there isn't any evidence to find. I'm not a party, and no evidence was presented against me; my only involvement in the topic area has been as an admin. It's deeply concerning that somebody can launch a completely baseless attack like that on a non-party hours before the workshop closes, and I'm concerned that if it stays there, somebody will think there's no smoke without fire. I really would appreciate it if you could do whatever you need to do and then remove or redact the unfounded accusations. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Job application

Where can I apply for a job as a conspiracy theorist, or can I major in it as an advanced social studies class at Harvard? I want to make it my career. Atsme☯ 01:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

That's not helpful. The discussion near the bottom of the page seems to be moving forward slowly. Page is protected, so everyone can focus on talking rather than the undo button. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for the sarcastic humor. I actually am a bit more optimistic thanks to the discussion at the FT Noticeboard. Yet another valuable learning experience as I traverse the intricate web of WP editing. Atsme☯ 16:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

FYI

The editor whose edit your restored has been blocked for "trolling" -- discussion at User_talk:5_albert_square#NoteNE Ent 02:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Griffin and pseudoscience notice

Hi, Callan - you recently posted a 2nd Pseudoscience notice on my TP, apparently wanting to divert attention away from the BLP. I'm confused as to why you would want to move away from the BLP issues. Please explain. Also, I just posted an explanation for why I believe the section on Griffin's book or his position on laetrile (amygdalin, B17) should not be considered pseudoscience according to WP:FRINGE. Please see my last post at Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#G._Edward_Griffin. I believe it properly dismisses the pseudoscience concept all together. Thank you for all you do on WP. Atsme☯ 03:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The last one was about the sanctions for BLPs, this one is about Pseudoscience. I meant that the issue has moved somewhat away from the BLP policy so using those sanctions (to enforce compliance) wasn't needed as much as the disruption related to the pseudoscientific issues in the discussion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification - glad I asked. The pseudoscience claim is the primary reason for the disruption, and why the BLP has strayed off-topic to the fringe theories noticeboard. I liken the discussion to "my placebo is better than your medicine". Amygdalin (laetrile, B17) is not pseudoscience or fringe per guidelines as it is clearly ongoing scientific research and is in use as a cancer treatment outside the U.S. (Italy, Mexico, etc.). Why the BLP has been diverted to pseudoscience is beyond me but it certainly explains why the article has not made any progress. Atsme☯ 14:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Jesus

You have linked to the workshop everywhere - not the main case page. Spartaz 11:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Your Input on Arzel 1RR

I'm contacting you here because the section you commented on is limited to administrators only, which I am not one. Your description of the 1RR or revert rules are incorrect. WP:1RR says that reverts are defined in the WP:3RR section which directly say "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Someone clearly added a section about the Paul Krugman Hoax and Arzel undid it, the section wouldn't exist if it wasn't originally added and here is the diff . There is no restriction regarding a time period when these changes have to be made. So it doesn't have to be something that was recently added, all that matters and is described by the policy is that the removal of someone else's actions whether in whole or in part, counts as a revert. When someone reverted Arzel's revert, Arzel reverted it again. So that's 2 reverts in 2 days.Scoobydunk (talk) 13:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@Scoobydunk: You can make a statement in the sections above. So we can keep discussion centralised, could you please do that and I'll comment there. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I intended to and did. I just wanted to make sure you knew I was responding to your input, which would be hard to discern by simply posting in the section above your post. Thank you.Scoobydunk (talk) 13:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

You can use Template:Ping. This isn't a restriction with the wording at WP:1RR, the Arbitration Committee has worded differently and more restrictively. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: American politics/Arzel: 1RR

You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: American politics/Arzel: 1RR. Thanks. - MrX 17:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48

Happy New Year Callanecc!

Callanecc,
Have a prosperous, productive and wonderful New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Callanecc!

