User talk:Callanecc/Archive 8

Sheldrake 2
The problem with barley's edits is that he asserts that his bias is neutrality, insists that his wording is a compromise between his wording and other people's, and the fact that he's a WP:SPA determined to Right Great Wrongs, having arrived after Sheldrake exhorted people to fix the "problem" of an article that accurately identified his ideas a s nonsense. The article needs stability and measured change, not edit warriors who represent their POV as the neutral POV, despite the very obvious fact that it isn't.

You know that SPAs usually have a deep commitment to a POV and there is an imbalance of motive between the SPAs and the rest of the community (e.g. Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion).

I have asked barley to stop editing and instead achieve consensus on talk for changes he wants to make, in an attempt to avoid having to start banninating people for disruption.

I have by this time done quite a bit of reading on the background to the Sheldon problem, more eyes is always good, have you also researched the subject? Basically, Sheldon has advanced an unfalsifiable conjecture which essentially mirrors the claims of parapsychology, fair tests of his ideas are virtually impossible due to their largely untestable premises, and (the important bit) there is virtually no discussion of his ideas in the professional journals of the relevant field - the primary discussion of his ideas is by philosophers or people who criticise them. Sheldrake's response is to say that science is a set of dogmas (and invoke Kuhn, as every crank does). Comparison with quantum statistic mechanics is valid: QSM was viewed with suspicion and rejected outright by Einstein, but it prevailed because it was a more coherent and complete explanation of the observed facts than was strict determinism. Shedrake's ideas do not pass that test: they make sense only if you accept his base premises on faith.

The Chopra quote is telling: Chopra thinks he's building bridges between science and religion. You can't. They are non-overlapping magisteria, and increasingly scientists reject religion altogether due to the lack of coherent testable frameworks.

Barley is here to support Sheldrake, and that is orthogonal to Wikipedia's purpose. I have a lot of experience with contentious biographies, and I'ma n OTRS volunteer, so I am comfortable that when I judge the biographical element to be compliant with WP:BLP I am right. Barley doesn't seem to accept that, and wants to re-argue the case ab initio rather than build on what's already there by addressing specific issues. That's the problem I'm trying to manage. Guy (Help!) 12:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Guy, my argument is that we go with the sources, not our own opinions. In that respect I am neutral - I understand the irrelevance of my own views. I offered three different version as compromise - you refused to acknowledge they existed. It is notewoprthy that in the recent request for admin action, 4 neutral editors all claimed to have been effectively driven off by the actions of those (like you) fiercely opposed to Sheldrake, and in each case they complained of being considered Sheldrake fan for opposing the more reactionary views. Barleybannocks (talk) 12:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Guy, I've done a bit of research into Sheldrake and his views, but not as much as most editors involved in the discussions, which I think is a good thing because I can't be biased either way. In saying that, I really do understand where you are coming from and the frustration you (both) are suffering. But someone involved in the dispute threatening bans really isn't going to resolve anything, and (as can be above) does the opposite.
 * Barleybannocks, it looks like Guy is trying to actively engage you in the bottom section of the talk page. He's asked a straight question and backed it up with a policy, so it's over to you. If you can find a reliable secondary science-based source from a which clearly states it (and even better if you can quote it), if you can't then the point that Guy has made, re WP:SYN, stands.
 * This is a good example of what tends to happen on the talk page, someone (recently, generally Barley) suggests that a change is needed, they receive general agreement that it should be included. But it falls down because no one can agree that a source states it. So it will be interesting to see where this discussion leads, and if there is a source which someone can find. Plus of course the consensus building about what is actually added to the article, which I hope will be discussed rather than just done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed it will be interesting. Barleybannocks (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Barley, no, the problem is that you want to go with your own interpretation of the sources, some of which amounts to novel synthesis. I fully understand that you do not perceive this. That's the root of the problem. I am trying to coach you in how to achieve changes, but unless you stop rejecting everything I say because you don't like its implications, you're not going to learn anything. I have been here a long time, I know how Wikipedia works. Guy (Help!) 16:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of Wikipedia may be correct, but your reading of the sources is simply wrong. All three sources I cited at your request talk about the support from scientists for his scientific work. That is just an uninterpreted fact. See the links on the talk page for details as well as my quotations from each.Barleybannocks (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Unlike Guy, who just complained about how angry he was to have wasted time on the 2012 book, I have not read any of the Sheldrake books. But I have spent a long time reading the wikipedia history of the involved editors. And I don't call the BLP "Sheldon" by mistake. Callanecc, I'm happy to fill you in on the backstory if you like, but methinks you alone (no offense) won't be able to calm things down. The problems of warring will stay persistent, if there are only a small number of people involved. It has been a battleground since July or August, with hundreds of kilobytes of talkpage discussion, all leading nowhere.

