User talk:Callanecc: Difference between revisions

Callanecc is busy and may not respond swiftly to queries.

User talk:Callanecc/Header

You missed this comment by an SPA.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Why? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm going to raise this again. Why aren't the pages semi-protected?

First unhelpful/disruptive one on the PD talk and I'll semi it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply] 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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You have linked to the workshop everywhere - not the main case page.

Fixed, thank you! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You can use

WP:1RR, the Arbitration Committee has worded differently and more restrictively. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

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)Template:Z48[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

Hello Callanecc. Please see

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for updating the OS/CU stats.[4] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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! --

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You can talk to everyone except GregKaye as long it isn't regarding ISIL. Have a look at the top points at

WP:IBAN), does that help? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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.

Kaye 14:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]