Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:48, 13 March 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)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Chan f.c.

Callan, I just wasted about 30 minutes trying unsuccessfully to get {{sock}} to work the way I wanted it to. I want to specify a different master and use the spipage parameter to point to the Chan SPI. I've done this before, so I don't know why I was having such trouble. How should it be coded? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

{{sock|1=PolandMEC|2=cuconfirmed|spipage=Chan f.c.}} should work, if the documentation is correct. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to provide a link to the SPI, though... hmm. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Using |evidence=] instead of |spipage=Chan f.c. does provide a link to the SPI, which is the intended result, but it's a bit of a hack and it is still worth looking into why |2=confirmed (or |2=cuconfirmed) doesn't allow a link to a SPI to be specified. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Yup, that was my experience, too.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23 and Salvidrim!: It seems to be working for me, see User:Callanecc/sandbox2. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I didn't save the version that wasn't working, so there's nothing to show you, but I coded it correctly, and it didn't work at the time. I can also see that the template hasn't changed, so the proper inference is that both Salvidrim! and I did something wrong. I can't explain it, but it no longer matters. If it ever happens again, I'll save it somehow.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I can't work out what might have happened. I guess there might have been something being changed server-side which stopped something from working but who knows. Maybe it was something screwing with the preview, who knows. If it does happen again a screen shot of the code, what is produced and a note where the 'sockpuppet investigation' link goes should be all I'll need (hopefully). Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Two SPIs

Please see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Beh-nam, you had made a nice investigation there before. Also see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Thigle, I could provide more behavioral match, but I also thought that it is already long. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused

As requested I added this to the report but found it was already open so didn't change the tag. Now back on hold. What else do you need? Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, meant to block it (which I've done now). When you add them could you please add them to the list of suspected socks as well as changing it to open and adding a bit of evidence. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

2014–15 Chelsea F.C. season

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 09:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You close Thargor Orlando AE request - DHeyward below it is the same thing.

In fact, in "DHeyward," MarkBernstein complains about my comment that his "Thargor Orlando" AE request should be closed because he is topic banned. I said the same thing you said but face sanction for it. Not sure what sanction you are endorsing or why. This is the edit MArkBernstein brough to AE . As you said, he shouldn't be there. --DHeyward (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Replied on clerks noticeboard given the majority of your comment is there. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Your top of talk page said you may be unavailable so I brought it for more eyeballs that understand arb space policies. Thanks! --DHeyward (talk) 04:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Griffin warning

Callanecc, please tell me why my comment was uncivil? Specifico stated (my bold): "P.S. Your mistaken that Forbes' bloggers are notable experts on the subjects of their writings. Talking about the NY Times doesn't make Forbes' bloggers RS. You may think I'm mistaken." I responded to him in a polite fashion with a smiley repeating what he actually said - that wasn't done with the intent to be uncivil, it was done with the intent of being kind and polite. I am so disheartened that you would consider that uncivil to the point you would send me a warning. You know full well what I've endured, and never once responded to any of them in kind. In that same thread, SPECIFICO accused me of tendentious editing . That was casting aspersions. I said nothing. I have never spoken out of turn, or said anything to anyone no matter how hard they baited and harassed, and you accuse me of incivility? Please explain why you accused me of such behavior. Atsme☯ 03:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• PS - WP:BLOGS clearly states: Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, so he was mistaken, and my comment was in response to content unlike what you stated in the warning. Please retract the warning here . Atsme☯ 03:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The pun regarding SPECIFICO's username and adding the rolling eyes are the bit which is incivil. Just as in the past I'm not going to make substantive comments on the article content, nor at this stage do I believe that administrative comment is needed on the sources. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a smiley, Callan, the cutest little smiley in my collection which is why I like to use it. It is not an animation so it doesn't have rolling eyes. It represents happy and to my knowledge, there is nothing uncivil about being happy. The world would be a sad place if a smiley now represents incivility. Replacing an "a" with an "o" to match a user name was not meant to be uncivil or derogatory. Specifically and Specificolly is simply a play on words, not one thing uncivil about it. My goodness. A simple 7 word comment that he was mistaken about Forbes not being a RS was in no way intended to be uncivil. It was a simple fact, and I believed the smiley would keep tensions low, without my response being misconstrued. Unfortunately, that isn't what happened. Please explain the steps for appealing your decision and getting the ARB warning revoked. Thank you. Atsme☯ 13:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

