User talk:Callanecc/Archive 16

this is beyond ridiculous
See here please and note the section following, which the hostile POV editor who has changed a mediation discussion into a 'Get Skookum1' witchhunt-vote call redacted and called, in true NPA style typical of him, a "rant"; he claims I'm harrassing him, which is just pot-kettle-black as his whole role there is harrassing me. And note also my comment about the bugbear claims about WP:V which have gone on too long and provoked my increasing frustration with that editor, who has done nothing with that article or the sources I've provided there while the last weeks of board-warring has gone on; see my own work in the meantime here, in the last few sections and here, again in recent sections and of course my usercontributions. I get accused of "walls of text" and worse while he does far more than I ever have, and has bludgeoned merge discussions e.g. see Talk:Indo-Canadians and note my comment about that on Talk:Indo-Canadians in British Columbia and note that that article was POV fork created by him to prevent me from moving Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver to and that there is so much overlap between the two that any separation of them is original research based on his own biases and an OWN bhaviour about "ethnicity-by-city titles"....so much more to say and so much more than Moonriddengirl has seen fit to investigate while claiming that calling him "ill-informed" is an NPA, even though his whole drift in all his board warring has been AGF/NPA against me, as if I were a liar or hoaxer; and he is ill-informed and seems to want to stay that way. One thing that's not going on is good faith, and NPA as usual is being used as a weapon in ANI, including gross exaggerations like Arthur Rubin's just now.

I know you're a busy man, but pinged you and brought this here as blocking me from Wikipedia serves no purpose at all other than to vindicate the POV axe-grinders whose own behaviour needs looking into; and Legacypac is, to me, a propagandist and troll of the first order, and now acting as nothing more than a trouble-maker....and should not have started teh vote call at all; and was supposed to not confront and disengage from me per the previous ANI closed "no result" by User:Wifione, which is linked in the redacted/moved section.

How many guidelines are being broken all at once by this witchhunt and WMT's ongoing board-warring? Too many. and they're often stated as if they were "policies" when they're not. It's very disturbing to me that he has admin status, but a case in point of what's wrong with the adminship system. That I'm being nailed to the cross for having to confront outrageous POV/OWN and WoT behaviour by another editor is typical of my experience with ANI; to be blocked from the history of my own province because of someone intent on censoring it from outside the country is just so wrong and also so wrong is the strange tolerance for non-sequitur and anti-guidelines behaviour by people with very clearly partisan/biased agendas/behaviour.

I think and am asking that that vote-call and ANI be shut down as unproductive, unconstructive and also out of order; and that WhisperToMe's false claims and assertions about what WP:V "requires" needs to be told off, and then some. He's intent on maintaining the narrative his preferred sources mandate, flawed vs facts and other sources as they are, by trying to find grounds to even delete talkpage mentions of sources he's never looked at, doesn't want to, and which contain issues and events that should be in the article; but to him it's "his" article and I'm just some angry old white guy whose personal knowledge of sources and history doesn't matter squat. Is he improving the article and open to collaboration? No and that's the the problem that led to the ANI-cum-witchhunt. That he actually went and researched hostile editors and pinged/recruited them is another case in point of ANI's contrarian nature/environment.Skookum1 (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Well a few points for you, some things for you to consider which hopefully might help:
 * That is a wall of text, instead of writing all of that and at the same time complaining about walls of text. Instead could you have just pointed me to the ANI section?
 * One of the things you've been 'accused' of is being combative, being objective as you can I suggest you look at your own edits, just on ANI and here and let me know if you think you have been.
 * What edit of Arthur Rubin's are you referring to? I can't see anything I'd call a "gross exaggerations"
 * I also can't find many personal attacks in the section, and definitely from one 'side' over the others. Can you give me diffs of them, see if you can find personal attacks about you (that others have made) or that you have made about others.
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) sorry I should have parag-breaked every few sentences; it's impossible to write simple statement re complex, intertwined issues/behavioural claims/b.s.


 * 2) being combative comes from standing up to the full truth, and challenging false claims about what guidelines are claimed to say; if a good man does nothing etc..... and it's WhisperToMe that's being combative, per two dozen extremely lengthy board/talkpage discussion/bludgeonings to resist anything I say, and now to seek censorship of even mentions of events and sources containing them he doesn't want to admit to or acknowledge of even try to look for. I stand up to someone else's combativeness, as before with Kwami, and I'm the one who gets crucified for it; Maunus' erwsthile ANI was launched out of malice and contained endless false allegations; I'm not the only one who sees this about all these, but most people stay out of ANI because of the inherently contrarian/hostile and often cult-like behaviour of the kangaroos who show up to join court.


 * 3) Arthur Rubin: as one of the dozens of editors who have clashed with Skookum1 on thousands of talk pages. There are only fourteen exchanges between him and me, including this current one. And note, on the mass or RMs a number of months ago, they were closed in "my" favour (restoring long-standing consensus and common sense) other than the Rivers CfD that he opined in that BrownHairedGirl started no sooner had my block she launched without consensus to do so, during which she went and hostile-closed while she had me blocked, in the opposite direction to all the rest closed in "my" favour, and misquoted/misused guidelines in her catty closing comments.


 * A big problem in Wikipedia is people with hostile attitudes towards individual editors taking part on such discussions which should be about the subject and not about the nominee; but somewhere in the guidelines it says "if you are not familiar with the subject, you should not be taking part in discussions about it". Sadly, that's what happesn with RMs, AFDs and CFDs, as there are people who spend most of their time, it seems, looking for things to denounce, and few look into the background either of the topic, or of t he dispute.  The entire place is built on NPA as an institution, in my opinion (and also that of others who shall remain nameless....or who have left Wikipedia because of such problems/attitudes/behaviour)


 * 4) Legacypac's comments and pushing the voting section are inherently NPA attacks; and all of WhisperToMe's stonewalling and quarrelsomeness with me has been AGF from the start, with the very uncivil subtext behind all of it that I am lying about what's in the sources; there are NPAs in the comments in that ANI, some of them soft-pedalled but meaning the same thing as an outright condemnation/attack. NPA isn't always about calling someone a dickhead or an asshole or a "problem" - speaking of which "behavioural problem" is itself an NPA; stop and think about it; that's a putdown for a child or someone in prison.....


 * I'll try and take some time tomorrow (its' coming up on 8pm here in Cambodia) to particularize those diffs/phrases/comments...the main AGF issue here is WhisperToMe's ongoing attempt to denounce me and brand my mentioning of sources and events he's hostile to having in the article as "original research". He's being extraordinarily disruptive by his mass of such diatribes against me; I've only linked you two of them


 * 5) you didn't reply re WMT's claims on the OR board about what he maintains WP:V means, which it says nothing about. Last night I was investigating the origins of MOS and came across a subpage that directly confounds what he says; like the others who have fought me he is cherrypicking guidelines and conflating them while also conflating sources to build his SYNTH vision of British Columbia ethnic history; a place he has no direct knowledge of, and denounces me for saying that I do.


 * 6) there are issues with who Legacypac is and where his main editing/warring focus has been; and that User:Paleking who turned up out of nowhere appears to be in a conflict of interest he has not declared re this undeletion request re Systems Security Certified Practitioner of which he is a member (see his userboxes). Now, not incidentally, I saw that acronym go by on a document last night about the American security state as being connected to/funded by the NSA.  Given the security-state/anti-terrorism agenda that is clear from Legacypac's usercontributions in-line with security-state media manipulations re the Ottawa shootings and countless others...


 * the further military/security presence doesn't strike me as innocent; just as the IP users who tried to get me blocked because I resisted their overtly POV changes to that article were not innocent; and in one of the items linked re Arthur Rubin and myself, you'll find the curious case of an IP user making POV/censor edits on the Gordon Campbell (Canadian politician) article


 * Similarly a mining consultant with links to OSAC, part of the Dept of Diplomatic Security, took part in another "combative" page Talk:Mount Polley mine disaster where efforst were being made to distort/delete the truth...which he has also done on certain mining pages where human rights violation material was deleted or downplayed.


 * "Get Skookum1" is what's going on there, quite frankly, and not for honest reasons, and by rank hypocrites who themselves have been called to the carpet more than once for combative activity (Legacypac); I'm not being paranoid, I know what I'm seeing...and know that none of the people condemning me have any interest in the subject matter or the article in question; other than WhisperToMe, who wants me blocked or topic-banned from my own province's history, where I'm involved in countless articles that his content is at odds with; the votes coming in are just hostiles passing judgment based on their own presumptive ignorance and hostility towards me; to me they're a thinly-veiled character-assassination squad and nothing more.


 * I'll leave off, but please go look at the OR board link; I've spent too much time on this today, and the last few weeks, and though have produced and expanded articles and lists/descriptions of relevant sources in the meantime, would have done a lot more if not for having to defend myself against the wolfpack howling for blood....and not one of them has any interest in the topics that I have been combatted against by WMT. Apparently defending yourself, and the truth, is being "combative" while those actually waging and launching such wars are enabled and even endorsed; even though they (WMT) have no ideae what they're talking about, and have been unCIVIL towards me from the very start.  But nobody says or does zip, and that OR board bludgeoning is his own soapbox; as with teh Indo-Canadian merge discussion linked above he posts so much and so repetitively that nobody, not even RfCs he recruits, have any idea what it's about........nor does he, quite frankly.Skookum1 (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There are major connectivity problems here in Cambodia so haven't been on Wikipedia much; when doing so trying to focus on article/talkpage comments/resources and ignoring legacypac's witchhunt-vote; see my changes to his redactions and fiddling with the vote area that IMO is "illegal and out of order". As on this post and this one, what's someone who has open ANIs against himself on teh same page doing redacting/editing the ANI board at all?  I can't be bothered with more of this game of bait-and-block, but do think that something like CHECKUSER be used to determine who he really is, as it's very strange that a property developer would spend 98% of his time pushing terror-themes and warring over same all day long.


