Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Callanecc (talk | contribs) at 07:04, 25 February 2015 (→sindikato: You know very well how to appeal). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Callanecc is busy and may not respond swiftly to queries.

User talk:Callanecc/Header

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)

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)

From what you're describing Guy, it sounds like a case really needs to be brought up specifically about Atsme at Arbcom with regards to fringe/psuedoscience sanctions as complaining about it won't really do much good elsewhere now. I was actually seriously considering doing that myself as a mostly uninvolved spectator at the article, but I don't have the time to sort through all the history again or write up a decent case this week now it seems. There's seems to be a lot of posturing whenever Atsme's behavior comes up, so I'd want to make sure that any case that is brought forward is extremely concise (as can be) in showing examples of the problematic behavior and what policies/Arbcom decisions the behavior butts heads with. I'm still watching the article, so maybe I'll revisit the idea of starting a case soon if no one else gets to it and it still looks like the best course. Hopefully someone with relatively clean hands in the matter bringing it up cuts down on potential drama (i.e., only a content dispute, trying to get rid of opposing editors, etc.). Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that would be a terrible shame, as Atsme is really a delightful person, but it is very likely that a topic ban will be needed - this would not, of course, require an arbitration drama-fest. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

A shame indeed I agree. However, I should specify that I meant Arbcom enforcement using currently existing remedies and not a brand new case from scratch. Maybe the enforcement board isn't quite the right venue though.

Callanecc, if Guy, myself, or anyone were going to bring up Atsme for battleground behavior, issues with WP:PSCI, and the overall disruption that comes with that, what do you see as the proper course of action? Should one go to ANI since a specific sanction imposed by you hasn't been broken yet in this case, or is it more appropriate at this time to go to WP:AE for this broader behavioral issue with general principles from the Psuedoscience arbitration case because the article is now subject to discretionary sanctions? Not sure what would take precedence in this case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest WP:AE, as it is generally more straight forward and better equipped than ANI at dealing with issues where longer term behavioural issues (like battleground) or issues which aren't as obvious, especially when discretionary sanctions are authorised. You wouldn't necessarily need to show that they've violated ARBPS principles just that they are behaving in a way which is inconsistent with WP:AC/DS#Guidance for editors which are much broader. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:08, 18 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)

The warning wasn't related to 1RR, and as I said in the 1RR Question section above I don't believe that you've violated it. And there's a note about 1RR on the talk page and an editnotice (which is pretty large).

The warning had to do with adding material which, based on the RfC outcome, was contentious and shouldn't have been added without a consensus. The comment above casts aspersions and does address the reasons for warning. One point which relates - yes we need to be fair and accurate, however consensus is used to define what fair and accurate looks like. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

That last sentence is a real mistake. It means that if advocates of "fringe" perspectives show up, we'll contaminate the encyclopaedia with all sorts of rubbish. Your approach here really bears some reconsideration. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm on consideration I agree, consensus and experience determine how different interpretations of the various policies and guidelines should affect the content. For example a consensus (or absence of disagreement) determines whether a source is reliable by comparing it's attributes to policies and guidelines. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean you agree with what you wrote earlier, or with me? If you're reiterating the view that consensus determines everything, then this would (in the scenario I suggested -- a bevy of fringe pushers) be inconsistent with WP:PSCI, a fundamental part of NPOV. This has to be the same as with BLP: a consensus of local editors cannot override BLP (a principle that is well entrenched in our practice). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you. And I rephrased as consensus determines how different interpretations of the various policies and guidelines should affect the content. For example, whether PSCI applies in borderline cases or how the views of the scientific community should be displayed prominently for example. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It works the same on both poles which is what we are experiencing now in the reverse of Nomo's speculation. Is the goal to make this BLP exemplary to others who dare author anything that contradicts mainstream, a risk that will result in you being forever contentiously labeled in WP? I fail to see how such an approach is compliant with any policy, much less FringeBLP. As the article edit history will show, any editor who tries to expand this BLP with biographical material is quickly reverted, an action that is evidenced by my attempts to correct passages that were determined to be fundamentally noncompliant with NPOV by consensus. If an editor wants to add negative material, the latter of which I believe is the result of a misinterpretation of "fringe" and how a BLP is supposed to be written, they are encouraged to do so as evidenced by the most recent attempt to add a poorly sourced anti-Semitism attack. In fact, FRINGEBLP is a circular reference to BLP, so I don't understand the confusion. I have not written anything that promotes or supports Griffin's view on anything and I have always made prominent the mainstream views as they relate to his book. Stop and think about what is being said and match it to the edits as I have done. The controversy at Griffin is not about amygdalin (B17) or what NCI, NIH, and the FDA have actually determined because I've included and sourced that information as required by policy. The controversy is about contentious labeling of a BLP in Wiki voice. It's about an all-out attack on a BLP because he writes books about controversial topics and encourages readers to look at the evidence and form their own opinions. I have provided the RS that meet verifiability and truth in my pursuit to get the article right and am still facing opposition based on spurious claims. I am not going to change my method of writing because I am being threatened repeatedly by the same editors who have nothing on which to base their claims. It has become a conduct issue because of the latter. I know full well that when I write something, my passages follow strict adherence to BLP policy, US Laws, and the 3 core content policies. I never claimed to be perfect so if I have overlooked something, I look to GF collaboration to help correct it. End of story. Atsme☯ 15:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

