User talk:Callanecc

PAs at Griffin

I ask that you review the following comments which are quite typical of the behavior for which I've requested your attention. These comments are typical of the pattern that has developed on Griffin TP almost every single time I post something, or when I attempt to edit the article which is almost always reverted. It is clearly harassment and serves no helpful purpose in developing consensus. The post that resulted in the current PAs comprises links and excerpts to various WP policies and guidelines, [1], which I included in an attempt to help clarify some of the questions posed by a new collaborator, [2]. My keyboard was still warm when the following two comments were posted in response to my post rather than in response to the new collaborator's post:

• [3] <--The remark that "This post is pretty silly", is a PA and unwarranted.
• [4] <-- The comment, "it's disruptive to repeat this view, which is incorrect and which has previously been rejected here." is also a PA, no diffs were provided and it was unwarranted. Reciting policy on an article TP is not disruptive, it is not repeating a view, it is not incorrect, and if policy was previously rejected, I didn't know about it, and we should probably advise the Foundation so the policies can be rewritten.

If the purpose of DS is to encourage discussion and develop a consensus, then the above two PAs (what appears to be harassment) from the same few editors needs your attention. I am posting it here now because I've let such behavior slide in the past, and look where it got me. One last mention with regards to behavior issues from the same editors. The following appears to be WP:Canvassing. I certainly didn't receive any notice that the 1RR was lifted at Griffin, and neither did any of the other involved editors to my knowledge.

• March 10, 2015 - notification 1RR restriction has ended at Griffin
• March 11, 2015 - notification of 1RR restriction has ended at Griffin
• February 17, 2015 - pinged another editor in an effort to bypass the 1RR you imposed. I added it because it demonstrates tag-teaming as does the above, but you have already made note of such behavior in the recent past.
• [March 11, 2015] SPECIFICO made the following statement: While many established editors can be uncivil or even post personal attacks and accusations under the protection of various WP alliances and social connections, you have no such history or support here.

I find that last diff very disconcerting. Atsme☯^Consult 21:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Just noting that I'm looking into it and have asked for a second opinion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• I took the liberty of reviewing these diffs, and I'm not seeing personal attacks in the first two diffs - the first diff may be mildly uncivil, but certainly not actionable; the second comment is a reasonable statement, although citing policy occasionally is fine - if such repetition does become tendentious or disruptive, then the appropriate place to raise that is on the user talk pages, and follow WP:DR. It can also be a problem to keep repeating that something is disruptive without diffs and in the appropriate venue. I'll comment on the other diffs shortly. Dreadstar ☥ 10:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
• As far as notifying others that the 0RR restriction had ended, it would have been nice for the editor to have notified everyone and placed a note on the article talk page, but there's no requirement to do so and it isn't canvassing. Dreadstar ☥ 10:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
• This does appear to be canvassing designed to game the 0RR restriction; and unless there's a very good explanation otherwise, deserves a warning. Dreadstar ☥ 10:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
• The final diff appears to be a good faith attempt to help the editor, but it is unhelpful to cast aspersions on others. I can't see it being actionable unless it continues or is being said on article talk pages - article talk pages are never the right place to discuss the behavior of others per WP:TPNO, WP:CIV and WP:NPA; instead follow WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. Dreadstar ☥ 11:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Dreadstar. The canvassing issue is quite obvious as you observed, and I agree with your suggestion that it deserves a warning, but there are other behavioral issues that should factor in to any decision.

Callanecc, I thank you for giving this issue your consideration, and for requesting a second opinion.

