Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:52, 17 February 2015

Callanecc is busy and may not respond swiftly to queries.

User talk:Callanecc/Header

Sanction review

As the closing admin, I'd like you to review the topic ban placed on me with this being the appeal of ending it. As per the close, , I was not entirely wrong. The word "major" was added due to one of the sources I reviewed (and is also only being kept out due to lack of consensus, I think I had a right to share my deductions in forming that consensus) but most of issues were due to my opposing of blanking the term "victory" in which I was not wrong. As far as the other things such as casting aspirations go, it was recognized in the AE that all of them were not wrong rather I had recently faced enough to get to the conclusions of following based on the diffs I gave then... with that said and leaving the objections aside, my main point is that I have long ended engaging OZ and have not violated my ban. As such this is topic is closed and also reviewed which most probably is going in the closer's way.. I don't mind what sources are used as far as consensus is followed. Furthermore, I've also been banned for a around a month, it can be reduced for being stale as all that contention is stale and the sanction is no more preventive - plus my behaviour in other topics hasn't shown any disruption. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not about whether you were 'right' or not but about who you went about it. However given that the use of sources was involved I can see how you made that connection. Having said that, I'm willing to accept in good faith that you realise what you did wrong and have learnt from it. However I'm not convinced that you will make good, constructive, collaborative edits to Battle of Chawinda, so I'd be willing to replace your current topic ban with a topic ban from Battle of Chawinda until the expiry date of the current TBAN (12:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)). How does that sound? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I see the consensus finalizing that infobox anyway and I can live with that (the article was really not on my top priority, I just went after some old sock master who was reverting to completely opposite statements and fell into this mess). So your offer is fine by me. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It was not just Battle of Chawinda, but many other articles. On Operation Dwarka he continued to edit war over results and never discussed them. On Inter-Services Intelligence activities in India he edit warred over making a conspiracy theory look clean. On Operation Chengiz Khan he restored the statements that were removed a year ago because they were unsourced since 2012, and his edit summary reads "Restored consensus version.. no intermediate useful edits", misleading indeed because he had never discussed them. And a few others. Even if the topic ban is limited to Battle of Chawinda, I am certain that we will still have a number of unnecessary edit conflicts. Since the topic ban, TopGun has not made even 75 edits to main article space, I doubt that how he proved that he can edit without conflicting. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:VOLUNTEER is all I have to say to you, I don't have the time to edit that much neither should I be expected to have to satisfy your arbitrary criteria of edit count. About the sanction, I'm not going to debate my reverts to proven socks and other disruptive editors with you. I've said all I had to.. it's for Callanecc to decide. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

OccultZone your conduct on those articles is not great either. In fact having seen the reverts from both of you I'm of the opinion that it might be useful to impose 1RR on both of you for any edit which relates to the India-Pakistan conflict (with the clarification that you may only revert accounts and IPs you believe to be socks without reference to 1RR if you have reported them). Opinions? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind 1-RR for the length of my original TBAN (or a voluntary 1RR if not sanctioned)... but it will only make sense if it is symmetric to OZ or I might be effectively be blocked from making edits by simply being reverted out if OZ chooses to revert me twice every time. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking my original offer for the TBAN (ie just Battle of Chawinda until the original expiry) and 1RR (for the same period of time) for both of you long term 6 months, a year, indef (not sure yet, one of the reasons I asked). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I have never reverted more than 2 times unless it was a sock(usually Nangparbat). While TopGun usually reverts on the sight without even looking at the sources or the information. There are no instances where he would open a new thread on ATP and explain his edits or he would reply to any older thread that concerns the content. He usually sees what is actually favoring his opinion and that he would create unnecessary edit conflict. It is very hard to return to a stale version because TopGun normally never agrees with others. Not to forget that TopGun had violated his TBAN once and even if he was not aware of it, still that edit misrepresented the source. These articles had no edit conflicts for more than a month between users, which is a good sign. Although there are some instances where some of the editors have socked, its not that serious issue. I have never seen anyone actually alleging me of edit warring for ages. Considering that I have made over 170,000 edits, I have not been blocked even once. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

