User talk:Callanecc

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. Wikipedia: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.  :-)   — 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,[1] 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 [2], 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 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 Wikipedia: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.[3] 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,[4] 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[5] 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,[6] 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" -- <gasp> that sounds just like something tumblemumbler once said! <oh nohz> -- 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 Barleybannocks (talk · contribs). 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, Barleybannocks (talk · contribs) 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 Barleybannocks (talk · contribs). 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

• Pottinger's cats (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Blastikus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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.[7] 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!

Cheers, thanks for your help with the Attack on Golden Dawn page, the edit war management and the cleaning up of the mess the article has created. Very appreciated. Tco03displays (talk) 10:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

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, [8], [9], [10], 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!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	You once gave me one of these for running down the backlog at WP:RPP; permit me to return the favour. Nice work. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

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). Wikipedia:RFC#Statement should be neutral and brief 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 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

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

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 Wikipedia: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

Hello, Callanecc. You have new messages at Hell in a Bucket's talk page.
Message added 10:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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)

 Done 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)

Thank you 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 Wikipedia: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)

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#Hello 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)

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? <insert other indignant complaining here>

  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 Hasteur, I added them, see here please.[11] 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)

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 {{subst:uw-longterm}} on their talk page and then revert if they continue to vandalise. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:32, 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)