Callanecc,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. NorthAmerica 11:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

2015 already

Hi Callanecc. No frills - just a quiet ‘’all the best’’ to you for 2015 and I hope you’ll continue to be around on Misplaced Pages for a long time to come.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, and the same to you Kudpung. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:ARBIPA case log is still collecting notices

Hello Callanecc. Please see User talk:Laser brain#New logging system for DS notices (since 3 May 2014). It seems that 18 entries for DS notices have been added since 3 May 2014. Back in September, User:AGK did a notice cleanup for ARBPIA, saying 'NO FURTHER ALERTS SHOULD BE LOGGED HERE' but it seems that other cases may also need attention. Arbcom should have clearly written down 'don't log notices any more'. AGK's entry in ARBPIA is mostly in hidden text. Still, don't you agree that Arbcom's wishes are clear enough to justify trimming the ARBIPA notice log back to 3 May? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep, done. Plus if any of those notices were not using the automatically logged Ds/alert they don't count anyway. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for your edit at ARBIPA. It's still unclear why Arbcom would not have published the new advice more visibly. Maybe they want to avoid the trouble of a new motion? What would be the pros and cons of adding something to the visible text of WP:ARBIPA:

Note: New notices or alerts of discretionary sanctions should not be logged here. See Template:Ds/alert for the new notification system. To determine if an editor has been notified, search their user talk history for the tag 'discretionary sanctions alert'.

I'm responding to the modesty of only giving the advice in the hidden text of the case log. EdJohnston (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

There's already a notice (somewhat inconspicuous I guess) at the top of the notifications section in most cases which says they aren't to be logged anymore. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think this needs a tweak

Thanks for updating the OS/CU stats. However, I think a tweak may be needed - probably changing the headers to match up the months? Since I didn't collect the information myself, I'm hesitant to make any changes. Well, that, and I hate editing tables... Risker (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't blame you, especially this table. I managed to miss the most obvious thing to update, but fixed now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Typo notification

Hi Callanecc,
Thanks for the notification. I have no intention to submit evidence, but I noticed that your messages started with "You recently recently offered a statement...". I'm not sure what template you use, but it would be a good idea to fix that. Regards, and happy new year! --Biblioworm 00:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

That was me, I had to change the template we normally use to include the box and missed that bit when I removed the template code. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban

Does this mean I cannot communicate with editors on that page with whom I have also worked on non-ISIL/ ISIl-related articles? How does this work? P-123 (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You can talk to everyone except GregKaye as long it isn't regarding ISIL. Have a look at the top points at WP:TBAN (and WP:IBAN), does that help? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

This was necessary and I applaud the decision. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

DigitalOcean

When I did the Google search, our article came up, and I looked at it and at their website before posting my last comment to the SPI. I'm afraid I still don't get it, but I didn't want to clutter up the SPI anymore with our discussion. Our website says it's a "cloud hosting provider". It never mentions that it provides web hosting (other than a cat). The same is true for their website. Clearly they do provide web hosting based on the IPs and the geolocate, but I still don't see it from looking at either our article or their website or any of the other hits on the Google search. Perhaps I'm just not experienced enough to connect all the dots.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a virtual private server (from page title on Google), offers cloud hosting. This bit is pretty much all I needed: "Deploy an 512MB RAM and 20GB SSD cloud server in 55 seconds for $5/month". This one uses more "modern" wording unlike others which say "web host". Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks and query relating to close of AN/I

Thanks for bringing the AN/I to a close. I realise that it contained a lot of content and, from comment by PBS, there is perhaps fair implication that some of it was unwarranted. Given this I would like to open up to any guidance that you may or may not see suitable to give.

In your closure you stated that: "GregKaye (talk · contribs) is warned that any further misconduct in the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant topic area will likely result in a topic ban." If either is easily performed I would appreciate either clarification of topic area or a review of this verdict.

I had privately broached matters re an edit privately on an editor's personal talk page. Other issues were raised and conducted away from the article. I responded to contents in two article talk page threads but had not raised contentions. I do not see misconduct. I have tried to argue strongly but fairly in all related forums while attempting to juggle all the issues involved. I collapsed a thread that I took to be a digression within the talk page thread but immediately contacted PBS to check whether this was justified and, with first notification of guidelines based objection, I reverted the collapse. From my perspective that is all and my thought, at this point, is to add a comment to this effect following the collapsed section of the AN/I.