"TopGun usually reverts on the sight without even looking at the sources or the information" is casting aspersions and will likely get you blocked. There are three on Operation Dwarka and that's without looking at anything other than the links you gave me. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Refactored. Thank you for informing. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been reverting people even close to 3RR else where since my ban, so why would I editwar in the long term. Priors were related to well known hounding / baiting by a sock. 1RR as such will only slow down collaborative editing. I recently had a DYK approved from the military topics. I don't think I can develop articles that fast under 1RR. It can always be thrown in if an intentional editwar is seen in future though. Don't know why OZ is continuing to focus on me and mention my self reverted possible violation after clarification. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm just talking about since you're ban I'm talking long term (can be seen in OZ's links and in your final warning from last time). You shouldn't be reverting people when you write articles, if you are it means you need to stop and discuss with them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I've already agreed to an article specific topic ban, and don't mind a 1RR for the same time. I do contend that there's been nothing new that warrants an extended 1RR as the "last time" was proven to be a deliberate socking, following and what not and all those issues are stale. I don't see how this stops an admin from putting me under 1RR when the issue arises as far as "long term" is concerned about the Indo-Pak conflicts. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Ok this is what I'll do:

• I'll replace TopGun's TBAN with a TBAN from just Battle of Chawinda for the same period of time.
• I'll log a reminder (not a warning so it doesn't need to be taken as seriously in future AEs) that any edit warring on India/Pakistan related article can be dealt with by 1RR (I'll include my wording above).

How does that sound to both of you (without repeating what you've said above)? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Fine by me, as before. I would have asked for an IBAN, but from my prior experience, even many of the most experienced admins are not good at enforcing that properly and it wastes the community's time with meta-bickering. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• That's better, considering that we have no consensus for rejecting this appeal, neither there is consensus for increasing the scope of article ban. Good luck TopGun! OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This is AE, consensus is not needed. I appealed only to Callanecc, not to you. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking IBAN as well, but given the crossover of your editing interests, it would likely need with a TBAN for one or both of you as well. Ok I'll action my two dot points in a sec. OccultZone regarding "we" as the enforcing admin I don't need consensus to change the sanction I placed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Clerk

Hello Callanecc, I just now saw that Arbitration Clerks Seeking New Volunteers. I'm a bit late. Is requests are still being accepted? I'm interested in volunteering. Best, Jim Carter 14:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

No not too late, feel free to submit an application to the mailing list. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Submitted. Cheers, Jim Carter 11:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jim Carter: We didn't receive it could you please resend, clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Callanecc, I send it but I got a reply from clerks-l-bounceslists.wikimedia.org. In the reply it said: "Your mail to 'Clerks-l' with the subject 'Request for volunteering' Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. The reason it is being held: Post by non-member to a members-only list. Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive notification of the moderator's decision...". What should I do? Should I resend? Jim Carter 07:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah can you resend please. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Resend. Please check. I got the same reply again though. Jim Carter 15:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep, got it this time. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

What will be my next step? Jim Carter 10:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Sent you an email. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Send you it's reply. Jim Carter 14:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

guidance re temporal conflict on 3RR thread and AE

Hi Callanecc.

• at 05:22, 10 February 2015 i notified Atsme that I had filed a 3RR thread regarding her edits at Griffin
• at 06:54, 10 February 2015 you recommended to Atsme above that she file an AE case
• at 07:07, 10 February 2015 you imposed DS at Griffin
• at 16:19, 10 February 2015 Atsme filed her AE case.

(if you wants diffs of those, let me know)

I am very uncertain how various admin authorities intersect here.

I only file 3RR cases when I am confident they are solid, and they are generally acted on swiftly. I have never had one sit as long as this one did, without being touched by an admin. I reckoned it was because of authority issues, with regard to the DS that you imposed just after i filed it - admins seem very loathe to step on each others' toes...or maybe admins at 3RR judged that it was pointless now because of the DS. I don't know. I provided you notice of the 3RR thread and you didn't act either. Then I saw that you had referred Atsme to AE... so I followed suit and I withdrew the 3RR and took it to the AE thread and recommended boomerang.

I am asking for procedural guidance here. In your view, should I restore the 3RR thread and strike my addition at AE, or leave the matter of Atsme's edit warring at AE, or something else? If you feel you cannot provide guidance, please let me know that.

Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I actually don't remember seeing your note about the 3RR report had I seen it I would have actioned it, but I've been very busy the past few days. Regarding what to do now, I'd recommend leaving it at AE but you'd need to include evidence in your statement there (or if the evidence is substantial file a new AE request regarding Atsme so the current one doesn't become too convoluted and so that there's a clear decision). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I see, Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring the RfC close and the tendentious editing that ensued after the close are what needs your action, Callan, not Jytdog's false 3RR. I may not understand some of the behavior I've seen here, but I sure as hell know it's wrong. I wasn't edit warring as the diffs will prove, and any uninvolved admin who read my comments and actually reviewed the diffs could see it was unactionable. Even more important is the fact that the admin who closed the RfC determined there was fundamental noncompliance with NPOV which to me equates into BLP violations. What took place immediately following the close is what demands administrator action.

• Nyttend corrected the noncompliant passages. He was reverted by Nomo. an action which should have immediately resulted in a block review per WP:BLP. He didn't just revert an edit, he reverted a BLP violation that was corrected by an admin after closing an RfC.
• SRich correctly reverted Nomo's revert,
• Jytdog reverted to the BLP violation - cause for review for an immediate block, as with Nomo's revert.
• SRich correctly reverted back to policy compliant edit,
• Jytdog reverted him again - two reverts and BLP violations. The editor who needs a TB and blocking is certainly not me.
• Nyttend PP because of edit warring after Jytdog's last revert. Nyttend reverted back to his original policy compliant edits. We were all advised that Griffin was under DS, but Jytdog's edit warring took it to a different level because he was reverting to noncompliant edit after an RfC. His AN RfC review showed a consensus that supported the close.

I may be overly trusting and I have certainly tried to be respectful and accommodating to your requests Callan but I'm not stupid. I'm being treated unjustly and unfairly. The events that took place regarding the close and what is happening to me now is an absolute travesty, and demands review by uninvolved administrators. Editors who want to expand a start-class article to GA are not the bad guys so please stop treating me like one, especially in light of the true disruptive behavior that has been ignored. The sensitive nature of a BLP requires administrator action regarding violations BLP core content policy, and is far more important than a falsified 3RR complaint. Atsme☯ 04:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I broadly agree, but sometimes I can't be watching the article so things happen which when I see them happen too late for me to do anything about (eg the events which led up to Nyttend's full protection. There are always going to be something missed, and I'm sure if I asked those on the "other" side they'd say the same thing. For example on a controversial article such as this, this edit could be construed as disruptive as there was no consensus for it, and as you've been told before proposed changes need to be piecemeal and relatively small and proposed on the talk page before being carried out. So this conversation goes both ways, especially since there are different interpretations of how NPOV, RS and BLP apply. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Callan. I understand you are extremely busy and I do appreciate all you do for the project. For the record, I want my credibility back and respectfully request a bit more of your time if/when you can make it available. I have always held you in the highest regard, but I feel that I was not treated fairly in this case. I am not faulting you because I understand how time constraints prevent you (and other admins) from seeing the full picture. I just find it disconcerting to be falsely accused and showered with abusive warning templates and innuendos of wrong doing by editors who have not acted in GF, especially when they have no substantive basis for their allegations. In this instance, their actions have a negative effect on my credibility and the way my work is viewed by the GF editors and admins I respect. I've been an editor long enough to know such incidents may come back and bite me in the butt later if I don't clear up the confusion. But to think such accusations have influenced you is even more troubling for me and it appears that is exactly what has happened. For example, I understand your comment to me that "this conversation goes both ways" as it relates to neutrality, but it also helps explain why I feel the need to further clarify my position. I may have misunderstood your intentions but the following examples are what raise question in my mind. You responded to me with an accusatory statement and a diff of my edit saying, "this edit could be construed as disruptive as there was no consensus for it". I want it to be clear that my edit was made after the RfC close which confirmed consensus of fundamental noncompliance of NPOV in a BLP so there actually was consensus. Did you expect me to get consensus from those editors who were defying the RfC consensus and reverting edits by the closing admin and/or adding more fundamentally noncompliant material? There were also lengthy discussions of my proposals on the TP, the diffs for which I included below.