 * Nothing innocent about that vote call...and what's he doing removing MY vote from the voting area he started and is 'policing' and putting it somewhere, adding negative comments to boot? Seems like WhisperToMe is not the only one who's been ignored behaviour-wise while, as Viriditas points out, this is not a court of law, and I am not required to respond; I've been busy researchin articles and content towards same; what's he been doing?  A glance at his usercontributions will tell you that easily enough.  WhisperToMe has at least shown signs of listening to my corrections of his preferred source's egregious mistakes, as per recent edits on Indo-Canadians in British Columbia demonstrate; I see no effort at all by anyone to comment on his claims about WP:V on the OR board or to instruct him to stop being so confrontational/disputatious....but damn do they ever like to dogpile on me huh?


 * my plan, internet connectivity conditions permitting, is to get at the many bios needed explored on the talkpage of that article......and to enlist input and citations from the communities in BC that this "colonization of our history" by "outside forces" is much in need of; blocking me would only keep the terror-propaganda lobby happy; it's not even what WTM wants. Nor a lot of other people who respect my input and knowledge and aren't out to persecute me for disagreeing with them and have said so.


 * That includes Arthur Rubin, whose "thousands" of disputes with me turned out to be less than 14....re a CfD he kibbitzed on but know nothing about at all. Digging a little deeper into our exchanges, he'd commented in hostile fashion on an IP user from Minnesota who had made a POV edit on the article about Skookum1 (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Further to that, note my comment on the ANI about him here and note also the mysterious non-archiving of the Ottawa shootings talkpage between when it started October 23 and the oldest bit on the oldest archive, which begins only at November 14......doesn't seem accidental, and strikes me as very odd. Skookum1 (talk) 09:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Re the bit struck out just above, it appears that my confusion with what I'm looking for not being in any of the archives is that the section in question was deleted again (for the third time at least) before the talkpage was archived; so that's why it's not there. Not the first instance I've seen of this kind of thing around Wikipedia; I haven't had time to search through the talkpage history to find those deletions and their restorations (I didn't restore it the second time, another editor did so, as deletion of someone else's posts is against guidelines, no?).  I'm ignoring the vote call from here on in; and must question the motives of those jumping on the bandwagon as none of them are involved with the article or issues concerning it which led to this ANI, which has been turned by a "hostile" who claims to be "uninvolved" but very much is.Skookum1 (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think moving on from the ANI thread is the best idea at this point. I'd also suggest expanding into to editing in some other areas so you interact with different people as well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * That ANI is out of order, and is being used to harasa me. That nobody has seen what is wrong in the behaviour of LP or WTM´s nonsensical and protracted claims about WPV, including the nom who has allowed the vote call to proceed, and for LP to redact and move and AGF-comment on without reproach is a poor comment on the quality of the adminship overall, the agenda there is purely POV and NPA and has nothing to do with the issues and conduct that led to MRG launching the ANI here another victim of his edit warring and accusations and denials of very blatant misconduct is more than highly questionable and calls into questional the lack of morality of ANI as an institution; it has become nothing more than a bullying arena and should be abolished.  As for your suggestion tha´´without even investigating WTM`s conduct while NPAing me right off the bat.


 * Your suggestion I find other areas to write in is not an adequate reply; I have been avoiding terror-propaganda artciles becuase of LP and his ilk and it`s THEM who are intruding where they do not belong so as to persecute me for ever daring to dispute their conduct. That I am being told by an ARBCOM level admin to avoid areas where I have vast expertise and have contributed much already is absurd; that guidelines are being abused and board-warring to suppress or delete information, even from discussions, by POV artists and know-nothings with just hatred as their agenda, instead of dealing with THEM while suggesting I go play in another sandbox and stay out of their way and let them run amuck says to me nothing useful or constructive; it is surrender to lies and malfeasance that you are recommending, rather than investigating those lies and malfeasance and deal with them accordingly.


 * But no, rather than use your authority to deal with blatant wrongdoing and persecution you are coming up with suggestions that suggest ARBCOM has given them carte blanche to abuse and disabuse and harass as they please, all the while not actually working on articles other than to screw with them, and those trying to maintain integrity of content and NPOV. I won´t speculate as to why, but there are some very big questions mounting as to the influence and conduct of disinformationists on Wikipedia that are only going to get worse if not addressed, even if all those raising these questions are banned or blocked. As so often before, I am being made the whipping boy while those doing the whipping are the ones violating guidelines ← especially NPA and AGF andinstruction creeping with an iron hand especially with POV and OR or info-suppressed results. Wikipedia is being manipulated and I´m not the only one making that observation. going back to writing articles, I can see that any appeal to higher authority here is quite useless.


 * I´m going back to writing articles in the area of my expertise and ´´masssive´´ contributions and maintenance editing on those and more. Telling me to do otherwise is a sop and a declaration of ´´laisseze -faire´´ for the wrongs and abuses that are going on and fto mount.


