User talk:Callanecc/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Alert to Roxy the dog

At a slight tangent, but nevertheless, You gave me an Arbcom notice earlier (thanks, I understand) which is the second one I've had this week! The first was some mischief by one of (Redacted). I thought only one notice per annum was the intention, and if so, is the other one disruptive?? they are getting handed out like confetti ;) -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 06:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It's one per topic area per year. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Although you shouldn't really have been given the one about ARBPSUEDO as your notification recorded in the previous system is still current. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Also avoid the personal attacks. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, though I don't think quoting Jimbo counts as a personal attack. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

You had reminded about ARBPSUEDO in 4 December 2013,[1] it will be considered to have been expired on this year's 4 December or not? I reminded him like 2 days ago.[2] I also see that you have redacted those words, you should also see [3]. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

See WP:AC/DS#Continuity. Roxy, you can quote whoever you like but using it as a personal attack to refer or demean other editors is not on. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Awareness_and_alerts says that a user has to be alerted once in every 12 months. Introduction of new filter records alert now, but previously there was none. So current date of earlier sanctions ( before May 2014) would expire in May 2015? Bladesmulti (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the expiry of notifications under the previous system are valid until 3 May 2015. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Got some more questions. First one is about this logged notification[4], it will expire in 12 December 2015 or 3 May 2015? Bladesmulti (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Reminding in case if you missed my above question. Bladesmulti (talk)

That one expires 13 Dec 15, unless there is an argument later on about whether it is valid since it was issued within 12 months of the previous one. Though that's a discussion I hope we won't end up having. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hist merging SPI

Just wanted to remind you to restore the previous page revisions after you've completed the move.
16:25, December 15, 2014 DeltaQuad (talk | contribs | block) restored page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Newzealand123 (44 revisions restored) -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Oops, thanks DQ. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I want to shut down my WIKIPEDIA Account that inexperience has caused problems for me

I want to shut down my WIKIPEDIA Account (Quantumvision/Luischaluisan) I have found the Wikipedia process a bit daunting and confusing. I merely wanted to state my credentials as a USER given my career in Professional Theater, Professional Dance, Professional Journalism, Professional Broadcast Television, Professional Broadcast Radio, Documentary Subject and as a Published Author-Playwright dating back to 1975. I opened the Luis F. Chaluisan account not maliciously and not a "sockpuppet move" but when I could no longer access the Quantumvision/Luischaluisan account (Which I have now resolved and would like to permanently delete.In simple enlish as if you are writing to a fifth grader DHOW CAN I DELETE Quantumvision/Luischaluisan) I would like the Quantumvision/Luischaluisan account closed permanently and Luis F. Chaluisan account maintained as my user profile. I give you my word that I will closely study the way a User bio can be structured by utilizing Wikipedia info and that of other User bios of people I know on Wikipedia. Plus I will not use the same "lines" from other social networking sites I have accounts with on the internet featuring my bio. (Again, this was not an underhanded move on my part but a matter of expediency in trying to create an acceptable profile given my Wikipedia inexperience.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantumvision (talk • contribs) 19:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

You can't delete your account, the best thing to do is to just walk away from it and not to use it anymore. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda

Hi,

I see that user:DangerousPanda got dragged into some wp:dramah. I am sorry to have to bother you, but it seems you are involved somehow - just curious where a simple-minded and short-of-time wikipedian such as myself can go to bring themselves up to speed on this issue. Thanks in advance for your help. Ottawahitech (talk) 04:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda NE Ent 10:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

AE questions

One is allowed to notify other user who has been mentioned on WP:AE? Although not directly by name, but with the term like "Indian user" including a link to his talk page and mention of his actions. Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes you can. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I may want to reply to your comment that you have made there. I should open a new section like "Additional comment by OccultZone", or just write under "Additional comments by editor filing complaint", with summary "@ Callanecc:....." I am mostly asking because I had seen one of the user(got his talk on watchlist) was warned for making imbalanced sections. Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Just in the section you've already got and @Callanecc. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

If I want to add 2 more URLs to my additional statement, would it be fine with AE? I have already used 20 diffs on my whole complaint. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

If they are relevant ask on AE and I'll give you permission there so that there is a record of it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Above was about the editor who has been mentioned by the other user. What about the user who I have mentioned, I can specifically inform them on their talk about it? Also if it is necessary to inform. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Yep, just leave them a neutral message telling them that you've mentioned them in the evidence (though I haven't checked who it is and how you included them). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

can you do this favour

HI CALLANEC. Can you delete these edits here made by user lollo12345 and that IP permanently, because all of them were vulgar words written in another language. I think in wikipedia it is called revision deletion. Thnaks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.231.50 (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know the other language so I can't be sure what it says, and whether it would qualify for suppression based on the criteria for revision deletion. You can ask at the admins' noticeboard though. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, they have written son of the bi... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.231.8 (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Formatting question

Hi... I seek guidance from the Arb comm clerk (that's you, right?) about how one can best format a requested for enforcement against an ed who filed a pending AE complaint, or a cross-request for enforcement against other commenters? Thanks in advance. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey NewsAndEventsGuy, probably best to file a request for enforcement against them at WP:AE - there's a link near the top of the page (below the nav box) which says "Click here to add a new request", click that and it'll bring up a template for you to fill in. Let me know if you have any issues and I'll try and help. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Just to see if I understand correctly, is it correct that the committee prefers separate filings, even when there is a lot of overlap in parties and articles? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It depends where you are intending to file. WP:AE uses separate filings for each editor and isn't run by the Committee but by admins. Unless you are requesting that sanctions be placed on particular pages or groups of pages covered by discretionary sanctions, in which case do one report regarding what's happened on the article and why sanctions are needed. The Committee for case requests prefers topics and for clarification and amendment requests prefers it be be based on previous cases or individual incidents (usually appeals). Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Have to put a pin in that! Thanks very much. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit war on Metropolitan (1990 film)

It has come to my attention that you are considering disciplinary action against user FelixRosch for edit-warring the Sigmund Freud page. I would like to draw your attention to this user's similar behavior on the article Metropolitan (1990 film), where the user has repeatedly deleted a coherent, concise film summary to replace it with his own, poorly written, incomplete summary. The user insists that any changes to his plot summary must first "reach consensus" on talk page, despite the user's not engaging in any actual discussion and failure to offer any criticism of the new summary beyond his not having been consulted on it.76.31.249.221 (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

DP arbitration

Hi. I know you're busy, hell, everyone's busy this time of year, but the DP case final decision page doesn't have that template box at the bottom of the page, whatever it's called, yet, and at least a few of the arbs have voted to close. It might make it easier to see what the current status is if the template thingy were added and the current status of the votes indicated. Maybe. John Carter (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

We usually only use the implementation notes template on long or complicated cases. The notes as they stand give an idea of what's passing and not passing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, you know that better than me. Thanks for the quick response. And for subjecting yourself to having to read a lot of the, um, commentary, on a lot of the ArbCom pages. I have trouble seeing how arbitrators put up with it, and honestly, you have to so far as I can tell read the same mountains of dreck that they have to. Thanks. :) John Carter (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets!