I am also confused as to the guidelines that Misplaced Pages either does or doesn't enforce. Even though this is clearly my problem any help in showing what is what would be appreciated. GregKaye 06:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The main reason I included it was because not including anything (given that a TBAN) had some support would not have been appropriate. There isn't anything per se which I can give you as an explicit example (though I haven't looked in detail) but due to your interactions with P-123 and the comments made about them there is some misconduct (which is dealt with with the IBAN). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for closing it -- I would have done so today if other admin had. The ban needs to be recorded in Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant {rather than /as well as} at Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions as that is where editors/admins will look for editor bans round and about the ISIL. -- PBS (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason I didn't is because it was imposed with the authority of the community (hence WP:CBAN) not under the general sanctions, I've added a note about the TBAN to GS/ISIL. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Callanecc, I hope that no offence was taken by the above. Looking back there are certainly better ways in which I could have directed and conducted my side of things. I also have to take on board the views of editors regarding failings of my later presentations as well. I appreciate that there were opposing requests presented in proceedings. I am also thankful for your leniency with me. I appreciate that there are things that I could have done better throughout. I considered the above position worth presenting as, from my perspective, a one time (preluded) breaking of the consensus ban. It is not something I plan to do again. Thanks again and, if it's not to late, happy new year. GregKaye 15:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Your advice for when compromise is not an option...

Callan - I think the rough consensus had changed to accept the pejorative terminology as opinion rather than statement of fact. Unfortunately, it appears Srich's very generous offer to compromise has been rejected. I also received a couple of mild threats on my TP which I quickly moved to my archives. I do not wish to take any action against that behavior, because my warnings seem to have been effectual but I do find it very disconcerting considering the minor changes necessary for policy compliance. Editors who have far more experience editing BLPs have weighed in and agree that statement of fact labeling of Griffin is a violation of policy. In light of the resistance we are still getting from a few editors despite offers of compromise, and considering the sanctions in place, I think it is time to move the article to a high level of DR where neutral eyes who are familiar with BLPs can settle the issue once and for all. Please help me with regards to the proper steps to take. Atsme☯ 14:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:DR. I'd suggest BLP/N (if not done already) one RfC at a time about one issue at a time, or formal mediation. There comes a point when you need to drop the stick and accept that consensus is against you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Callanecc (talk • contribs) 06:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I was considering asking an admin to act under discretionary sanctions relating to pseudoscience on the Griffin page, so I thought I'd ask the one who recently issued everybody with the warnings. Guess who I was going to ask for sanctions against, for disruptive editing and tendentious editing? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Jqadri

Thanks for blocking Jqadri.

However it's more than just edit warring. It is BLP violations and making legal threats. I doubt this editor will stop once the block is lifted, so an indef might be more appropriate. Thanks. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I saw it on ANI as well, I'd rather wait the three days and see what happens, mostly likely they'll either move on or they'll create a sock. If they end up doing to same thing it's a quick trip to indef. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Your "clerk" action

The person who advocated for a party to be banned subsequently imposed sanctions against that party, and then submitted evidence against the party they sanctioned with opinions about the sanction they imposed in the very same comment without intervention from you. If after seeing my comment which pointed this out you had hatted the discussion, that would be one thing, but you collapsed my comment alone. Unless an arbitrator specifically directed you to collapse my comment alone, please remove the collapse box. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The two comments above yours were alerting the Committee to events which had happened (in Ryulong's case possibly preventing him from contributing to the case) and which the Committee needed to know about. Your comment was your opinion which you had already placed at ANI, the post was for the Committee's information about the sanction and a link to the appeal not a running commentary, which doesn't help the Committee arriving at a final decision (if for not other reason than they already have a link to the discussion). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The edit notice asks for a post containing a short and neutral summary. In contrast, the "post" expresses a clear POV opinion about the severity and merits of the sanction "(in my opinion mild)" - and reads as evidence, rather than information, given that he had also sought a ban against the sanctioned user. This establishes one of two things - the community is being misled by the committee as a consequence of the edit notice, or the issue was for whatever reason overlooked by you (which is what my comment avoided bringing attention to). But if you've made your choice for the committee, that has determined mine also. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I was hoping that I wouldn't need to archive top and bottom it as it would stop where it was. However once you made your comment I was no longer able to leave it, only reason it isn't all hatted is because the outcome of the appeal (depending on when it's closed) might need to be added there so it's useful to have context. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to let the record reflect that I came here in respect of your collapsing, not your archiving. I would have thought that the link to the appeal is sufficient to inform them of the outcome, if it is sufficient to inform them of the parts in which I am addressing them, both directly and indirectly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

True, however a brief message the result of the appeal is helpful in closing the issue. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

AE case

The Steeletrap case also refers to BLP discretionary sanctions. It is not solely about topic ban violations.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)