• Feb 4, 2015 - My modified proposal trying to reach a compromise
• Feb 4, 2015 - SRich's suggestions
• Feb 4, 2015 - Specifico's suggestions
• Feb 4, 2015 - Arthur Rubin's suggestions
• Feb 4 2015 - Jytdog wasn't happy with what he thought was "soft-peddling" fringe, (Based on the close, he was actually supporting fundamentally noncompliant material that failed NPOV}. He said my proposal was premature and wanted to wait for the RfC to end. You know the result of that RfC.
• Feb 5 2015 - I wanted to know why I had to go through the "screening process" when other editors were reverting the RfC closer - defying consensus - while I'm still on the TP trying to get along. Double standard?
• Feb 6, 2015 Rich's suggestions on my TP
• Feb 6 2015 - I made some of the changes to my proposal that had been suggested
• Feb 6 2015 - clear and precise explanation to Jytdog about the noncompliance issues, and to Arthur re: Pulitzer Prize winning writer's thoughts on Griffin

What I also found extremely confusing were your responses to me when I brought noncompliant policy issues to your attention. Again, I realize time constraints and the lack of information you had to go on, but even more confusing were your responses to others which indicated early on that you were thinking about taking action against me when I was simply trying to correct the problems.

• <---you assumed consensus was against me and advised me to drop the stick which, with all due respect, the consensus confirmed to be an incorrect assumption
• <---your response to another editor who interrupted my discussion wherein you again wrongly indicated I had done something wrong.

Meanwhile, Arthur Rubin is editing away at Griffin with no consensus . Why? Is it because he is on the opposing team and an admin? My edits were reverted, not because they were noncompliant to NPOV as Arthur has alleged with absolutely no substantive basis as usual, but because the opposition just didn't like them. Does the double standard consider it acceptable behavior? Worse yet, contrary to what this project stands for, Jytdog and others have deliberately prevented me from expanding a start-class BLP to GA; i.e. WP:SQS because they believe the article is ok as is.

As I've indicated all along, beginning on December 10, 2014, there was a fundamental noncompliance of NPOV (BLP violation), which according to BLP policy should have been all that was needed to revert and correct. Instead, I've been attacked for trying to make the article policy compliant. It appears to me that consensus should have been the requirement for those editors who supported the noncompliant material per WP:BURDEN. What is happening at the article now is the exact opposite of what was expected of me. Perhaps you can explain why consensus is no longer required now that I've stopped editing Griffin? I think the latter speaks volumes regarding the double standard. Sadly, the winner in this case is not the project which I once believed was our priority. Atsme☯ 19:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Atsme I am sorry you are upset about what was stated at the AE. Callanecc suggested that I open I separate AE on you; I didn't do that since it appears that you walked away from the Griffin article shortly after I did and your behavior on that article was no longer an issue to me. You've also asked ErikHaugen about his comments at AE, as well as Callenecc here, and you've made other comments that show you are unhappy with how BLPs are handled. I don't think you are going to get anyone to really respond to things relevant to AE outside the context of an actual AE. I would rather spend my time working on other things, and the issues are stale now that you have walked away from Griffin, but if you really want to have your behavior addressed head on, and see if you can have your ... how did you say it?... "credibility back"... I will open an AE case concerning your behavior. I don't see how your concerns will be addressed otherwise, and this is also what Callenecc recommended above. Shall i open one? (it's a real question to you; not sarcastic or anything) Your call. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Question

In my user space, is User:Begoon/Wifione evidence summary, linked to by me, and others in the Wifione case. When the case closes, I think I should not keep the page there, per WP:POLEMIC "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner.". That gives me a dilemma, because if I blank/U1 CSD it, the links from the case will no longer work. I'm not the only contributor to the page, either. I'm not sure if it should be moved to a case subpage or just blanked with history intact. What do you recommend? Begoon  05:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Given that the Arbitration Committee procedures state that evidence in userspace should not be used I'd suggest having it deleted per CSD U1 would be the best option, it can always be accessed again if needed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I didn't realise that wasn't permitted, but I can obviously see now why it isn't. I'll do that. Thanks. Begoon  06:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It is valuable evidence and it is linked several times from the arbitration case. Could it possibly be moved to a subpage of the /Evidence page? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