No. Dreadstar ☥ 21:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As much as I regret having to demonstrate the problems at Griffin, I am concerned they will continue until those who are actually responsible for the disruption are held accountable. In that regard, I feel obligated to provide diffs to demonstrate the TE behavior by SPECIFICO which reveals what is actually taking place, and not what he is trying to lead you to believe, the most recent being his ping to you to review a discussion that includes casting aspersions against me by members of the opposition who have taken my comments out of context, and simply refuse to stop the PAs. SPECIFICO The following truly needs your attention: March 15, 2015 TE re: my response and its relevancy March 15, 2015 TE re: what the RfC concerned - he claims it was about wording when it was actually about contentious labeling being fundamentally noncompliant with NPOV - not a suggestion for improvement of the article March 15, 2015 TE re: my response and what he believes contentious means - not a suggestion for improvement of the article March 15, 2015 TE re: claims I am misrepresenting policy - serves only to discredit me, not help the article March 16, 2015 TE re: claims again that I fundamentally misrepresented policy - casting aspersions March 17, 2015 TE re: false allegations of WP:REHASH and WP:IDHT March 17, 2015 TE re: repeating the above false allegations citing linked policies above. He posted his response to my TP, which I moved to Griffin TP. March 18, 2015 March 19, 2015 TE re: my posts and more groundless allegations March 20, 2015 TE re: calling my post a "straw man argument" March 21, 2015 TE re: repeats his straw man argument March 22, 2015 Pings Callan to review discussion wherein I quoted Mayo Clinic and Cancer.gov, and was again attacked for doing so Callan, you are already aware of the "group activity", the efforts to sway community consensus and make things appear to be something they are not. In overall scheme of things, his actions could also be considered taunting and/or baiting based on their relentless nature. It actually appears as though they are taking turns trying to wear me down. I don't understand this behavior. Also keep in mind that SPECIFICO has not made one edit to the article itself, much less tried to improve article content except to support further discrediting of a BLP with no regard for WP:NPOV, the latter of which was demonstrated by his support to keep a contentious label in the first sentence of the lead per the RfC. It appears he has difficulty recognizing what actually constitutes a violation of BLP and/or our 3 core content policies, and therein the problem lies. Many of his contributions have focused on casting aspersions to discredit me rather than on article content, and he has done so repeatedly without including relevant diffs. Steeletrap June 24, 2014 Steeletrap added a contentious label in the first sentence of the lead which violated policy and created an unstable article as the edit history further demonstrates; The contentious label in the first sentence of the lead was confirmed to be noncompliant with NPOV as per the recent RfC. Contentious material continues to be added and disputed by editors. Some of the editors who have disputed the contentious material are long time editors with years of experience creating and collaborating on biographies, and have had their work promoted to GAs and FAs. WP:FRINGE content guidelines have taken precedence over WP:BLP and our 3 core content policies at Griffin, and that must stop, especially considering parts of the guidelines are even being ignored. Rather than go through months of diffs that will confirm TE by the opposition - most of which you have already been made aware - I will provide the most recent diffs which clearly demonstrate my position regarding the opposition's efforts to maintain Griffin as an attack page: March 11, 2015 Steeletrap responds to SPECIFICO, "I'm here to stir things up and make change." March 19, 2015 Steeletrap accuses me of being disruptive March 19, 2015 Steeletrap specifically uses contentious labels that are defamatory and a clear violation of BLP policy. The above diffs are more than adequate for you to take remedial action against the two named editors per BLP DS. Atsme☯Consult 19:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