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, LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Directions, please

Can you please direct me to the procedures for requesting attention to BLP violations on an article that has PP? I thought it was included on the article's PP notice, but I can't find it. Does the admin who initiated PP accept the requests, or must it be an uninvolved admin? What are the steps required for such a request? Thank you in advance Atsme☯^Consult 16:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The protecting admin is (and almost always must be) uninvolved. Though I'd prefer you make an edit request on the article's talk page than request changes here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, will do. Thank you. Atsme☯^Consult 13:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc, have you reviewed the Griffin TP wherein I requested the BLP violations to be resolved? The same editors who created the BLP violations are disputing the changes using the same arguments they've been using, and why I had to request PP. The BLP violations are blatant, and if my interpretation of BLP policy is correct, the violations must be removed first, and the burden of proving otherwise is the responsibility of those who want the information restored. Please review the list of violations and advise. Atsme☯^Consult 16:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc, the PP discussion at Griffin needs your attention. A non-neutral admin was summoned over to the article - see diff: [5]. I don't see how his participation can be considered NPOV, especially based on the comments that were made about Griffin. The whole article is nothing more than WP:COATRACK designed to denigrate the subject. It's really sad because it has potential to be a DYK, and possibly even a GA if GF editors were allowed to do their job. Atsme☯^Consult 04:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I left them a message about editing through protection before I saw this. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. It is far more rewarding to create articles, and/or edit articles about fish. Though not disruption free, fish don't argue about policy. I had no idea when I first began editing Griffin that there was such a raging battle between proponents of orthodox medicine and CAM. It's worse than politics because it involves both!! The experience has given me more fodder to add under My Lesson Highlights at my UP. What I'll probably end-up doing before it's over is simply adding a link to WP:CGTW, and be done with it. In the interim, I will continue to remain fixed to "strict adherence" at the BLP. Atsme☯^Consult 12:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc, your attention is needed at Griffin. Atsme☯^Consult 01:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your wise and patient words of advice. Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and a prosperous 2015 with a noticeably reduced amount of childish disruptions, except for those we look forward to from our kids and grandkids. Atsme☯^Consult 17:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Admin

Dear Admin,i have a question regarding something.Alhanuty (talk) 03:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Can't unless you tell me...? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Bonkers (TV series)

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 07:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) No edits for more than a month. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree, no need for protection to be extended. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

What is trolling?

Please familiarise yourself with meta:What is a troll?; particularly the section on "misuse of process". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not misuse of process as was discussed on the AE request, it was a good faith interpretation of the restriction as it is written. Your insistence on casting aspersions and the personal attack is concerning. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Poppycock. The editor concerned had already been advised that similar attempts to stiffle debate had been rejected at WP:AE; his case was full of false and dishonest claims, and the comment was on the edit, not the editor. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

(I am known for my seemingly unrelated comments.) On the Main page now Mit Fried und Freud, translating to "in peace and joy", - we could use a bit more of peace, for more joy. I tried to be short on the clarification page and didn't mention another bold edit to a project page of a project where the user is not a member. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I like the edit summary What is trolling?: peace and joy. :) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Kafka ("The article wasn't the first to connect arbitration results to Kafka.") comes to mind a lot, I agree ;) - (Actually: I don't know what a troll is, but can probably live without knowing.) - I usually look for the surroundings before repeating Precious, but not today ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

DS alert reverted as vandalism

Can you take a look at this? [6]. He left a sarcastic message at a blocked user's page who was clearly backing off from the actions that got him blocked [7]. Without commenting on the dispute or topic, I left FIM a notification with specific care not to turn it into this and I got a template in return [8]. I left another civil message to clarify [9] and I get the edit summary of "good bye editwarrior" and another sarcastic message with a clear WP:COMPETENCE issue in understanding the alert [10]. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I've left them a message, I strongly suggest that you steer clear of them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Had no plans to engage someone giving tit for tat replies rather than the matter raised (never known him before). Not going to respond to his recent... --lTopGunl (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Noegarciaa

Callan, I would have indeffed the account as a sock. Any reason why you didn't?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Didn't notice the other account, indef'd now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Good, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Penitent requests unblock

BerryTime (talk · contribs) is asking to be unblocked. Background at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Loganrobert96/Archive. He seems penitent, and has stayed away (he says) for five months, which is getting on towards the usual STANDARDOFFER. I am inclined to unblock, but you know the background better. JohnCD (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Page protection

It looks like there is persistent edit warring again since the merge, after the consensus here[11]. I think indefinite semi protection would be better at this situation. The edit warring IP, regardless of being Nangparbat's sock or not, is clearly disruptive. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Correction

Hey, would you mind fixing an error? This section of my evidence has a bare url in the second bullet point, but it belongs in the third bullet point at the beginning.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 09:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you for clearing the backlog at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage — xaosflux Talk 13:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Yet another sock

Hello there, Callanecc. Regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jajadelera, there's another sock around that created EuroLines. I've marked the article for speedy deletion, but not added the new sock JDSeriesNew1 (talk · contribs) to the sockpuppet investigation page because you already marked the current case as closed.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I've blocked the account and deleted the article. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

TY

"... they oppose by default" [12]. I did not know that. I would have guessed default would have been abstain, but if there's a pop-quiz later, now I'll know. :) — Ched :  ?  20:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that's the standard pretty much with all arbitration everything, a majority of all active (marked on main list of if they are inactive on that decision by choice) arbs is needed (hence if they don't vote it's the same as opposing). The only two exceptions are accepting a case and formally closing a case where either a majority or four more supports than opposes is needed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Off topic discussion, DP case

[13], obviously not relevant to the case. NE Ent 23:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree I think the question the IP asked passed the relevancy test and asking the IP that question passes the relevancy test. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Opinion needed here

Hi Callanec, since you were the closing admin in TopGuns ARE, I would like to request your feedback here: Talk:Jammu and Kashmir#Indicscripts. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

About what? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The policy as well as TopGun's decision to disregard it. -_Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the area of my ban and I had long clarified this with many uninvolved editors and admins (infact was uninvolved myself on this matter at that time). Now that I am being accused of starting this on my talkpage, 1) I was not the one who started the discussion, 2) I am in complete right to disregard a consensus that covers only the activities of a single wikiproject while applying it to topics that are covered by many, 3) Urdu is not an Indic script, it's Persio-Arabic 4) Since I am not even reverting and to avoid the same editors, I've not even responded on the talkpage since the AE close, it is block shopping to ask admin opinion on it. --lTopGunl (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I know it has nothing to do with your ban. I'm merely asking for opinion. I am fairly correct in assuming that I can ask for such an opinion. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Without more information about exactly what the issues you think there are (with evidence) there doesn't seem to be a lot to gain from my involvement, unless you feel that the issue and discussion could benefit from admin eyes? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Alright then in that case, I'll end this here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:14, 23 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)

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 Wikipedia 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)

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

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

Hello, Callanecc. You have new messages at User:Titusfox.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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☯^Consult 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☯^Consult 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 Wikipedia: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☯^Consult 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☯^Consult 14:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Jesus

You have linked to the workshop everywhere - not the main case page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 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 [14]. 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)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: American politics/Arzel: 1RR

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: American politics/Arzel: 1RR. Thanks. - MrX 17:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Callanecc!