Suggestion: can we bring in a bunch -- like a couple dozen -- randomly selected editors, and have short time-limited byte-limited discussions about each paragraph in the article, from top to bottom, repeat as needed until NPOV is achieved? That seems more likely to generate progress, but the last time somebody asked for outside input, they got hammered for allegedly canvassing. Your hands are probably clean enough that you can get away with recruiting, if you use PRNG to select the victims helpers. :-)    &mdash; 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * 74.192.84.101 that sounds like a really good idea. The only difficultly will be that we'll need to find editors who are willing to do it. Perhaps another option would be to do something similar to the moderated discussion which was done for the Tea Party movement article. What do you think? In any case I've imposed a 1RR restriction on the article because I'm sick of the constant edit warring going on. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You can call me 74 please, it is shorter.  Agree about the difficulty in finding helpers, which is why I suggested that we go paragraph by paragraph... preferably from the bottom up so that the controversial lede is handled last... with brief statements by the WP:INVOLVED people (those that are still able & willing at least).  If we try to pull in a dozen people that are willing to read the talkpage back to April, when IrWolfie first got involved and the TEDx thing started heating up, plus deal with the same conditions while they try to help, we won't find *anybody*.
 * I'm sure that JzG will complain that this approach is starting all over, and wasting All The Good Work done so far, that pro-sheldrake-fanboi-IP-non-admins are trying to screw up, but since late July mainspace has been under a controlled environment where insta-reverts are the norm.  The folks doing the controlling feel unfairly treated, because they are trying to follow policy, as they understand it... but they are firmly convinced that WP:MAINSTREAM and NPOV are *identical* which means they are happy to ignore Reliable Sources, if 'virtually' all of the 'real' true 'academic' scientific 'professional' mainstream believes something else.  They will be delighted with the imposition of 1RR, methinks, because it will help defend the  currently-slanted version which is in mainspace today.  :-/
 * There are some sources, like Noetic Institute, which actually *do* likely fall under WP:FRINGE constraints-n-omissions (because they populate their peer-review boards with people that believe in telepathy already rumor has it), but in general the BBC is *never* a fringe source, even though it is not a tenured mainstream-ideas-only professor of hard science at a major research university. I will look into the tea party thing, and see what it says.  But the difference here is that there are very few hardliners about Sheldrake in the wider world.  Most folks, including me up until October 23rd or so, have never heard of Sheldrake, and will thus easily be able to approach his BLP without any bias, as long as we pick them via PRNG across all wikipedians, and not from the regulars at WP:FTN nor the regulars on articles under discretionary sanctions.  The same cannot be said of the Tea Party, which most editors have heard of (in real life *and* on wikipedia noticeboards).  So perhaps Sheldrake is an easier problem, in a way.
 * p.s. Your well-intended (and usually entirely reasonable!) suggestions, that Barleybannocks should just post to the talkpage, and make sure he has "consensus" from everybody there -- including the five or six folks there now who spend the majority of their efforts at WP:FTN like Mangoe and Barney and Vzaak -- is going to result in zero changes to mainspace. But one lone editor, with  policy and the  five pillars on their side, ought to always trump  wiki-voting on the talkpage, right?  Right.  If we want a *real* consensus, the kind that doesn't crop up again next week, the kind that can break the back of the dispute, we need to bring in a bunch of uninvolved editors that have *not* spent hours and hours (and especially not years and years) in the Pseudoscience/WP:MEDRS/PoliticsOfControversy trenches, on *any* side.
 * Sheldrake has some aspects of his work (which crosses half a dozen academic disciplines), which are positively WP:FRINGE science, but that particular anti-pseudoscience-brush is being used *very* broadly indeed here, to downplay things well outside the purview of science-claims, and skew the page. Quite frankly, rather than further locking down the current mainspace, I would prefer if you opened it up wide, removed even semi-prot so that myself and other anons could finally edit (some of us for the first time)... and then immediately called in a couple dozen uninvolved and truly-randomly-selected editors to watch what happens, in mainspace, tamp down any disruptions, and help achieve lasting consensus, paragraph by paragraph, from the bottom up the page all the way to the top.  Might take a week to prepare, and a week to traverse the page, but prolly worth it.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I said above that it would indeed be interesting to see how my citation of three supporting sources (almost verbatim re my suggested edit) would go. Well, we now have had the well sourced suggested addition removed from the article yet again, and the talk page is now awash with the personal opinions of editors demanding the sources be rejected and that their opinions take precedence. So, we have three secondary sources explicitly stating Sheldrake has received a small degree of academic support; we have secondary sources talking about some of the academic support he has received; and we even have examples of that academic support in action as it were. And in response we have this kind of thing, which is mindboggling. What would you now suggest? Barleybannocks (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I would like to understand how Barleybannocks has been disruptive on the talk page, Callanecc (talk. I'm interested in this page primarily regarding the recently declined ARBCOM case, especially regarding the harassment of editors. What it looks like to me is that one group of editors will provide challenging argumentation and just because they are arguing, it's considered disruptive. Is arguing on a talk page disruptive? If it is, arn't all sides disrupting the talk page? From my POV, I see Barleybannocks (talk) just making argumentation - and if it gets heated, it's because there is a lot of harrassment from one side of the editors to the other. 23.241.74.200 (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that that's the reason for disruption, and no as long as the argumentation is to try and reach an outcome and isn't harassment and is mostly civil then it isn't disruptive. Regarding completely unlocking it, it's not going to happen for a couple of reasons: (1) is that I (nor any other admin) wants a free for all, out job is to stop disruption to the article (semi protection and 1RR), and (2) is that the semi-protection was imposed as an arbitration enforcement action which means that no admin can unilaterally remove it. That's why I was suggesting we do it on a subpage of the main article because it won't be subject to those restrictions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, about the wild-n-free unlock scheme, I had to try, eh? It is frustrating not being able to change mainspace.  Are you saying that semi-prot is *specifically* there because of some AE action, or just that any discretionary-sanctions article which gets semi-prot cannot be unprotected because there is a *general* rule about unilaterality?  Who can unprotect, in other words?  As for keeping order if mainspace were suddenly to become the encyclopedia anyone can edit once again, on the day when the article was deprotected, instead of "punishing groups" with semi-prot and now 1RR, you could instead keep order just as well, by preventatively-blocking (with clear warnings first please! :-)   individual offenders for their individual behavior.  Presumably that approach is what will keep order on the proposed subpage, correct?  Anyways, I understand some things are wiki-politically infeasible; no worries.
 * My take on the subpage question, is that it seems fine... though I'm not sure I grok what you mean exactly... we can even make it a subpage of some page in userspace, rather than mainspace. I suggested that at one point, namely that David our BLP specialist and Josh our most experienced FTN specialist should hammer out an article in userspace which embodied a two-way compromise-consensus, and then see if we could bring more and more folks onboard.  Is that what you are suggesting now, a temporary "NPOV fork" of the mainspace content, edited in a sandbox where collaborative WP;BOLD edits are not so risky, and a moderator can apply the firm guidance necessary to maintain justice/peace/etc?  Plus maybe, if we start with a clean slate, we can attract a dozen uninvolved editors, and let them do the rewrite, unmolested? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The article was protected as a result of [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WP:AE&oldid=578079755#198.189.184.243 this] arbitration enforcement request (it's the one right at the bottom), as a means to prevent sockpuppetry and enforce the topic ban. User:Sandstein or an appeal to Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement (plus to ArbCom if none of those work) are the only ways it can be unprotected. Warning then blocking doesn't work as well because they can change IPs, or create accounts. Plus as you saw on the page when I imposed 1RR there were somewhat slow moving edit wars. In a way 1RR allows for new material to be added, e.g. add it, someone else reverts, inserter puts it back, person reverts again and is blocked for breaching 1RR. I image keeping the subpage unprotected, except if protection is needed, but I hope not.
 * Probably Rupert Sheldrake/Draft. Yep that's what I'm thinking, with the option of fully protecting it and implementing changes when there is agreement on that page's talk page if all that happens is edit warring. But probably worth waiting for a month or two. Though if you'd like, feel free to sound those two out about it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * User:David_in_DC has by choice left Sheldrake in particular -- plus in general any WP:FTN-related topics or articles or discussions -- indefinitely, and will not be returning anytime soon; he felt bullied, and was wrongly accused of being a Sheldrake-fanboi. Quite frankly, we don't *have* another person of his BLP-caliber any more, willing and able to work on the Sheldrake article.  JzG would prolly be happy to volunteer as the "BLP-specialist" but he is simultaneously also a "FRINGE-specialist" and firmly convinced that WP:MAINSTREAM and WP:SPOV is policy; nothing in mainspace would likely change.
 * Anyways, it seems certain this basket-case will drag out for a couple more months. I didn't really expect otherwise, but I can say with reasonable certainty that the slow and steady approach will just allow current wounds to fester, and recently-just-forming grudges to harden.  Maybe in 2014 the new arbcom will accept the new case, and issue some new guidelines.  Anyhoo, disappointing as the outcome is to me, I'm not unhappy with you being the bearer of bad news Callanecc.  Appreciate your efforts, and will try to help where and when I can.
 * I will look into the links, thanks, and see if Sandstein is willing to de-protect. With 1RR imposed, that might actually not be difficult.  On the other hand, see the puppet-commentary, below.  Thanks for improving wikipedia, talk to you later.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Callanecc, the Tumbleman sockpuppet you just blocked made an appearance in this thread, and you replied to him/her. Admins have called Tumbleman "a thoroughly disruptive editor, and either a troll or else someone with serious WP:COMPETENCE issues", etc. Would it be OK to hat all of Tumbleman's comments at Talk:Rupert Sheldrake? Allowing the comments to stand would seem to reward this continued block evasion behavior. Actually I would rather delete the comments altogether, or at least the ones with no response. vzaak 03:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed the comments which no one has responded too, but I'm hesitant to do much with the ones which people have responded to. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree that tumbleman was WP:NOTHERE, and posted some theories to that effect. Strongly disagree that anyone who types "Skeptical POV" ... which is an opinion grounded in policy which more than one person holds ... or most especially anyone saying Sheldrake ought to be called a biologist, as plenty of Reliable Sources explicitly say ... is therefore Just.Like.Tumbleman.WP:OMG.  Vzaak does very good work -- both on the article prose and on SPI preliminaries -- and both are appreciated.  Did somebody run checkuser, though?  Or contact 23 to see what they would say?
 * We have a problem with persistent puppets, it is clear, and that is helping poison the atmosphere even further than it already would be for other causes. But I'd like to be very thorough and transparent with the use of the ban-hammer, and doubly especially so, since it looks like there are at least a couple more months before we'll be anywhere close to even a cease-fire in mainspace.  The modus operandi of Tumbleman-et-al is to mimic the arguments of others; that  does not therefore mean others (who are not socks) that hold a similar position, put forth a similar argument, or reply sockpuppets, are therefore themselves wrong on the merits (nor for that matter does it make them Sheldrake-fanbois).
 * p.s. I do fully understand that CU isn't *mandatory* in clear-cut cases, and am not saying that Vzaak is wrong about 23 being a tumbling-sock, or even that the one-month-block is wrong.  My main point is that I would like to make sure all concerned WP:AGF with each new editor that shows up.  Sheldrake and allies are in the news, trying to send people here to edit.  Coyne and skeptics are in the news, trying to send people here to edit.  We are gonna have actual newcomers show up, making arguments they copied from one group or the other.  We should not drive them away, just because they are beginners, or just because they hold certain positions.
 * Some of the points made by 71 before the semi-prot which kept *me* from mainspace-contributions are in fact valid. They were not an outright vandal -- nor were they an intentional sock from what it looks like.  They were a student, unfamiliar with at least some of our bazillion rules, and with WP:BITE.  Prolly nothing can nor should be done, to reopen that case of 71, but rather than a perma-ban on all IPs on sight, and treat everyone who holds positions "x, y, and z" -- that sounds just like something tumblemumbler once said! -- with automatic presumption of guilt, I ask everyone to please use the banhammer only when necessary, and preferably ask questions first.  :-)     Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Checkusers won't connect and account with an IP address, so wouldn't be helpful in this case. The behavioural evidence was pretty overwhelming when you look through in the SPI and archive. More of a block hammer, the ban hammer has already come down. Fringe science will always be an area where there will be returning socks so blocks and page protections are and will be reasonably common unfortunately. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, interesting to see extraordinarily well sourced basic biographical details (biologist) and well-sourced claims (small degree of academic support) beings edit warred out of the Sheldrake bio, and replaced with the (currently) poorly/non-sourced opinions of editors, using mainly the analogy/argument that this is an article about evolution/morphogenesis rather than about ID/Sheldrake. As I asked above, what more can be done than suggesting changes and providing numerous supporting sources for them? This is a BLP and it currently reads like a hit piece. Compare the Sheldrake article with the one on Shiro Ishii, and then try to fathom how Wikipedia presents Sheldrake as the greater villain! The mind truly boggles.Barleybannocks (talk) 10:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We've been through all of these issues countless times, and the wishful thinking and source evading doesn't stop. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sources were offered - more than 20 for "biologist (or biochemist)" and three for "small degree of academic support" almost verbatim (as well as numerous sources - about 10 - demonstrating that support).Barleybannocks (talk) 11:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We've been through that too. But never let minor things like facts get in your way of campaigning . Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The facts are clear: dozens of top-quality sources versus your unsourced opinion to the contrary. Barleybannocks (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the facts are clear: Not a single peer reviewed journal article since 1987.  Those that do do.  Those that don't don't but tell everyone they do.  We shouldn't be saying those who don't do, even if they claim they do, even if we have 20 poor quality sources that are inconsistent with the facts and which are contradicted by other sources.  But don't let that stop you always having the last word on the issue, even if it is to repeat the same tired arguments. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * When dozens of reliable sources say "X", and we can even see "X" with our own eyes if we don't initially believe it, then X is a Wikipedia fact and, if relevant, can go in an article.Barleybannocks (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Same old tired arguments . Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not an argument, it's just sources of the type needed to back up content on Wikipedia. Your point is an argument.Barleybannocks (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Problem at WP:RFPP
Thanks for the explanation in this edit. The decline did seem odd, and out of character for you, and it is reassuring to know that you didn't intend it. That damned problem of the number of sections changing before you click "Edit" is very easy to be caught by, and as a matter of fact, just before dealing with that request, I myself had almost been caught out by it on another request. I just noticed as I was about to click "Save". JamesBWatson (talk) 14:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is, especially for the last one you check. I generally have the page open in one tab, then edit each section in a different tab so get caught out. Don't know why I missed it this time. Thanks for you double checking! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Already-blocked 198.189.184.243 socks
Hi, I looked into this person a bit more and found conclusive evidence for the additional socks The contributions have the same ranting style and are in the same areas of orthomolecular medicine, vitamin C, organic food, plus an odd fixation on anti-Semitic conspiracies. An SPI doesn't seem worthwhile since the accounts are already blocked, but since you were recently exposed to these rants I thought you might be curious. vzaak 23:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm not 100% convinced that these are the same person, though it does seem likely. I agree that reporting them on the SPI probably won't achieve much. But thanks for the message. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The evidence from a worked-out SPI would be convincing, but in any case the off-site canvassing from pro-paranormal forums includes a person proudly claiming ownership of the above accounts and touting their bans; the person claims to be in communication with Sheldrake himself. The canvassing is expected to increase with upcoming events. vzaak 00:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That's a good point, but given they haven't been created recently as well probably another reason not to bother. Did you link to the off-wiki stuff in the SPI? Assuming there are no policy issues with it (like outing), and you didn't include it, it would probably be a good idea so we can track it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * 198.189.184.243, Pottinger's cats, and Blastikus are accounts openly claimed by someone using an apparently-real name, so the outing policy would seem to forbid linking. The fact that the person's works include anti-Semitic rants would seem to be extra reason to not link. vzaak 02:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Curtis Granderson
I've unsemiprotected since the trade is now official. I trust that this is okay. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like I picked the right date, just not the time ;). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * No worries, thanks for the beer. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia
Just wanted to know what is acceptable on Wikipedia. Is this,, , , acceptable? Barleybannocks (talk) 11:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * My opinion is no, but civility (unless it's an obvious personal attack or harassment) is something which is generally better handled by the community at WP:ANI because at best there is weak consensus for civility only blocks and one person's opinion is different from other people's. But if you think they are a problem ask TRPoD to refactor and if that doesn't work and you feel very strongly take it to ANI. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I was firstly just asking a general question for further reference and secondly wanted to ensure that an administrator had seen the abuse in question and had taken whatever action they deemed appropriate. Barleybannocks (talk) 12:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Glad to have you helping out at RFPP! Mark Arsten (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries and thank you. It's good to have someone experienced there to watch. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!
I appreciate the assistance with my name change issue. :) JamesG5 (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