A quick visit to the talk page today, and I see at least one other editor feels Atsme is WP:TE. I have seen many editors topic banned or worse for lesser disruption. Editors are abandoning work on the article. It's a waste of time. This kind of thing happens over and over in WP articles which have a small minority of very persistent editors who outlast the larger community and stall or subvert progress on the article. Atsme's already been warned. I have no idea what the next step should be. SPECIFICO talk 14:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Callenecc, shouldn't the notice on Atsme's Talk page be the official one, with the correct wording, rather than a few kind words from yourself? I have seen editors escape sanction because the warning issued was improper, or no warning was given at all. Just asking for clarity here. Thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Callanecc, SPECIFICO just cast aspersions against me in his statements above, such as topic banned or worse for lesser disruption, and Editors are abandoning work on the article, etc. I expect administrator action because this type of behavior is unwarranted. Atsme☯ 20:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, please remain calm. Only my first sentence, a factual statement, relates to you. I cast no aspersions on you. I know nothing about you. SPECIFICO talk 21:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks like you're getting drug into this again Callanecc. Just letting you know there's been some additional snark at the articles deletion page from Atsme in addition to the warning you gave about comments towards SPECIFICO. It reads like a strangely veiled insinuation at suggesting hounding behavior on an unrelated topic to the discussion even if it is just intended as snark. Disruptive to the conversation anyways. It looks like the incivility isn't really getting any better with the typical behavior that's been described before of lashing out at other editors that don't agree with Atsme. Either way, that's just a heads up for now. I might revisit the idea of starting a case at WP:AE with these problems starting up again (doesn't appear that huge of an undertaking since we're limited to 20 diffs), so I'm not asking for anything at this time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Your comment is misleading, and yet another attempt at casting aspersions with the following unwarranted comments:

• there's been some additional snark at the articles deletion page - the snark did not come from me, but I do hope Callan has the time to review the discussion because my reply to your snarky comment was not snark;
• to the warning you gave about comments towards SPECIFICO, - that topic is being discussed here now in an effort to clear up the misunderstanding;
• strangely veiled insinuation at suggesting hounding behavior on an unrelated topic , - another unwarranted aspersion based on your POV
• Disruptive to the conversation anyways. - another unwarranted aspersion to distract and create an illusion that hides your tendentious edits referring to the sources as "a joke" which was highly disruptive to the conversation. Is what you're doing now referred to as WP:Gaming the system?
• It looks like the incivility isn't really getting any better with the typical behavior that's been described before of lashing out at other editors that don't agree with Atsme. - blatant aspersion. It has to stop, Callanecc, because it has been relentless.

FYI, my response was sincere when I offered to help with the article you created, Monsanto_legal_cases. Court cases are often dependent on primary sources, and can be tricky. My suggestion to make it a list was also sincere because I believe it has potential to be a FL which is something that has attracted my attention of late. I have worked hard to accumulate what few articles I've helped promote to GA, FA, and FP, but I don't have an FL, yet. Perhaps if you would AGA, you would see a much different editor when reading my comments. Atsme☯ 13:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Atsme

• Atsme One of the emoticons you put there (two of the three at the top which broke the section header) is called "rolleyes". The instructions are linked on your talk page, see WP:AC/DS#Appeals. Can you explain why you think it's casting aspersions, the only one I can see there which could be is the implication that editors are leaving the article because of you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

  The lead emoticons were accidental. I didn't even realize it happened, and I'm still not sure. I thought another editor put them up there, and when I got the notice from you, I went back to see why another editor could use emoticons, but I got a reprimand for it. When I looked in edit review, there were no individual edits adding emoticons. I am not the kind of person (editor) who would tamper with a page by adding emoticons. I only used only one emoticon called "mm". I also noticed that when I'm in edit view, and reduce my window size, the emoticons overlap, so I'm thinking that's probably what happened without my knowledge. I deleted them when I realized it was me who inadvertently added them. I'm embarrassed that it happened, especially the fact that at my age, I still enjoy the occasional smiley. I will take screen shots and upload them when I finish responding here to prove what I'm saying is true.