 * That conflicts over BC articles have come from people more interested in ´´their´´ readings of guidelines their desire to exert authority over content they have no knowledge of, nor any interest in, calls into further question the validity of adminship as an institution, and the quality or the resulting encyclopedia. Skookum1 (talk) 08:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Please advise...
Callan, since you are overseeing the BLP sanctions at Griffin, will you please advise me as to what I should do about the following very rude and uncalled for statement? Thank you Atsme &#9775;  Consult  02:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it is pointing out that you aren't doing very well attempting to change the content to unnacceptable POVness at the Griffin BLP, and suggests you find another article to edit. Good advice I venture? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The relentless unfounded allegations and repeated criticisms from Roxy, JzG and a handful of other editors are not helpful, and quite tiresome. There is an unmistakable bias against Griffin which is well evidenced by the WP:SQS attempts and spurious comments I have endured over the past 45 days.  The WP:PA and WP:BLP violations are also quite evident in JzG's use of a derogatory template on Griffin Talk and his disparaging comments, the most recent of which is WP:BULLYING.  His behavior is the result of my suggestions in the TP discussions to improve and expand Griffin as a BLP, despite relentless criticisms and PA from him and a few other editors who have made known their bias.  Neither JzG, Roxy, nor any of the other editors who have critical of my suggestions have offered even one counter-proposal to improve/expland the article.  Such behavior flies in the face of what WP:CONSENSUS and WP:COLLABORATE encourages.
 * There has not been one diff or RS to support the criticisms and allegations against me which is a violation of the prohibition against casting aspersions on others per WP:NPA.  For example, the team work of JzG and Roxy in the removal of my undue tag.  Roxy expressed agreement to JzG's allegation that it gives undue weight to a single opinion (that of Atsme) and it is abundantly clear by now that this is motivated in no small part by desire to advance a WP:FRINGE idea, the quack cancer treatment known as laetrile without providing one iota of actionable evidence for such a serious accusation of misconduct..  The same applies when Roxy responded to my suggestions with the following statement: "Disruptive and tendentious, unhelpful and untrue in regard to laetrile.".  That PA was based on my comment that I have not/do not object to including the views of government agency supported descriptions and/or conclusions of laetrile, etc. My objection is to the use of this article as a WP:Coatrack to advocate, debunk, and/or promote. This article is about Griffin, and laetrile happens to be the topic of ONE of his books.  And let's not forget about the ongoing Survey and its ill-formed question about referring to Griffin as a conspiracy theorist when the true question should have read calling him a conspiracy theorist in Wiki's voice, or stating it as an opinion using "refers to".  Why are we not seeing suggestions, other than my own, to improve/expand the article so it will at least pass a GA review?  Those editors who believe JzG is giving such good advice, then how about the following in his edit summary to me - now would be a good time to shut up? Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  17:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you believe that there have been conduct issues on the 'other side' report it to WP:AE with recent, dated diffs. For complex issues such as this reports at AE are generally more effective than asking individual admins. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , thank you, but I have no desire to get anyone TB which is primarily what I've seen happen at AE, right or wrong, therefore I prefer to not engage. The explanation by TenOfAllTrades at RSN helped confirm what I already knew about RS, and how the guidelines apply. I also believe the quality of the comments by experienced editors like S. Rich, and Caritte (who has collaborated in over 500 biographies) are also quite telling about the use of contentious material and the reliability of the sources used to justify them, which further confirms my beliefs.  Policy is not supposed to be overruled by consensus, particularly one that was not presented neutrally.  After reading SQS, the tactic is request consensus for every single change, and based on what's happening at Griffin now, it appears to be a textbook case.  To date, those who oppose my efforts to improve/expand Griffin have not presented any substantive arguments to support their position.  I may not be as well-versed in WP policy as I'd like to be, but I am quite confident in my abilities as an editor, not only based on a long and successful writing career, but here on WP after having been the primary collaborator or page creator in 5 GAs and 1 FA in a short 8 months.  I don't believe it is right that I should have to ask permission from the stonewallers who have assumed WP:OWN of the article to do my job as a GF editor.  They think the article is OK as is so there is no incentive to collaborate, and want only to control it.   They actually need to move on to something else, so those who want to fix the Griffin coatrack can get busy editing.  What do you think about removing PP so those editors who actually want to improve the article can be productive again? Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  14:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Old DS logs
Hi, I take it you have been moving the various DS logs to the new central location. Did you forget the Macedonia one, at WP:ARBMAC? Others seem to have been moved there, but this one hasn't yet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Fut.Perf. I haven't done the four complicated cases (ARBMAC, ARBAA2, ARBPIA & ARBPS) go, complicated because I have to sort through each entry and work out whether it's a discretionary sanction or enforcing another remedy (eg ArbCom TBAN or general 1RR restriction). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've done ARBMAC. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom clerk help
Hey Callanecc, I noticed that you are looking for a few new Arb clerks, and if you have some time to get on IRC, I'd love to ask you a few questions about that. I'm always available in (which is logged for transparency) when I'm on IRC if you get a few minutes. Thanks. —  22:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom page errors
This edit accidently messed up the results portion of the page. You can delete this after you read it. Dave Dial (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Guardian discussion
Hi Callanecc, can you say why you removed the discussion I started about the Guardian article and the proposed decision? The talk page is supposed to be a place where editors can discuss the proposals. Sarah (SV) (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Sarah, I archived it for the same reason as it was initially hatted. Threaded discussion isn't permitted on the page and all statements by individuals should be level 3 sections. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not leave it hatted the way did, so that people can at least see that it existed? I didn't want to make a statement. I wanted to start a discussion about the proposed decision. That surely has to be allowed on the proposed-decision talk page. Sarah (SV) (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Because it was not relevant to the Committee reaching a decision (hence hat) and was out of process for the page (hence archive). Threaded discussions aren't allowed on the PD talk page as they usually result in heated argument, instead editors are only allowed to edit in their own section. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * But who has decided that? Talk pages are for editors to talk to each other. Those pages aren't necessarily there for the benefit of the committee. Did someone ask you to remove the discussion? Sarah (SV) (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes they are there for the benefit of the Committee, pages within arbitration space are under the jurisdiction of the Committee and they use and organise them as they believe will best suit the Committee's purpose. No, it was an action undertaken as an arbitration clerk per the arbitration policy and procedures. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It was not at our specific direction, but I endorse the archival of the discussion if that's for some reason necessary. Clerks are entrusted to maintain the case pages and nothing wrong was done here. Due to the expected volume of comments, the instructions on the page clearly indicate that commentary is to be made by individual editors commenting in their own section and not by threaded discussion, and there was no reason for the hatted discussion to remain on the page. If you would like to offer comments on the case in a section as others have done, your comments are of course welcome. And yes, arbitration case pages, including talk pages, are there for the specific purpose of resolving the case. There are plenty of other forums available for general discussion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked
Hey Callanecc, do you mind adding User:7157.118.25a to Sockpuppet investigations/Jzyehoshua/Archive? They were trolling Jimbo's talk page. See the now-deleted user page for their admission. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably easier just to leave them tagged, if there were a recent archived case I'd add it but given there isn't a new one would need to be filed and I don't think it's worth the work at this stage. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I gotta say, I expected that archive to be a page full with tons of accounts. Storms and teacups all around, it seems. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case it might be worth filing a case and requesting CU for confirmation and a sleeper check so we can work out what's going on. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe--I don't know. You know, I'm all for trying to get old editors back in, but this editor wasn't maybe that great a contributor, I don't know. Anyway, has sort of taken the bull by the horns, and I got my hands full with--guess what--K-pop! Drmies (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Woo hoo, fun! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Some Clerk-ish questions
Hello! Random thing to jump into I know, but as someone totally and completely fascinated with the ArbCom process (bring me popcorn) and Wikipedia procedural and policy matters in general (I consider AN and ANI to be things I read "for fun"), I wanted to ask a few things about clerkship. I can appreciate that my contributions log in no way suggests I'd be appropriate for that position, thus this isn't a request for endorsement but just a few things I'm curious about. What general level of ongoing participation in the Project is expected before such a clerkship would be a realistic aim? Also, it seems require Adminship? I guess if that's the case it makes the rest of this post rather pointless and I'm wasting both of our time! Even passive suggestions that I was eventual admin material several years ago ironically helped scare me away from the Project and that goal is not something I'm sure I'd eventually want to face in the future. Thanks! ♪ Tstorm(talk) 01:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't spoken to the other clerks about it but I'd say that you probably need another 6 months or so of active editing, as over the last few years you've only made a few hundred edits, suggesting you don't have enough experience at the moment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Was expected! Thanks for your time. I'm just getting warmed up here again! ♪ Tstorm(talk) 19:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Recreated Page
Hi. Just wanted to drop an FYI and let you know that Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Department of Health, an article that has been deleted three times, twice for being created by a sock puppet and the last time by you, has been recreated. I am not attaching a G5 CSD tag at this point because I am not certain beyond doubt that this is the same editor, although I suspect as much. I will let you take it from here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, I've already submitted an SPI for a second opinion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality
Just as a reminder, the evidence phase of the case is now open, and as a listed party you are encouraged to add evidence. Evidence that is not brought to the attention of the arbitrators risks not being considered, and the evidence phase will close on the 2nd of February.. If you do not wish to contribute evidence to the case, the committee may consider your response in the initial case request as your evidence; if you wish to take this option please let me know and I will convey it back to the committeee. If there is anything else I can do to assist on this case, please let me know. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC).

DS, logs, and Editing restrictions
Hello! I came across a question regarding a topic ban applied under DS a little over two years ago. I can see the TB in question in the "old" case page bans section, and I can see the TB listed in the "new" central log. However, the TB does not show at WP:RESTRICT. Is it supposed to be there, or am I misunderstanding the purpose of these separate lists? Said another way, if I am trying to find out if a restriction applies to an editor - where do I look? Thank you for your time, Tgeairn (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Due to the size of the discretionary sanctions log and that everything needs to be recorded there (including short blocks for example) it's not transcluded to WP:EDR. So to check is someone has an active sanction you need to search for their username at WP:EDR and WP:AC/DSL. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Perfectly clear! Cheers, Tgeairn (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Easy and uncontentious?
I received a request per email to format the information on a user page as an infobox. I did, but - because of my [insert word] restriction was careful not to insert it where it was wanted, but suggested on my own talk. Was I too careful? Would an edit in user space have been tolerated by the enforcers? Would an edit on request would have been tolerated? If yes would that request have had to be made on Wikipedia? - Things could be so easy and uncontentious ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)-
 * Probably a good idea to add it to your talk page. Given that it was a request from a user about making an infobox (not just adding one) for them for their own userspace I don't think it would have ended up with a block, but better to be careful. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It was now copied to it's destination. I decided a while ago to find my restrictions amusing, - a daily reason to be amused, what else do you want? You read it in the Signpost, I managed another FA, with an infobox, of course ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Supporting the FA, I expanded Thomaskantor, a list. If I had started the article, this is the infobox I would add. However, there were already six sentences, so I don't own the article, and by the power of the arbs who support ownership (but whose?) I better don't do that. Anybody else doing it falls under Reductio ad absurdum. Perhaps I ask Little Doctorbody, met here ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (re AE) Clearly replacing is not adding nor deleting. Where is my language problem this time? I try hard to stay away of AE, yesterday I was successful, not today, sorry. If I am right, we have only to oblige to present restricitons, not to those some people may hope for. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Let me try: adding is give an article an infobox which the owner detests (and such owners were pleased in the infoboxes case), replacing one by another (a better one, like hymn by composition) does not have the same quality, not even in an article. It is not "removing and adding" unless in a sense I would find spitzfindig and have no English word for, therefore no violation of the letter of the restriction. (I have almost given up to find out the spirit of the restrictions.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I hope I found the little language stumble stone, but don't want to blow up the "clarification" further: "discussing the addition OR removal of, infoboxes", OR highlighted, because that is the crucial point, Yes or No to a specific infobox, - a merge or replacement is "removal AND addition" and doesn't fall under the present restriction. You seem to have misunderstood me, but in the more than one year since the case started, I got used to being misunderstood. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Need more language, sorry. You say: "The arbs who have commented have told us that the sanction extends as far as the behaviour is disruptive." Can AE sanction for something that is not in the restrictions? Who defines what is disruptive? Those whose templates are in danger to be merged and find that uncomfortable? - Btw, nobody has told me yet where my behaviour was disruptive. Just curious, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * To the last para, it's not not in the restriction, the restriction is broad, in the past AE admins have limited it (by themselves) and ArbCom has said that it's not that case (or as clear as that). As is always the case with AE unvinvolved admins decide what is disruptive. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Please forgive me that I have little experience with AE, and feel that it drove away another excellent editor today. (Link on top of my talk, click on "just".) I am bit bitter right now. Would you please look at Templates for discussion? A helpful proposal, if you ask me, opposed by people who possibly never even looked at the templates in question. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ps: why we are here again ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy Delete
Could you speedy delete this article for me? (It redirects to Port Douglas, Queensland). I intend to move Port Douglas, Queensland there.  Lux ure Σ  10:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done as it meets the criteria for WP:G7, however it can just be created again. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That shouldn't have been done. It should be a disambiguation page, which it was when you deleted it.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 10:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should be, but it meets the criteria for G7. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On a second look, it doesn't meet criteria as it was created as a result of a move which the mover was not the primary contributor to so I've restored it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the inconvenience caused.  Lux ure Σ  00:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Abusive account names filter (Edit filter #102)
on page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseFilter

I tried to add a filter: -- (action == "createaccount") & ((user_name rlike "[bcdfghjklmnpqrstvwxz]{4,}")
 * (user_name rlike "[\d]{4,}")
 * (user_name rlike "[абвгдеёжзийклмнопрстуфхцчшщъыьэюяАБВГҐДЂЃЕЁЄЖЗЗ́ЅИІЇЙЈКЛЉМНЊОПРСС́ТЋЌУЎФХЦЧЏШЩЪЫЬЭЮЯ]")
 * (user_name rlike "[ΑαΒβΓγΔδΕεΖζΗηΘθΙιΚκΛλΜμΝνΞξΟοΠπΡρΣσςΤτΥυΦφΧχΨψΩω]")
 * (user_name rlike "['"+!%\/=<>#&@\{\}\?,;.:-_*$÷×\\˝ ].*['"+!%\/=<>#&@\{\}\?,;.:-_*$÷×\\˝ ]"))

I'd like to avoid :
 * 4 or more consecutive consonants
 * 4 or more digits
 * cyrillic or greek characters
 * more than one blank or other special character

I added the filter and tried, however it does not seem to trigger to bad names.