UTRS Account Request
I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs)

Barffff97
Yes, of course he can be unblocked. Daniel Case (talk) 05:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for semi-protecting the Jane Kim article. The same editor under different names has been vandalizing it. I was going to complain to official channels but you nipped it in the bud. Chisme (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks Yunshui, my first Admin's Barnstar. :) 23:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia
I have a few questions for you since you were the one to close the Move request for Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia. To start with the question that is bugging me the most, why would closing the debate with no consensus have the article remain the same page name? You mentioned it, but you didn't explain why that is the case when WP:NOCONSENSUS exists. The second is about the rough consensus, namely how is there a consensus for not moving the article if you count the oppose and support !votes? --Super Goku V (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * First one, with no consensus the status quo prevails, and I'm happy that the move to Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia is stable enough that that's the status quo. On the second question, there two more opposes than supports and the merge votes don't necessitate or do anything to suggest towards a rename. Rough consensus means that there isn't an overall definite consensus either way, but weighing up that a no consensus close would leave it at the page title, the slightly more editors want it to stay and the editors voting to merge didn't support a rename before merge; I felt that there was a rough consensus leaning towards keeping the article at that title. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, I know this doesn't matter right now, but I still feel that it should be cleared up. When you said, "First one, with no consensus the status quo prevails, and I'm happy that the move to Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia is stable enough that that's the status quo," did you mean that it was stable enough because no one attempted to move the article or something else that made it stable?  To the second issue, I did a count on the debate.  Without counting votes that did cite a policy the discussion ended at: seven Support votes, six Oppose votes, and five Merge votes.  I think I might understand your point now, but could you explain how that ended up as a rough consensus to not move?  --Super Goku V (talk) 05:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No problems. Stable in that it has been at that title for around 3 weeks before the move request and there wasn't an attempt to move it back or a request for the move to be reverted as controversial. I have 6 support votes, 8 oppose votes (all of which either name, suggest [as in Someguy's] a policy or refer their reason to other's votes [as in Kaldari's]), and 3 straight merge votes [Kaldari voted to delete, and 74.192.84.101 said that they're happy to skip the rename]. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I was thinking you were combining the merge and oppose votes for the rough consensus, which technically the merge votes are opposed to the move to Wiki-PR. Either way, I am alright with that.  While this doesn't matter, the fact you said it was "stable" is an issue to me.  The move occurred on October 23, 2013 at 09:42.  Afterwards,  there was at least three users who called for a move back.  Our response was basically that we were forbidden to move it back without a move request.  Which lead to "I believe that this issue has waited long enough.  I was hoping one of the other editors who supported the move would of created this to end the debate, but I feel that this will have to do."  While this likely won't lead to anything, I am bugged that by not getting into a revert war, the other name is considered stable.  --Super Goku V (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * One other thing that played into things a bit. Does it matter if the user who creates a move request be involved in the article?  Kevin Gorman suggested that doing so could be a COI violation, which was why I gave the issue two weeks before I created the request.  --Super Goku V (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I was in a sense combining them, but only to the extent that they were happy for it to be at that title (to the extent that they didn't state that they wanted it renamed in the mean time). You can pretty much view my decision as no consensus leaning towards the current title (due to the way the votes went and the current name). In terms of stability, I was comfortable that it was stable because it was at that title and had been for at least a little while. I would probably have considered which ever title the article was at stable, unless the RM was within a few days of the move or it had been reverted as controversial. Given there were a number of suggestions for merging, and I think at least one for deletion, so I'd suggest that one of them either propose another merge or take it to AfD.
 * No not at all, really it's the same as suggesting an edit, which anyone (but usually a normal editor of the article would do). RFC is the only think I can think of that Kevin may be referring to. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, I believe this satisfies my questions. Either way it goes, I can understand that there is no consensus towards moving the article.  At least this discussion has taught me where the move button is at.  :P  In any case, thank you for your help in this case and for answering my questions.  Sadly, this will not be the last issue I would like to discuss with you, but I can say that this should be the end of the first.  :)  Thanks again, Super Goku V (talk) 02:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Your Wikidata user page
I hope you don't mind me editing your userpage.  Jianhui67 talk ★ contribs 12:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I suppose I'd better do the OTRSwiki too. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning
Can you reset pending changes settings? --George Ho (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is indef pending changes protected, just that the semi protection is overriding it. I'd rather give it few more weeks, but I'm happy if you want to take it to WP:RFPP (and for another admin to lift or shorten the semi) or a second opinion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

FYI
If you close a RM discussion with RM top, than you don't need to sign it, because the template does that automatically. 84.0.247.141 (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Warning
About Origins of Romanians. Please read again Wikipedia's policy on edit. I always entered reliable references. You got involved in a nationalistic approach of some Hungarian editors:

1. They denied a well known byzantinolog Alexandru Elian without adding opposing references.

2. They declared my references as "original work" !!!

3. They denied their Hungarian historyan Moravcsik.

Please read again motivations from talk pages and you will understand that some editors work against Wikipedia's policy.Eurocentral (talk) 06:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

It is very simple to take a look: Read here: http://www.investigacioneshistoricaseuroasiaticas-ihea.com/files/alexiada.pdf (at page 253) Anna Comnen clearly describes Dacians around Haemus mountains. A lot of Romanian historians saw this. This is why I proposed a compromise. Moravcsick was a translator and influenced a large part of readers. Comnen used "Hungarians" term only in connection with Panonia.

