User talk:Callanecc

this is beyond ridiculous

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

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

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

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

Well a few points for you, some things for you to consider which hopefully might help:

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

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That includes Arthur Rubin, whose "thousands" of disputes with me turned out to be less than 14....re a CfD he kibbitzed on but know nothing about at all. Digging a little deeper into our exchanges, he'd commented in hostile fashion on an IP user from Minnesota who had made a POV edit on the article about [[Gordon Campbell (Canadian politician)...... it's well-known and citable fact in Canada that p.r. and partisan outsourcing "technical advisors" work on Canadian web content to "correct facts"; some similar IPs on BC blogpages were traced to military/intelligence contractors in the US...... Or, as I'm seeing it, work to attack and discredit those who are in their way and are able and ready to challenge their claims and disinformation tactics..Skookum1 (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Further to that, note my comment on the ANI about him here and note also the mysterious non-archiving of the Ottawa shootings talkpage between when it started October 23 and the oldest bit on the oldest archive, which begins only at November 14......doesn't seem accidental, and strikes me as very odd.Skookum1 (talk) 09:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Re the bit struck out just above, it appears that my confusion with what I'm looking for not being in any of the archives is that the section in question was deleted again (for the third time at least) before the talkpage was archived; so that's why it's not there. Not the first instance I've seen of this kind of thing around Wikipedia; I haven't had time to search through the talkpage history to find those deletions and their restorations (I didn't restore it the second time, another editor did so, as deletion of someone else's posts is against guidelines, no?). I'm ignoring the vote call from here on in; and must question the motives of those jumping on the bandwagon as none of them are involved with the article or issues concerning it which led to this ANI, which has been turned by a "hostile" who claims to be "uninvolved" but very much is.Skookum1 (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I think moving on from the ANI thread is the best idea at this point. I'd also suggest expanding into to editing in some other areas so you interact with different people as well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Continued edit warring

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

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

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

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

Please advise...

Callan, since you are overseeing the BLP sanctions at Griffin, will you please advise me as to what I should do about the following very rude and uncalled for statement? [1] Thank you Atsme☯^Consult 02:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, it is pointing out that you aren't doing very well attempting to change the content to unnacceptable POVness at the Griffin BLP, and suggests you find another article to edit. Good advice I venture? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The relentless unfounded allegations and repeated criticisms from Roxy, JzG and a handful of other editors are not helpful, and quite tiresome. There is an unmistakable bias against Griffin which is well evidenced by the WP:SQS attempts and spurious comments I have endured over the past 45 days. The WP:PA and WP:BLP violations are also quite evident in JzG's use of a derogatory template on Griffin Talk and his disparaging comments, the most recent of which is WP:BULLYING. His behavior is the result of my suggestions in the TP discussions to improve and expand Griffin as a BLP, despite relentless criticisms and PA from him and a few other editors who have made known their bias. Neither JzG, Roxy, nor any of the other editors who have critical of my suggestions have offered even one counter-proposal to improve/expland the article. Such behavior flies in the face of what WP:CONSENSUS and WP:COLLABORATE encourages.

There has not been one diff or RS to support the criticisms and allegations against me which is a violation of the prohibition against casting aspersions on others per WP:NPA. For example, the team work of JzG and Roxy in the removal of my undue tag. Roxy expressed agreement to JzG's allegation that it gives undue weight to a single opinion (that of Atsme) and it is abundantly clear by now that this is motivated in no small part by desire to advance a WP:FRINGE idea, the quack cancer treatment known as laetrile without providing one iota of actionable evidence for such a serious accusation of misconduct.[2]. The same applies when Roxy responded to my suggestions with the following statement: "Disruptive and tendentious, unhelpful and untrue in regard to laetrile."[3]. That PA was based on my comment that I have not/do not object to including the views of government agency supported descriptions and/or conclusions of laetrile, etc. My objection is to the use of this article as a WP:Coatrack to advocate, debunk, and/or promote. This article is about Griffin, and laetrile happens to be the topic of ONE of his books. And let's not forget about the ongoing Survey and its ill-formed question about referring to Griffin as a conspiracy theorist when the true question should have read calling him a conspiracy theorist in Wiki's voice, or stating it as an opinion using "refers to". Why are we not seeing suggestions, other than my own, to improve/expand the article so it will at least pass a GA review? Those editors who believe JzG is giving such good advice, then how about the following in his edit summary to me - now would be a good time to shut up? Atsme☯^Consult 17:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

