Misplaced Pages

User talk:Callanecc: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:30, 23 June 2015 editMr Potto (talk | contribs)2,418 edits →Jaredgk2008← Previous edit Revision as of 15:27, 23 June 2015 edit undoAtsme (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers42,803 edits →Your DS sanction at Kombucha: response to unwarranted allegationsNext edit →
Line 32: Line 32:


:There's one thing that you're still not seeming to get, even if you believe you are right you cannot edit war. You've done that twice on this article and therefore got prevented from doing it again. An article ban is a very lenient sanction in that all it does it stop you edit warring and forces you to the talk page. I'm not saying that this is correct in this instance, but the other thing which tag-team edit warring (as you see it) could be is other editor's enforcing a consensus. The onus is on the person making the change (hence BRD) to show that the change should be made. As you've been told before that you need to get consensus before making large or contentious changes to articles, or if you have been reverted (especially more than one) barring things like ] you need to get consensus. Continuing to edit war on various articles to have your changes stay on the article is disruptive, as you have been told as well. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 01:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC) :There's one thing that you're still not seeming to get, even if you believe you are right you cannot edit war. You've done that twice on this article and therefore got prevented from doing it again. An article ban is a very lenient sanction in that all it does it stop you edit warring and forces you to the talk page. I'm not saying that this is correct in this instance, but the other thing which tag-team edit warring (as you see it) could be is other editor's enforcing a consensus. The onus is on the person making the change (hence BRD) to show that the change should be made. As you've been told before that you need to get consensus before making large or contentious changes to articles, or if you have been reverted (especially more than one) barring things like ] you need to get consensus. Continuing to edit war on various articles to have your changes stay on the article is disruptive, as you have been told as well. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 01:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

::You keep telling me that I have to follow certain protocols, that I'm the one who is edit warring, and that I don't get it. Callan, even when I am following protocols and community consensus agrees with me, you still take actions against me. You have once again turned a blind eye in support of the same group of very vocal and aggressive tag team members from Proj Med. I have been at the TP discussing the issues and so have a lot of other editors who have been in agreement on the most important issues of improperly sourced claims of death and toxicity, some of whom are bewildered by your actions. Perhaps if you had taken the time to review the discussions on the TP, you would have seen that I was and have been properly engaged in a collaborative effort trying to stop those you support from edit warring and noncompliance. Yet you accused me of edit warring and then without any discussion, immediately imposed DS against me, totally ignoring the ongoing discussions and input about the issues from {{u|Petrarchan47}} and , {{u|Gandydancer}} , {{u|AlbinoFerret}} , {{u|TylerDurden8823}} , {{u|Ozzie10aaaa}} , me , a passer by and even an admin {{u|Jimfbleak}} responded to Alex, and {{xt|I was trying hard to avoid pointing fingers, but since you ask here are a couple of examples where you have used Twinkle, an anti-vandalism tool, to revert what appear to be GF edits with summaries that do not identify the nature of the vandalism Not an improvement Rv. whitewashing deletions & insertion of comparatively weakly-sourced material. Your edit for these summaries suggest that you are reverting on opinion rather than vandalism. Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used. The same user was reverted in each case. I can't see how his/her edits were vandalism, and it seems to be that discussion would be better than unilateral bashing with Twinkle. I have no personal interest in this article, and I know that positions can become entrenched. I would just like to see unnecessarily confrontational actions avoided with an aim to reach some consensus.}}