You can make a request on the proposed decision talk page and ask the drafting arbs. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Would you be okay with this Begoon? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely, Martin. I'm annoyed at myself for putting it in userspace initially. My fault for not being familiar with procedure. I don't like redlinks in arbitration cases at all, but I don't want to get in trouble for my error. If it can be fixed, that's cool. Begoon  13:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't one of the drafting arbs, but I absolutely think the page should be preserved somewhere in the case page system. Deleting this makes a significant hole for anyone reading it later. Courcelles 02:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm with Courcelles on this one. This is substantial enough and useful to leave. I'm going to restore, move and redirect the userspace page to it for you. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. That works. Begoon  13:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Divergent (novel)

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 06:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Erpert 04:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Question

Er, re Discretionary sanctions notification - BLP, I am not sure what topic you are referring to. If it's Rebel Wilson, I did not violate 3RR (if you review the later edits which did not replicate the previous ones re Wilson), and I have removed the article from my watchlist as I am not interested in incessant edit warring over trivia. If not Wilson, then I am not sure to which topic you're referring. Please advise. Thanks. Quis separabit? 04:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying you have done anything wrong, the last line of the message says "This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date." Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand but I was not sure which topic you were referring to but I figured out that it was the Rebel Wilson article. OK. Quis separabit? 04:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It was Rebel Wilson yeah. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi Callanecc. We talked about a vandal earlier from a protected article that was recently released from protection. As you can see, the vandalism is starting already from the same anonymous user. If you could advise or take action, awesome. EricJ1074 (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance. One further request: could you remove this content which is disparaging and inapplicable to this individual? Again, this is a result of reddit users who focus on anti-mormonism coming together to spam the page. (See edits of the users {Villaged, COGDEN, 104.156.100.205}) who contributed to the talk page) Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Nicholas_Edward_Alahverdian under the heading "Protected edit request on 9 February 2015." Thanks again. EricJ1074 (talk) 05:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing there which would need to be removed or deleted that I can see. It looks like they are good faith discussions regarding the article. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Continued IP harassment

I have sent an email giving a condensed summary (basically just the diffs) of the continued harassment reported earlier. I would be very grateful if you could block some or all of these IPs as you think fit. ~ P-123 (talk) 07:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking. I mentioned a red message on my Talk page which shows nothing in Revision History. Is this vandalism or a WP message? ~ P-123 (talk) 10:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

See User talk:Technical 13#Template:Archive basics. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. ~ P-123 (talk) 10:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Heads up

I'm taking ARCA off my watchlist, but I'm assuming you'll let me know if there is an outcome that effects me, right? Lightbreather (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

If you're named as a party (or a motion is proposed which directly affects you) you'll get a message :). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

I now have a better understanding of what AE involves, what NPOV vs Advocacy means to WP, the importance of getting an article right, and where GA and FA actually rate on the overall scale. Atsme☯ 23:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Valentine Greets!!!

Valentine Greets!!!

Hello Callanecc, love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of Misplaced Pages, spread the WikiLove by wishing each other Happy Valentine's Day, 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 love on the eve, Happy editing, --L235 (talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 01:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Valentine Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Problems at David Ross article again

Andcarr is once again ignoring our policies at the David Ross (businessman) article. Could you perhaps take a look at the situation, please? - Sitush (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Has been indef blocked by Bbb23. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. I'm not sure how they spotted it but I am not surprised at the outcome. Thanks for looking at the situation. - Sitush (talk) 02:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Help creating a sock puppet investigation

Hi, Callanecc,

I'm trying to open a sockpuppetry investigation with regard to user:IrishSpook and user:178.216.112.128. However, I am unable to edit the investigation (despite being able to edit other pages normally). Would you be able to help me out? 79.97.226.247 (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

People editing without an account can't create pages except talk pages, I've created the base level version so you should be able to now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

139.102.0.0/16

I noticed you blocked a range belonging to Indiana State University due to sockpuppetry, and I was curious if you had considered contacting the institution to deal with the matter as an alternative to blocking the range. The reason I ask is because, although I'm not challenging the merits of the block, I know from experience at WP:ABUSE that universities tend to be great to work with on matters like this. PCHS-NJROTC 17:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you please explain what this has to do with your comment at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Purdya? The one 139. IP listed there?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Apparently at least one sockmaster is abusing the range, but the idea is that the block might not be needed if the university were notified of the abuse and could take action to stop the sockmaster(s). PCHS-NJROTC 18:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Obviously no comment regarding whether the block was related to that SPI. Re making an abuse report, there isn't really a long history of sockpuppetry here and this is the first block. Also, from memory, there wasn't much collateral on the range which is why I blocked it for so long. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Sockpuppet

