User talk:Callanecc

Callanecc is busy and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Sorry

I'm sorry Callanecc for vandalising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PiggyFacey (talk • contribs) 13:40, 17 September 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Review of past issues

I'd like to have the way I've been pushed off Wikipedia reviewed. Where would be the best venue for a public review? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jaakobou, without more information I really can't give you much more advice than to review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you heard any news about some of the stabbing attacks in Israel? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No sorry I haven't, but how does that related to Wikipedia. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing wave of attacks on Jews (more than 30 in 1.5 months; mostly stabbing attacks), a part of the overall "popular resistance" strategy adopted at the Sixth Fatah Conference in August 2009. Incitement to "sharpen the weapons" against Jews, albeit masqueraded as a paraphrase on Shakespeare (quoted from an Arab newspaper) and whatnot; this is at the core of what was used to herd me off the Wikipedia. Arab 'mukawama' (doctrine of conflict enhancement) themes on violence and poetic militancy seem improper for Wikipedia user-space. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(continued) There are a few editors who didn't see the real life effect of this (e.g. more than 30 attacks the past 1.5 months; mostly stabbing attacks). With respect to the fact that people are being attacked daily in real life, I'm sure there is room to reintroduce the issues of user-space usage of "poetic" violence promotion (and wiki-cliques that may drop by soon to hail the validity of these).

Proper disclosure: I was herded off for misrepresenting this matter a few years ago (observing a consensus where it wasn't as strong as I thought it was). Perhaps, a few of the involved group of people mentioned above (e.g. @Timotheus Canens:, @Foxj:, @Kim Dent-Brown:, @Black Kite:, @Crazycomputers:) would be able to see the light now that a couple years passed and there's a clearer wave of stabbings and killings and videos to boot. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure what you want me (as a Wikipedia admin) to do about it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you find it reasonable, that I request of you in this time of heavy real life violence (which is leaking out and inspiring more violence[1]) - to open a poll for other admins regarding Jew-stabbing poetic violence themes (Similar to "#JeSuisCouteau") not being allowed on user-space. It didn't ring right when there were a few attacks per month, and doesn't ring right now, when there are daily stabbings. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure what you'd like us as administrators to actually do about this. Can you at least link to something that's on Wikipedia we can look at? It goes without saying that there's little we can do about the Israel–Palestine conflict. — foxj 14:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Foxj:

Thinking long-term, I'd like to see it written down officially, that poetic militancy and other 'mukawama' writings are not to be tolerated (unless it is directly related to editing). This is in the best interest of Wikipedia and would allow speedy handling of current and future occurrences. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another stabbing attack today. 40 year old civilian stabbed in the chest outside a supermarket (he might not make it). I'm not saying the text on a Wikipedian's user-page makes all these attacks, but that text doesn't belong on this site. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Foxj:

Not yet 13:00 and its the second attack today... a stabbing on a gate-guard to a small locality. He responded quickly and his injury is categorized as 'light'. The other three attacked by a car earlier were not so lucky. Can we get rid poetic violence off user-pages in the Israeli-Arab conflict category? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: Do you figure this can be raised for the ARBCOM committee to explicitly clarify that 'poetic militancy' (on either side of the conflict) is inappropriate for the purpose of the project? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like (and I might have read this wrong) that what you're describing is already prohibited (by WP:UP#GOALS and possibily WP:UP#POLEMIC). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The existence of these has (one might notice with the diff I provided) not been enough. There is at least one more current example of 'goals/polemic' that I've found (looking at user-space of editors of stabbing related articles) but my focus lies elsewhere. I'd be happy to be proven wrong here, but it would seem that the policy is not clear enough, and thus a number of editors have been circumventing it even when repeatedly asked to remove such materials. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, so the best thing to do it to ask them (politely) on their talk page to remove it with a description of how the guideline I linked above applies (why it's not permitted according to the policy). If that doesn't work, if it's a whole page follow the steps at WP:MFD or if it's part of a userpage post on WP:ANI with a brief neutral summary of what you believe does not meet the guideline, and why that you have tried to resolve it on their talk page first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - - There is a real problem where your suggestions fail.[2][3] Chances are, an MFD/ANI about a single instance will be quickly derailed. When it comes to a small country like Israel, phrases that would not pass otherwise find a way to stay in. This matter is pretty serious, as between October 1 - November 8, 2015, there were 62 stabbings, 7 shootings and 8 car rammings. This is heavily promoted by poetic militancy (see: another sample). Despite my real life concerns and the legitimacy of the suggestion, my past experiences tell me to avoid the MFD route. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC) + clarify Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - @FunkMonk:, @Graeme Bartlett: the above text includes two of your notes and your response would be welcome. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow, is this about allowing some kind of user boxes that denounce stabbings? Can't see how that would be a problem... FunkMonk (talk) 10:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk:

The opposite. Use of user-space to promote militancy

e.g.