Happy New Year!

Callanecc,
Have a prosperous, productive and wonderful New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Violation?

You both need to drop the stick and disengage. OccultZone - in the future if you believe there has been a violation please report it at WP:AE. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This revert is clear violation of topic ban? Inserting "India" while misrepresenting the source[15] 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.[16] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC) That's exactly why I made my comment to not go on with accusations at me at a discussion I have been pinged at since I can't discuss them (and haven't discussed the subject in that comment either - saying I can't discuss the subject and asking top stop involving me is quite opposite to OZ's report). This is clear cut baiting by accusing me and then reporting when I tell him to stop it. Given that instead of paying heed, he continues to do exactly that, if this doesn't call for a WP:BOOMERANG nothing would. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Now I will have to teach you the meaning of "accusation"? You have been convicted of misrepresenting sources by Arbitration Committee. Due to your incapability you still don't seem to be agreeing with all that. There was no need for you to respond or talk about this subject, I was just stating a fact about you just like Edjohnston was doing. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 1) It was not an ArbCom decision, rather an enforcement of its general decision (more falsification?), 2) there are no 'convictions' on wikipedia and this is not a court. Since I had refuted your accusations and do not wish to discuss them further (so as to avoid discussing the topic making a vio), you may not go on accusing me at every forum and involving my topic ban so that I may not reply to you while you freely accuse me. This is what baiting is called (even if you were right in saying what you said). Ed's comment is of a completely different wording and contains no accusation inspite of the ping. 3) I did not talk about the subject and you are clearly lying in your report and the diff shows it. I asked you to stop discussing me not the topic. And I guess now I'll have to ask Callanecc to block you since you don't want to and are even defending your baiting and further making personal attacks with accusations of incapability right here. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Your linked policy don't even mention the word "conviction" or "court", I am not surprised that you throw out policy links without even reading them, just like you do with the sources. You may keep telling yourself that you have refuted the obvious, but if you ever had, it had been observed by someone else except you. I never had your message where you asked me to stop talking about your topic ban. On Mr. Stradivarius's talk, you are talking about the subject since your discussion is about your editing history on that particular page and it is providing some kind of effect to the ongoing discussion about the subject that falls under your topic ban. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC) The policy is clear, we observe their spirit on wikipedia, not the letter. And my comment to you use very clear. To stop making accusations since I can't discuss. I especially took care not to get involved in whatever you were discussing in the thread and had no intention of getting involved; that is pretty obvious. Looks like you have no intention of stopping with throwing the accusations, blames and baiting inspite of the fact that I wont be discussing them. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Callanecc!

Happy New Year!

Callanecc,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year!

Callanecc,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

2015 already

Hi Callanecc. No frills - just a quiet ‘’all the best’’ to you for 2015 and I hope you’ll continue to be around on Wikipedia for a long time to come.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, and the same to you Kudpung. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:ARBIPA case log is still collecting notices

Hello Callanecc. Please see User talk:Laser brain#New logging system for DS notices (since 3 May 2014). It seems that 18 entries for DS notices have been added since 3 May 2014. Back in September, User:AGK did a notice cleanup for ARBPIA, saying 'NO FURTHER ALERTS SHOULD BE LOGGED HERE' but it seems that other cases may also need attention. Arbcom should have clearly written down 'don't log notices any more'. AGK's entry in ARBPIA is mostly in hidden text. Still, don't you agree that Arbcom's wishes are clear enough to justify trimming the ARBIPA notice log back to 3 May? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep, done. Plus if any of those notices were not using the automatically logged Ds/alert they don't count anyway. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for your edit at ARBIPA. It's still unclear why Arbcom would not have published the new advice more visibly. Maybe they want to avoid the trouble of a new motion? What would be the pros and cons of adding something to the visible text of WP:ARBIPA:

Note: New notices or alerts of discretionary sanctions should not be logged here. See Template:Ds/alert for the new notification system. To determine if an editor has been notified, search their user talk history for the tag 'discretionary sanctions alert'.

I'm responding to the modesty of only giving the advice in the hidden text of the case log. EdJohnston (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

There's already a notice (somewhat inconspicuous I guess) at the top of the notifications section in most cases which says they aren't to be logged anymore. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think this needs a tweak

Thanks for updating the OS/CU stats.[17] However, I think a tweak may be needed - probably changing the headers to match up the months? Since I didn't collect the information myself, I'm hesitant to make any changes. Well, that, and I hate editing tables... Risker (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't blame you, especially this table. I managed to miss the most obvious thing to update, but fixed now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Typo notification

Hi Callanecc,
Thanks for the notification. I have no intention to submit evidence, but I noticed that your messages started with "You recently recently offered a statement...". I'm not sure what template you use, but it would be a good idea to fix that. Regards, and happy new year! --Biblioworm 00:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

That was me, I had to change the template we normally use to include the box and missed that bit when I removed the template code. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban

Does this mean I cannot communicate with editors on that page with whom I have also worked on non-ISIL/ ISIl-related articles? How does this work? P-123 (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You can talk to everyone except GregKaye as long it isn't regarding ISIL. Have a look at the top points at WP:TBAN (and WP:IBAN), does that help? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

This was necessary and I applaud the decision. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

DigitalOcean

When I did the Google search, our article came up, and I looked at it and at their website before posting my last comment to the SPI. I'm afraid I still don't get it, but I didn't want to clutter up the SPI anymore with our discussion. Our website says it's a "cloud hosting provider". It never mentions that it provides web hosting (other than a cat). The same is true for their website. Clearly they do provide web hosting based on the IPs and the geolocate, but I still don't see it from looking at either our article or their website or any of the other hits on the Google search. Perhaps I'm just not experienced enough to connect all the dots.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a virtual private server (from page title on Google), offers cloud hosting. This bit is pretty much all I needed: "Deploy an 512MB RAM and 20GB SSD cloud server in 55 seconds for $5/month". This one uses more "modern" wording unlike others which say "web host". Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks and query relating to close of AN/I

Thanks for bringing the AN/I to a close. I realise that it contained a lot of content and, from comment by PBS, there is perhaps fair implication that some of it was unwarranted. Given this I would like to open up to any guidance that you may or may not see suitable to give.

In your closure you stated that: "GregKaye (talk · contribs) is warned that any further misconduct in the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant topic area will likely result in a topic ban." If either is easily performed I would appreciate either clarification of topic area or a review of this verdict.