See my comment at the bottom. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sorry Callanecc, I tried to help but apparently failed miserably. I'll keep an eye on the talk page of the article and try to keep it on the straight and narrow, but helping with the above editor is beyond my ability. Dreadstar ☥ 03:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC) I shall keep pottering on, but any help on the talk page would be appreciated - especially when discussions get off track or comments are made about other editors not the article (etc). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC) How do you think the above comments make me feel? Callan, I was wrongfully accused of SYNTH and OR violations on Griffin Talk because of accusations made by another editor who Dreadstar responded to thinking it was the correct action. I pinged you a couple of times, and what do I find when I arrive at Griffin Talk? You hatted my response to Dreadstar with a note that it was casting aspersions (which I respectfully request that you please remove since I was responding to comments directly above mine which shouldn't require diffs). I told Dreadstar that I wasn't going to initiate an AN, and addressed what Guy said about me, specifically that I was "trying to assert a lede which whistles and points in the opposite direction", and then he ended further discussion of it by stating "And that's enough of this discussion, since Atsme's draft is going nowhere." What do you suppose is the opposite direction, Callan, and what do you make of his comment about ending discussion because my draft is going nowhere? The comments you hatted weren't aspersions, they were truth. [5] [6]. I find it curious that you said nothing about the incivility towards me, or the false accusations, or the fact Guy is demonstrating WP:OWN. Perhaps you can reassure me somehow that I am not being treated unfairly because it certainly appears that way. I'm a big girl, but you know what? It still hurts to even think the possibility exists. Atsme☯Consult 06:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Callanecc PS: Regarding the aspersions, what do you consider the following: [7]? His statements are an absolute misrepresentation of my work and my intentions, and that doesn't even begin to address the potential of WP:LIBEL regarding the BLP in question. I am also in the process of requesting a review of the AfD close which I disagree with based on WP:AUTHOR. [8] I would very much appreciate a response because it appears, and I hope I'm wrong, that you may not be understanding the full scope of such defamatory statements made against a living person. Atsme☯Consult 14:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC) You urgently need to stop bandying the word "libel" around, since the text you so vehemently object to is protected speech under the US First Amendment, and also, now, is protected by an absolute defence of truth in the UK, so that covers the Wikimedia Foundation's jurisdiction and the place where I live. The intent of repeatedly invoking libel appears to be a chilling effect. It is inappropriate in the context of this particular article, where your claims in respect of the text have been robustly rebutted. If you dislike my reading of your agenda, then I invite you to consider what you might have said and done that might give me that impression. I think you are a nice person, you can be confident it's not malice or personal animus of any kind. Guy (Help!) 16:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Guy, with all due respect, it isn't about what I'm saying, it's about your misinterpretation of it, and the statements you've made about me that simply are not true. I presented a proposal, you slammed it and closed the discussion, period the end. See the diffs above. How is that not WP:OWN? Other editors have noticed the problems re:NPOV, or contentious labels, or behavior and a few have commented about it, [9]. In addition to shooting down the opposition at Griffin Talk, you have gone to editor TPs to criticize and discredit me even further. [10] Your arguments rarely if ever include diffs to support your position. I am relieved to know your agenda is not rooted in malice or personal animus but it doesn't make your comments any less hurtful. Please don't forget there is a real person with real feelings at the other end of our discussions, and you should at least try to exert a little more effort into softening your tone. Re: your impression of "protected speech" - I'm not an attorney, and my intention is not to wikilawyer, but it is common knowledge that certain aspects of defamation in the U.S., Canada, UK, Germany, Holland and Belgium are actually not protected speech. You also mentioned above "absolute defense of truth in the UK", but that is cherrypicking the sweet parts of the law. The Defamation Act 2013 lists quite a few qualifiers to that argument, and I certainly wouldn't dismiss BLP policy as a result of what I think might hold true. Truth: It is a defence for defamation to show the imputation in the statement complained of is substantially true. and Honest opinion: It is a defence for defamation, to show the statement complained of was a statement of opinion. There you have two big uh-ohs. The lead uses contentious material as statement of fact in Wiki voice and it is not reliably sourced - therefore it is not opinion. I consider refusal to modify passages for policy compliance as taking unnecessary risks, especially after editors challenged the material for being potentially libelous and violative of policy. I realize the "honest opinion" defense is a good one, but where courts have not protected terms like “quack,” they were used in a context specifically suggesting untrue facts. See, e.g., Nasr v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, 632 F.Supp.1024 (E.D. IL 1986) (though calling a doctor a “quack” has been found to be protected opinion, when used in manner suggesting false underlying facts, it was actionable). [11] I wouldn't totally dismiss Moss' book because it does play a role, even if it's minor. It supports some of what Griffin claims in his book. Our job is to present RS material with strict adherence to NPOV in a dispassionate tone, and that's what I've been trying to do. Also see the following updated material as an FYI: [12]. Times, they are a changing. I disagree with your position based on my own RL experiences, and the potential and variables we sometimes overlook, or simply cannot predict as absolute. When in doubt, leave it out. BLP policy also supports avoiding such risk per the words, especially if potentially libelous. Per WP:BLP - If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. Our dispute isn't about content, it's about compliance with BLP policy. The sources you claim as RS clearly fail the acid test, including Media Matters which is a partisan progressive non-profit website whose mission is to discredit their opponents (conservatives and libertarians) and what they believe is "conservative misinformation". Griffin's history with JBS, and his advocacy in the libertarian/conservative political arenas automatically create the COI, therefore MM is an unreliable source for the addition of contentious material per WP:V. You call my attempts to make the article policy compliant "whitewashing" - I call it strict adherence to BLP policy. Atsme☯Consult 19:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Uninvolved editor commenting on an incorrect claim (which is somewhat tangential) made by Guy: The First Amendment to the US Constitution protects you only from prosecution by the U.S. federal government (and also the U.S. states via incorporation). The 1st Amendment does not protect you from someone accusing or suing you for slander or libel. So you are actually wrong that the 1st Amendment protects you from the things that you say which may or are claimed to be slander or libel. United States defamation law may protect you, but you need to show proof that what you said about another person is a true statement, among meeting several other criteria (which I don't know off the top of my head). I want to make sure you understand that. @Atsme: You should be careful tossing those words regarding another editor per WP:LEGAL, as they can (and sometimes are) construed as legal threats. --Izno (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Atsme, you flatly refuse to accept the consensus that the laetrile scam promoted in Griffin's book World Without Cancer is quackery, despite abundant evidence that it is exactly that - you have also repeatedly proposed primary research showing a quite different use of amygdalin as if it in some way validates the scam promoted in Griffin's book even though your error has been pointed out probably a dozen times by now you have explained your reasoning many times, consistently unpersuasively, you've proposed farcically unreliable sources such as "geoengineeringwatch", a chemtrail conspiracy site, and you've had several experienced editors reject your proposed edits as violating WP:SYN. How many people have to tell you that characterising probably the worst fraud ever perpetrated on American cancer victims as "quackery" is not a violation of WP:BLP, before you finally accept it? Seriously, will you ever accept it, however many people tell you? Griffin's book promotes a quack cancer cure, and he erects a conspiracy theory around its failure to achieve acceptance. As a Bircher, he is taking part in the John Birch Society's defence of one of its own, the quack John Richardson, prosecuted for selling the laetrile fraud. His book was an apologia for quackery because that's what it was supposed to be. He never intended to write a neutral book, he set out to write a book in support of a fellow Bircher. History judges this scam harshly: this is not Wikipedia's problem to fix. Despite this you keep asserting BLP violations and "libel", apparently as a way of suppressing opposition to changes that only you seem to want, despite numeorus debates on the Talk page concluding that the content you hate so much violates BLP or constitutes libel. And you continually assert that everybody else is the problem. You won't accept contrary views, you won't start RfCs to settle the questions, and you won't drop the WP:STICK. And then you assert that the increasingly frustrated response you're getting form several other editors, is nothing to do with your obduracy. It's more than a little annoying. Guy (Help!) 23:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Atsme, I understand where you're coming from I really do. Dreadstar has explained their reasoning for calling it OR and SYNTH so I'm not going to delve into that.