So you think it's valid to issue an official warning for a single revert, ever, supported by a stated rationale? That is an unusually dogmatic position.

You say the RfC does not permit calling him a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence. And guess what? I didn't. I did say that he is known for advocating conspiracy theories, which is different, and aligns precisely with the infobox.

As you consider this, think for a moment on the subject.

G. Edward Griffin advocates conspiracy theories over the origin of the Federal Reserve, states that while the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are a fake, they nonetheless document a real Jewish conspiracy, asserts that the medical and scientific establishment are conspiring to suppress laetrile, which he asserts is a cancer cure, albeit based on his simplistic view of the nature of cancer, he states that vapour trails left by aircraft are chemtrails, he has advocated the theory that 9/11 was an inside job.

He is known almost exclusively for his writings on these subjects.

He does not originate conspiracy theories, so is not a "conspiracy theorist" as such, but he is known for his advocacy of conspiracy theories, and in fact if he was not known for doing this on Glenn Beck's show, we almost certainly would not have an article.

So: I get a sanction for violating 1RR, which I didn't, since one revert by definition does not violate 1RR, by adding text that matched the infobox, and which is substantially more neutral than the text originally complained of. You might, of course, consider that I am habitually careless with biographies. As an OTRS volunteer you will be familiar with the standard advice to biography subjects. I wrote that, pretty much in its current form. I think you have been unfair. I think you are doubly unfair in linking that to a previous warning that was considered over-harsh by a significant proportion of those who commented, and which does not relate to content, but to impatience with a POV-pusher. I think you have been harsh, and I invite you to reconsider. Guy (Help!) 18:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Guy keeps obfuscating the details of Griffin's literary works. David Barstow (NYTimes, 3 Pulitzers) states: You need to know who Edward Griffin is, and how his book The Creature from Jekyll Island plays into this. And book reviewer, Michael J. Ross who states: In the United States, the central figure in this ongoing drama, is our central bank, the Federal Reserve, whose history, power, and effects are explored in G. Edward Griffin's fascinating book The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve. and Argentinian author, Adrian Salbuchi: In 1995, American investigator and author, G. Edward Griffin, published what is clearly the most authoritative book on the “FED” – as it is colloquially called in banking circles and by the mainstream media – “The Creature from Jekyll Island”. And most recently, Atsme☯ 21:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

first source there is interesting. Barstow says that if you want to understand Tea Party subculture, you should read X, Y, Z. Griffin is one of the things you should read, yes. 2nd source is a blog posting written by a web developer, on a website that frankly acknowledges it is not mainstream, owned by an investment firm (https://www.puplava.com/) that i believe advocates investing in gold. Not what you want to bring in a controversial article. Third source is RT. Not reliable except for basic facts; not for anything controversial. Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. And let's not forget the chemtrails, 9/11 Truth, anti-vaccination, cancer quackery, AIDS denialism, Zionist conspiracies, Illuminati etcetera etcetera. He is a very fine demonstration of the established fact that people, having once fallen into a conspiracy theory, tend to take on other conspiracy theories. I haven't yet found one that he actually admits is wrong. Before Atsme started I had no real idea of who Griffin was. In the first instance I thought that no intelligent person could possibly be that whacky. And then I read his website, which makes Infowars look like the New York Times. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