I had privately broached matters re an edit privately on an editor's personal talk page. Other issues were raised and conducted away from the article. I responded to contents in two article talk page threads but had not raised contentions. I do not see misconduct. I have tried to argue strongly but fairly in all related forums while attempting to juggle all the issues involved. I collapsed a thread that I took to be a digression within the talk page thread but immediately contacted PBS to check whether this was justified and, with first notification of guidelines based objection, I reverted the collapse. From my perspective that is all and my thought, at this point, is to add a comment to this effect following the collapsed section of the AN/I.

I am also confused as to the guidelines that Wikipedia either does or doesn't enforce. Even though this is clearly my problem any help in showing what is what would be appreciated. GregKaye 06:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The main reason I included it was because not including anything (given that a TBAN) had some support would not have been appropriate. There isn't anything per se which I can give you as an explicit example (though I haven't looked in detail) but due to your interactions with P-123 and the comments made about them there is some misconduct (which is dealt with with the IBAN). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for closing it -- I would have done so today if other admin had. The ban needs to be recorded in Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant {rather than /as well as} at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions as that is where editors/admins will look for editor bans round and about the ISIL. -- PBS (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason I didn't is because it was imposed with the authority of the community (hence WP:CBAN) not under the general sanctions, I've added a note about the TBAN to GS/ISIL. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

IBAN violation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It seems to me that, as a general practice regarding administrator boards, there is little emphasis in helping editors understand the issues involved. Even in the most recent case both of the editors directly involved had requested clarity. Resolution was sought. PBS presented my concern regarding putting things on ice. PBS then made ambiguous statement that only one of the five issues was valid without presentation as to why other issues weren't valid and why and to what extent the other issue was valid. One editor, who has previously cut into private discussion between me and the other editor in the dispute at a crucial point as we tried to resolve our differences, requested closure. This was seconded by an IP. Closure was given prior to PBS's promised explanation and nothing was, within the AN/I, resolved. No other editor was permitted to comment, one way or the other, on PBS's unilateral and belated verdict. I would have had no clue but PBS had considered the editing of other editor's edits as being the issue deemed as of relevance. Proceedings were closed before this was addressed. P-123 (sorry but I am taking your lead of mention of the editor's name here) had reacted as anyone who may have known this editor could have predicted would happen. The AN/I had been closed before promised clarification was given and any form of resolution was achieved. P-123 requested clarification of reasoning at User talk:PBS#AN/I at one second into the last minute of New Year's Day. P-123 then deleted a post by another editor at 8.. the next morning. PBS then gave explanation of the offence of editing edits on P-123's talk page and then issued a 48 hour block on editing of Wikipedia. The AN/I was put forward so as to give direction on guidelines based behaviours. Editor's have not typically made comment as to the validity of non enforced areas of the guidelines and my impression is that sanction is pretty much given for editors to ignore the related content. Then, on the one issue that was deemed to be enforceable, the editor was left in a position in which a further infringement was likely but was not told that this was the thing that was enforcible before the closing of the incident report. On the above I really don't know what the right thing to do would have been. My previous/historic attempts a raising issues subtly with this editor have not worked. The AN/I was, as I see it, an opportunity to give positive directional input. I don't think that this opportunity has been fully taken. GregKaye 14:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Callanecc, I hope that no offence was taken by the above. Looking back there are certainly better ways in which I could have directed and conducted my side of things. I also have to take on board the views of editors regarding failings of my later presentations as well. I appreciate that there were opposing requests presented in proceedings. I am also thankful for your leniency with me. I appreciate that there are things that I could have done better throughout. I considered the above position worth presenting as, from my perspective, a one time (preluded) breaking of the consensus ban. It is not something I plan to do again. Thanks again and, if it's not to late, happy new year. GregKaye 15:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Your advice for when compromise is not an option...

Callan - I think the rough consensus had changed to accept the pejorative terminology as opinion rather than statement of fact. Unfortunately, it appears Srich's very generous offer to compromise has been rejected. I also received a couple of mild threats on my TP which I quickly moved to my archives. I do not wish to take any action against that behavior, because my warnings seem to have been effectual but I do find it very disconcerting considering the minor changes necessary for policy compliance. Editors who have far more experience editing BLPs have weighed in and agree that statement of fact labeling of Griffin is a violation of policy. In light of the resistance we are still getting from a few editors despite offers of compromise, and considering the sanctions in place, I think it is time to move the article to a high level of DR where neutral eyes who are familiar with BLPs can settle the issue once and for all. Please help me with regards to the proper steps to take. Atsme☯^Consult 14:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:DR. I'd suggest BLP/N (if not done already) one RfC at a time about one issue at a time, or formal mediation. There comes a point when you need to drop the stick and accept that consensus is against you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Callanecc (talk • contribs) 06:55, 3 January 2015‎ (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I was considering asking an admin to act under discretionary sanctions relating to pseudoscience on the Griffin page, so I thought I'd ask the one who recently issued everybody with the warnings. Guess who I was going to ask for sanctions against, for disruptive editing and tendentious editing? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I've been considering the same thing, but this type of thing is usually better at WP:AE where the case can be made much more clearly. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Callanecc - rough consensus is with, not against me, but thank you for the DR information, and your wise advice. Following are the editors who agree the lede needs to be changed:

• Carrite - agrees it conflicts with NPOV and violates BLP policy, (he has edited over 500 biographies, which I felt was important to note);
• Srich32977 - agrees;
• Atsme - agrees;
• TheSwitzerdude - agrees that "it does NOT belong in the lead paragraph or in the infobox."
• Cullen - agrees that "Conspiracy theorist is not a job title."
• Pekay2 - agrees "The contentious label "conspiracy theorist" in this BLP can not be used as a statement of fact"
• (uncertain about sources used): Arthur Rubin - his uncertainty confirms the statement of fact argument;

Thank you for the time you've invested. It was never my intention to create more work for you, only to get the article right so it can be improved and expanded as a DYK, and potential GA. Atsme☯^Consult 04:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Jqadri

Thanks for blocking Jqadri.