::Callan, several of us tried to get the edit warriors to stop reverting, and then you suddenly appear with your sights on me instead of the edit warriors - no prior discussion, and obviously no review of the circumstances - not at all unlike the unwarranted ARB warning you issued against me over an inadvertent emoji. Consensus supported my position as demonstrated above, yet you banned me not the edit warriors. Where did you come up the idea that I was making "large or contentious changes"? Is that what they told you? <p/>
'''June 8''' (diffs with edit summaries - read them because it exposes the provocateurs and edit warriors in full tag team accord....)
*Alexbrn reverted Petrarchan47
'''June 9''' <p/>
*Atsme changed the prose, added RS (not a revert),
*Alexbrn reverted 5 minutes later,
*Atsme 1st revert of noncompliant material,
*Atsme's polite edit warring notice on Alexbrn's TP,
'''June 15''' <p/>
*Atsme rewrote the 2nd para in the lede, (not a revert)
*Alexbrn reverted 10 minutes later using TW rollback,
*Atsme rewrote passage (Remove MEDRS noncompliant poorly sourced claims, cited correct information using MEDRS compliant RS, removed material that is fundamentally noncompliant with NPOV, UNDUE, MEDRS)
*Alexbrn reverted again to restore the noncompliant material using TW rollback, <p/>
'''June 16'''
*Atsme rewrote the prose (remove noncompliant claims based on anecdotal case reports, add supported material from compliant 2014 review)
*Alexbrn reverted Atsme within 3 minutes <----it was being discussed and he did not have consensus
*Atsme removed the noncompliant material "Reviews are the highest quality sources possible. Stop edit warring and restoring noncompliant material"
*I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (aka jps, ScienceApologist, etc.) reverted Atsme - (Removing weird statement that cannot be verified. Considered _BY WHOM? Additionally, there is no such thing as an "antioxidant food group".) ''Note: jps had not been involved in any of the TP discussions but started hacking away at the article anyway. The "weird statement that cannot be verified" was a quote from the cited Journal Review.
*Atsme edits (removed noncompliant, scientifically unsupported anecdotal claim referenced to a case report that fails MEDRS) , , , (→‎Health effects: add more info from 2014 J Med Food review)
*I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc reverts all of Atsme's work again using TW rollback (Reverted to revision 667234688 by I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (talk): Rv poor scholarship, POV-pushing and activist editting. (TW))
*I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc posts warning, ''AE is Imminent'',
*Petrarchan reverts, (Undid revision 667266406 by I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (talk)Please take it to the talk page rather than edit warring.) <p />
'''June 20'''
*Atsme tweaked and modified material, (→‎Health effects: correct passage to make the Health effects section compliant with MEDRS and NPOV)
*Yobol reverts Atsme within 20 min - - he has not been active in TP discussions prior to reverting
*Atsme reverts to policy compliant material, dismisses Yobol's unwarranted allegation of "promotional"
*Yobol reverts Atsme again 2 minutes later -
*Atsme reverts Yobol for restoring noncompliant material (Allegation of undue is unwarranted and challenged. My edits corrected noncompliance with NPOV. Reverting a challenged passage is edit warring. Initiate an RfC and stop reverting my edits of correcting noncompliance with NPOV)
*Yobol reverts Atsme again, restores noncompliant material,
*Atsme reverts Yobol for noncompliance (remove material that is noncompliant with NPOV - stop edit warring Yobol. One more time and it's AE. You cannot restore a GF edit that removes material that is noncompliant with NPOV and MEDRS Initiate an RfC.)
*Andy The Grump reverts Atsme and restores noncompliant material, (Undid revision 667842107 by Atsme (talk) revert promotion - DISCUSS on the talk page)
*Article is PP by NeilN <p />
::I am not going to say I'm sorry for the long post because I truly believe you need to read it and get a handle on this situation. I am weary of being accused without due process while the warriors get off unscathed. FYI, if I am forced to appeal at AE, I will include the above but will add diffs of your actions against me to support my claims of bias. I'm asking you to remove the ban because you have the wrong editor in your sights, and I shouldn't have to suffer the black mark on my edit history as a result. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 15:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


== DS was right all this time == == DS was right all this time ==

Revision as of 15:27, 23 June 2015

Callanecc is busy and may not respond swiftly to queries.

User talk:Callanecc/Header

Talk:Sons of Liberty

A new editor called "Trollpolice" has taken over from what "Deleteroftrolls" and the three IPv6s were doing yesterday, blanking big blocks of this talk page. "Trollpolice" can be blocked for blatant edit-warring, but if you were to run a CU and connect that account to "Deleteroftrolls", then that latter account could be blocked as well. (None of these accounts are me, of course.) I don't particularly care if the thread on the talk page involving myself (the last one) is blanked or archived or left as it is, but there's no reason the page should be disrupted the way it is at the moment. Thanks, BMK (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. They've both been blocked so we'll see what happens next. Let me know if there's another account. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

B.A.P (South Korean band)

Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 04:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Your DS sanction at Kombucha

Your DS sanction against me was unwarranted, Callan, and reminiscent of the bias you have consistently shown toward me since your first unwarranted ARB warning at Griffin for a rogue emoji I had no control over. I am asking you to remove the sanctions and recuse yourself from any interaction with me in the future. You clearly did not properly investigate the behavior of Yobol, an editor who was not involved in any of the Kombucha TP discussions, and who actually was the one edit warring in this case, but it appears your bias against me caused you to automatically act against me without question.

I copied the following from Yobo's contributions which includes mention of the sanction reminder and polite warning I posted to his TP. You sanctioned the wrong editor, Callan.

  • 20:16, June 20, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+345)‎ . . User talk:Yobol ‎ (→‎Please stop reverting GF edits at Kombucha: r)
  • 20:07, June 20, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+272)‎ . . Kombucha ‎ (per wp:BRD get consensus when your edits are challenged)
  • 19:53, June 20, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+272)‎ . . Kombucha ‎ (undue weight and promotional tone)
  • 19:44, June 20, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+272)‎ . . Kombucha ‎ (Undue weight bordering on promotional)