I agree that some of the words Guy uses could be picked better, however what he says is supported by sources and consensus.

You also need to stop accusing people of libel, continuing to do so is becoming disruptive and may be considered a personal attack as it has already discussed and decided that it is not.

Go back to article content, leave the accusations of libel out and work on fixing the article that way. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

1. Callanecc, we need to be clear on the fact that I did not accuse anyone of libel, and I would appreciate it if you would strike your allegation. My mention of the term came after the following comments by a tenured editor with 10 years invested, and is ranked #96 on the Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_article_count, March 12, 2015, March 13, 2015. My post followed a few days later: March 15, 2015.
2. I also asked you to strike your allegation that I was casting aspersions when you hatted my post to Dreadstar re: my decision to not initiate an AN against him for his wrongful accusations of OR and SYNTH on Griffin Talk. It appears you took his side when you made the decision to "not delve into that". No reason to now: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Arbitration_motion:_Dreadstar_desysopped
3. You said I was casting aspersions but you didn't identify what statement you felt was problematic. However, you quickly wrote-off Guy's words as "could be picked better" and that "what he says is supported by sources and consensus." While I've actually grown accustomed to Guy's remarks, I just want to make sure you don't take them seriously since you believe what he says is supported by sources and consensus. He said, "Atsme, you flatly refuse to accept the consensus that the laetrile scam promoted in Griffin's book World Without Cancer is quackery," [13]? Of course there are no diffs to support his statement, but I can certainly provide a diff with a quote from the actual passage I wrote (and was quickly reverted) that negates his claim: In the 1970s, Griffin authored World Without Cancer (1974), a book he wrote after the "persistent hammering away on the significance of vitamin therapy" by his friend John A. Richardson, a physician from San Francisco, CA. The book is about the drug Laetrile, a chemically modified form of amygdalin (Vitamin B17) which was once used in combination with other alternative therapies in the treatment of cancer but subsequently banned in the US as it is scientifically unsupported and not approved by the FDA. Griffin includes a disclaimer in his book that states "This story is not approved by orthodox medicine. The FDA, the AMA, and The American Cancer Society have labeled it fraud and quackery." February 9, 2015
4. With the most recent changes to the article, I did suggest using updated terminology to coincide with what ACS and NIH have indicated. As other editors have pointed out, the term quackery is potentially libelous depending on how it is used. Do you trust Guy or any other editor to make such a determination for WP, or do you think it's best to follow policy which states the following on BLP TPs: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. The way I originally used the terminology was cited with an inline text attribution from Griffin's own book which was in complete compliance with policy. That isn't the case for the contentious material in the lead now, some of which is cited to questionable and outdated sources, such as Media Matters, and sources over 30+ years old, not to mention those passages that are not supported by the sources cited, or are poorly sourced. But then, you believe what Guy says is supported by sources and consensus, and that I am accusing people of libel. I do hope you will take some time to reevaluate your position. Atsme☯^Consult 06:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Callanecc, please read No. 1 - 4, and if you cannot confirm with my exact statements and a diff, the allegations against me for (a) casting aspersions, and (b) making accusations of libel, please strike them. You are obliged to respond to my request. If I have done as you alleged, I want to apologize and strike my comments so I will not inadvertently repeat them. Thank you in advance. Atsme☯^Consult 23:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding 1 - you just proved the point I was making. Saying someone else said it first doesn't excuse the fact that you've been says leaving it there, and hence anyone who added it is (being) libelous.

You made an accusation based on an assumption, I simply expressed a concern per policy. You did not provide a diff demonstrating that I accused anyone of libel, and now you refuse to strike your accusation. Your response is noted.

Regarding 2 - from "Guy steadfastly refuses" onward is casting aspersions.

I disagree. Your response is noted.

Regarding 3 - see above. I'm not talking about other editor's conduct here at the moment.

That's your choice. I don't want or expect any action to be taken against anyone. I just expect to be treated fairly. Your response is noted.

Regarding 4 - you've been told more than once that others (and from what I've seen the consensus at the moment) doesn't see it as a BLP issue so I don't accept that argument. And again you throw around libelous, it's time to stop. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Callan, I'm on the record as having expressed my concerns, I explained my position and provided the diffs. Thank you for your time. Atsme☯^Consult 21:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Request

Are you free for analyzing the behavioral evidence of relatively small accounts. Asking because the SPI been mishandled twice and checkuser shown them to be unrelated. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I might have time. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

User:OccultZone/sandbox, case link. The two major accounts had no check though they pass WP:DUCK test. Note that the editor in question had affirmed to have read WP:SOCK#LEGIT in his own words[14] when he was blocked back in 2009 for block evasion, and he has been abusing these accounts since 2010. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Or, the accounts could be unrelated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in. But its only fair that you know of the context of the past SPI and conclusion and ongoing ANI here. And the fact that OccultZone filed the 2nd SPI after getting blocked, accusing me of socking those accounts that got him blocked. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

He already claims one of the sock(DanS76) to be his brother, so how it is unrelated? We don't take the words of suspected socks and misrepresent the policy that he had himself reviewed. I got to know that he retired DanS76 for avoiding suspicion, soon he used other socks for same discussions and edit warring. All of these suspects(4 accounts and 1 IP) have very a low edit count, about 300 edits. He believes that a malformed block led me to file another SPI and continues to bludgeon every single SPI, ANI by claiming that a showing photo of 2 people with each other(of just anyone) is exemption from socking. The reason was no different for creating the first SPI, it was to avoid his disruption. If he is not a sock he should stop caring! But he cares to bludgeon because he is a sock who has abused these accounts since 2010, not only during content dispute, page move, deletion discussions, but also for conduct discussions that eventually led indef block of other editor. I am also amazed that I have to admin shop or ask other admin to review a case of potential long term abuse. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