What you need to read: --Pekay2 (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I've never said the warning had anything to with 1RR, what I said what that there was consensus in the RfC against this and using a different phrasing doesn't change that (and is at worst gaming the system). There is a consensus against it, whether with the precisely the same wording or not, as you knew. Arguing semantics (advocate or promoter of conspiracy theories) isn't going to change my decision, nor is trying to prove that he is one as I can't override the consensus only enforce it. As the previous warning (which I note this edit is getting close to violating) was for a similar area it is standard practice to remind people that another warning (even if for a different thing) may be taken into account. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand that point, but actually I did think it would have consensus, since (a) it matches the infobox (which was not challenged in the RfC), (b) it is not the text complained of (difference between "conspiracy theorist", clearly pejorative, and "known for promoting conspiracy theories", an NPOV summary of the body of the article, which lists many of them) and (c) it represents a compromise between the visceral hatred of one extreme for any mention of the problematic nature of his conspiracist views, and the more moderate editors who have absolutely no problem with calling a spade a spade, given that he is known only for the promotion of conspiracy theories.

I think the current talk page also reflects a reasonable consensus that this more anodyne version is widely supported. We should not have to have a !vote on every word int he lede. WP:LEDE says summarise the body, and the entirety of the body describes his advocacy of conspiracy theories.

Unfortunately there is one editor who seems determined to use the article to legislate legitimacy of a quack cancer cure, for reasons I cannot fathom. This WP:CPUSH is causing a long term problem; as you know, the major problem with civil POV-pushers is that they wind up the reality-based editors to the point that they get sanctioned, and they never give up, hence problems with articles like cold fusion. It is quite vexing having to constantly explain that, say, a new study in vitro showing some potential therapeutic use for a compound derived fomr amygdalin, does not, will not and cannot validate the idea that amydgalin is a vitamin, lack of which causes cancer, and that the medical fraternity suppresses this. Our article makes it absolutely clear with robust sources that amygdalin (aka laetrile) is exploitative and illegal quackery. Having an editor trying to legitimise a book promoting it, on the basis that reflecting the reality-based view somehow violates BLP, is a problem for NPOV. And yes I know I should not let such foolishness wind me up. Guy (Help!) 10:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@JzG: Call me gullible, but that's what I needed - an explanation of what you did and why. I'd suggest in the future that might want to lower your bar for what is controversial on that article.

No you shouldn't, not that easy I know. But what you don't want is for if/when this eventually ends up at AE for someone to look through your edits and believe that Atsme was pushed or harangued through incivility or personal attacks on your part. As that will very likely end up with a block or ban for you and a warning for Atsme. Also I'd suggest you temper the words you use to refer to Griffin, again if a case is presented where you're calling him things which could be construed and Atsme is being polite and civil, it's you that the eyes go on first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. And I fully acknowledge fault: this article (or more specifically the drive to purge it of references to the refuted nature of the subject's beliefs) is certainly messy and it was naive of me to assume that the partisan(s) would take anything less than the broadest possible interpretation of the RfC. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Callen, I've been following what I see as Guy's hostile tone and falsities. It's obvious he is referring to Atsme ("one editor") and making ad hominum attacks upon him with untrue statements. I see no focus by Atsme legitimizing or discrediting Griffin, whereas Guy's comments clearly focus singularly on discrediting Griffin. As I see it Guy is an attacker (of Atsme and Griffin) and not a BLP creator. It seems to me that Guy has passed the point where action is required. Please read the following diffs --Pekay2 (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Already dealt with that in my last reply and again in this one. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

You should do a RfB.