However it's more than just edit warring. It is BLP violations and making legal threats. I doubt this editor will stop once the block is lifted, so an indef might be more appropriate. Thanks. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I saw it on ANI as well, I'd rather wait the three days and see what happens, mostly likely they'll either move on or they'll create a sock. If they end up doing to same thing it's a quick trip to indef. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Your "clerk" action

The person who advocated for a party to be banned subsequently imposed sanctions against that party, and then submitted evidence against the party they sanctioned with opinions about the sanction they imposed in the very same comment without intervention from you. If after seeing my comment which pointed this out you had hatted the discussion, that would be one thing, but you collapsed my comment alone. Unless an arbitrator specifically directed you to collapse my comment alone, please remove the collapse box. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The two comments above yours were alerting the Committee to events which had happened (in Ryulong's case possibly preventing him from contributing to the case) and which the Committee needed to know about. Your comment was your opinion which you had already placed at ANI, the post was for the Committee's information about the sanction and a link to the appeal not a running commentary, which doesn't help the Committee arriving at a final decision (if for not other reason than they already have a link to the discussion). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The edit notice asks for a post containing a short and neutral summary. In contrast, the "post" expresses a clear POV opinion about the severity and merits of the sanction "(in my opinion mild)" - and reads as evidence, rather than information, given that he had also sought a ban against the sanctioned user. This establishes one of two things - the community is being misled by the committee as a consequence of the edit notice, or the issue was for whatever reason overlooked by you (which is what my comment avoided bringing attention to). But if you've made your choice for the committee, that has determined mine also. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I was hoping that I wouldn't need to archive top and bottom it as it would stop where it was. However once you made your comment I was no longer able to leave it, only reason it isn't all hatted is because the outcome of the appeal (depending on when it's closed) might need to be added there so it's useful to have context. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to let the record reflect that I came here in respect of your collapsing, not your archiving. I would have thought that the link to the appeal is sufficient to inform them of the outcome, if it is sufficient to inform them of the parts in which I am addressing them, both directly and indirectly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

True, however a brief message the result of the appeal is helpful in closing the issue. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

AE case

The Steeletrap case also refers to BLP discretionary sanctions. It is not solely about topic ban violations.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Right I hope I'm doing this right and hello! [Aha]

Greetings. I just had an email from you about setting up an account where you gave me the go ahead and here I am! I am however really quite scared that I'll be labelled as a sockpuppet so could you write on my user page that I am in fact no such thing (Because you are obviously an administrator). I cannot be bothered for a pointless and unfounded witchhunt. EverCriticised (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Closing clean-up

Hi, I noticed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark_Worldwide still has the "This case is currently open" box. I might have removed it myself, but I don't know if the watch-all links should also be removed, as in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity_of_Jesus. Manul ~ talk 20:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

With your blessing?

Hi Callanecc. On this user page your name is taken in vain. It's obviously the serial sock-puppeteer LouisPhilippeCharles (talk · contribs), so I'm curious to know if you have really encouraged him to return. Favonian (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Favonian: They appealed on UTRS with an not blocked IP so I said that they should be able to create the account themselves. They either didn't mention or I didn't notice if they did say that they were LouisPhilippeCharles. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

This user has always economized with the truth. May I block his latest sock and bulk-revert his usual contributions, or does the UTRS process somehow prevent that? Favonian (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Go for, it's just another avenue for appeal to admins. Given that they're coming back around every six months, could it be a misinterpretation of the standard offer? Maybe worth getting them to read it but with 12 months away (and preferably on another project), up to you? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• For reference, it is UTRS appeal #12750. He mentions being blocked by Favonian (in particularly impolite terms) but doesn't mention any account name, and the IP used to filed the appealed was indeed not blocked, so the best we could do (without CU) was to reply "this IP does not seem to be blocked and you should be able to create an account", which is technically correct. He seems to have taken that as a blessing for renewed socking. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oh, he's been informed about the standard offer more than once, but has always chosen to seek alternative paths back. Thanks for your speedy reply. I shall do what needs doing and retire for the night. Favonian (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Appeal of RFPP decline for Douchebag. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI: Please see closing admin's comments. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Given that the last confirmed sock/vandal to edit it was 2012 I can't see a justification for full protection but it's not worth the effort with Hasteur acting the way they are and mostly getting away with it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Especially so given that it was the opinion of four admins (including protecting admin when it was protected) that full isn't needed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason it's not been vandalised much since 2012 is because it's been FP most of the time. Any time the protection wore off for just a few hours the vandals were back. What do you expect with a page with a name like that? I'm happy to take full responsibility for protecting it. However, I do not, and never did, condone Hasteur's agressive manner of communication with other editors. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a reason for an indef semi until there are confirmed accounts editing it and blocking can't deal with it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

With Douchebag it's not a question of GF and running another SP experiment, it's a question of applying what has already been empirically established for years and giving all of us a rest. It's a classic example of how IAR works best - although there are no hard and fast guidelines at all for situations like these. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Why isn't it time to experiment with SP? The full protection is based on edits from 2-2.5 years ago. If it had been full protected since then it would be difficult to argue that semi protection shouldn't be tried out. Overriding another admin's action to impose full protection is excessive when considering the following from the protection policy: Brief periods of full protection are used in rare cases when a large number of autoconfirmed accounts are used to make a sustained vandalism attack on an article (emphasis mine). This isn't brief, there may have been a large number of accounts in 2012 but there aren't now, and you can't say it's sustained if the last time it happened was 2012. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

C'mon Cal, you're an admin too, don't Wikilawyer with me of all people - I know WP:NO-PREEMPT inside out and backwards too. If you don't like the FP change it back to SP, nobody will argue with you (except perhaps Hasteur) although there are also plenty of admns who agree with the FP. I won't wheelwar with you, after all it's only a DAB page and it might be interesting to see what happens, but ask yourself why there haven't even been any serious edit requests for nearly two-and-a-half years either? I've had that DAB on my wl for years and if Hasteur hadn't gotten involved in it there wouldn't have been an ANI, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and the rest would be between me and Joe. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

(tps) What about semi + PC2? It's technically against policy, but then so is indef full prot and we've all been around the block enough times to know that policy doesn't cover every possible scenario. I'd say it's worth a try, though this all seems like a lot of fuss over a dab page. Couldn't we just have a full protected redirect and hatnotes on douche? Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It is quite a bit of fuss over a dab page, and it's probably worth just leaving it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Not much I can add to that, but AFAIC, I really don't have a problem with full indef or full multiyear, and that if I'd realized how busy off-wiki I was going to be the last few weeks I probably would have. I don't feel preempted, I was absent, and y'all were ALL doing the best you could by the encyclopedia. As it should be. I probably wouldn't SP+PC2 because I've been assuming that the issue is mostly Edison,revert,Edison,revert,Edison,revert disruption, and who wants that in the article history. I recommend leaving it as is, and allowing me to buy any/all of you a beer the next time we're in the same part of the world. Cheers, --j⚛e decker^talk 05:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	It works. Thanks again. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Query.

User A takes actions that are problematic. User B takes actions that are (identically) problematic. Directly linking the two would require presenting evidence that falls foul of the outing policy. Which of the following is the best option?

Option 1: List evidence of User's A & B separately on evidence page but not directly linking the two and email Arbcom privately with the evidence (that violates outing) indicating they are the same person.

Option 2: Only list evidence of User B, despite the fairly conclusive evidence as per above.

Option 3: Submit everything privately - while offering maximum protection against outing, equally offers minimal amount of transparancy.