Remember, in my last edit I proposed a compromise: 2 Romanians and 1 Hungarian references. Also I accuse the double standard promoted by Borsoka and some Hungarian editors: they agree some sentences in Romanian history pages but in Hungarian history pages they deny them. This is a double standard activity and the result is the errosion of the credibility of Wiki. For every "double standard" error that I protested Borsoka started editing wars. My opinion is that we have "double dealers" among editors. Eurocentral (talk) 06:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You were edit warring before the protection and you have continued after the protection. I refer to the warning on your talk page which states "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right". Wikipedia works on consensus which means that you need to discuss an gain agreement for the changes you'd like to make before you make them to the article. My job as an administrator is to prevent disruption, by continually edit warring you are being disruptive. Please see the dispute resolution policy for the options you need to undertake from here. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Philippe II duke of orléans -dispute
Dear Sir, I'm responding here to the agressive and false allegations that have just been brought to your attention about mya allegedly violating the WP.3RRN. The problem revolves around the systematic deletion of a paragraph I wrote over a year ago as part of Philippe II duke of Orleans' article. FactStraight and his wiki friend Kansas Bear seem bent on entirely deleting my edit although this paragraph is well referenced and relies on serious historical sources. There has been no attempt of any kind of dialogue by FactStraight who merely keep deleting the paragraph every other month or so as the editing history clearly shows. Over the past days the party seem decided to upscale the problem into a full scale editing war but again without any dialogue. Kansas Bear merely left an agressive warning on my talk page, while deleting an edit I left on his page last night through the agency of a sock puppet (editWarrior) who merely justified his deletion by insulting comments. A "new" editor has just surfaced: Dr.K again deleting my contribution to Philippe's biography and leaving an agressive title to his editing which I ask you to consider removing. Actually I start to wonder if Kansas Bear and FactStraight are not the same person... I do not understand the rites of agression that seem to characterize this editor's attitude in this after all very minor matter : we are talking about a long dead figure of French history (17th-18th centuries). Thank you for your attention.Aerecinski (talk) 10:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Aerecinski, at a quick look at what you've been adding to the article the main problem with it is the tone. Have a look at WP:TONE for more information. Wikipedia works on consensus which, at it's base, means that editors need to discuss their opinions whenever something has been contested. The paragraph became controversial and contested once it was reverted. So you should [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Philippe_II,_Duke_of_Orl%C3%A9ans&action=edit&section=new start a new section] on the article's talk page and explain the reason you think that paragraph should be in the article, and be prepared to compromise. It's important that you don't try and make any changes to the article unless other editors agree on the talk page, otherwise it could be considered edit warring and may be blocked from editing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The Golden Dawn Article and Edit Wars (Again..)
I'm sorry for bothering you over this again. I have filed a report on the editor again Report. I have no other way to handle this anymore, please help me out with this because only this user tries to promote propaganda and misinformation and restrict the information that doesn't fit his interests. I've never ever had this problem with anyone on Wikipedia before, even with people that I had disagreements with. My patience is over, and I cannot go on working and providing information with someone that keeps vandalizing and disrupts the development of the article. The user doesn't care about the Wikipedia rules, now he just tries to bend them in ways that will present his edits and vandalism as justifiable. You've been following the dispute so I think you are the most appropriate person to offer another opinion on the matter beyond my opinion. Thank you for your time and effort in helping with the article, and again I apologize for having to end up into this situation but I have found almost no ground for co-operation with this single user, and he is the only one who keeps creating problems and damaging the quality of the article. --Tco03displays (talk) 11:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand your frustration and I saw the report, but I'd rather use the chance for a second opinion. Through the reviewing admin might just ask that you go to WP:ANI, but we'll see. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well as you think it is appropriate. But I am certain I'm on the right in this one. I follow politics in Greece, and I write and checkout mostly political articles on Cyprus and Greece. This is beyond a simple difference in opinion or perspective of editors (as it happens in Turkish vs. Greece articles like the Talk:Turkish invasion of Cyprus), but clear motives of propaganda and restriction of information. For example, after I reverted the user's vandalism in murder of Pavlos Fyssas, the user went on to translate content from the Greek article (as asked from the appropriate tag). But he translated ONLY information that indicated that the murder carried no political motives, which reduces Golden Dawn's responsibility and moves the article closer to Golden Dawn's statement that it was a murder based on a disagreement on football. Which is false, based on the evidence and the statement of the murderer and the eye-witnesses. It is a given at the moment that the murderer was a Golden Dawn member, and that he was called to go to the area with the purpose of killing a political opponent. The whole case has been incorporated into the accusation of Golden Dawn for being a criminal organization, and has been added to a long list of accusations on manslaughter, violence, future goals of the overthrow of the democratic constitution, with gigabites of data being included in the court case at the moment. I'm only stating all this to get you further to understand with what we are dealing here and what the user's edits eventually accomplish even if they are not fundamentally out of the rules. There is an agenda here, and a very dangerous one as well. Wikipedia might be an encyclopedia, it is also the world's largest free database. That is why it is useful for propaganda, and control of opinion, in this case, for affecting the views on non-Greek speaking readers, and this is why from the article's creation I still follow it closely and try to eradicate such elements from it. --Tco03displays (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

New email
''' JianhuiMobile talk 13:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Give Me a Hand Please
Please give me a hand here. I'm not asking you to agree with me or support me, but please help to deal with this mess because it is becoming pretty annoying and ugly. Report Page --Tco03displays (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Given Bbb23's comments, my advice would be to work it through the dispute resolution process, or if there is a case of Katcheic breaking a conduct policy make a clear case, including which polic(y/ies) you believe they are breaking and why. Short of that, the best thing you can do is to talk it through on the talk page of the article, which seems to be mostly working, if needed you can always ask for a third opinion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'll I copied everything on the talkpage and I will try a bit more to reach consensus, then I will move into filing a dispute in the hope it will be solved. --Tco03displays (talk) 07:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Henry Earl debate
Hello again, Callanecc. Considering you are one of the two people to Recuse themselves from Jclemens' Case Request, I would like to ask you if you agree that things should be looked into on a larger scale, outside of the Jclemens-28bytes issue. While it would be nice to bury the issue, I believe that on a potential scale, there might be quite a few users who should be looked into further. That includes myself due to my own actions in the debate, however small they are. However, if this should be done, I do not know if there is a place on Wikipedia for such a review. If you would do so, I would like to know your thoughts on this matter before I continue. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note to make, I'm a clerk not an arbitrator. It would depend what you believe needs to be looked into. AN or ANI are generally the first point of call, however if it's about a user and long term an WP:RFC/U would be the best option. I haven't looked very deeply into the dispute so I'm not sure what you're referring to. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Sorry for making the mistake.  I was more referring to just a review on a group of users who have been core to the Henry Earl debate considering what has happened, not just a specific user.  Sort of like Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman_Empire–Turkey_naming_dispute, except not necessarily a case for ArbCom to review.  --Super Goku V (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ArbCom is really the only body which is set up to examine user conduct around a specific article or topic, especially when the conduct of users isn't especially disruptive or it's overshadowed. ANI generally is only set up to look at particularly disruptive users or groups of users who are quite disruptive. In all honesty the best thing would probably be to drop it for now, and see where it goes and what happens next. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Another Newestcastleman sock account
Hello, I believe blocked sock user:Newestcastleman has created a new account - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Soccercitiesclubs.. could you please deal with it? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ and I've asked for a CU to do a sleeper check and possibly block the IP. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * JMHamo (talk) 12:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi
...I don't understand but, only know the user delete some text in particular it was already there. he should make a consensus not me. Thanks. --Connie (A.K) (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Connie, the WP:BRD cycle works by someone making an edit (you adding the content), someone reverting the addition, then the person who wants the content in the article needs to start a discussion on the article's talk page outlining the reasons they believe the content in question should be in the article. Please see this for more information. Reverting back and forth is disruptive to Wikipedia and makes it harder to reach agreement between editors, so the best thing to do is that start a discussion with the reasons you think the content you want in those articles should be in them. Hope that helps, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Sources and references
Please unlock Boom Pictures page - so sources and references can be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.210.230 (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The article was redirected as a result of community consensus at Articles for deletion/Boom Pictures, if you want to create an article you will need to first discuss it with the administrator who closed the discussion and if that doesn't work, take it to WP:DRV. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Belated Congratulations!
Hi Callanecc! A very Happy Belated Congratulations from me on becoming an administrator :) I had been very busy recently for the past few weeks and so missed the chance to support for you, but nonetheless I see that everything went good. Anyways, see you around and Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk)  19:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! :) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Request regarding Kafziel Arbitration case
Per, what I understand the current operating procedure to be, I am requesting that in your capacity as the clerk for this case that you remove the "Evidence presented by 74" section as it consists of no evidence but rather a generic statement. Pending no response from you within 48 hours of this request(either positive or negative), I do intend to appeal this request to the Clerks noticeboard as I feel that the statement consists of accusations of bad faith and an attempt to throw mud over what I understand the scope of the case to be. Hasteur (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll check with the drafting arbitrator and get back to you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What *I* understand the current operating procedure to be is the five pillars. My statement contained the two key pieces of evidence.  Kafziel's position.  AGK's assertion.  I read the ANI thread, and Hasteur is in the wrong.  Who is this drafting-arbitrator?  And why is Hasteur not coming to me with their problems?  
 * I have no beef with Anne Delong, Kudpung, davidwr, Tituko, Julie, and the various other folks at AfC that I know. I have no beef with Hasteur, nor Rich333, for that matter, though I have not had the pleasure of interacting directly with them.  I like AfC.  But this is an arbcom matter.  Kafziel was following the five pillars.  They were solving a critical problem, in a way they felt was clearly within the letter and the spirit of the five pillars.  They were taken to AN/I, and won.  They were taken to ArbCom, and retired rather than endure the drama.
 * Hasteur should be more than satisfied, since that dovetails exactly with their whole goal: keep Kafziel from interfering any further with AfC.  But I am not satisfied.  I want ArbComto finish ruling on the case, because the case is about whether IAR is no longer a pillar.  Please put my statement back, so that Hasteur's suggestion of a speedy-close is not the final word.  I am happy to discuss, with all and sundry, at a location of their choosing, perhaps IRC for maximum speed of back-n-forth.  But I don't want the case flushed down the memory hole.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You can find the name of the drafting arbitrator at the top of each of the case pages. The Committee is currently deciding what to do with the case. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So given that it is urgent, can you put my evidence back in? There are two direct quotes.  I can supply the diffs which contain those quotes, if needed, but those *are* the key evidence.  Or need I contact the drafting arbitrator, and ask them what you asked them and what they told you and so on?  Please help me out here, so that the case is not closed while I'm mucking through the red tape.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The arbs will still look at the talk page (especially given the other discussion going on there at the moment) so I'd suggest that you add that to the statement on the talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be a moron, but I don't have time to read the policy pages here. Somebody has already restored me to the talkpage.  I don't see the arbs commenting there.  Presumably they are just reading the main page, which as far as they know is blank, right?  Unhappy camper.  This is not your fault, I understand.  But can you help me accomplish my goal here, or at least, point me in the right direction?  Closure by motion, with no affirmation of whether or not IAR still stands, or is repealed, is what I see as the worst-case-scenario.  I want to avoid that outcome.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I would imagine that the arbs will be looking at both the evidence page and talk page. My advice would be to add what you want to say and your reasons for it on the talk page. The drafting arb knows there is discussion there so will be looking at it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I will ask her, and see what she says. Appreciate your trying to help out here, and sorry you got in the middle.  (I think that you may be used to that feeling however. ;-)    Anyhoo, I'm unhappy with the situation, and feel like this is not right... since I *did* put evidence from Kafziel and one of their adversaries into my statement.  But I don't think Hasteur nor yourself have done anything wrong, mostly this is just my inexperience with arbcom drama, and I'll pursue my efforts elsewhere, and see if I can muddle through.  Danke, see you around. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but 74's statemens and "urgency" is a prime example of why I asked the clerk for the case to remove the "evidence" from the page. Evidence requires diffs and specific claims of wrongdoing.  All I'm seeing from that statement and the argument here is that they want their statement to remain on the case.  The posting might have been reasonable and applicable in the Request Phase as a non-party statement, but not in the evidence. Hasteur (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So you want the URLs. Fair enough.  One moment.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I added them, see here please. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll let Callanecc respond further, but all I see is you creating meta-evidence (that is already part of the case) and therefore not presenting anything that isn't already part of the record. I would presume that Arbitrators are able to read the cases pages and talk pages and therefore able to make their own determination of what the scope is.  Being that the majority of the committee accepted with (in my viewpoint) a scope of determining if Kafziel's actions were significantly problematic.  Reforming AfC is a content issue and not conduct, therefore I imagine there will be a finding that the community should hold a RFC on AfC, but that does not rise to the level of needing to investigate the conduct of WPAfC members. Hasteur (talk) 04:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm presenting no new evidence, true, although per my message on your talkpage I *can* do so... and offered as much in the statement. What *is* new is the rationale for ArbCom not to take your suggested of a speedy-close, retroactively declining to examine the behavior of "all editors" merely because Kafziel happens to have retired.
 * *I* want the behavior of Kafziel examined, and a proper ruling made, on whether they violated pillar four, or not, and more importantly, whether WP:PG now somehow can trump WP:IAR. You are no longer concerned with the case, because your goal of keeping Kafziel from interfering with AfC has been accomplished.  But there is more at stake here than just the one editor, Kafziel, that I see.  You need not agree.  But you have accused me of failing to assume good faith, and of throwing mud on the scope.  I posted the exact scope.  I am not assuming bad faith.
 * You are not WP:REQUIRED to agree with these assertions of mine, of course, but I think you are confusing me with somebody else, somebody with a different agenda. I have no interest in your "side" versus Kafziel, except to the extent that I want the five pillars to remain the five pillars.  The outcome at AN/I supported my goal; the dispense-with-a-motion-under-a-cloud will *not* support my goal.  That's my only issue here, is to have arbcom make a proper statement that WP:IAR still trumps WP:PG, just like it always has.  Or that it no longer does.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