You would be perfect for one. Also how would I do a RfA? :( Bobherry talk 20:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

If I'm not ready for an RfA how else can I fight Vandals? I already have Reviewer and Rollback permissions. Bobherry talk 20:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bob, the role of a crat is reasonably narrow now that they don't be renames locally. It pretty much only consists of adding and removing the admin and bot permissions, which isn't really someone I'm interested in getting into at the moment. But thank you for the suggestions.

Regarding yourself and RfA, have a look at WP:RFAADVICE & WP:RFA Guide. At your current rate of activity I'd suggest you probably need to spend another year or two of editing. If you want to continue doing vandal fighting type things you might consider using Huggle or Stiki. However if you are wanting to go for RfA, I'd suggest beginning to look at other areas, such as writing articles or expanding stubs to show you understand how to write article content. It might also help if you get involved with AfD, both contributing to discussions and doing non admin closes as long as you do them properly. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I recently started doing non-admin closures. Someone showed me a plugin while back which I use that makes it TONS faster. Good Luck. Bobherry talk 20:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Disappearing sanctions

Please see User talk:Sandstein#Logging a sanction. The courtesy-blanking of pre-2010 sanctions has some confusing effects. If you want to keep the blanking in place, maybe notes should be placed in the log sections of the arb cases telling people where to look for the missing items. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The link to the correct page history is now in each of the blanking templates so that should help. Whether blanking continues or not isn't my call it's a part of the discretionary sanctions procedure. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Need clarification of 1RR sanctions please....

See the following: and Is this not a violation of the 1 per week 1RR? Perhaps I'm not understanding what it means, and I would appreciate clarification. Sorry to be a bother, but actual practice is the best way for an editor to learn about such matters. Atsme☯ 20:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the history - it appears to be 2 clear reverts in 3 days. Collect (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

In my view, the first is a self-revert and so is not relevant. The 2nd and 3rd are serial edits, not reversions. So none of them are reverts of the sort that the 1RR restriction is concerned with, which is to prevent edit wars where editor X adds new content (as happened in edits 2 and 3), editor Y reverts it (fine under 1RR), X restores it (fine under 1RR) and Y re-reverts (breaks 1RR). Self reverts are not part of the concern, and neither is adding new content. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

What you're not considering is the self-revert was the result of an original revert, so let me redo the diffs: and The more I look at it, the more it shows violation of 1RR far greater than what SRich did that caused him to be blocked. Steeletrap was warned - was actually taken to AE. Now something needs to happen. Atsme☯ 22:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

There was 1 self-revert, but the other edits in the contiguous string actually count as a "real revert" AFAICT. YMMV. Collect (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

This string counts as 1 revert. If you can show that this 2nd string is a revert of a more or less recent edit it would violate a 1RR/week restriction.TMCk (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

in the new list of difs provided by Atsme: first one is an actual revert; 2nd adds content, 3rd is a self-revert that removes 2, 4th and 5th are serial edits add new content (better, changing existing content to say something it had not said before. Some one might see this as going back to an earlier meaning; that is a subtle analysis that I guess you want to callanecc to make - if so you would probably help yourself by showing the older meaning that Steeletrap was "reverting" to). There is only one revert there. Steeletrap is at the 1RR limit until a week from the 1st dif, which is 22:25, 17 February 2015. That is an analysis under the 1RR rule. Callanecc has given warnings for adding content that is very likely to be reverted without prior discussion as he did with Guy, however no one has reverted this yet; 4 & 5 seem to be acceptable content to everybody (or, those who would revert it, are awaiting expiration of their 1 weeks. or those who might revert it are not deeming this worthy of using their limited revert power). I see no violation of 1RR. Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It violates a 1RR/week restriction per the scenario brought forward by The Magnificent Clean-keeper in that the diff was a revert of Revision as of 22:50, February 19, 2015 (edit) made by A1candidate . End of story. Atsme☯ 23:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Nope. That's a ce with a tiny add on, not a revert perse.TMCk (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

agreed with TMCK: Steeletrap's edits 4 & 5 were not a revert of A1. here is the change A1 made, which was to the part of the lead about cancer; Steeletrap's subsequent edit copyedited the part of the lead about Noah's ark.Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