I assume, that at createaccount time there is no user_name, and therefore the check does not trigger. Is there a way at all to check the entered user name?

Thank you in advance: Muki985 (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Only edit filter managers are able to edit the filters. That type of thing would normally be done using the MediaWiki:Title blacklist. However I can't see a reason to prevent those account names as they would be allowed under the username policy. Also I'll also point out the sock puppetry policy which you need to read. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll look into MediaWiki:Title blacklist. I have an own wiki, and there I'd like to have this filter. Greek and Cyrillic chars are bad, because some of them look identical to latin ones, and that confuses users. I am still curious to your rule #102. Could you please give me the source of it? Muki985 (talk) 09:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Does a notification of a closed arbitration case count as a DS alert?
For example User_talk:Nwlaw63. I was about to leave a, but after seeing the closure notice I wondered if a formal alert on top of that may raise the spectre of "Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned". (No editor was mentioned in the final decision or has been sanctioned, so technically nobody is "alerted" if we ignore the closure notices.) Manul ~ talk 22:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not covered by the final decision clause as they weren't named in it. If they'd made a statement in the clarification request in which the motion was passed they'd likely be "aware" because of that (#2 in that section on WP:AC/DS, but as they didn't they need Ds/alert. My reading of the paragraph about disruptively issuing alerts would be knowingly issuing more than Ds/alert in a year or using for chilling effect in a content dispute. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * OK I've done the alerts. I can make a pretty strong case against myself for alerting "disruptively". I am currently participating in a content dispute with those I alerted. Because I know about DS on Landmark, I must have seen the arbitration case, so I must have known they were part of it. In addition, they each received a formal notification that Landmark now falls under DS, which is readily apparent on each talk page. Because no reasonable person could suspect that they were unaware of DS sanctions, I must have issued the alerts for a chilling effect.


 * I had hoped WP:COMMONSENSE would be invoked to avoid these alerts, but it seems the machine of bureaucracy won out this time. Manul ~ talk 01:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Except that there's no option for 'is obviously aware' unfortunately, that got shouted down while the Committee was discussing the new procedure with the community. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm full of queries today
Hi Callanecc - I see you've submitted evidence relating to Crisis pregnancy center for the Christianity and sexuality ArbCom case. Does this mean that abortion-related articles, which have their own arb case, are also being considered under this case? I have heaps of evidence for abortion-related articles, but wanted to check before factoring this in to my plan for continuing to submit evidence. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 08:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (Frankly, I think your presentation of goings-on at that article was very disingenuous, but if we're going to talk about it there, I'll respond there.) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 08:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed the bit about Crisis pregnancy center. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Should I make some sort of note on the talk page/do you want to? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note about what? The bit I added was only there for bit and it doesn't look like anyone has commented on it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Possible SPI Clerk
Hello Callanecc, for the past couple of months I've been seeing the big backlogs that regularly happen at SPI. As you can already see from my editing history and experience, I've filed numerous cases (where I did the main SPI investigations all by myself), most of them which have led to the findings of various sockpuppets and I can easily list all those cases. SPI is one my best administrative areas of Wikipedia where I really like and enjoy working the most. Also I just saw a training page which will be used for recruiting new SPI clerks. If you could suggest me, then I can happily add my name to the clerk's noticeboard and I'm sure everyone at the team would be happy to receive that extra help from me. Regards. TheGeneralUser (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi TGU, I haven't had much time to do SPI clerk related stuff recently. Might be better to ask . Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

John Galea (artist)
Hi Callanecc, I notice you were the deleting admin for John Galea a couple of times. The article has been re-created at John Galea (artist) and thought you may want to check it - I would just delete it myself, but the content makes the article look notable - could you use checkuser to see if the IP that deleted the deletion template is the same as the user who created it? -- Chuq (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Using checkuser to confirm an account to an IP is rarely done due to privacy issues. I've filed an sockpuppet investigation if you want to take a look. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

If you're not too busy
I see that you're around, if you have a minute can you check my reports at WP:UAA, I'm too sure about User:NotOrangemike but I reported them just in case, the other is a well know person. :) Thanx,  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 02:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, :)  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 02:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for page semi-protection
I have requested semi-protection of my userpage per your advice (see our email exchange) at WP:RFPP here. As you will see, there is great confusion over my request, which is for semi-protection of the whole of my userpage for one month. You advised that I could alternatively make this request directly on your Talk page. Can I do that now, please? Diffs backing up this request are in my emails to you and in my request at WP:RFPP. I am sorry to give you this headache. ~ P-123 (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The request at WP:RFPP has now been aborted. Briefly, I understand from WP:RFPP here that my userpage and what I thought was part of my userpage, P123ct1/Notes, are two distinct pages, the latter being User:P-123/Notes. I did not know this. That is what the confusion was about.  Please may both of these pages be semi-protected for a month?  The idea is to keep this and other IPs off anything listed under my userpage, including the Notes part, and off my userpage generally.  As you will see, it has been spotted by the WP Help Desk that the IP in question is in fact two IPs, with slightly different addresses, as can be seen from the Revision History for User:P-123/Notes here.  They both now have been given level 3 warnings.  I should add that P123ct1 was my old username, which I changed to P-123 for the sake of other editors, as it is easier to remember.   ~ P-123 (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:UPROT you are entitled to have any page in your userspace semi-protected. Your userspace (with exception of your talk page) is not considered a collaborative environment by contrast to other namespaces, so even if no disruption has occurred you can still request that it be semi-protected. I've gone ahead and done this, to both your userpage and User:P-123/Notes. Let any admin know if you'd like the semi removed. User:P123ct1/Notes is technically no longer in your userspace... but it hasn't been vandalized at all so I don't think protection is needed anyway. Best &mdash;  MusikAnimal talk 18:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * MusikAnimal : Thank you very much, but I am mystified. Surely User:P123ct1/Notes has been vandalized?  If you click on "P123ct/Notes" on my userpage, it goes to this Revision History, listing all the diffs from this IP (which has two nearly identical addresses) showing the vandalism.  But I do notice that that Revision History is headed "P-123/Notes:Revision History" and cannot understand it.  I must have created a redirect somewhow and that must account for why User:P123ct1/Notes got lost along the way, but I was not aware of doing anything other than create a subsection on my userpage!  I am a comparative newcomer and much of WP's technical side still baffles me, but as all is semi-protected now - thank you - there is no need for an explanation!  ~ P-123 (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think MusikAnimal meant this. Thanks Musik. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That solves it! ~ P-123 (talk) 08:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Mail
See your email. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * See reply. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Freedom of speech
Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I'll just let that one expire. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Protecting a page (Context: Order of Australia)
Thanks. As a general question, where can I find general information about getting a page protected? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, the protection policy has information about when pages are protected and page protection can be requested at WP:RFPP. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Ross William Ulbricht edit warring
Hey there, I see you protected that page. I'd just like to point out that I only reverted once before realising my mistake - so there may not be a need for a lock except to prevent others making the same mistake. Thanks! &mdash;ajf (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Given it's a BLP issue, I'd rather just be careful and leave it protected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLPLOG
formerly redirects to a sections of Editing restrictions. But you renamed this section and removed the shortcut template. I assume this redirect should go now to somewhere else, but I have no idea. Could you fix this. Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 21:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Re-targeted. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

PC-protected articles expiring before or on 5 February 2015
Belarus, Java (programming language), Axl Rose, Jagga Jasoos, Lou Gehrig, List of Power Rangers Megaforce episodes, and frequency? --George Ho (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Done some. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Port Douglas, Queensland
Hey Callanecc,

Recently I botched moving Port Douglas, Queensland to just Port Douglas. It was because I thought you could move a page onto an existing empty page (obviously not). Anyway, this went into discussion here. No editor seems to oppose it directly (there is a weak oppose but the stance changes in later comments). I would just like to gauge what you think as no editor seems to oppose or directly support its change. Also, the pages were move-protected until the 30th and so I don't want to do something only with another editor reverting stating 'No Consensus'. Tell me what you think. Cheers,  Lux ure Σ  09:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, ignore that, it seems to have solved itself  Lux ure Σ 