It seems default sock categories (sockpuppet of XXX) have disappeared after the recent update of this template. For example, I see no category links in User:ViPremierce. Materialscientist (talk) 05:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks MS, fixed now. Missed a pipe. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

SPI

I have sent you an email about the SPI discussed with Dougweller, but only to ask you a few questions about filling in the form. ~ P-123 (talk) 10:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Have now emailed you a draft. ~ P-123 (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

1RR Question

As a new editor I am asking for clarification of 1RR. Guy, an administrator, did 2 revert edits that changed lead paragraphs. . He made the reverts, ignoring consensus. Is action on your part required?--Pekay2 (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

As they are in a series it only counts as one 'revert', have a look at the pink box at WP:3RR. I have warned him for editing against consensus. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Am I missing something?

I understand that there is a 1RR/week on G. Edward Griffin. SRich made an edit on Feb 10 that seems pretty non-controversial, but which is technically a revert since it re-added the word "lecturer". The edit summary was "My one edit this week. To match description in the infobox." The next week, on Feb 16, he makes another edit with the edit summary "My one edit for the week -- remove redundant/duplicate information". It appeared to be doing just that, merging redundant material in two consecutive sections. Both edits seemed uncontroversial, neither was reverted by anyone, neither was part of an edit war, and each was only technically a revert as far as I can tell. He was editing constructively, participating on the talk page, going above and beyond trying to follow the rules (limiting himself to one edit per week instead of one revert per week, and basically doing everything we hope editors will do. What am I missing? ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I was considering this as well. However there is quite a bit of controversy about the first sentence (I've lost count of the number of talk page discussions about it), and the second one relates to this edit war so is controversial. I agree that they have to follow the rules, however they were asked about it on their talk page (including to consider reverting) and didn't. Given that they've commented that they'll follow ONLYREVERT, which has been one of the major problems on the article, I'll unblock in a sec. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both! Getting these various editors to cooperate is like herding cats. I had characterized my two edits as "edits" (rather than reverts) was an effort to set the example. The fact that you, Callanecc, are monitoring so closely and that you, Adjwilley, are sticking up for me makes my endeavor to improve the Project so much more worthwhile. – S. Rich (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I really do appreciate the work you've been doing on the article. There has been many times when you've been the voice of reason, which is refreshing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

PS: Your (plural) immediate response to the situation is especially appreciated. It not yet bedtime here, and I have few more pages on my watch list to look at, so getting the block removed in less than one hour is wonderful. It has been a refreshing and delightful learning experience. – S. Rich (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Griffin