So I've gathered some of the involved-parties-from-both-sides diffs. Are they necessary to add? I don't see the point of adding more usernames to the pile; all I want is a brief ruling that while the WMF still can exercise fiat-power over enWiki as the owners of the server-farm (but they do their best to nevah-evah-evah unless really crucial that they act), no such powers to overrule the five pillars exist in WP:PG, nor in any wikiproject traditional customs. Second question: maybe there is not the urgency, and this will stay open until the 29th? "The Committee is currently deciding what to do with the case." Emphasis added. I thought you meant, currently as in NOW... did you just mean, currently-and-through-the-29th? Danke. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably only worth adding them if the Committee decides to continue the case.
 * That sounds outside what the Committee would normally do. From my experience and reading they generally avoid making findings regarding the relationship between the WMF and the community. About 12 hours ago they were deciding in the next 24 hours or so. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Grumble. Okay, so my reading of what you meant was correct, and it is urgent that my stuff get "properly" put together, in the next few hours, if it is to have the desired effect.  I'm used to having on-wiki communication-troubles, plaintext and no context-cues and so on, but this seems unreasonably difficult.  Forget I ever mentioned the WMF.  I have struck it, above.
 * One. My entire goal, phase one, is to get the arbs to continue the case.
 * Two. Hasteur has proposed they end the case, because Hasteur has what they wanted:  Kafziel out of AfC.
 * Three. I don't care about Hasteur's reasons for filing, or Kafziel's reasons for leaving, or indeed, the entire episode.  In my book, the ANI ended properly, and criticism of Kazfiel's nonchalance was understandable.  But again, I don't care at all who "wins" as far as AfC rules go, or "reforming" the AfC process, or "fixing" the backlog.  Do not care today; other days care deeply, just not today.
 * Four. Kazfiel's statement in their defense, and AGK's pre-statement ("non-binding" comment) are at loggerheads.  If WP:PG trumps WP:IAR, or indeed, if the traditional customs of a wikiProject trump WP:IAR, then I want to have it in a Finding.  If not, I want *that* to be affirmed in a Finding.  I'll follow the finding either way.  For this phase-two goal, I'm happy to collect volumnious diffs, and have done so already in one case.  Should I post them now?
 * Five. If the case ends in a motion, there will be no such finding.  I would consider no official outcome to be a bad outcome; core-conduct-questions were raised, and not answered.
 * Do you understand my aim here? The arbs no longer need take the case to satisfy Kazfiel, they retired.  The arbs no longer need to take the case to satisfy Hasteur, they got what motivated them to file.  The arbs no longer need to take the case for their own purposes, they made their pre-acceptance-comments.  But the core dispute of the case impacts the whole of wikipedia.  Did Kazfiel act within what the community permits?  AN/I says yet.  AGK, in his accept-vote commentary, says the opposite!  It's just a comment, sure.  Maybe it's just his personal opinion, and that is fine by me.
 * But I very badly want to see the case decided, as a guide to future conduct, because in *my* conduct I rely on pillar five every day, and have *often* used it to ignore some essay, some guideline, or some policy ... not to mention traditional wiki-customs of 'how things are done' ... and expect to continue doing so. AGK has hinted that what I do is wrong, and that the will of the community is now that WP:PG trumps WP:IAR.  From my other diffs, Hasteur likely agrees.  I do not believe the other arbs think thataway, nor the "wider community" either, but unless the arbs take the conduct-case, I'll never know.  They're retiring, after all. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You claim you're done, yet you make full court press for trying to drag out the problem even further. Similar to the recent Jclemmons request, my insistence on the case hinged on the future danger to the encyclopedia at large (of which AfC submissions are a subset) that were still in danger of being maltreated by a cowboy admin.  Should the committee accept the proposed desysop-under-a-cloud, Kafziel's toolchest will be same that any other editor has. While AfC was the original vehicle for the complaint, the administrator actions and accountability became the more significant portion of the case.  IAR is a wonderful pillar, however it needs to be guarded over casual over usage. "I delete AN/I because it causes too much drama and therefore per IAR, I break a great many policies/rules/guidelines (and referring documents) to delete this hive of villainy". See how that's an absurd abuse of IAR.  Kafziel's reaching for IAR was significantly beyond the outlays for "Improving wikipedia" and "Common Sense". Hasteur (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, if you'll see above, I claimed I would ask Risker. She's not responded.  But yes, I am trying to drag the problem out:  I disagree with you that Kafziel was in any way "significantly beyond the outlays".  And I very much disagree with AGK that the will of the community nowadays is that WP:PG trumps WP:IAR.  Your point is well-taken that WP:IAR is not a license to act absurdly; it requires that the community have a definition of "improving the encyclopedia" which is shared and consensus.  AGK's take on it and my take on it don't seem to match, and from reading about RI HorrorFest, prolly yours and mine don't match.  I'm happy to change mine, but I do want to know what the arbs besides AGK will say about WP:IAR, and the arbcom-interpreted meaning of "improving" wikipedia, in terms of whether Kazfiel was, or wasn't.  It doesn't matter to Kazfiel, anymore, but it matters to me.   p.s.  I don't know the Jclemmons stuff, but I consider myself a "cowboy/cowgirl" if that helps.  Again, though, I don't see this case as about conduct of you, or even of Kazfiel... I want guidance for *my own* future conduct, which has always been WP:IAR... the problem is, I'm not so sure I understand what the words in IAR even mean anymore.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, very cool
I'm very glad to see this long time overdue. Thanx   Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 16:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Great Chinese Famine
Hi, You blocked as a sock of. A few hours later, was created to make the same reverts. Whether or not that deserves a block, or facepalm, or something else... I leave to your judgment. bobrayner (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bob, sockpuppet indef'd and master blocked for a week. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Unnecessary full protection?
Hi, just wanted to know the reason why BJP was fully protected for edit warring when it was relatively peaceful. I've asked the user who posted at the RPP the same thing here (no reply). The history shows just three users who have done some serious editing in the past few days...one is me (in fact I made a big blunder which the 2nd user pointed out and I promptly fixed it), then there is the 2nd user who is working on it and most recently, the 3rd who just undid one of their own edit. The only actual reverts were for some anons who kept blanking content, which was the reason I stepped in. Again I know this is silly but just wanted to know if I missed something and also there was that one user who was editing it daily who might be interrupted. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I was looking at the IPs removing content and thought that was a content dispute. Per the verifiability they are permitted to remove it since it's unsourced. Given that full protection is stopping it from being sourced I've unprotected to allow for that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Fairoz Khan
Hi there. I recently copy edited and began watching Fairoz Khan. Pretty sure the subject is editing his own page. I noticed you blocked User:Fairoz.Khan_JK from Wiki editing; I wanted to bring it to your attention that User:Fairoz22khan has also started editing tat page and I'm pretty sure it's a sock puppet account. Any advice or help is appreciated. PaintedCarpet (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message. The block was a softblock so they are allowed create another account. I think it'd be better to wait until the WP:COIN discussion is over before taking any action. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