Regards. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Does it relate to an arbitration case or sockpuppetry in general? Generally it would be better to submit it all privately and ask the body you send it to whether they would also like you submit bits of it publicly. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case, if it was sockpuppetry I would just post it all at SPI and let someone else worry about what parts need to be redacted. Thanks for clarification Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

If you've got private evidence which is related to sockpuppetry you need to sent to the functionaries as outing is outing. No worries. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Charlie Crist

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 05:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Only 4 edits in last 30 days. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

And mostly constructive ones at that. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 10:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Igor Radusinovic

During the AfD run, the article was moved Igor Radusinovic→Igor Radusinović. You closed as delete but only deleted the article mentioned in the nom--just the redirect to the moved article. I deleted the actual article. DMacks (talk) 07:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Callanecc. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Supersaiyen312 (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

BLP Question

Given that Silver source is an op-ed and makes an accusation against living persons, why do we not remove such sources when they are little more than attack pieces? WP:IRS and WP:BLP strongly advise against using poor sources about living persons. An accusation against living persons should require more than an op-ed piece to include mere "opinion" of wrongdoing. I hope I am not crossing a line here - but op-ed pieces are clearly not the high-quality reliable sources required and I question whether they should be used at all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

As there is disagreement the only reason I could remove the source and content is if I thought there was a serious enough BLP violation in having it in the article to override the discussion, which I don't. The content which was requested be removed doesn't make an accusation about a living person it makes a comment that there may have been a COI due to the circumstances, not the people involved. So I'm not concerned enough about a BLP issue to remove the content and source on that basis, so I need a consensus to do so especially given that there is disagreement. Having said that I agree that a better source would be better. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand and agree. It should be inherently obvious that opinion pieces are not ideal to use, but the conclusion of an improper source is not always a BLP violation of significant concern. Unless I am mistaken by WP:IRS, we should avoid poor quality sources in general and opinion pieces can provide an improper weight. While I am more strict on the source because it accuses the prosecutors of manipulation and letting police officers get away with with murder - which is degraded to killing civilians in the conclusion. The New York Times piece is much better, but strictness in stance probably wasn't helping resolve the situation. Oh well, thanks for the reality check. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm probably a lot more careful about having consensus before editing fully protected pages due to edit war given my experiences. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Can I invite you to help me judge this matter on cryptocurrency?

I recently removed Blackcoin from the cryptocurrency page , and another user(:Greenman) quickly came and undo my editing. Claiming he has 'more experience'. However, his edits lacks credit, and I look further into the matter, I realize he was the same person that previously tried to 'stop Blackcoin's page from deletion', he claims his sources on the blackcoin page are legit as they are from 'Reuters' and 'wall street journal'. However the Reuters one was a press release forward, and the wall street journal release was a blog page. (I have also stated so in the blackcoin talk page now.), Excuse me if I say so, but this looks like a 'clear attempt' to mislead, especially if said user claims to have years of editing experience. This same user also previously tried to added Blackcoin to cryptocurrency and ignored other users asking him to wait, and he just added it anyway. (he cited as blackcoin page valid, he can add blackcoin to the table, but as my above discoveries just shows blackcoin references are all blogs). For my discoveries on blackcoin reference, I am trying to discuss on BlackCoin page, if you have time, I will like you to take a look too. I hope inviting others to take a look as a 3rd party judge is the right thing to do here. Feel free to let me know if you feel I am not doing this right. Thank you. WinterstormRage (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

As I am requesting a 3rd party help, in this case "you", user:Greenman is now adding coins like 'titcoin' back into the cryptocurrency template, every single edit he has adds back his BlackCoin, and he appears to be camouflaging his behaviour. I went to see if he is discussing anything in BlackCoin, and he removed my deletion proposal template without discussion, claiming his credits will do. I am not sure should I report this user, or just let him sabotage the page, as I really don't have time to deal with him. Can I have any advice? and he clearly just violated 3RR too... WinterstormRage (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Greenman didn't edit the articles for deletion page. I suggest that you start a section at Talk:Cryptocurrency about why (with sources) you don't believe that BlackCoin should be on the Cryptocurrency page. However it looks to me like any type of Cryptocurrency which has a Wikipedia article can (and likely should) be mentioned, so you would need to nominate BlackCoin and any other you don't believe are notable enough to be on the page for deletion (see WP:AFD). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Mike Brown photo - BLP issues

I noticed that you collapsed the discussion of the photo to be used for Mike Brown on BLP grounds. Can you please explain the BLP violation you perceive? Dyrnych (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Referring to people as pounds of flesh is the big one, but I've added incivility and personal attacks (hence the two sanctions). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I asked because an editor was arguing that one of the photos of Mike Brown is a BLP violation with respect to Darren Wilson, an argument that I find extremely unpersuasive. Just wanted to make sure that that wasn't the purported BLP violation that you were concerned with. Thanks! Dyrnych (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is it was my "you must be smoking" statement and FCAYS reply that "I must be drunk". I think neither one is an attack and are fairly common ways of saying "what are you talking about". See also "Step away from the crack pipe" etc. As I stated on my talkpage, I do appeal the warning as I did not attack FCAYS nor do I think he attacked me back with his reply. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

thank you for reconsidering your warning. One clarification from your statement above, FCAYS did not refer to Brown as "pounds of flesh" but "pounds of threat". I disagree with FCAYS's evaluation of the photos, and with his interpretation of consensus/blp, but if there were truly 100 pounds difference visible that would be an issue which would be relevant to the selection of photos (although a NPOV one rather than a BLP one imo). In that context discussing the weight difference perceived between photos and what impact that may have had on the incident does not seem to be a BLP issue (although it could have been worded better). Gaijin42 (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The BLP issue came in how it was being worded, not in what was being discussed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked IP

With reference to the IP I wrote to you about, I have just discovered this, so please forget my request. My apologies for wasting your time. ~ P-123 (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@P-123: No problem at. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Block of Spud770

Could you elaborate on what led you to block Spud770 as a sock? This is an account that has been editing for more than 5 years, with a clean block record. All Rows4 (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I've replied on their talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

CVUA Application

Hi there Callanecc! I'm a Twinkle-using recent changes patroller, and am interested in entering the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy. I'm more or less in your time zone (1 hour ahead), so there shouldn't be much trouble on that front. Thanks! --The one that forgot (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cadillac000, you're probably best to ask one of the other trainers listed, I just don't have the time at the moment sorry. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I've applied under a different user. Thanks for your consideration. --The one that forgot (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Brian Evans

I'd reccomend a loinger protection peroid if you look at the article it has a history of sockpuppetry and selkf promotionalism. the other stuff is new but it needs protected for a while longer then a day by my mind. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd already set it to one year, let's see what happens then. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

O crap i saw 2015 lol thanks. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Spoofing

A brand new user who just managed to stumble into one of my topic areas is spoofing my user page, again. Could you take a look?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

What's the new user's username? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