  As for the aspersions, you hid one here and then he repeated the TE allegation again under Griffin warning with no diff provided. Just another unwarranted allegation. When I disagree, I'm considered the tendentious editor, but let's not forget, my concerns over noncompliance with NPOV were correct, and I believe the concerns I have now are also correct. Why am I considered a TE? In addition to his groundless allegation of editors leaving, he went on with the following comparison very persistent editors who outlast the larger community and stall or subvert progress on the article. I find that extremely offensive. Again, no diffs. Then he says, Atsme's already been warned. I have no idea what the next step should be. What exactly does that imply? That I'm guilty of something that requires a "next step" before I've even had an opportunity to defend myself in this one. Add to that, the following

When you go through the edit history, the following edit summary shows a strange bracket config. That's the only thing I can think of that would have caused those emoticons to run wild. See screen shot for the parenthesis to be in middle of "n" in mistaken.

SPECIFICO

• SPECIFICO If you believe further action is required feel free to file an AE request. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I hate to think it's come down to that. I have neither the time nor the interest in compiling diffs, writing an essay about the situation, or fingering any individuals. Frankly, I was hoping that, with DS, we'd get some law and order without the drama and effort of an AE or ANI approach. If AE must be the "next step," it's not one that I will be able to do anything about. Thanks for the note. SPECIFICO talk 00:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen enough, on my own, which would warrant anything further than the warning I've given. However I'm not looking at a list of dates diff with explanation I'm working from memory and my opinion of Atsme's conduct (which overall I haven't had a problem with). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, no I wasn't suggesting you are approaching this incorrectly. If you do take another look, I think that it's worth noting that while the editors who lived through the 1RR period have continued to act with restraint, it would be good if we could somehow ensure similar restraint on the part of recent or future arrivals. Personally I would recommend reinstating the 1RR. I think it encourages talk page cooperation. SPECIFICO talk 01:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Roxy the dog

• Roxy the dog In the grand scheme of things the edit wasn't that bad and on an article that wasn't as controversial and being monitored probably wouldn't have resulted in much if any action. I'm not sure what you mean with the 'official one'? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Timelezz

• Hi Callanecc , just wondering if you could have a look at this. I notified SV too but I don't know if she's uninvolved in this area - so it might be best if you handled it--Cailil 13:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It's looks like it's at watch/rope stage at the moment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Theduinoelegy

I've removed talkpage access, since they were using it to repeat the behavior that got them sanctioned . Acroterion (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Acroterion. I'm considering whether it might just be in the best interests of the project to indef them. But there's not too much harm in giving them a little rope. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I had the same thought. I have little hope that they'll change their behavior, but am willing to give them one more chance. Acroterion (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Response

Weren't you pretty quick to close the discussion? There was one involved editor opposed to the ban, one uninvolved in favor, one uninvolved admin in favor but considered himself uninvolved, and another admin who was undecided. There was no real clear consensus, especially compared to the lengthy other requests. Also, no one ever responded to what I said about a 1RR or shorter ban. Theduinoelegy had three months after two ban violations, and you only gave him a week block. Considering this what I said about all the other involved edit warers just getting warnings, would you consider a 1RR, shorter ban, or warning instead? --Steverci (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Consensus isn't required for arbitration enforcement actions. After reviewing the evidence and comments I felt that a topic ban was called for. Moving forward I'd suggest two options:

1. Wait three months editing constructively in other areas then appeal either to me or AE/etc.
2. Give it a month or two of editing constructively in other areas and appeal to me then we can discuss lifting it or replacing with 1RR.

This is just my opinion but I'm probably one of the stricter admins who monitor AE when it comes to imposing sanctions but probably one of the more lenient when it comes to lifting and lessening them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Griffin

Would you mind taking another look please? Richard Arthur Norton is making a good-faith attempt to provide sources firmly establishing notability but it is pretty clear his edits don't enjoy consensus and some of the sites he's linking to are subject to what I consider to be an extremely idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:RS - including Natural News and whale.to, two sites beloved of the crankosphere but cited as sources in no other articles on Misplaced Pages. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want me to do. I'll keep an eye on the discussion and whether it turns into an edit war, but other that I don't see a need for administrative intervention at this stage. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Keith Haring

More still: User:XmlgproX. Apparently the page needs either to be semi'ed longer, or if you want to Watchlist it it can be a honeytrap for socks of that group. Softlavender (talk) 04:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)