User edit warring
Hey Callanecc, I noticed you gave User:La Avatar Korra a warning for edit warring, and would just like to point out that they have now violated WP:3RR on Ariana Grande with this edit. Also I am pretty sure they have violated WP:3RR on Ariana Grande discography too. STATic  message me!  17:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * User:STATicVapor you realized that you were the first to violate that rule in the articles? Connie (A.K) (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd rather warn than block if I think it could lead to discussion, which in this case I did. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem is, you did warn them and they continued to war on both those two pages after the warning. There has been discussion before, see User talk: STATicVapor and real discussion has yet to happen, they left that comment here rather than continue the discussion. I am sure they would have only left another message on my talk page if I had reverted again. But I have practically begged this user to use article talk pages and yet they refuse.  STATic  message me!  01:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Alright, lets see what happens next. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * User:STATicVapor did you make consensus to make changes?. I think these changes are not yours, They are of another user: Louis Erisson, I ask again: why Louis Erisson yes that can make changes without consensus?. Try thinking please. Please check the history, there is a user Louis Erisson makes changes without consensus, again: why the user can make changes without consensus?.. Finally, the discography is wrong and that's what I try to correct, in the section As main artist are usually songs with video. the rest should be in another section other songs. The article was correct, but Louis Erisson maked drastic changes without consensus, I undid, and User:STATicVapor,  I don't understand why User:STATicVapor imposes the edition without consensus of user louis, now do you understand the story?. Connie (A.K) (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey Callanecc, looks like it did not take very long for them to continue on the Ariana Grande. The user has now continued to edit war, reverting myself and another user. See / and here where they reverted my two previous edits, still refusing to explain or discuss how it is significant or introduce evidence of coverage in independent third party reliable sources. Not to mention again making uncommented reverts about other content and not adhering to the manual of style (one sentence paragraphs?). STATic  message me!  08:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

STATicVapor again...
Hello. I make this edition and the user feels my presence, reverses and seeks opportunity to harass me, the user just reverts my edits. He makes me uncomfortable. For example, why not search for consensus here or here?... Please!, the user just revert my edits, he chases me. OmG! Something help me!. Connie (A.K) (talk) 05:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Take it to the article's talk page. That how the WP:BRD cycle works. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks, but the point is, I think the user has something personal with my edits. I think by the time the case is closed. Thanks for your time.Connie (A.K) (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Tznkai
has suggested a way of dealing with the Barleybannocks AE. You seem to be ignoring it and stepping over a solution and another admin. I'm wondering why. Perhaps I missed something. From the AE page:(Littleolive oil (talk) 10:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC))

Littleolive oil, given the evidence presented in this request, and my review of the situation, I do not think we can justify using the pseudoscience case remedies to institute the scheme you've suggested. If however, you or another editor agrees to keep me informed in a neutral, focused and concise manner, I will observe but not mediate the page to see if adminsitrative interference or even special measures are jstified. That is the best I will do at this point. As to Barleybannocks, I think a short (days, not months) but enforced break from the page could be good for both Barleybannocks and the editing culture on the page.--Tznkai (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

If someone wants to be spared the indignity of a logged sanction, I think we should all be willing to grant it, with the explicit understanding that voluntary can quickly become involuntary. However, Barleybannocks would have to him or herself volunteer the same in clear terms. As to everyone else taking a break, I agree they should, but I lack clear evidentiary grounds to enforce that belief.--Tznkai (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Pinging Tznkai so they know you've quoted their comments.
 * It's already been suggested to Barley that he take some time off the article and it didn't so I think any ban is looking at weeks and months. I'd have no objection to making it limited, and as the admin imposing the sanction I would encourage Barley to edit constructively in other areas then come back to either me or AE in few months to ask that the ban be lifted.
 * I agree with what Tznkai said re everyone else taking a voluntary break would be beneficial however at this stage there isn't the evidence for that. Voluntary over involuntary for Barley, when he commented there were a number of admins suggesting a ban of some sort and his response continued to argue the (content) issues rather than address his own or others conduct. Also suggesting to me that it's too late for a voluntary restriction. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for notifying Tznkai; I didn't think of it . Maybe its too early in the  morning.:O) I guess I don't understand how one admin came in and walked over another admin's solutions with their own. I don't see consensus for an indef article ban among admins, either. Barley is a relatively new user and I think content and behaviour can easily be mixed up. I do see concern expressed about other behaviours on that article. I mentioned some. I think the fairest thing to do would be to notify  Barley about possible options and give him time to respond rather than assume he'll behave in any given way. There is no rush.  All that said, I'll let you and Tzankai work this out. Thanks for your response here.(Littleolive oil (talk) 11:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC))


 * The first thing to note is that AE doesn't work on consensus. However I count 3 admins in favour of an article/topic ban (without including ErikHaugen or Tznkai). As ErikHaugen linked to there have been previous attempts to convince Barley that they need to either drop it or use more formal means (such as an RfC), they haven't done that and have continued the same arguing as before (including on the AE request) so an article ban is really the only option we have left. And I note that we could impose a topic ban but have decided to go with the lesser article ban. In any case I'm just about to impose the ban, but I'll leave the enforcement request open for others to present evidence. Callanecc (talk •

contribs • logs) 11:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Some questions for a junior wikipedia administrator
As a junior Wikipedian supportive of the recent indefinite banning of a user for defending what appears to be Wikipedia core values, I would like to ask you a few specific questions, and I would be very grateful for some specific answers.

1. Is Wikipedia primarily supposed to reflect: a) what reliable sources say; or b) can multiple reliable sources be overridden by a few editors’ opinions?

2. If the answer to the above question is (b), then should this not be made much clearer in policy etc, because as things stand they give the impression that Wikipedia should primarily be a reflection of what reliable sources say?

3. If the answer to the first question is (a), then why is it inappropriate to say, for example, that “Sheldrake’s work has received a small degree of support from academics” in light of the following sources which are a sample of sources supporting/showing both the fact of, and the content of, some of Sheldrake’s academic support?

Sources stating there has been support for Sheldrake within academia:

Sources stating there has been support for Sheldrake within academia:

David F. Haight, Professor of Philosophy at Plymouth State University writing in The Scandal of Reason, published by the University Press of America says, “that Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields have been taken seriously by more physicists than biologists is to be expected.”

Bryan Appleyard, writing in the Sunday Times (a source already used in the article) says “Morphic resonance is widely derided and narrowly supported”.

Adam Lucas, writing in 21.C says that “of all the scientific journals, New Scientist has undoubtedly been the most supportive of Sheldrake, having published a number of sympathetic articles on formative causation over the years." And this: "when he has not been ignored, however, Sheldrake's peers have expressed everything from outraged condemnation to the highest praise."

'''But are these sources true? Yes, as it happens, here are some scientists and academics who have supported Sheldrake’s work:'''

Nobel Laureate in Physics Brian David Josephson writing in Nature.

Marc Bekoff, Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder writing in Psychology Today.

Menas Kafatos, the Fletcher Jones Endowed Professor of Computational Physics and the Director of the Center of Excellence at Chapman University – Huffington Post

Stuart Hameroff Professor of Anesthesiology and Psychology, Director, Center for Consciousness Studies, The University of Arizona – Huffington Post

Rudolph E. Tanzi, Joseph P. and Rose F. Kennedy Professor of Neurology at Harvard University, Director of the Genetics and Aging Research Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital – Huffington Post

Neil Theise, Professor, Pathology and Medicine, (Division of Digestive Diseases) Beth Israel Medical Center - Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York – Huffington Post

All four of the above wrote a letter, published in the Huffington Post supporting the scientific content of Sheldrake’s TEDx talk (which included a discussion of morphic resonance) and about which they say "there was not a hint of bad science in it". Hameroff also said that Sheldrake’s work could be accounted for by his own theory of consciousness developed in association with Roger Penrose

Further scientific/academic support for Sheldrake.

David Bohm FRS, who collaborated with Sheldrake on connection between his implicate order and Sheldrake’s morphic resonance with a dialogue published in the peer-reviewed journal ReVision

Hans-Peter Durr Physicist, who wrote about Sheldrake’s work in connection with quantum Physics

Theodore Roszak Professor Emeritus of history at California State University, East Bay writing in New Scientist

Mary Midgley writing in the Guardian

Paul Davies Physics professor at Arizona State University as well as the Director of BEYOND: Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science

John Gribbin Atrophysicist, and a visiting fellow in astronomy at the University of Sussex

A final point

One other similar area where the sources are overwhelming concerns the well known (and extraordinarily well-sourced) fact that Sheldrake is a biologist - a fact which his constantly removed. contra BLP and clear Wikipedia precedence. If needed I can provide 100 reliable sources for this from every conceivable type of source/individual/institution. Here are four from the New York Times alone which, I believe, are not included in the more than 25 currently cited on talk. 

Again, then, I would be grateful if you could answer the specific questions above in relation to this particular content. I eagerly await your response. Thanks Barleybannocks (talk) 12:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't consider myself a senior Wikipedian. However I will point this out to you, you need to spend some time away from Sheldrake and show us that you can edit constructively in other areas. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've amended the above to take account of your status. Now, I would be very grateful if you could answer the simple questions above with regard to core wikipedia policy. If you don't feel yourself to be qualified to answer these questions on very basic policy, then please just say that. If that is the case I would be grateful if you could tell me who might know some basic details about the relationship of sources (say, a hundred reliable ones) and content on wikipedia. Thanking you in anticipation. Barleybannocks (talk) 12:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to go point to point with you, and I'll add that you are showing the battleground attitude that at least one user commented on in the AE request. I'll say it again, you need to move on. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I am trying to move on. I am asking for some basic information about core wikipedia policy because I would like to know how the encyclopaedia operates. Say, for example, I edit another article. And say for example, I find a thousand reliable sources saying, as it might be, that the subject of the article is a physicist with a phd in physics from, let us say, Oxford. And let us also imagine there are no sources that dispute this and no argument about the fact iun the off-wiki world. Is this the kind of information that can be added unproblematically to your encyclopaedia or can facts like that just be removed if some editors don't like it. Thanking you in advance for your time. Barleybannocks (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok. Yes it should be included, unless there are other reasons not to include it such as WP:WEIGHT and WP:ITA (for fringe and pseudoscience science) or a consensus on the article's talk page not to include it which is not against a wider consensus. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Callanecc is gently suggesting that you drop all inquiries about Sheldrake for a while. Continuing to wedge a shim into policy to authorize your actions is an example of a battleground mentality. Work on other articles for a minimum of 3 months without disruption, then politely suggest changes on the Sheldrake article. Hasteur (talk) 13:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * So, just to get this straight, basic facts about the world are subject to consensus by Wikipedia editors? That is, if editors don't like certain facts, those facts can become non-facts on Wikipedia despite their acceptance as facts (as testified by their being tacitly (or explicitly) noted as facts in thousands of reliable sources) in the wider world. Is that your understanding of this encyclopaedia? Grateful also if you could explain how WP:WEIGHT and WP:ITA might conceivably relate to, for example, a basic biographical fact about a person such as their being, say, a physicist.Barleybannocks (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ariiise
I just wanted to bring to your attention that although Ariiise acknowledged editing while not logging in, he made no such admission about Fotohist. Coretheapple (talk) 14:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * True, but I was and am happy to assume good faith. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you look into this again..
So you remember the block you handed out the other day..this is one of the first edits that was made upon expiry..[] which is basically a continuation of the warring and WP:OWN behaviors. This is an example of what it ended up looking like after a third party editor came in and rather nicely cleaned everything up [] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've asked Smauritius to explain. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok I just wanted to avoid any appearance that I was edit warring 8) Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Javidbinyousaf
Hi Callencc. I just protected Javidbinyousaf not seeing that you'd declined to protect it a minute earlier. I'm happy either way - if you want to remove the protection feel free. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just blocked the account as an obvious sock of Javedbinyousaf. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks for letting me know. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