Speedy Delete of Port Douglas
I have nominated it for speedy delete under CSD G6 point 3. Sorry for the inconvenience and pestering,  Lux ure Σ  04:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate editnotice
Hey, I get the point of this edit, but I was deliberately going for clarity and concision over dotting-Is-and-crossing-Ts procedural correctness. I'd be a lousy arb clerk, because I'm not at all big on procedure! Anyway, would you be open to self-reverting? In the event that I block somebody (an example that comes to mind would be an account created to disrupt the talk page or post grossly inappropriate material) as a normal admins action, I don't want the block to open to claims of "but you didn't alert me first". The point of the editnotice is to spell out that certain things aren't acceptable and that there won't be any tolerance for serious disruption, which I think it did reasonably well, and adding caveats will only dilute the message in my opinion. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  01:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What about just removing the bit about page and topic bans and the bit I added (especially since the alert suggests that bans are a possibility)? The reason I did it is more about a user seeing that, reporting the user then being told you need to have alerted first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I expect most people who would be doing the reporting already know that alerting is a prerequisite to discretionary sanctions, but I envisaged that AE admins would do the alerting if it hadn't been done already. Once upon a time, only admins could issues notifications (the alerts' predecessor, which contained different wording for each topic area!), and that was almost always done after misconduct was brought up at AE—how things have changed, and mostly for the better! Anyway, how does this grab you?  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I remember it well, I was one of the non-admins pushing to have that requirement removed. Looks good, thanks. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Btw, I'm just starting to put together the arb report for next week's Signpost; are you still looking for more clerks? If so, I'll mention it again. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We've got a few we're looking at now, but some more applications wouldn't go astray, even if we just leave them on the list until next time. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong's talkpage privillages
Howdy Callanecc. Just curious - Why was Ryulong's talkpage privillages revoked upon his siteban? That isn't what happpened when I was sitebanned (in 2013). Has Arbcom changed its position on this, since 2013? GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

PC protection expiring on or before February 7
Voyager 1, Pothohari dialect, and Glenn Quagmire? --Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Quagmire indef, other two can expire. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Partylinks
Hi Callan:

Thanks for progressing the partylinks template. I don't know if you recall but Jackmcbarn has offered to make a fix to MediaWiki for automatic admin detection. They've now done so and it's just waiting for approval and implementation. Roger Davies talk 05:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I do, that's why I haven't coded it yet, but thanks for the reminder. I just want to know which links the arbs and clerks want. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The way you've set them up looks good and well though through to me (particularly alerts). I'll try to get more eyes on it via the list,   Roger Davies  talk 05:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There isn't current a link which shows whether they've received or given DS alerts but I can add links to do that, I just wasn't sure how much use it will be. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Short query
~ P-123 (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Another sock...
Hi there, Callanecc. seems to be another sock of User:Jajadelera.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 13:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Obvious sock is obvious. . HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The next contact regarding the matter will be with you...--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 14:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

ACC #134559
Hi, I hope you are doing fine. It is about #134559 that we have received a response from requester. Please take a look when you have time (the request is presently in on-hold queue). Regards, - Anupmehra - Let's talk!  19:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm well thank you. Could you please forward it me, I can't find it in my inbox. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sent. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  16:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

concerns
See Joe Klein edit history and Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard as I have concerns about editors who are absolutely insistent on labeling and categorizing a person as a "Jew" or "Jewish" in defiance of WP:BLPCAT. Joe Klein might be Jewish, but has not apparently self-identified as such,nor am I sure it is relevant to the topic of "Neoconservatism" other than to inject "Dual loyalty" into that arena  especially considering that "dual loyalty" is an issue often raised in "the arena of Arab-Israeli issues.  ("The 1991 Gulf War[5] and the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq lead to such accusations against Jewish neoconservatives, vocal proponents of war against Iraq who allegedly sought to undermine Arab nations hostile to Israel (i.e., the term "Israel-firster").[8][9][10]")   Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like it's been resolved, but I'll keep an eye on it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China
Hello! Looks like User:ProfessorJane is back to very actively editing again. Can you protect this article? HkCaGu (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And if you can revert also. I'm not sure whether I'm already at third in 24 hours. HkCaGu (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you give me some more evidence that those IPs are ProfessorJane, you can file an SPI if that's easier? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Always adding flagicons for PRC and ROC. Calling Taiwan "industrialized", "democratic" in the ledes. Just look at my contributions in the last few days to see what's happening with many other similar articles. All highly quickly global IP jumping. HkCaGu (talk) 01:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the earlier protection. Can you also help protect Chinese Civil War and Forbidden City? HkCaGu (talk) 05:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And also National Palace Museum which you just edited earlier this evening? HkCaGu (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Another editor alerted me these two new ones: Two Chinas and Chinese Cultural Renaissance‎. Can you protect these? HkCaGu (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! For the personal attack going on at User talk:103.27.220.144 and User talk:69.80.99.98, what can be done? HkCaGu (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Dealt with. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the ongoing work you're doing. There's this one that needs protection: History of science and technology in China. HkCaGu (talk) 06:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And Ministry of Science and Technology (Republic of China). Can we protect a user talk page? His IP socks are reverting the removal of personal attacks. HkCaGu (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And Presidential Office Building, Taipei needs protection. HkCaGu (talk) 06:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked some and protected those. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's continuing here: User talk:103.27.220.144. Is it time to get other admins on this battle? I wouldn't know how to do it. HkCaGu (talk) 07:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Materialscientist got it, you can always post on WP:AN or WP:ANI if you need more admin eyes. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Violation of Pban
On Module:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map user:pototo1 has made further edits, in apparent violation of their pban. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Noticeboard closure
Can you see if something was actually wrong with this closure? That is overturned by another user. See discussion at User talk:Sunrise. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not that I can see, however generally when something is closed by an admin discussions to overturn should be assessed by an admin as they will be inherently controversial. I'll wait and see what Sunrise says before I do or say anything more. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * True. In this case the result did seem pretty clear, and I was already following the discussion so a lot of the work had been done. But I do think I err on the side of being too willing to close potentially controversial discussions. In any case, I've replied at my talk page.
 * @Bladesmulti: the closure has not actually been overturned. The one at WP:AN is the one that matters in this case. Sunrise  (talk)  08:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is formal to complete the whole process, that's what you had done by striking the closure of FTN after AN closure for preference, and I have linked it in my above post because other user considered it as 'overturn'. I think Callannecc didn't saw anything wrong with your change to FTN either. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no policy which says that consensus at WP:AN trumps the consensus at WP:FTN. If you want AN to be a court of appeals for noticeboards, you should propose that this become the case at WP:VPP, for example. Until then, it's fine to come to a consensus over issues at WP:AN, but strikethrough of good faith contributions of other editors at other places on the basis of such consensus is simply not in line with policy or guidelines of Wikipedia. See WP:CON and WP:FORUMSHOP for more on why this is important. jps (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * AN is the "court of appeals" for RfC closes, there's one there now for example (deletion review is the only one, I can think of quickly, which is elsewhere). See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Archive_12 for example and Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive for a list of previous closure reviews at AN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, but this is not an RfC we're talking about here. jps (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point, but it's the same concept as far as I'm concerned, appeals of all closes can go to AN, whether it be FTN, BLPN, PERM, etc. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the first I'm hearing of this idea. I think we should have a discussion as to whether this is a good idea or not. I think that the noticeboards should be subject to consensus rather than administrator fiat. This is unlike conduct questions or questions that are formally raised to measure community consensus. Noticeboards are meant to provide content input by people who are interested in following particular content policies of Wikipedia. They aren't binding rulings (unlike the other examples where administrator oversight is requested) and so setting up an appellate hierarchy for noticeboard questions strikes me as being both creepy and and invitation to forumshop. jps (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions log
Question: DS states that "Whenever a sanction or page restriction is appealed or modified, the administrator amending it must append a note recording the amendment to the original log entry." In GamerGate, the general sanctions became discretionary sanctions. Were I to modify one of those sanctions, originally imposed by myself as a general sanction, where would I log this? The general sanctions do not appear on the DS logs. There is no urgency because I haven't modified anything at this time, I just wanted to be sure on the correct procedure if I did. Gamaliel ( talk ) 00:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've copied them to the discretionary sanctions logs (which I forgot to do when I closed the case), so there. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that certainly solves that issue. Thanks!  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 15:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Wrong links in WP:EEML from August, 2012
Hi Callanecc. I was just looking up something in WP:EEML and noticed that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list&diff=508027105&oldid=507855941 an edit to the case] by User:AlexandrDmitri on August 18, 2012 might need to be fixed. The case was amended by motion in August 2012 and the provided links point to:

In my opinion those links should be going to:

The links that are in place now mention WP:ARBR&I rather than the amendment to WP:EEML that was intended. The actual change to the text of the case looks to be correct.

Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thank you. Are you interested in applying to be an arbitration clerk? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see. 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) 00:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Requesting reprieve
Hello again,

I am asking that you lift the prohibition against my editing Talk:Gamergate_controversy.

The complaint against me was made on the basis of article space edits. The only objection raised to my talk-page activity was the volume of posting, which I have committed to not repeat. You have said you think my proposed plan was inadequate, so I welcome further guidance.

As a matter of principle I also request that the prohibition on editing the article itself be lifted.