There is a difference between calling him a conspiracy theorist (RFC says no) and stating that he is a promoter of conspiracy theories (infobox says yes, consensus on Talk is very firmly yes, RFC had no real opinion because it wasn't put). We have a ridiculous situation at the moment where the infobox says he is known for conspiracy theories (true) but basically one user, who seems to accept that Griffin's views on the refuted cancer quackery that is laetrile are valid, refuses point blank to countenance any mention at all of his being known for promoting conspiracy theories in the lede. Absent the input of Atsme, we would not even be having the discussion. Feel free to sort that out. Guy (Help!) 08:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The RfC has held that calling him a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence is a no go. One of the major problems with edits to the article has been that people make controversial edits (which this plainly is) without first getting a consensus, especially on an issue which has been widely discussed and consensus was against. You could argue that it's extending the RfC outcome past the question the RfC put, but if the closer believes that is the consensus then it stands until it's overturned. As I've said to others, if you believe that there is evidence of disruption from a user, feel free to submit an AE report so that it can be examined. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The warning you gave Guy is misplaced, and not complying with the Arbcom decision. It should be cancelled. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean with "not complying with the Arbcom decision" (which is in this case WP:AC/DS)? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean. I was wrong when I said Arbcom above, I actually meant "The RfC". I should have written "Your warning does not comply with the RfC and should be cancelled". Sorry for any misunderstanding. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I stand by what I said in reply to Guy re this above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I know I'm being pedantic, but you are wrong on this. On the other hand, Guy is a big lad, and can look after himself. I would ask you to consider the difference between "promotes conspiracy theories" and "is a conspiracy theorist" during a quiet moment today. They are not the same. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that they are different, however the spirit of the RfC and the discussions about it and reverts on the article have held that labeling him anything to with conspiracy theories in the first sentence is likely a no go and there is controversial and needs to be discussed on the talk page and a consensus reached (like what was done with the infobox) before the controversial edit is made. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This is the problem with ratchet sanctions imposed on fringe topics, the page only goes one way, due to chilling effects on mainstream editors who are reluctant to edit under such conditions for fear of over-reaching admins, which of course I wouldn't suggest you are one of. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Callanecc, unusually for you, you are actually wrong. The spirit of the RfC is not that there should be no mention. The close says: "Closing as "no". The opposers demonstrate quite well that this is a derogatory characterisation of the guy, a fundamental non-compliance with maintaining a neutral point of view. Of course, something cited to Griffin's own works, wherein Griffin specifically calls himself a conspiracy theorist, is a valid source for saying "self-described conspiracy theorist"." So Nyttend does not close the door on the idea even of calling him a conspiracy theorist, but actually I did not call him a conspiracy theorist. I reflected the fact, uncontentiously included in the infobox, that he is known for promoting conspiracy theories - which is simply a summary of the body, per WP:LEDE. On top of this you should check Atsme's history there; she has been promoting for a long time the idea that his advocacy of laetrile is valid and scientifically supported. Atsme said she would leave this article in the face of the errors in her work being pointed out by numerous others, but has decided to return to her crusade. The idea that the Fed is a sinister cabal, laetrile is a cancer cure suppressed by the FDA and so on - these things are conspiracy theories, We show at length in the body that advocating conspiracy theories is not just a thing Griffin does, it is the thing he is best known for. And yet you sanction me for a single revert - one revert in the entire history of Misplaced Pages, not one revert per week - to reinstate a substantially neutralized version of the contentious statement, on the grounds that apparently "X is a conspiracy theorist" is the same as "X is an author known for promoting conspiracy theories", despite the obvious lack of parity between the two. So: you have made a mistake. I was even accused of "reverting" to text that was not actually a revert of any kind. No big deal, everyone makes mistakes, especially me, and you are busy, so the occasional slip is inevitable, but the correct response to a mistake being pointed out is to undo it. As several people have told yo,. Atsme has a bee in her bonnet and her views are completely out of line with policy. Most of those working to prevent her from skewing the article, with her endless vexatious requests for non-neutral content often based on terrible sources, appear to be very well informed as to the status of the theories advanced by Griffin, and their reception in the reality-based academic world. We're not the problem. Atsme is. Guy (Help!) 18:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

So, I'd ask you to strike the logged note at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2015. Even accepting that you placed a 1RR restriction (which I did not notice), that was only one revert. I added the text for the first time on Feb 5 () and reverted its removal on 16 Feb (), so not only does this not violate one revert per week, it doesn't even exceed one revert ever. A courteous note of the 1RR, whihc I had not spotted, is all that was needed. Please remove the logged item as it is inappropriate: it is totally unrelated to my impatience with the civil POV-pushing on acupuncture, and it is not justified bymy actual edits to the article, which are few and far between and entirely in support of my understanding of policy and the consensus in the RFC (as explained above). The article is subject to a long term effort to whitewash legitimate criticism. the prime culprit said she was going to leave it alone, but has come back with all guns and text-walls blazing. This is going to get nasty and it's important to be fair and accurate, not slap warnings on people who haven't actually even technically infringed anything, let alone gone against the spirit of policy. You're probably aware that I am a very strong supporter of WP:ARBPS and the policy on WP:FRINGE. Guy (Help!) 12:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

temper film edit

hi its regarding the edit on temper film on the plot they are providing the whole story of the film which will effect the buisness of the film very badly please aloow the edits that i have made that is removing the whole plot section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramanakog (talk • contribs) 17:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Why am I accused of sockpuppeting

Hi, Callanecc! I just wanted to inquire about the accusations you posted about me being a sock puppeteer. I'm sorry to hear that I have been associated with this, andI would like to know how you determined me as part of this network. Can you give me a basic summary of what I am accused of so I can work to clear my name? Thanks for taking your time to do this, Eman52 (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)