MetalMan2015—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh I hadn't even realized you were a check user. I did make up a case because of similar actions by someone else but I don't know if it's related beyond the tactics to copy me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Given you don't know it's a sock the 3RR vio on Dominion (manga) and Dominion: Tank Police is pushing it. Given that and since I'm clerking the GamerGate case it's probably best if you ask someone else to handle it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The creation was similar and the dominion stuff is trying to revert a cut paste move because he wouldn't let it stand without his changes. He has just sent my user page to MFD after I tagged his user page for deletion. I only messaged you because I saw you on my watch list by chance. Unless it is proven that the sockpuppetry exists, this has nothing to do with the GamerGate case, so why would the case be a factor?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Because I'd need to decide whether your belief that is was a sock justifies the 3RR vio and removal of MfD template. Then whether it's a sock or not and how much that affects the previous sentence. Both of those two together mean that it wouldn't be difficult to suggest that I couldn't be as impartial in the case (we, clerks, generally try to avoid having to decide whether to block parties for behaviour not on case pages). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Cavefish777

Emailed you. Dougweller (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I see you're busy, ignore this, I've got MaterialScientist looking at it. Thanks, sorry to bother you. Dougweller (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a bit too complex for me at the moment, I've sent you a couple replies anyway. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. They went to Gmail's spam filter, I've retrieved them and copied to DQ. Dougweller (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Licensing

As an administrator, I was wandering if you could answer the question I have: if Wikipedia is a non-commercial website, does that mean that when a licencing says "you may use this for your own, non-commercial use", does that mean that it can be uploaded and used on Wikipedia? Andreas11213 (talk) 07:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that although Wikipedia is non-commercial, material on Wikipedia needs to be able to used by others for any reason or purpose (including for commercial use). So you can't use material that is licensed for non-commercial use only, except under a claim of fair use. Having said that, the intricacies of licensing isn't my area at all, Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs) might be able to confirm whether that's the case or dissuade me of my incorrect belief. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Callanecc is exactly right. :) If it's licensed for non-commercial use only, we must treat it as any other copyright reserved content and use it only in accordance with WP:NFC. WP:COMPLIC talks a little bit about this. This was a decision made by the community years ago as part of its dedication to free culture, so that as few restrictions as possible would be made on how others use our material. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Oliver Sykes

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi and PC. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawing request for an I-ban modification

Callanecc, please close Amendment request: Ebionites 3 as withdrawn. Ignocrates (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Adding a 6 month PC given the longer term nature of this - meaning?

Good morning,

I was wondering if you could clarify what this means? "Adding a 6 month PC given the longer term nature of this" I'm new to Wikipedia. :)

Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMachadoKim (talk • contribs) 18:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi JMachadoKim I need some more information, could you let me know which page I was talking about, and even better where I said that? Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, it was the Curtis Lepore page. If you could provide me with some clarification on what that means, that would be so appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMachadoKim (talk • contribs) 21:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) JMachadoKim WP:PENDing Changes (PC) is a setting that restricts anonymous and new users from editing a page, to reduce vandalism. Those users are allowed to make edits to the page, but those edits are not visible to readers unless approved. This is less restrictive than WP:SEMI or WP:FULL protection where such edits would not be allowed at all. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Articles related to Roman Catholicism and/or homosexuality

Due to your involvement in Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism article, I invite you to an arbitration request discussion. Please write your statements in your own section, and reply to other people's statements in your own section. --George Ho (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Kafkasmurat appears to be violating AE ban

Kafkasmurat is under an AE for WP:AA2. Part of his ban states: "if any uninvolved administrator believes Kafkasmurat makes a personal attacks they may block Kafkasmurat pursuant to the standardized enforcement provision." In the past 24 hours, the user has been making several personal attacks towards various users:

• You can express your hatred in related articles but Turkey is irrelevant.
• When the user of whom the personal attacks were addressed to removed it under (Personal attack removed), Kafkasmurat edit-warred (which he is also not allowed to do under his topic ban) to have the accusation reinstated ([18])
• And stop childish swearing.
• You're offensive Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Dr.K. called me "stupid" and i told him to stop swearing. I'm not attacking anybody. I intended to say hate speech. "You" meant "anyone" there, as User:Dr.K wasn't saying it in the article--Kafkasmurat (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I never called this user stupid. He started edit-warring on my talk leaving clueless accusations of COI and other assorted personal attacks after I challenged his attempt at whitewashing the mention of the Armenian Genocide from the article on Turkey. After his onslaught on my talkpage, I told him to leave his stupid accusations out of Wikipedia, which is simply a fair representation of what they are. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

This is not true. Dr.K. started with laugh off my ideas. He made up a personal attack, that i was intending to say "anybody" as he's not involved in the article, and started threatening me. I couldn't revert him anymore, so i reported him and informed at talk page. He even reverted this too. He started, reverted 9 times and patronized me. Calling me stupid is one another debate. --Kafkasmurat (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

They've been blocked by another admin, when I've got some time I'll have a look in detail and consider whether this rises to the level of a topic ban (as suggested in the AE sanction). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I think what I might do is leave it without the topic ban and just stay with the personal attack parole, if they make personal attacks please report to me or AE, and include a link to the sanction template I left on their talk page (so other admins know about it). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Sphinx

Extend PC time? The protecting administrator is inactive at this point. --George Ho (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/597

Been many months since it's had any hits. Okay to disable? — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

When 2 DS are involved

1. If there are two DS applicable to one article, does one take precedence over the other? Example - A PS-Fringe DS vs a BLP DS.
2. If an editor has violated both how is that handled?
3. If an AE has already been initiated against an editor, can a separate AE be initiated against that same editor for the same reasons but involving a different incident? Atsme☯^Consult 04:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Re:

1. No, it's whether the enforcing admin decides to use or the one best fitted to the situation.
2. The list both or pick the most applicable one.
3. Just add a statement with your additional evidence, noting that it is for the same reasons but more evidence.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Your help is appreciated

Hi, Callanecc. Would you please help me reformat an SPI case which ended up in a wrong please? On 9 August 2014 you blocked Wikirun 20 (talk · contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite for being the sock-puppet of COD T 3 (talk · contribs), who was blocked as the sockmaster on 6 August 2014 by Tiptoety. The list of socks of COD T 3 includes new accounts not dealt with and engaging in edit-wars, personal harassment and blatant vandalism more recently. The situation is out of control due to temporary delay regarding the outcome of the Sockpuppet investigation which I filed under the wrong name. My mistake was the result of deceptive tactics by new account E-960 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who is now under investigation. I was tricked by him into believing that he is connected to WKS Śląsk Wrocław (talk · contribs · logs) and therefore I filed an SPI case under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WKS Śląsk Wrocław, but shortly thereafter I found evidence of mass disruption by E-960 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) which led me back to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/COD T 3. I would like to move my report from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WKS Śląsk Wrocław#06 January 2015 to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/COD T 3#January 2015 where it belongs. Your time and help is greatly appreciated. Poeticbent talk 21:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Poeticbent thanks for submitting the investigation, we generally usually leave them where especially if a page history already exists so that we don't have impossible to follow log entries to deal with. Best thing to do is to continue presenting evidence where at the current location and we can go from there. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Tban expiration?