File mover permission request
Please check my request for file mover rights at Requests_for_permissions/File_mover. - Rahat  (Talk * Contributions) 17:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

What was my ban for?
Hi, what was it I was banned for (specifically)? Nobody seems to know. Barleybannocks (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I advise against going down the route of wikilawyering. It never ends well. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ...and will probably result in you getting topic banned. The reasons were clearly outlined in the AE request and I'm fairly sure in replies to a number of the messages you left on other admin's talk pages. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So you don't really know, or will not say, why you banned me. Barleybannocks (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You may not like it, but the Arb Enforcement process is pretty transparent. You were topic banned for making a general nuisance of yourself after being told multiple times that your viewpoint had not achieved consensus.  Each time you try to look for a loophole or attempt to try and overturn the AE conesensus to ban you from the page you dig yourself further into the hole of privilege denial. Hasteur (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I wasn't looking for a loophole. I was asking, as many others had, what the whole AE thing was about. That is, the original charge was nothing like you say as it related to a very particular issue around one very particular point. This was rejected almost immediately by the arbitrators, but then the "trial" apparently changed into something quite different - of which I was never informed. This, as I'm sure you can imagine, makes it very difficult to mount a defense. Perhaps it would be an idea in future to fully inform people of EXACTLY what the charges are. You may feel this is in bad faith but there were at least four people on the AE who were likewise mystified. What viewpoint was it, incidentally, that hadn't reached consensus? Or was it just "viewpoint" in general? Barleybannocks (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hamady Brothers
Any chance I can ask you to keep an eye on Hamady Brothers? Several IPs keep adding information that contradicts the article's sources, and this has been going on and off since July. If you see anything about Corn Flakes in a revision, revert on sight. I don't want to keep playing whack-a-mole forever with this article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Watchlisted. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Puppet
proofs pls.27.66.157.70 (talk) 06:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This edit is proof enough, as well as the two unblock requests for you and your puppet, the email one of them sent me and the autoblocks. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Cold?

 * Thank you. :) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Trolollollollollollollollollollol
Hi: I noticed that you marked this username as not being a blatant violation of username policy. Usernames do not have to be offensive to be blocked: some, like this one, are blockable under the heading of "Usernames that otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia". Their first edit, which was obvious and deliberate vandalism, confirms this interpretation, making them a clear case for a vaublock. Obvious and self-declared trolling accounts don't need to be given the benefit of the doubt. -- The Anome (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Righto no worries. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Request to you as a responsible admin
I saw you protected a few files, like File:Adrienne Augarde01.JPG et al. The way you do it, you first add the text, including the protection template, and then add the protection itself. As a result, these files show up in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates, because at the moment you save the file with a protection template which at that time is still incorrect, then later it doesn't automatically disappear when you actually protect the file. There are two ways to avoid this: protect first and add the protection template in a separate edit, or make a null edit after you protect the file. I suppose the latter possibility is the easiest. I'd appreciate it if you could do this from now on. Debresser (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like it's corrected itself without a null edit, though I might just be looking at the wrong thing. It'll probably be easier if I just didn't use the protection template and went with c-uploaded by itself. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As the job-queue does its job, these problems disappear. Or maybe somebody else did a null-edit. In any case, I see this issue, minor as it is, regularly, so I your efforts in avoiding it will indeed be appreciated. Debresser (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, I won't include pp-protected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

YGM
Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Logical Cowboy, do you mind if I forward the email to other people so I can get more opinions? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do. But I can't imagine a more compelling case that this is the same person using multiple WP accounts.  Thank you.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, we're looking into it now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy holidays!


''' JianhuiMobile talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. ''' JianhuiMobile talk 07:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate violates 1RR because BLP
The Devil's Advocate's intentionally violated your imposed 1RR on Rupert Sheldrake in spite of the fact the sources already in the article indicate that Sheldrake disputes the factual content of the conservation of energy and the impossibility of perpetual motion. So why aren't you involving yourself here? jps (talk) 08:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've warned them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

oops
 * He's not taking it well. Sorry. jps (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Inquiry regarding the deletion of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Patrick Meyer
Hi Callanecc! I learned Hasteur reviewed the page I created and tagged it for speedy deletion. I am really a newbie when it comes to creating a wiki page so I'd like to understand how and why the wiki entry I submitted got deleted. I already followed the review notes the sure way I can, so I am not sure why it was understood promotional when every word I have in there defines exactly the topic. A little help from you in getting my wiki entry approved is very much appreciated. Thank you. Regiemacalam (talk) 16:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The main problem with it are a lot of peacock terms which promote the subject. Words and phrases such as "master innovator", "inspiration behind many things around us today and coming tomorrow", "exploring and pioneering in business", "created an energy and approach to everything he touches", "people that he has touched all across the world". If you'd like I'm happy to undelete the page so you can continue working on it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I initially reviewed it and declined it because it was patently an advertisement. I would have left it at that, but with the recent inquiries into AfC process and finding that the normal practice of AfC was out of touch with the general consensus, I decided to toss the "So promotional as to require a fundamental re-write" CSD on it.  I would strongly suggest that you start over with fresh purpose. Hasteur (talk) 01:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Kukini
Hi, we usually don't indef-semi user's talk pages if just a sock is hitting it. Something like 3 hours is usually good enough. Can I ask you to change the protection duration? Legoktm (talk) 03:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've unprotected that user talk page, but I don't see the point of unprotecting the talk pages of the (long ago) indef blocked/banned users talk pages. But feel free to unprotected the others if you'd like to. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and agreed. Legoktm (talk) 05:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

User:ItsSahilJain
Why Didi u deleted user:ItsSahilJain ..it was not an article just a user page that I have written about myself...may I recreate the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsSahilJain (talk • contribs) 05:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I deleted it because it was unambiguously promotional. Please see WP:UPYES for a list of things you can have in your userspace. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

accountcreator right removal
Hi, can you point me to the discussion about removing users' accountcreator right due to inactivity? This discussion is the last time I'm aware it came up. Thanks! — Bility (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * this which is linked on WP:ACCRIGHT is the last one I was aware of. I didn't know about that that one on the VP. However given that the template editor userright has been introduced, the ACCRIGHT is redundant in terms of editnotices. But if you want the right back, let me know. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The next SPA
I have warned Alfonzo Green following his particularly unhelpful outpouring on the Sheldrake talk page. His history shows strong evidence that he's here to Right Great Wrongs, and trying to restart the entire debate about whether MR is science or pseudoscience amounts to disruption, given the history. I suspect he will either go quiet again or end up at the enforcement requests page, this time with actionable evidence.

Your work on Sheldrake has been exemplary to date, and I thank you most sincerely. Refereeing this kind of argument is draining on any admin (BTDT), so do feel free ping me email to let off steam if you feel you're getting frustrated. Guy (Help!) 20:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


 Pr at yya  (Hello!) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.  Pr at yya  (Hello!) 05:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas from Cyberpower678


— cyber power Online Merry Christmas is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. — cyber power Online Merry Christmas 22:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Username policy/RFC
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Username policy/RFC. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

UTRS Account Request
I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs)

Adding time stamp to keep it from archiving - 12:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've approved your account, thanks for volunteering-and sorry for the nearly 2 week long wait. I've been sick and hardly editing.--v/r - TP 17:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries and thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Lack of action against persistent vandal
You deleted my report regarding vandalism by 115.188.196.130, saying they hadn't been warned. This is incorrect, you can see the warning on his talk page, unless he has deleted it in the meantime. Despite persistent vandalism over a long period of time and multiple reports against this user, nothing is done about it. Also, the obvious thing for you to do if you think that would be to warn the user, but you haven't bothered for some unexplained reason. I guarantee he will revandalize the page within 48 hours. This user is treating Wikipedia like a bunch of fools. There is no need to assume good faith with this user as his account is only used purely for vandalism. I don't see why it would be a problem to block this user. By allowing him to continue such vandalism you are just creating more work for myself and other Wikipedians and reducing the quality of Wikipedia. So you should at least send this user yet another warning, rather than just ignoring the problem and assuming you have solved anything. 101.117.106.110 (talk) 05:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't done that because the IP (not account an IP address which may be used by more than one person, though though the contributions don't look like it) hasn't edited for more than 24 hours so the report and their last edits are stale. Any warning now wouldn't mean anything because they aren't currently vandalising. What you need to do is, when they are currently vandalising on the same article as in the past put a user warning such as on their talk page and then revert if they continue to vandalise. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

User has, as predicted, revandalized that page and several others, and will continue to do so indefinitely until blocked. User has been warned yet again but will of course continue to ignore any and all warnings as they are well aware of the damage they are wilfully causing to Wikipedia and as you seem determined to assist him in his persistent vandalism. Apparently you seem to believe that as long as you only vandalize every couple of days it's no problem then. Very unhappy with the way you are "handling" this issue. 101.117.85.88 (talk) 11:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

FYI
Report at an3 concerning Rupert Sheldrake page Cardamon (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: SPI/Jspeed1310
I have run a CU on the above-mentioned case, and have decided to unblock as my findings concur with Reaper Eternal's.