TMCK - what is a "ce"? Ok, so let me wrap my head around this. We have this edit which (Undid revision 647499643 by Lawrencekhoo (talk) ) on Feb 17 2015. That's 1 revert, right? Then the 2nd revert would be this one a few days later, , but because that revert changed the meaning of something that wasn't edited within the past week or so, it doesn't count as a revert? Wow, that's pretty confusing. So I can add passages to the article, make reverts as long as they don't involve recent edits, change the meaning of the passage by adding bits and pieces of information without getting consensus first as long as I do it in 24 hour intervals? Atsme☯ 01:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

ce=copyedit. reverting means either undoing what another edit did (hitting "undo") or changing the text to mean what it used to say but just using different words. Above I wrote "one might see this as going back to an earlier meaning" and I was referring to the latter. If you think Steeletrap's 4th & 5th edits were a "revert" in that sense, you should show the diff he was reverting back to by changing the words. Adding content is generally fine and is not a "revert" but in this context of a highly contested article, Guy did that and received a formal warning for making changes that were clearly not going to be accepted. So you cannot be BOLD and just add stuff as you please. As when the page was protected, under imposed discretionary sanctions if you want to make edits that it is obvious that others will dispute, you should propose them first on Talk. Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• I see the first serious of edit resulting in this addition of content (5 on 17-18 February) and this addition (2 on 20 February). Unless someone can show me where that content has been in dispute (or has been reverted) then I don't see a 1RR vio here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• Callanecc I think the diffs you requested follow below:
• First diff - revert and dispute: (dated Feb 16) with support of dispute: My concerns are that Steeletrap reverts and adds contentious material despite consensus: and possibly in a tag team effort:
• Second diff to show revert with add-on
• Now we also have ongoing violations of consensus: , and are now getting some foul smelling hanky panky that appears to be a concerted tag team effort, but then I don't know enough about such tactics to make a judgement call. I thank you for the PP, but will you please revert to the more stable version before the conspiracy theorist terminology was added? Also passages, we are now seeing passages added with terminology like "quackery" stated in Wiki voice citing 30+ year old OR and non encyclopedic witch hunt terminology instead of citing updated sources with inline text attribution stating that laetrile was banned as a cancer treatment by the FDA and proven ineffective by NIH and ACS. FYI, as was pointed out in the following diff, research actually does indicate there are "components of amygdalin that may be therapeutically useful in cancer, that is an ocean away from saying that laetrile cures cancer." No one ever said laetrile or amygdalin cured cancer, not even Griffin, but he has been accused of saying it without citing verifiable (not false) citations or inline text attributions which I have asked for repeatedly. Atsme☯ 15:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
• PS: I was once told that adding material was different from actually changing what was there, and that deleting material to add was still considered a revert. Is that not true? Atsme☯ 15:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Help at Griffin

I accidentally hit a revert button when looking through for the diffs you wanted at Griffin and I tried to revert my own revert, but it wouldn't let me. I don't know why that is happening - it's twice now. Atsme☯ 15:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• PS - I was able to revert back. Soooo sorry. It is happening when I click on previous edit in the diff view. Strange. Atsme☯ 15:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Checkuser could had been used

On https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Toilet_humour&action=history , https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:FARTING_Nazis_Good&action=edit&redlink=1 and https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Reidfart seem like they are the same person. They are both also mobile edits and around the same time. Just saying. They both are blocked now too.Bobherry talk 21:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

What are you referring to, an SPI? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I meant. Bobherry talk 18:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

What's the name of the SPI? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

User talk:66.74.176.59

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:66.74.176.59. Please help us. Thanks. Bobherry talk 21:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Template:Z48

Quick Question

Is my signature ok? It took 15 mins to edit. <mark style="background:red">] ] ] </mark> Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 20:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Not really my area of expertise, but I think a couple of those tags have been depreciated, Technical 13 can you help? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• You'll have to pick a better color scheme. I can't read it because your contrast ratio is way too low. Please use http://www.msfw.com/accessibility/tools/contrastratiocalculator.aspx to pick colors that meet at least Level AA. — {{U|Technical 13}} 02:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)