You make a lot of accusations, OccultZone. But I think it's better to rely on the findings of the SPI than your suspicions. If your suspicions are well-founded, an investigation should be able to find proof to support them. Otherwise, I suggest you should follow your own advice and "stop caring". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• IMO, this has long crossed the treshold into harassment territory by OccultZone. Both me and DoRD have opined that sockpuppetry does not appear to be a problem and OccultZone obstinately refuses to accept that point and basically accuses us of being wild incompetents. Zhanzhao, despite being under no obligation to do so, has provided proof (privately) of his identity as well as his brother's. OccultZone, just fucking drop it and move on. Your instinct seems to have been wrong, which happens to the best of us. But this pissing contest has gone on for far too long. The AN/I thread is 99% back-and-forth comparing of barely circumstancial evidence. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• I will drop if you show that presenting a proof for having a brother in real life gives you exemption from sock puppetry and abuse multiple accounts in 100% same namespaces. Which policy or even an essay supports it? It is not circumstantial evidence because these are relatively small accounts sharing more similarities than we do with each other. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• You don't sound like there is anything I would say that would convince you, so I'll spare us both the waste of time and words. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

:::::: Thanks, Salvidrim!. I didn't expect to see you here (was expecting you to weigh in at ANI) but really appreciate it.

I just want to point out that regarding OccultZone's point about "these are relatively small accounts sharing more similarities than we do with each other.", I already pointed out to OZ that even he made the same similar edits he identified as evidence:

OccultZone doing the exact same thing he used as "similarities" between me and the other alleged socks.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
*Specific identification, "by IP". [15][16][17] OccultZone doing the same *"formatting"[18][19][20] Again Occultzone using "formatting"to his logic. *Capital t of "talk"[21][22][23][24] Addressed earlier, I have used TALK, Talk and talk, basically every possible itteration. Even OccultZone capitalised his first "t" of talk before

Sorry to disturb you on your page, Callanecc. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Talking of 'talk', Zhanzhao has failed to find anyone else on earth who believes in some kind of full form of "TALK".[25][26][27][28]

In above diffs, Zhanzhao shows a comment by Lugnuts and claims that I am one of those who capitalize 't' of talk because Zhanzhao frequently did that his socks.[29][30][31][32]

I had not even written "talk" anywhere in my only comment, "@Lugnuts: No, it was with AWB." Neither Lugnuts used that word. Same with other diff where Zhanzhao claims that I have made specific identification "by IP", though I haven't written that. Zhanzhao came to misrepresent automatic summary of the titles as mine, that were originally created by other editors.

Such desperate attempts to misrepresent diffs and attempts to compare hundreds of other editors with his socks further proves that he is socking. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• You two need to STOP. Everything either of you could say has been said (at the SPI, at AN/I, then here). Neither of you has shown any ability to disengage or convince the other; your incessant quarrelling doesn't serve anyone's best interest. You are now at a point where y'all need to take a step back and shut up and let other uninvolved admins determine the best course of action (and abide by that decision). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I concede the points about the "by IP" and "Talk". I didn't realise it was a copied subject header that appearedin the summery. The point about Talk being common and about "formatting" is still valid though, as are the rest of my points which I already made. I'm sorry I have intruded. Zhanzhao (talk) 05:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Having had a look at the evidence in OZ's sandbox I'm not convinced that they are related. A lot of what is presented is circumstantial (and you could probably link the accounts with fewer edits to any number of established users) and in the absence of confirming checkuser results (note I haven't checked myself) I don't think we can call these DUCKs. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• One moves page,[33], gets reverted[34], then other makes same page move.[35]
• Who would page move war and edit war at the same time?[36][37] Or sign after 58 days[38] for evading 3rr[39][40]