A complaint was brought against me on the basis of only a single simultaneous batch of edits, not a pattern of edits or edit warring. There was no attempt or intent to defend my changes from reversion without a new consensus. Indeed, there was no opportunity to defend or even discuss them. My accuser went directly to enforcement without seeking to resolve the dispute in any way. The edits were effectively reverted within an hour, before the complaint was even brought against me. At the very least, it was inappropriate on procedural grounds to seek a remedy for disruption that was not occurring.

More than that, the case against me was built on the mischaracterization that I was dismissive of other editors' input. The great length of the Newsweek thread is evidence of nothing other than my willingness to engage in detail with others' opinions. I have recognized that this was not best practice; however, it is not evidence of unwillingness to compromise. Throughout the discussion I proposed alternatives, while my detractors would not engage with those alternatives or propose their own. The final wording of my edit was reflective of the consensus against employing simple calculations, even if permitted by WP:OR. I was certainly writing for myself rather than my opponents, but as a foil to encourage them to better articulate their objections. The ongoing discussion on the matter shows I am not alone in finding the Newsweek article problematic.

Again, this is a matter of principle more than anything. I have no further edits to make in article space at this time. I want to clear my name of the aspersions cast against my pedestrian application of bold editing. I surmise from your original decision that you recognized the accusations of being a SPA and vandal were willfully misleading, and I hope you can recognize the same in the rest of the accusations against me.

Thank you for your time. Rhoark (talk) 06:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The history of this dispute and the remedies passed in the arbitration case encourage administrators to deal with disruption robustly especially from newer accounts, given that a topic ban had been proposed the page ban was a lesser option to hopefully achieve the same goal. That goal being to encourage you to edit in other areas so that you develop the experience in talk page consensus building necessary to edit such a controversial and intractable topic area. While ever you try to re-litigate the original reasoning for the sanction it is unlikely that an appeal will be granted, given that the evidence in question has already been examined, if you wish to appeal on that basis I suggest you following the instructions linked in the notice I gave you. Having said that I would recommend that instead, you comply with the restriction and edit collaboratively to reach consensus on other talk pages and bring me evidence of that in a month or two. At that stage I will look into lifting the restriction on editing the talk page to replace it with a less restrictive option. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Email
Another IP problem! ~ P-123 (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * To page stalker: I don't know if you are able to handle Callanecc's emails when he is absent for some time, as he indicates he is now.  I would welcome your help as I am having continued problems with IP harassment. ~ P-123 (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for DS enforcement
Hello again! About nine days ago, at your suggestion, I submitted a request for enforcement of Discretionary Sanctions at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Unfortunately, there has been exactly zero administrative input or action on that request. I've had to resurrect it from the archive once, and I'd prefer not to do so again. The behaviour hasn't stopped, and it has escalated into on and off-wiki harassment. Is there anything you can suggest? I hate going to ANI, as that environment hasn't exactly been friendly in the past and there is no immediate incident to resolve. Thank you for any suggestions. --Tgeairn (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Tgeairn is telling a malicious lie. I have raised objections to the actions and the conduct of Tgeairn with respect to the Landmark (and related) stuff, but I have done it on-wiki only. I will continue to do so as long as Tgeairn's conduct does not change. You might call that 'escalation' or 'harrassment', if you so wish (of course, I do not agree), but I have certainly never caused harrassment off-wiki. Not only have I never done such thing, but I will never do it either. Theobald Tiger (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of any evidence that the off-wiki activity is being performed by , and I did not intend to say that TT was the source of the activity. There is an active off-wiki campaign to discredit my on-wiki activity, including inaccurate statements being made about me and public posting of various combinations of accurate and inaccurate personal information in conjunction with my Wikipedia identity.  That off-wiki activity specifically refers to the enforcement request, among other things, and I am treating it as a legitimate threat.  I apologize to TT for any repercussions that my unclear statement above had; and I request any suggestions that you, Callanecc, have for how to proceed with enforcing the existing sanctions on the Landmark related articles and hopefully bringing this to some conclusion. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's on my list I just haven't got to it yet. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and thank you for the update. --Tgeairn (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to butt in here but I can't seem to find any offwiki comments on User:Tgeairn other than a passing reference in 2012 and a recent comment (not about him or her) on harassment of a "newly arrived dutch editor" on the same page. I do not like signing up to new websites so could only read what was there. Perhaps s/he could elaborate on these offwiki comments and provide links to back them up so that one could assess the validity of whether harassment is taking place there. Unfortunately things can have unexpected consequences (I can't remember which WP policy or MOS I read that in - I would use Karma) and find editing WP an enlightening, educational and entertaining process. It is an ongoing learning process and I was delighted to discover Graham's hierarchy of disagreement which is just as valid as Maslov's hierarchy of needs.Cathar66 (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't find anything either. I am a Dutch editor - no doubt about that, and I am not a native speaker of English. I do everything to avoid the impression that my English is below par. If so, in spite of all my efforts, I apologize in advance. Theobald Tiger (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-07
 Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent software changes
 * You can now use  to transclude a section with its title.

Problems
 * MediaWiki was reverted to the previous version on February 4. It was because of a performance issue. It was restored later.
 * UploadWizard was broken on February 4 because of the revert of MediaWiki.
 * All sites were broken for 30 minutes on February 5. It was due to a network problem.

Software changes this week
 * The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since February 5. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from February 10. It will be on all Wikipedias from February 11 (calendar).
 * You can have one user page for all wikis. Your Meta user page will show if you don't have a user page on a wiki. You can test this tool on test wikis.
 * You can search for media files in VisualEditor more easily. Images are bigger and you see the size and license.
 * It is easier to review your changes when you save the page in VisualEditor. The window is wider.
 * You can read the latest news about VisualEditor. You can now join weekly meetings with developers. During the meetings you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The first meeting is on February 11 at 20:00 (UTC).

Future changes
 * Administrators will soon be able to delete change tags used fewer than 5,000 times.
 * In the future you will be able to have personal lists of articles on the mobile site.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.  16:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Page protection
Hey Cal, you protected the article Piracy but it doesn't seem to be working. It is still being vandalised by IPs. I went back to WP:RFPP but got an automated bounce-back for that reason. Anything you could check or fix? Pending changes might be a better option if semi isn't working...  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 23:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I placed it under pending changes protection so IPs can still edit but before they become live they need to be approved. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Christianity and Sexuality case: workshop phase extended
Dear Callanecc, this is a quick notice to advise that the workshop phase for the Christianity and Sexuality case has been extended until 15 February. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with the proposals being offered in the workshop, and feel free to participate either in the workshop itself, or in discussion on the talk page. Please also take note of the other dates on the case, with the proposed decision due on 22 February. Please feel free to drop by my talk page if you've any questions. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC).

Question about edit warring immediately after coming off a TB
Steeletrap is edit warring at Griffin, and restoring fundamental non-compliant terminology determined by the RfC closer. Can you please look into this? Atsme &#9775;  Consult  23:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The user who is reporting me has tried to add his changes to the Griffin page 3 times within several hours. I have reverted the page to a consensus version. I did try to add new content to the page; but have not edit warred to keep it in. (The content I added was removed from the article by Srich, and I have not tried to re-add it.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs) 00:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not true. I made various improvements to the body of the article and the lead as you will see in the edit history and in the discussions on the TP.  I modified the lead to conform with PAG and the RfC close regarding the article's contentious material being fundamentally noncompliant (his edits were reverted which caused him to PP the article).  After working for hours to meet the compromise expectations while maintaining NPOV, I removed the NPOV tag after making other sections in the article NPOV compliant.  I posted what I did on the TP.  As you know, Callanecc, I have done everything I was asked to do, and made proposals for edits on the TP but no matter what I proposed, it was consistently shot down.  Steeletrap came in and immediately started editing the article replacing the contentious material despite the RfC, and never discussed anything on the TP.  She reverted edits with no regard for the RfC, the TP discussions, or what any other editors were trying to accomplish as I demonstrated in the above diffs.  Steeletrap is not the only editor who is ignoring the RfC close.  See the following:  and .  I only reverted Jytdog's revert . Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  01:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you please make a report at WP:AE regarding this. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * STop being lazy, Mister Callanecc. Go to the Griffin page and read the diffs--that is, fulfill your basic admin responsibilities. You'll see that my "edit warring" consisted of removing new, non-consensus material which Atsme was trying to edit in over the objections of other uses. I reverted his material exactly once. Steeletrap (talk) 11:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Now you can see what I've had to deal with - very disruptive behavior. I now have another diff to add for the AE. Atsme &#9775;  Consult  15:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Heath Ledger
Extend PC time or upgrade to semi? --George Ho (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Email
~ P-123 (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Reporting Topic Block Evasion by P-123
This editor keeps accusing editors of reporting him. Well duh, if he does not violate Wikipedia so much, no one will bother him. He gets away with a lot because he plays the "many editors report me" card. So, I am reporting him writing "That was in Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" that is wikilinked. He just cannot respect his Topic Ban. You and other administrators can check for yourself. Now, he will just remove it and get away with it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.169.217.245 (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And they later removed the mention, no harm no foul. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Divergent (novel)
Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 06:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

 Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 04:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Question
Er, re Discretionary sanctions notification - BLP, I am not sure what topic you are referring to. If it's Rebel Wilson, I did not violate 3RR (if you review the later edits which did not replicate the previous ones re Wilson), and I have removed the article from my watchlist as I am not interested in incessant edit warring over trivia. If not Wilson, then I am not sure to which topic you're referring. Please advise. Thanks. Quis separabit? 04:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying you have done anything wrong, the last line of the message says "This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date." Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I understand but I was not sure which topic you were referring to but I figured out that it was the Rebel Wilson article. OK. Quis separabit?  04:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It was Rebel Wilson yeah. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hi Callanecc. We talked about a vandal earlier from a protected article that was recently released from protection. As you can see, the vandalism is starting already from the same anonymous user. If you could advise or take action, awesome. EricJ1074 (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your assistance. One further request: could you remove this content which is disparaging and inapplicable to this individual? Again, this is a result of reddit users who focus on anti-mormonism coming together to spam the page. (See edits of the users {Villaged, COGDEN, 104.156.100.205}) who contributed to the talk page) Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nicholas_Edward_Alahverdian under the heading "Protected edit request on 9 February 2015." Thanks again. EricJ1074 (talk) 05:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There's nothing there which would need to be removed or deleted that I can see. It looks like they are good faith discussions regarding the article. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Continued IP harassment
I have sent an email giving a condensed summary (basically just the diffs) of the continued harassment reported earlier. I would be very grateful if you could block some or all of these IPs as you think fit. ~ P-123 (talk) 07:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for blocking. I mentioned a red message on my Talk page which shows nothing in Revision History. Is this vandalism or a WP message?   ~ P-123 (talk) 10:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * See User talk:Technical 13. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. ~ P-123 (talk) 10:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you
I now have a better understanding of what AE involves, what NPOV vs Advocacy means to WP, the importance of getting an article right, and where GA and FA actually rate on the overall scale. Atsme &#9775;  Consult  23:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Heads up
I'm taking ARCA off my watchlist, but I'm assuming you'll let me know if there is an outcome that effects me, right? Lightbreather (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're named as a party (or a motion is proposed which directly affects you) you'll get a message :). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Question
In my user space, is User:Begoon/Wifione evidence summary, linked to by me, and others in the Wifione case. When the case closes, I think I should not keep the page there, per WP:POLEMIC "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner.". That gives me a dilemma, because if I blank/U1 CSD it, the links from the case will no longer work. I'm not the only contributor to the page, either. I'm not sure if it should be moved to a case subpage or just blanked with history intact. What do you recommend? Begoon &thinsp; talk 05:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that the Arbitration Committee procedures state that evidence in userspace should not be used I'd suggest having it deleted per CSD U1 would be the best option, it can always be accessed again if needed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. I didn't realise that wasn't permitted, but I can obviously see now why it isn't. I'll do that. Thanks. Begoon &thinsp; talk  06:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is valuable evidence and it is linked several times from the arbitration case. Could it possibly be moved to a subpage of the /Evidence page? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You can make a request on the proposed decision talk page and ask the drafting arbs. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you be okay with this ? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, Martin. I'm annoyed at myself for putting it in userspace initially. My fault for not being familiar with procedure. I don't like redlinks in arbitration cases at all, but I don't want to get in trouble for my error. If it can be fixed, that's cool. Begoon &thinsp; talk  13:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't one of the drafting arbs, but I absolutely think the page should be preserved somewhere in the case page system. Deleting this makes a significant hole for anyone reading it later. Courcelles 02:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm with Courcelles on this one. This is substantial enough and useful to leave. I'm going to restore, move and redirect the userspace page to it for you. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  03:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That works. Begoon &thinsp; talk  13:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Clerk
Hello Callanecc, I just now saw that Arbitration Clerks Seeking New Volunteers. I'm a bit late. Is requests are still being accepted? I'm interested in volunteering. Best,  Jim  Car  ter  14:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No not too late, feel free to submit an application to the mailing list. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Submitted. Cheers,  Jim Car ter  11:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We didn't receive it could you please resend, . Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Callanecc, I send it but I got a reply from . In the reply it said: "Your mail to 'Clerks-l' with the subject 'Request for volunteering' Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. The reason it is being held: Post by non-member to a members-only list. Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive notification of the moderator's decision...". What should I do? Should I resend?  Jim  Car  ter  07:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah can you resend please. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Resend. Please check. I got the same reply again though.  Jim Car ter  15:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, got it this time. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What will be my next step?  Jim Car  ter  10:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sent you an email. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Send you it's reply.  Jim  Car  ter  14:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Help creating a sock puppet investigation
Hi, Callanecc,

I'm trying to open a sockpuppetry investigation with regard to user:IrishSpook and user:178.216.112.128. However, I am unable to edit the | investigation (despite being able to edit other pages normally). Would you be able to help me out? 79.97.226.247 (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * People editing without an account can't create pages except talk pages, I've created the base level version so you should be able to now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Problems at David Ross article again
is once again ignoring our policies at the David Ross (businessman) article. Could you perhaps take a look at the situation, please? - Sitush (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Has been indef blocked by Bbb23. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thanks. I'm not sure how they spotted it but I am not surprised at the outcome. Thanks for looking at the situation. - Sitush (talk) 02:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

guidance re temporal conflict on 3RR thread and AE
Hi Callanecc. (if you wants diffs of those, let me know)
 * at 05:22, 10 February 2015 i notified Atsme that I had filed a 3RR thread regarding her edits at Griffin
 * at 06:54, 10 February 2015 you recommended to Atsme above that she file an AE case
 * at 07:07, 10 February 2015 you imposed DS at Griffin
 * at 16:19, 10 February 2015 Atsme filed her AE case.

I am very uncertain how various admin authorities intersect here.

I only file 3RR cases when I am confident they are solid, and they are generally acted on swiftly. I have never had one sit as long as this one did, without being touched by an admin. I reckoned it was because of authority issues, with regard to the DS that you imposed just after i filed it - admins seem very loathe to step on each others' toes...or maybe admins at 3RR judged that it was pointless now because of the DS. I don't know. I provided you notice of the 3RR thread and you didn't act either. Then I saw that you had referred Atsme to AE... so I followed suit and I withdrew the 3RR and took it to the AE thread and recommended boomerang.

I am asking for procedural guidance here. In your view, should I restore the 3RR thread and strike my addition at AE, or leave the matter of Atsme's edit warring at AE, or something else? If you feel you cannot provide guidance, please let me know that.

Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I actually don't remember seeing your note about the 3RR report had I seen it I would have actioned it, but I've been very busy the past few days. Regarding what to do now, I'd recommend leaving it at AE but you'd need to include evidence in your statement there (or if the evidence is substantial file a new AE request regarding Atsme so the current one doesn't become too convoluted and so that there's a clear decision). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I see, Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring the RfC close and the tendentious editing that ensued after the close are what needs your action, Callan, not Jytdog's false 3RR. I may not understand some of the behavior I've seen here, but I sure as hell know it's wrong. I wasn't edit warring as the diffs will prove, and any uninvolved admin who read my comments and actually reviewed the diffs could see it was unactionable. Even more important is the fact that the admin who closed the RfC determined there was fundamental noncompliance with NPOV which to me equates into BLP violations. What took place immediately following the close is what demands administrator action. I may be overly trusting and I have certainly tried to be respectful and accommodating to your requests Callan but I'm not stupid. I'm being treated unjustly and unfairly. The events that took place regarding the close and what is happening to me now is an absolute travesty, and demands review by uninvolved administrators. Editors who want to expand a start-class article to GA are not the bad guys so please stop treating me like one, especially in light of the true disruptive behavior that has been ignored. The sensitive nature of a BLP requires administrator action regarding violations BLP core content policy, and is far more important than a falsified 3RR complaint. Atsme &#9775;  Consult  04:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nyttend corrected the noncompliant passages. He was reverted by Nomo.  an action which should have immediately resulted in a block review per WP:BLP.  He didn't just revert an edit, he reverted a BLP violation that was corrected by an admin after closing an RfC.
 * SRich correctly reverted Nomo's revert,
 * Jytdog reverted to the BLP violation - cause for review for an immediate block, as with Nomo's revert.
 * SRich correctly reverted back to policy compliant edit,
 * Jytdog reverted him again - two reverts and BLP violations.  The editor who needs a TB and blocking is certainly not me.
 * Nyttend PP because of edit warring after Jytdog's last revert. Nyttend reverted back to his original policy compliant edits.    We were all advised that Griffin was under DS, but Jytdog's edit warring took it to a different level because he was reverting to noncompliant edit after an RfC.  His AN RfC review showed a consensus that supported the close.
 * I broadly agree, but sometimes I can't be watching the article so things happen which when I see them happen too late for me to do anything about (eg the events which led up to Nyttend's full protection. There are always going to be something missed, and I'm sure if I asked those on the "other" side they'd say the same thing. For example on a controversial article such as this, this edit could be construed as disruptive as there was no consensus for it, and as you've been told before proposed changes need to be piecemeal and relatively small and proposed on the talk page before being carried out. So this conversation goes both ways, especially since there are different interpretations of how NPOV, RS and BLP apply. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Callan. I understand you are extremely busy and I do appreciate all you do for the project. For the record, I want my credibility back and respectfully request a bit more of your time if/when you can make it available. I have always held you in the highest regard, but I feel that I was not treated fairly in this case. I am not faulting you because I understand how time constraints prevent you (and other admins) from seeing the full picture. I just find it disconcerting to be falsely accused and showered with abusive warning templates and innuendos of wrong doing by editors who have not acted in GF, especially when they have no substantive basis for their allegations. In this instance, their actions have a negative effect on my credibility and the way my work is viewed by the GF editors and admins I respect. I've been an editor long enough to know such incidents may come back and bite me in the butt later if I don't clear up the confusion. But to think such accusations have influenced you is even more troubling for me and it appears that is exactly what has happened. For example, I understand your comment to me that "this conversation goes both ways" as it relates to neutrality, but it also helps explain why I feel the need to further clarify my position. I may have misunderstood your intentions but the following examples are what raise question in my mind. You responded to me with an accusatory statement and a diff of my edit saying, "this edit could be construed as disruptive as there was no consensus for it". I want it to be clear that my edit was made after the RfC close which confirmed consensus of fundamental noncompliance of NPOV in a BLP so there actually was consensus. Did you expect me to get consensus from those editors who were defying the RfC consensus and reverting edits by the closing admin and/or adding more fundamentally noncompliant material? There were also lengthy discussions of my proposals on the TP, the diffs for which I included below. What I also found extremely confusing were your responses to me when I brought noncompliant policy issues to your attention. Again, I realize time constraints and the lack of information you had to go on, but even more confusing were your responses to others which indicated early on that you were thinking about taking action against me when I was simply trying to correct the problems.
 * Feb 4, 2015 - My modified proposal trying to reach a compromise
 * Feb 4, 2015 - SRich's suggestions
 * Feb 4, 2015 - Specifico's suggestions
 * Feb 4, 2015 - Arthur Rubin's suggestions
 * Feb 4 2015 - Jytdog wasn't happy with what he thought was "soft-peddling" fringe, (Based on the close, he was actually supporting fundamentally noncompliant material that failed NPOV}. He said my proposal was premature and wanted to wait for the RfC to end.  You know the result of that RfC.
 * Feb 5 2015 - I wanted to know why I had to go through the "screening process" when other editors were reverting the RfC closer - defying consensus - while I'm still on the TP trying to get along. Double standard?
 * Feb 6, 2015 Rich's suggestions on my TP
 * Feb 6 2015 - I made some of the changes to my proposal that had been suggested
 * Feb 6 2015 - clear and precise explanation to Jytdog about the noncompliance issues, and to Arthur re: Pulitzer Prize winning writer's thoughts on Griffin
 * <---you assumed consensus was against me and advised me to drop the stick which, with all due respect, the consensus confirmed to be an incorrect assumption
 * <---your response to another editor who interrupted my discussion wherein you again wrongly indicated I had done something wrong.