Hi Callanecc, I just wanted to confirm that per this ArbCom ruling that my 6 month Topic Ban has expired. Lightbreather has gone forward at started in on the Gun show loophole controversy[19] article. I just want to double check before I make similar edits. Best regards and a belated Happy New Year, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep it's has expired, but you need to be careful in the future as if similar behaviour occurs again the TBAN will likely be indefinite. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I like to think I've learned my lesson. If nothing else, I'm much more knowledgeable and experienced in the ways of the site and the Wikipedia community at this point. Best regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 08:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I have decided

To never ever be an admin here. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 14:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Why's that? Feel free to email if you'd prefer. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No no, no need to email or anything like that. I can't remember what led me to this page in this instance, but I had just read the thread above this, and needed to comment. This was my response to how I felt about Admins having to deal with stuff on behalf of us users ! -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 14:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Zeitgeist (film series) controversy

Hi Callanecc,

Thank you for temporarily protecting the Zeitgeist (film series) page, however, it doesn't look like anyone's behavior has changed or will change, and I don't know what to do about it. The main issue is WP:Disruptive Editing. One user is in his third ANI, but it's not looking good that he'll be topic banned. And even if he is topic banned, he is only part of the problem. In a Request for Comments most editors seem to be openly negatively biased against this topic. The WP:DISRUPTSIGNS of tendentious editing, not engaging in consensus building, and campaigning to drive away productive contributors has no end in sight. Here you can see two editors essentially admit they don't care about building an encyclopedia.

While I am continuously pushing to maintain and encourage civility and neutrality, I only succeed in getting my edits reverted based on accusations of sock puppetry, accused on talk pages of POV-pushing, ban evading, and sock/meat puppetry, and I get stonewalled in my attempts at consensus building. I've even had someone strikeout all my comments and then submit me to SPI. All of this based on ZERO evidence. EVERYTHING I've done has been about neutrality and trying to improve the quality of this article to help build a better encyclopedia.

How am I supposed to respond to these insane disruptive editors? I've been researching wikipedia policies, and I don't think there are guidelines for dealing with a group of crazy disruptive people.—68.7.95.95 (talk) 11:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC), edited 68.7.95.95 (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Well not calling them insane or crazy is a good start. I'll keep an eye on the article and talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You're right. I apologize, and I've corrected myself. I do not use such words when communicating with these editors and I should not have done so now. I appreciate your attention.—68.7.95.95 (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 2, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Courcelles 09:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Indefinite Semi-protection

Hi,

Could you please indefinitely semi-protect Delhi article because it has been vandalized by numerous IPs and its very difficult to monitor.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 13:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

There isn't enough activity to warrant semi protection, but I have put a temporary pending changes protection on it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thats fine with "pending changes protection" tag, but, it would be better if you put it indefinitely rather than temporarily. Its the national capital of India, any small changes would be very difficult to monitor. I would still urge you to put indefinite tag. Thanks--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 14:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I do agree regarding small changes, however the amount of small editing actually surprised me, I was expecting a lot more. I imagine it will pretty quickly work its way to indefinite, but there just isn't enough of a history of a protection or bad edits to justify it (in my mind) at the moment. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright, as you wish. Thanks--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 04:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Question about gun control arbitration

Hello! I'm not an expert on how arbitration works, but I thought that it was not the general practice to remove sanction information. I was under the impression that if sanctions were changed, that information was added to the page, and if sanctions expired, they were left on the page, as a record of past events. But you've removed information about sanctions, some expired and some indefinite, here. Why is that? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 06:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee, established a central log for discretionary sanctions, so I was moving them to there. See WP:ACN#Central log for discretionary sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 13:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Make more redirects or shortcuts for the DS log?

How about some more redirects to go to the log? Not everyone may know how to capitalize 'Arbitration Committee', 'Discretionary sanctions' or 'Log'. The first link in the list below is a working link. At the moment the others are red links:

• WP:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log
• WP:Arbitration committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log
• WP:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary Sanctions/Log
• Wikipedia:Arbitration committee/Discretionary sanctions/log
• WP:AC/DS/Log
• WP:AC/DS/log

What do you think? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Redirects are cheap, so we should probably create as many shortcuts are people find useful. I create redirects from shortcuts all the time, even if I'm the only one using them, out of convenience. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done, feel free to that sort of stuff yourself :). I've also created a shortcut to each year as well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• I noticed that Discretionary sanctions Log includes obsolete sanctions (those vacated, striked through or lifted). Should not they be simply excluded from the list? I believe that some of them were even issued by mistake. My very best wishes (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The idea of the log was to centralise the records, not including some indicates that they are less than the others. The local case logs have all been moved so not including them would be removing them from the log (which isn't supposed to happen). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I assume that moving to a central log is only a clerical step, at least up to this point. It is a different way of keeping the same records. EdJohnston (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes exactly. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. OK, I can see that the purpose of logs is to simply keep all records, even the obsolete ones. And we do have separate lists of all currently active sanctions... My very best wishes (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hiding of my comments on GamerGate proposed decision

Hi, I noticed that you hid my my statement on Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Proposed_decision. I think my wording may not have been as clear as I had hoped. While some of my comments were more general, I was talking about specific arbitrators, specific actions, and specific decisions, all related to the case and proposed decision that I was making a comment on. I would appreciate it if you would unhide my statement, or failing that, allow me to edit it to make the relevance to the proposed decision more clear. Thanks! SodaAnt ^Talk 16:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The first clause was "My comments are not directly related to the decision itself" which tells me that your comment wasn't relevant to the proposed decision as currently written, especially given that your comments are more closely related to the section of the arbitration policy I linked. Feel free to edit your comments to make them directly relevant to the proposed decision as written. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

AHS: Freak Show page

Hi. I'm here to ask you if you could allow me to edit the page American Horror Story: Freak Show. I'm probably the only user who is contributing to the "Awards and Nominations" section. Yesterday the full list of the Dorian Awards winners was released and no one seems to care enough to update the page.

Sorry, full protection means admins only. You can make edit requests on the talk page and an admin will make the edits necessary once they see them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Continued edit warring

Hey Callanecc, the editors you warned about edit warring over at American Horror Story: Freak Show have resumed their edit warring. One even removed your warning from their talk page. Are you able to issue the blocks and save me from having to write up an entire spiel over at the 3RR noticeboard? Gloss 22:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You seem like a busy man! I'll find time :) Gloss 04:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why you're being so rude. I don't like looking like a fool when I get completely ignored on someone's talk page, hence the removal. No worries, I'll gladly leave this here if it means so much to you. Gloss 05:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding, I have been very busy. And I didn't completely ignore it, I have protected the page. I would have blocked, but by the time I saw it there were more editors involved. The reason I was watching the article is because of your message so I'd rather keep it here in case I want to work out why I was following the article in the future. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)