If you believe that there have been conduct issues on the 'other side' report it to WP:AE with recent, dated diffs. For complex issues such as this reports at AE are generally more effective than asking individual admins. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Callanecc, thank you, but I have no desire to get anyone TB which is primarily what I've seen happen at AE, right or wrong, therefore I prefer to not engage. The explanation by TenOfAllTrades at RSN helped confirm what I already knew about RS, and how the guidelines apply. I also believe the quality of the comments by experienced editors like S. Rich, and Caritte (who has collaborated in over 500 biographies) are also quite telling about the use of contentious material and the reliability of the sources used to justify them, which further confirms my beliefs. Policy is not supposed to be overruled by consensus, particularly one that was not presented neutrally. After reading SQS, the tactic is request consensus for every single change, and based on what's happening at Griffin now, it appears to be a textbook case. To date, those who oppose my efforts to improve/expand Griffin have not presented any substantive arguments to support their position. I may not be as well-versed in WP policy as I'd like to be, but I am quite confident in my abilities as an editor, not only based on a long and successful writing career, but here on WP after having been the primary collaborator or page creator in 5 GAs and 1 FA in a short 8 months. I don't believe it is right that I should have to ask permission from the stonewallers who have assumed WP:OWN of the article to do my job as a GF editor. They think the article is OK as is so there is no incentive to collaborate, and want only to control it. [4] They actually need to move on to something else, so those who want to fix the Griffin coatrack can get busy editing. What do you think about removing PP so those editors who actually want to improve the article can be productive again? Atsme☯^Consult 14:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Make more redirects or shortcuts for the DS log?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hiding of my comments on GamerGate proposed decision

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

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

AHS: Freak Show page

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

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

Some Clerk-ish questions

Hello! Random thing to jump into I know, but as someone totally and completely fascinated with the ArbCom process (bring me popcorn) and Wikipedia procedural and policy matters in general (I consider AN and ANI to be things I read "for fun"), I wanted to ask a few things about clerkship. I can appreciate that my contributions log in no way suggests I'd be appropriate for that position, thus this isn't a request for endorsement but just a few things I'm curious about. What general level of ongoing participation in the Project is expected before such a clerkship would be a realistic aim? Also, it seems require Adminship? I guess if that's the case it makes the rest of this post rather pointless and I'm wasting both of our time! Even passive suggestions that I was eventual admin material several years ago ironically helped scare me away from the Project and that goal is not something I'm sure I'd eventually want to face in the future. Thanks! ♪ Tstorm(talk) 01:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I haven't spoken to the other clerks about it but I'd say that you probably need another 6 months or so of active editing, as over the last few years you've only made a few hundred edits, suggesting you don't have enough experience at the moment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Was expected! Thanks for your time. I'm just getting warmed up here again! ♪ Tstorm(talk) 19:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Old DS logs

Hi, I take it you have been moving the various DS logs to the new central location. Did you forget the Macedonia one, at WP:ARBMAC? Others seem to have been moved there, but this one hasn't yet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Fut.Perf. I haven't done the four complicated cases (ARBMAC, ARBAA2, ARBPIA & ARBPS) go, complicated because I have to sort through each entry and work out whether it's a discretionary sanction or enforcing another remedy (eg ArbCom TBAN or general 1RR restriction). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I've done ARBMAC. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy Delete

Could you speedy delete this article for me? (It redirects to Port Douglas, Queensland). I intend to move Port Douglas, Queensland there. Luxure Σ 10:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Done as it meets the criteria for WP:G7, however it can just be created again. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

That shouldn't have been done. It should be a disambiguation page, which it was when you deleted it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it should be, but it meets the criteria for G7. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

On a second look, it doesn't meet criteria as it was created as a result of a move which the mover was not the primary contributor to so I've restored it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Easy and uncontentious?