Meanwhile, Arthur Rubin is editing away at Griffin with no consensus. Why? Is it because he is on the opposing team and an admin? My edits were reverted, not because they were noncompliant to NPOV as Arthur has alleged with absolutely no substantive basis as usual, but because the opposition just didn't like them. Does the double standard consider it acceptable behavior? Worse yet, contrary to what this project stands for, Jytdog and others have deliberately prevented me from expanding a start-class BLP to GA; i.e. WP:SQS because they believe the article is ok as is. 

As I've indicated all along, beginning on December 10, 2014, there was a fundamental noncompliance of NPOV (BLP violation), which according to BLP policy should have been all that was needed to revert and correct. Instead, I've been attacked for trying to make the article policy compliant. It appears to me that consensus should have been the requirement for those editors who supported the noncompliant material per WP:BURDEN. What is happening at the article now is the exact opposite of what was expected of me. Perhaps you can explain why consensus is no longer required now that I've stopped editing Griffin? I think the latter speaks volumes regarding the double standard. Sadly, the winner in this case is not the project which I once believed was our priority. Atsme &#9775;  Consult  19:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I am sorry you are upset about what was stated at the AE. Callanecc suggested that I open I separate AE on you; I didn't do that since it appears that you walked away from the Griffin article shortly after I did and your behavior on that article was no longer an issue to me.   You've also asked  about his comments at AE, as well as Callenecc here, and you've made other comments that show you are unhappy with how BLPs are handled.  I don't think you are going to get anyone to really respond to things relevant to AE outside the context of an actual AE.  I would rather spend my time working on other things, and the issues are stale now that you have walked away from Griffin, but if you really want to have your behavior addressed head on, and see if you can have your ... how did you say it?... "credibility back"... I will open an AE case concerning your behavior.  I don't see how your concerns will be addressed otherwise, and this is also what Callenecc recommended above.  Shall i open one?  (it's a real question to you; not sarcastic or anything)  Your call. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

139.102.0.0/16
I noticed you blocked a range belonging to Indiana State University due to sockpuppetry, and I was curious if you had considered contacting the institution to deal with the matter as an alternative to blocking the range. The reason I ask is because, although I'm not challenging the merits of the block, I know from experience at WP:ABUSE that universities tend to be great to work with on matters like this. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 17:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain what this has to do with your comment at Sockpuppet investigations/Purdya? The one 139. IP listed there?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently at least one sockmaster is abusing the range, but the idea is that the block might not be needed if the university were notified of the abuse and could take action to stop the sockmaster(s). <font color="red" face="Comic Sans MS">PCHS-NJROTC <font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS">(Messages) 18:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously no comment regarding whether the block was related to that SPI. Re making an abuse report, there isn't really a long history of sockpuppetry here and this is the first block. Also, from memory, there wasn't much collateral on the range which is why I blocked it for so long. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Sockpuppet
It seems default sock categories (sockpuppet of XXX) have disappeared after the recent update of this template. For example, I see no category links in User:ViPremierce. Materialscientist (talk) 05:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks MS, fixed now. Missed a pipe. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

SPI
I have sent you an email about the SPI discussed with Dougweller, but only to ask you a few questions about filling in the form. ~ P-123 (talk) 10:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Have now emailed you a draft. ~ P-123 (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

1RR Question
As a new editor I am asking for clarification of 1RR. Guy, an administrator, did 2 revert edits that changed lead paragraphs. . He made the reverts, ignoring consensus. Is action on your part required?--Pekay2 (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As they are in a series it only counts as one 'revert', have a look at the pink box at WP:3RR. I have warned him for editing against consensus. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Am I missing something?
I understand that there is a 1RR/week on G. Edward Griffin. SRich made an edit on Feb 10 that seems pretty non-controversial, but which is technically a revert since it re-added the word "lecturer". The edit summary was "My one edit this week. To match description in the infobox." The next week, on Feb 16, he makes another edit with the edit summary "My one edit for the week -- remove redundant/duplicate information". It appeared to be doing just that, merging redundant material in two consecutive sections. Both edits seemed uncontroversial, neither was reverted by anyone, neither was part of an edit war, and each was only technically a revert as far as I can tell. He was editing constructively, participating on the talk page, going above and beyond trying to follow the rules (limiting himself to one edit per week instead of one revert per week, and basically doing everything we hope editors will do. What am I missing? ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I was considering this as well. However there is quite a bit of controversy about the first sentence (I've lost count of the number of talk page discussions about it), and the second one relates to this edit war so is controversial. I agree that they have to follow the rules, however they were asked about it on their talk page (including to consider reverting) and didn't. Given that they've commented that they'll follow ONLYREVERT, which has been one of the major problems on the article, I'll unblock in a sec. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you both! Getting these various editors to cooperate is like herding cats. I had characterized my two edits as "edits" (rather than reverts) was an effort to set the example. The fact that you, Callanecc, are monitoring so closely and that you, Adjwilley, are sticking up for me makes my endeavor to improve the Project so much more worthwhile. – S. Rich (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I really do appreciate the work you've been doing on the article. There has been many times when you've been the voice of reason, which is refreshing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * PS: Your (plural) immediate response to the situation is especially appreciated. It not yet bedtime here, and I have few more pages on my watch list to look at, so getting the block removed in less than one hour is wonderful. It has been a refreshing and delightful learning experience. – S. Rich (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

temper film edit
hi its regarding the edit on temper film on the plot they are providing the whole story of the film which will effect the buisness of the film very badly please aloow the edits that i have made that is removing the whole plot section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramanakog (talk • contribs) 17:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, Wikipedia works on editors agreeing on what should be in articles. So you need to go to Talk:Temper (film) and explain why you think it shouldn't be in there. However, before doing that you should read How to write a plot summary. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Why am I accused of sockpuppeting
Hi, Callanecc! I just wanted to inquire about the accusations you posted about me being a sock puppeteer. I'm sorry to hear that I have been associated with this, andI would like to know how you determined me as part of this network. Can you give me a basic summary of what I am accused of so I can work to clear my name? Thanks for taking your time to do this, Eman52 (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've replied to you on the SPI page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Emailed
See your email, I wanted to know about the variety of enforcement cases as I have got to figure out maintenance of a remedy that I haven't seen in any of the cases that I have seen until now. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

talk page access
Hi. You just blocked. You may want to revoke his/her talk page access as well because the unblock "requests" are going nowhere. <b style="color:#000080;">APK</b> whisper in my ear  06:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Done by MaxSem. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Disappearing sanctions
Please see User talk:Sandstein. The courtesy-blanking of pre-2010 sanctions has some confusing effects. If you want to keep the blanking in place, maybe notes should be placed in the log sections of the arb cases telling people where to look for the missing items. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The link to the correct page history is now in each of the blanking templates so that should help. Whether blanking continues or not isn't my call it's a part of the discretionary sanctions procedure. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)