Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:32, 31 December 2014

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)

ArmyLine

Speaking as the admin who imposed the original sanctions, I have no particular objection to ArmyLine's participation in the arbitration discussion. The sanctions were imposed under BLP, since the GG sanctions were so new, and we were working it out as we went. Other admins have more explicitly extended the sanctions into the formal GG regime. Acroterion (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to make that exemption to the TBAN, but from what I gather they've decided to steer clear of the case now anyway. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:47, 24 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?

This revert is clear violation of topic ban? Inserting "India" while misrepresenting the source again. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not related to an India Pakistan war. I am ready to self revert if it is said to be. But I strongly suggest that this precedent should not be set as it is not even remotely in context to a war. Also replied to your comment on my talk. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Topgun seems to be discussing the subject that led to topic ban. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

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