What can be more obvious? Another comparison would include [41] [42][43][44], only the username has been changed, not the POV or even edit summary. How these examples are not passing duck test especially when accounts have got slightly more than 200 of edits? DanS76 and Zhanzhao 'were' never checked. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The users freely admit to editing from the same location. There is nothing more CU can say when the user already admits the results will be between "likely" and "confirmed". You have been told by three admins, including SPI Clerk trainee (myself), and two CUs (DoRD and Callanecc) that you are wrong or at the very least that there is not enough evidence to take action... and yet you refuse to accept that and continue arguing. What will it take for you to stop? A direct message from God almighty written in burning letters across the sky? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• I will answer the above queries later, for now I would tell Salvidrim to save those 21 words "What will it.... across the sky?", for Zhanzhao, after he will be indeffed. I have already updated my sandbox with more evidence of blatant socking. For now I would request Callanecc to provide full protection to Rape in India. Callanecc would you? There is massive sock puppetry, recent edit[45] is not made by a new editor, it is made by an editor who had made 2 edits in 2007 and now he has made another 9 edits for achieving the autoconfirmed right.[46] His edit is potentially favored by Zhanzhao and was recently made by an IP.[47] Thank you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Salvidrim!: It is the first time I've ever seen an "SPI Clerk trainee" taking the words of a previously blocked sock master, who had been socking since before and after his block. It was a mistake that you did, and that's why we are having these bad consequences. How you would define these edits as[48][49][50][51]? I had to ask for rev-del before I would show them here. Yes that IP was Zhanzhao per his own admission.[52][53] Why I have to use this UTP? Because you never replied on your talk page re: your actions.

Salvidrim did you even cared to look at the talk page of the sock? Check this comment. Real talk, no brother in the world would come after 40 days(and sometimes more) to help his brother evade 3rr and participate in 100% same namespaces.

Query to Callanecc: We know that new evidence can always overturn any former decision. In the light of more evidence(comparison:- [54]) where I have provided the numerous evasions of 3rr, participation on ban discussions, etc. that I hadn't provided before you had read, as well as this diff where he is warning about meatpuppetry to others. Even if his unbelievable notion that his brother helped him with other account since 2010 with en.wiki matters has to be taken, it was still an intentional abuse of WP:ILLEGIT. May I know what you think? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• A review of my actions is always welcome. I am open to being overridden by any CU/Clerk if I did err, but DoRD did not think so when I closed the case involving DanS76. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• DoRD had no involvement with DanS76, no one checked DanS76. DoRD just blocked one of these suspected sock yesterday[55] and he share too much similarities with Zhanzhao, not only he has the same POV, but same style of writing, edit summaries, edits, timings, etc. Just say that this sock had made an accidental mistake when he forgot to change the IP/wifi/device when he was socking with this account even for a single edit. Do you to know more about the technical evidence? Just read this latest comment by Risker, mind "how common". Since you are open to being overridden, I guess that Callanecc should run a CU on DanS76 and Zhanzhao, just for more confirmation, we have enough evidences to confirm that a single person was hopping accounts. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• (With apologies to Callanecc for helping to perpetuate this thread) @OccultZone: How do you know who I checked? How do you think that I determined that the three users in the case I worked were unrelated? Of course I checked Zhanzhao, and of course his results matched DanS76, but since it was already admitted that they used the same computer, and since Dan was not on the table this time, I did not mention him. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