You know full well that the onus of proof is on the editor who wanted to restore the material I corrected and challenged as noncompliant with policy. The onus was on Yobol, not me. I cited 3 quality Reviews that surpassed the quality of the old 2003 review that used to cite the noncompliant material. He was edit warring each time he restored noncompiant material. I will not provide the actual diffs here because when I've demonstrated similar behavior by other uncivil, POV pushing editors in the past, including the railroading attempts against me, the harassment, the incivility, the tag-teaming and other disruptive behavior, you hatted my requests for help, and kept pointing me to ARBCOM. Perhaps the time has come for ARBCOM to investigate this whole mess in one felled swoop. If they decide that I truly am the one who deserves sanctions for trying to be compliant with NPOV, then so be it but it's all going to come out in the wash, dating back to Griffin with some of the same editors and the treatment and ill-will that I've experienced since. Atsme 13:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

There's one thing that you're still not seeming to get, even if you believe you are right you cannot edit war. You've done that twice on this article and therefore got prevented from doing it again. An article ban is a very lenient sanction in that all it does it stop you edit warring and forces you to the talk page. I'm not saying that this is correct in this instance, but the other thing which tag-team edit warring (as you see it) could be is other editor's enforcing a consensus. The onus is on the person making the change (hence BRD) to show that the change should be made. As you've been told before that you need to get consensus before making large or contentious changes to articles, or if you have been reverted (especially more than one) barring things like WP:3RRNO you need to get consensus. Continuing to edit war on various articles to have your changes stay on the article is disruptive, as you have been told as well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
You keep telling me that I have to follow certain protocols, that I'm the one who is edit warring, and that I don't get it. Callan, even when I am following protocols and community consensus agrees with me, you still take actions against me. You have once again turned a blind eye in support of the same group of very vocal and aggressive tag team members from Proj Med. I have been at the TP discussing the issues and so have a lot of other editors who have been in agreement on the most important issues of improperly sourced claims of death and toxicity, some of whom are bewildered by your actions. Perhaps if you had taken the time to review the discussions on the TP, you would have seen that I was and have been properly engaged in a collaborative effort trying to stop those you support from edit warring and noncompliance. Yet you accused me of edit warring and then without any discussion, immediately imposed DS against me, totally ignoring the ongoing discussions and input about the issues from Petrarchan47 June 10, 2015 and Ownership issues, Gandydancer , AlbinoFerret points to the disruption, TylerDurden8823 June 9, 2015 causality, Ozzie10aaaa June 8, 2015 agreement with Petrarchan47, me June 10, 2015 GF collaboration, a passer by June 11 2015 and even an admin Jimfbleak responded to Alex, and I was trying hard to avoid pointing fingers, but since you ask here are a couple of examples where you have used Twinkle, an anti-vandalism tool, to revert what appear to be GF edits with summaries that do not identify the nature of the vandalism Not an improvement Rv. whitewashing deletions & insertion of comparatively weakly-sourced material. Your edit for these summaries suggest that you are reverting on opinion rather than vandalism. Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used. The same user was reverted in each case. I can't see how his/her edits were vandalism, and it seems to be that discussion would be better than unilateral bashing with Twinkle. I have no personal interest in this article, and I know that positions can become entrenched. I would just like to see unnecessarily confrontational actions avoided with an aim to reach some consensus.
Callan, several of us tried to get the edit warriors to stop reverting, and then you suddenly appear with your sights on me instead of the edit warriors - no prior discussion, and obviously no review of the circumstances - not at all unlike the unwarranted ARB warning you issued against me over an inadvertent emoji. Consensus supported my position as demonstrated above, yet you banned me not the edit warriors. Where did you come up the idea that I was making "large or contentious changes"? Is that what they told you?

June 8 (diffs with edit summaries - read them because it exposes the provocateurs and edit warriors in full tag team accord....)

June 9

June 15

June 16

June 20

I am not going to say I'm sorry for the long post because I truly believe you need to read it and get a handle on this situation. I am weary of being accused without due process while the warriors get off unscathed. FYI, if I am forced to appeal at AE, I will include the above but will add diffs of your actions against me to support my claims of bias. I'm asking you to remove the ban because you have the wrong editor in your sights, and I shouldn't have to suffer the black mark on my edit history as a result. Atsme 15:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

DS was right all this time

He is indeed asock of that SM. Is there any way DS can be unblocked.--Cosmic  Emperor  03:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Out of interest what got you interested this this? As the block is arbitration enforcement it can only be changed by the admin who imposed it or if Darkness Shines appeals it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Jaredgk2008

I've gone through the edits by the latest batch of socks at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Jaredgk2008 and reverted a lot of vandalism, and I have a couple of suggestions. It looks like they've added Jay Mariotti to Lee Corso and Woody Paige as a vandalism target with a number of the sock accounts attacking it in the past month, so would it make sense to semi-protect that too to at least keep non-confirmed accounts out? Also, a lot of the vandalism I found (as with previous socks) was adding nonsense about Lee Corso to unrelated articles, so might it make sense to add an edit filter to prevent that? I can't see there being many genuine additions of "Lee Corso" to other articles, and false positives would surely be pretty rare. Mr Potto (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Done all. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks. Mr Potto (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)