I received a request per email to format the information on a user page as an infobox. I did, but - because of my [insert word] restriction was careful not to insert it where it was wanted, but suggested on my own talk. Was I too careful? Would an edit in user space have been tolerated by the enforcers? Would an edit on request would have been tolerated? If yes would that request have had to be made on Wikipedia? - Things could be so easy and uncontentious ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)-

Probably a good idea to add it to your talk page. Given that it was a request from a user about making an infobox (not just adding one) for them for their own userspace I don't think it would have ended up with a block, but better to be careful. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It was now copied to it's destination. I decided a while ago to find my restrictions amusing, - a daily reason to be amused, what else do you want? You read it in the Signpost, I managed another FA, with an infobox, of course ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thomaskantor of Thomanerchor
Incumbent Georg Christoph Biller (resigned) since 1992
Type	Director of music
Reports to	Leipzig
Formation	1518 (1518)
First holder	Georg Rhau

Supporting the FA, I expanded Thomaskantor, a list. If I had started the article, this is the infobox I would add. However, there were already six sentences, so I don't own the article, and by the power of the arbs who support ownership (but whose?) I better don't do that. Anybody else doing it falls under Reductio ad absurdum. Perhaps I ask Little Doctorbody, met here ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

(re AE) Clearly replacing is not adding nor deleting. Where is my language problem this time? I try hard to stay away of AE, yesterday I was successful, not today, sorry. If I am right, we have only to oblige to present restricitons, not to those some people may hope for. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

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

ArbCom clerk help

Hey Callanecc, I noticed that you are looking for a few new Arb clerks, and if you have some time to get on IRC, I'd love to ask you a few questions about that. I'm always available in ##T13 ^connect (which is logged for transparency) when I'm on IRC if you get a few minutes. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Guardian discussion

Hi Callanecc, can you say why you removed the discussion I started about the Guardian article and the proposed decision? The talk page is supposed to be a place where editors can discuss the proposals. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 03:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, I archived it for the same reason as it was initially hatted. Threaded discussion isn't permitted on the page and all statements by individuals should be level 3 sections. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Why not leave it hatted the way Euryalus did, so that people can at least see that it existed? I didn't want to make a statement. I wanted to start a discussion about the proposed decision. That surely has to be allowed on the proposed-decision talk page. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 03:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Because it was not relevant to the Committee reaching a decision (hence hat) and was out of process for the page (hence archive). Threaded discussions aren't allowed on the PD talk page as they usually result in heated argument, instead editors are only allowed to edit in their own section. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

But who has decided that? Talk pages are for editors to talk to each other. Those pages aren't necessarily there for the benefit of the committee. Did someone ask you to remove the discussion? Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 04:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes they are there for the benefit of the Committee, pages within arbitration space are under the jurisdiction of the Committee and they use and organise them as they believe will best suit the Committee's purpose. No, it was an action undertaken as an arbitration clerk per the arbitration policy and procedures. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It was not at our specific direction, but I endorse the archival of the discussion if that's for some reason necessary. Clerks are entrusted to maintain the case pages and nothing wrong was done here. Due to the expected volume of comments, the instructions on the page clearly indicate that commentary is to be made by individual editors commenting in their own section and not by threaded discussion, and there was no reason for the hatted discussion to remain on the page. If you would like to offer comments on the case in a section as others have done, your comments are of course welcome. And yes, arbitration case pages, including talk pages, are there for the specific purpose of resolving the case. There are plenty of other forums available for general discussion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked

Hey Callanecc, do you mind adding User:7157.118.25a to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jzyehoshua/Archive? They were trolling Jimbo's talk page. See the now-deleted user page for their admission. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Probably easier just to leave them tagged, if there were a recent archived case I'd add it but given there isn't a new one would need to be filed and I don't think it's worth the work at this stage. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. I gotta say, I expected that archive to be a page full with tons of accounts. Storms and teacups all around, it seems. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

In that case it might be worth filing a case and requesting CU for confirmation and a sleeper check so we can work out what's going on. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe--I don't know. You know, I'm all for trying to get old editors back in, but this editor wasn't maybe that great a contributor, I don't know. Anyway, Chillum has sort of taken the bull by the horns, and I got my hands full with--guess what--K-pop! Drmies (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Woo hoo, fun! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom page errors

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

Recreated Page

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

Thanks for the note, I've already submitted an SPI for a second opinion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Because you're awesome

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		As one of my last acts as a sitting arbitrator, I hereby award you the barnstar of diligence. You have gone above and beyond the call of duty as an arbitration clerk many times this past year, especially with the gamergate case. It has been a pleasure working with you and I wish you only the best in your future endeavors. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)