With apologies to you DoRD you can see I wasn't aware of it. But thanks a ton for presenting that! OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• There's not much point running a checkuser as they've already admitted that they use the same computer. It looks to me (based on the diffs in your sandbox) that in 2010/2011 there looks to have been text book meatpuppetry (assuming they are different people) going on, but the most recent diffs in the sandbox for these two breaking policy look to be mid 2014 was is too old to consider sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The reverts that I have made on them are usually counted as edit warring by one or two people. I am not getting that which policy suggest that sock puppetry can be blocked only if it has been temporary? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Absent a block which is being evaded it was edit warring, there is no exemption for sockpuppets of not blocked or banned users. What do you mean? I'm saying blocking now would not be preventative and I don't see why 9ish months after the last time there was a problem the other user should be blocked from making their own edits if they wish. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Since we haven't run a CU, how we can be aware of any other socks that he has used? We can only make decision on these. The way he was abusing socks before he made an unconfirmed notion that he has a brother, it could've lead any other being blocked, he was edit warring with multiple editors that day. Why he admitted only when he was caught? Since he had well admitted per this newly discovered diff that he is aware of meat puppetry, we can ditch the previous notion that he wasn't. The new socks are clearly his, but now he has learned not to use same IP, device, and wifi. It is easier to consider that these socks are making the edits that Zhanzhao originally wanted to. Zhanzhao had expressed his intention, "I'll still add a one liner about many of the rape being unreported though."[56] These edits[57][58][59][60] exactly fulfills that criteria, and then having similarities, such as same edit summaries, having same style of making wikilink of URLs([[<small>http://www.example.com<small>]]), never disagreeing with each other, it is just obvious. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Also see the messages on User talk:Ponyo#49.244.239.31 where multiple edits have shown concerns over this IP extension, 49.244, it is used by multiple sock masters. Why one of the account, "Bargolus" signed in after 8 years,[61] just to restore the preferred version of Zhanzhao?[62] Same way DanS76 had signed in after 58 days just for restoring the preferred version of Zhanzhao? This account had self admitted to be 49.244.[63] and then edited his comment with 124.41.243.167.[64] This account pushes some "link to a WSJ article"[65] while Zhanzhao pushed "article from WSJ".[66] There are more evidences that I can mention if you would like to look upon. There is a great likely hood of sock puppetry on going and Zhanzhao has learned how to fool CU results, a process that is being already extensively currently discussed on an RfC of this policy page. It seems to me like sock master is using wide set of IP addresses for that "one liner" that Zhanzhao wants on the lead of the article. So that he cannot be caught. There is no hurry, you can also review in a few hours. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It also seems that these IPs/accounts edit wars at once, and together. More clear example of IP switching can be seen in this edit war : account[67], IP[68], IP.[69] Found it yesterday. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi again Callanecc, since that ANI is closed and has forwarded me to take this all new evidence to a new SPI. Should I consider taking this all there? We can review stuff there. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

You've already presented the evidence here and other places so I'd suggest don't file an SPI unless there is a reason to (that is if we find another related account). For example, I'm still looking into Bargolus but if I find a believable connection then it might be worth filing an SPI, but I'd likely do that or ask a clerk to do it if I find the evidence. I'd suggest that it would be better for you to drop it now that you've taken it through the process and leave it as it, if I think Bargolus is related I'll deal with it, if not then we can just leave it to rest. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

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.

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.

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For taking on even more Wikipedia responsibilities! I don't know how you juggle it all! Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Liz. :) There's a reason I want new clerks! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Callan - what do clerks do? Maybe I can help? Atsme☯^Consult 16:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:AC/C, we're probably not going to take anyone new on for a few months while we train our current trainees. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Congrats for getting permanent checkusership and oversightership. :P Jianhui67 ^T★C 16:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

some fish or something

Too lazy to do the template, but yeah, that thing you did was a silly thing, even for April 1st. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah as soon as Fut Perf explained it I found myself a fish. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Competence of clerk trainees?

I simply wish to raise to the attention of the clerks the somewhat obvious I believe arrogance and possible incompetence, or at least ignorance, of one of the current trainees at WP:NPOVN and his and my talk pages. I think the specific name will be, under the circumstances, obvious. I have very serious questions whether anyone who can make such clearly unsupported statements with the apparent full assurance of his absolute correctness will necessarily follow the rules and procedures, or, perhaps, simply declare his opinions as truth by fiat, and I believe there are also legitimate concerns, based on his lack of understanding of some policies, guidelines, and frequently cited essays, whether he in fact has enough familiarity with those policies and guidelines to be able to function adequately in a clerking position. John Carter (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi John, can you send me an email with some more information please? Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Email (please read ASAP)

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.

Hi,

I've sent you an email. Feel free to share this email with all Wikimedia departments. Vernon Schieck 16:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah maybe I should have sent it to them instead... Vernon 07:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

YGM

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.

Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Treaty of Paris (1783)

Extend pc time? --George Ho (talk) 06:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

AE question

Hi, I'm not to familiar with the Pakistan/India arbitration regime. Am I correct that there is no general 1RR restriction there? Reply here is ok. Thanks. Zero^talk 11:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

That's correct, it's just normal discretionary sanctions (but which have been enforced pretty vigorously in the past). From memory only Israel/Pakistan has a general 1RR at the moment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Israel/Palestine? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Arab-Israeli. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Undeletion Igor Radusinovic

He was plays in the Indonesia Super League see soccerway, in history