Usually we do not block sock puppets outright unless they are clearly WP:DUCK (and when doing so, make it clear why). I know your mop is still shiny, so if you have any doubts do ask a fellow SPI clerk or CU for advice on the next step forward and we will be glad to help. :)

- Regards, Mailer Diablo 10:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No worries, thanks for doing the unblock request. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello again.
I wrote to you before.

I am an anonymous user on this wiki. I will not create an account, because that is my right and I know how much that would ease the things.

I made a contribution on a talk page Kosovo War, however another user deleted my post, calling me a sock, simply because I have a wide range of IPs (not my fault though). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKosovo_War&diff=587497816&oldid=587497406

Anyway, my reverts of his reverts and so on and on......well, he deleted the sourced content, I engaged in edit-war with him here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo_War&action=history

Mark Arsten showed up, locked the page, which is reasonable I guess, but only for anon users, not the registered ones, who made more damage. TaaTaa 109.106.234.94 (talk) 14:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Given the IP range you are on and your interest area you need to create an account and show that you can edit constructively according to consensus. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. 109.106.234.94 (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

An editor you warned is back

 * WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Munir hussain1/Archive
 * WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Munir hussain1/Archive

Reminding you of [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Munir_hussain1&diff=587057744&oldid=586755245 your notice of 21 December] to User:Munir hussain1. He has [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anusha_Rahman&diff=587408297&oldid=587403076 continued to remove the article tags] from Anusha Rahman on 23 December subsequent to your warning. There is an open complaint about him at AN3. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like Mark got to it fist. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Trench warfare
Can you extend protection time of this article? --George Ho (talk) 03:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's wait for it to end and then see whether a further PC or semi protection will be necessary. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas! :-)
 Happy Yuletides! 

<font face = "Comic Sans MS">Merry Yuletides to you! (And a happy new year!)

<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:green; background-color:white; font color:red; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

~<font color="DeepPink">TheGeneralUser <font color="DeepPink">(talk)  is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Hi Callanecc, Wishing you a very Happy and Wonderful Merry Christmas! Hope you are having a great time with family and friends :-) Best wishes. ~<font color="DeepPink">TheGeneralUser <font color="DeepPink">(talk)  19:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Wyatt150
Hi there. User:Wyatt150 responded to your conditions on his talk page in regards to an unblock. I figured I'd let you take a look first, but if not, I'll lift the block in the next couple of days. only (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops, I see your edit notice now...I'll unblock myself. Safe travels, only (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Main
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Main. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy 2014 from Cyberpower678
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:gold; background-color:white; font color:gray; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

— cyberpower <sub style="color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Online <sup style="margin-left:-6.1ex;color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Happy 2014 — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

— cyberpower <sub style="color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Online <sup style="margin-left:-6.1ex;color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Happy 2014 00:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Lukabri has agreed to your conditions for unblocking. Since you're offline, I'm going to post on my talk page, asking another administrator to look into it. &mdash; rybec 00:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:gold; background-color:white; font color:gray; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

<font color="#0E0">Jianhui67 talk ★ contribs — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

<font color="#0E0">Jianhui67 talk ★ contribs 09:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Callanecc
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:gold; background-color:lightblue; font color:gray; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">  Pr at yya  (Hello!) — is wishing you a  Happy New Year ! Welcome the <font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:green 0em 0em 0.8em,red -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,blue 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000"> 2014 . Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2014 with good health and your wishes come true! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2014 goes well for you.

Spread the New Year cheer by adding to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.

-- Pr at yya  (Hello!) 13:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Another sock of Newestcastleman
Hello, I realise that you're away on holiday, but I just wanted to bring to your attention another sock of Newestcastleman.

SportsGamer1 has been blocked already, but if you could please add to the SPI archive/tag etc., when you're free, I would appreciate it as I'm not entirely sure what to do. Happy New Year, JMHamo (talk) 12:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The template on their user page will do the job. Thanks for letting me know. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Possible socks
I see you seem to know about this topic. In reviewing some images on the commons I see the uploads of Krishnakant Arunkumar Mishra which have been put up for deletion as Out Of Scope but those images are used in the following 4 user pages: User:Ikkakm, User:Krishnakant Arunkumar Mishra, User:Krishna Arunkumar Mishra and User:Krishna Mishra A which I suspect are all the same person. Can you deal with it or advise me? Please drop me a talkback if you want me to take some action. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi ww2censor, the best place to go for this is WP:SPI. But make sure there is a recent (which I don't think there is) abuse of multiple accounts before you report. At the moment I think the best option is to wait and see what happens next. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Ds template
I noticed you edited this on Dec 22; I tried to give someone a warning per the spec in the template:ds page, with:  and got a blank page. Did your adding the signature stuff break the template? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Template:Ds is an information page so is designed so it can't be substituted. Ds/sanction is the one you're after. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Ip-hopper
Hi Callanecc. The ip-hopping vandal on the protected Puntland presidential election, 2014‎ page is now vandalizing Abdiweli Mohamed Ali, one of the candidates in the race. Can you please intervene? Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've range blocked them for a few days. Hopefully that'll do the job. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
Prompt and efficient.

Merci bien. Begoon &thinsp; talk 16:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the IP user you didn't take action against
Admin User:Mark Arsten is aware of the situation. I have sent him personal messages, so we'll see. This guy (the IP's user) is also harassing me now. So it has become more than just edit warring or what not. But I still appreciate you taking the time to review my complaint. --DendroNaja (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Are they harassing you onwiki? If so if you give me diffs I can take action now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 17:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

After Mark protected the Inland taipan page because I discovered all his WP policy and guideline violations, he began to follow the pages I edit to try to attack my integrity. For example, Talk:Black_mamba. After all the work I did on it, went through a rigorous review and got upgraded to GA status he immediately went there to try to discredit my work. He is doing it on Snakebite too (look at the talk page there too, the very end). The issue is that the list of 10 most venomous snakes was left there by User:Jmh649, who is a physician and an global administrator on here. But yet, he is going after me. That is harassement. It has become distracting to me. I have two GA noms that I need to begin my work on, but his constant reverting of anything he doesn't like or agree with and his veiled attacks on my integrity are so distracting that I have told the user who is reviewing both the articles I nominated to wait so I can deal with this. I don't believe this IP user will stop. It may not have been an ANI3 issue, but he should be blocked for reasons of first showing no care at all for Wikipedia policies and guidelines, for following me around now because he's angered that I discovered his violations and making veiled attacks on my integrity should be enough grounds to block him. I told User:Mark Arsten, but have not told User:Jmh649 (Doc James). I think his edit summary remark like "you cannot remove a major source just because you upset your favorite snake (black mamba) isn't on it" (diff) is a direct attack on my person. I hold two degrees that are related to the stuff I'm working on here. He's effectively trying to ruin my reputation as an editor with comments like that. That is not just harassement, but it is character assassination as well. He is just useless on Wikipedia, I'm sorry to say. He has wasted so much of my time and energy that I have even considered just giving up and quit working on the snake articles. It has become distressing to me and I don't know how to deal with it. I ignore him, but he follows me to wherever I edit. Now he reverted the snakebite page to the way he wanted it and I cannot do anything about it to correct it. It's just frustrating and difficult to deal with. Following me around is harassement - he is doing it out of anger at me for discovering his violations on the inland taipan page and having it subsequently protected. --DendroNaja (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC


 * Given the complicated and historical nature I think it'd be better if I leave it for to deal with. Though in terms of a noticeboard to get help at WP:ANI is your best bet. But I'd suggest seeing if Mark;s talents can help resolve it first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 17:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think it is that complicated. It is like this: ask yourself what value does he have here on WP? Then answer to the question (I think you already know the answer to that). He is distracting a user (me) that is trying to put expand, improve and upgrade to GA status two articles at the moment (forest cobra and many-banded krait) - why? Because I have to deal with this IP user who is hell bent on "getting me back" for all the violations he committed, least of all the copyright vios. I have a short list you can look at (I can't list them all, way too many). He is clearly a troll, a vandal and he's trying to bait me into situations that can get me into trouble (but I am not stupid). It's just too much for any editor to have to deal with, while trying to work on the articles I need to work on. I enjoy expanding and improving snake articles, because it is my field of work. He's sucking the joy out of my experience here. It isn't fair. Not to me and not to Wikipedia as a whole, in my opinion. Something HAS to be done or else he won't stop, which means I won't be able to contribute because it is tiresome to deal with someone stalking your edits and following you around everywhere to argue. --DendroNaja (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, and the list of copyright vios:


 * Duplicate detector
 * Duplicate detector
 * Duplicate detector
 * Duplicator detector
 * Duplicate detector -

Meh
Go ahead, if they confirm. Also make sure to explain how to get a username change. DS (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, don't mean to be a bother but just another thing...
I once got blocked for simply suggesting on the Angelina Jolie talk page that a section on her mental health status should be made because her mental health has been in question since AT LEAST her father made that public plea for her to get psychological help for her "severe psychological problems". I got unblocked the same day, but that's all it took. This guy violates every policy in the book, follows me around and no action is taken at all. That isn't fair. I think. But I respect your opinion and I am only expressing my frustration at the situation. --DendroNaja (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)