- "sharpen the weapons with which he will secure his victory" (against Isrsaelis - quote from advocacy to "justified violence")

- "the villainy you teach me, I will execute; and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction." (Palestinian to a Jew - poetic militant take on Shakespeare)

p.s. two more stabbing attacks today and the day is still young (not yet 13:00) - [4]

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC) + justified violence note Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My earlier remark still stands: "When I looked at this earlier for Jaakobou I found the text disturbing and disagreeable. However most of what is there is not illegal or grossly offensive, and could be tolerated as opinion on Wikipedia user pages, so I did nothing about it." I will add that Wikipedia would be better off without those quotes on user talk pages. However I don't think that recent events have aggravated the statements. They are quite in character for many from this group and I expect that most Palestinians are hostile all the time in this respect, so such statements are not out of my expectation. Perhaps if individuals cannot tolerate their presence we can devise a style sheet that would render them invisible. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc:@FunkMonk:@Graeme Bartlett:

1) incitement to militancy is a crime in a few countries, e.g., the UK,[5][6] France,[7] Australia.[8]

2) My understanding is that "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying"[9] does not require content to be illegal.

Considering the above comments by FunkMonk and Graeme Bartkett, I reiterate my suggestion regarding a clarification in POLEMIC. If paraphrases about the righteousness of militancy are passable law-wise (debatable), it does not make it right for the Wiki-project. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe clarification is needed (regarding what is/is not permitted) then the best thing to do would be to start a discussion (or WP:RFC) at WT:UP. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible post - Jaakobou

@Callanecc: I've prepared the following text. Before I consider posting it to Wikipedia talk:User pages, I'd appreciate your input: if you see it as making the issue clear enough without 'lecturing' or making it a personal issue with anyone on the project.

I've been witness to several instances where editors managed to circumvent WP:UP#POLEMIC. It is my suggestion to further clarify on the policy that poetic militancy (similar to "#JeSuisCouteau", "will of the people", and "my land will not be humiliated") is not permissible. Promotion of militancy (a.k.a. "Mukawama", "Jihad") is illegal in several countries, e.g., the UK,[10][11] France,[12] Australia.[13] My understanding is that "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying" does not require content to be illegal. However, if paraphrases about the righteousness of militancy are sometimes passable law-wise, it does not make them right for the Wiki-project.

Thank you in advance, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk:, @Graeme Bartlett:, @Foxj:. Do you find the above text clear enough? Thank you all for your contributions here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly that text sounds OK to start a discussion about it. You may also wish to propose a clear modification to the Wikipedia:User pages content. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. And the change could be as simple as a footnote stating that poetic militancy is not permitted under WP:UP#POLEMIC. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrase Suggestions - Jaakobou

Original:
Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive).
Suggestion A: Laconic version
Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive). Poetic militancy is not permitted under WP:UP#POLEMIC.
Suggestion B: Expanded version
Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive). Poetic militancy in support of or promoting violent acts, quotes and paraphrases to raise the spirit of fight and other forms of political militant activism are illegal in several countries and should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki).

My thoughts:

- Suggestion A: Not without merit, is a simple footnote. Whether this is the community's preferred version and whether it would be sufficient, that remains to be seen. It is always possible that even an extended version would sometimes falter.

- Suggestion B: To cut down on the 'circumvention factor'. Perhaps too much, but weighing brevity vs. results, cutting down on room for interpretation where real-world conflicts and political agendas are involved. "Raise the spirit of fight" is a quote from a Taliban songwriter.[14] Thoughts? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with a combination: suggest that Poetic militancy in support of or promoting violent acts, quotes and paraphrases to raise the spirit of fight and other forms of political militant activism are not permitted be added to the end of the dot point, or that it be included as a footnote. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for the input. I've gone ahead and posted the note and rephrase suggestion at the UP talkpage. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block query

Now that you have been mentioned at WP:AN by @Softlavender:, I would kindly request you to read this message once again that I had posted with regards to lack of abuse of multiple accounts, in the sense that multiple accounts were never used in same discussion or pages.(tool results) And also that there was as no block evasion after the block.

I agree that these things could've been clarified on talk page right after the block, but I really didn't knew if "indefinite" block could be removed, it seemed like an "infinite" block. I made these clarifications about never socking on my talk page only after I got to know off-wiki that all blocks can be removed, that's why it took me more than a year.

But as far as we know, if there is no abuse of multiple account, they are just not blocked, they are tagged as alternative instead.

Maybe you can also alter my block log that there was no abuse of sock puppetry? Because some users seem to be making blocks as point for justifying things that are often irrelevant to others block log. Including this recent comment[15] where a user is treating your block as fixated for as one year punishment, even though it was just due to my absence. D4iNa4 (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@D4iNa4: Given a checkuser connected RealRx with Rafikhsk and the data can't be accessed any more it's pretty much impossible to prove that those two accounts (and hence including you) are not connected. Even with the reverts of each other you pointed out on your talk page when you were unblocked, as we've seen that type of behaviour from the same person with multiple account before. Sorry I can't help there. However as I said above I've made the point (and ANI) that I can't see how a block for sockpuppetry should affect any decision to be made in this instance. Having said that at, I also pointed out where your behaviour has been problematic so I'd appreciate it if you could address that at ANI. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping it cool, I asked because only you can help with this. This account(D4iNa4) and RealRx(edit history) were editing on same days, why Elockid didn't blocked this account? I made only total of three accounts. Rafikhsk last time edited on 2011, so how he could be considered as sockmaster in 2014? Another proof is this CU report by DoRD, who could confirm my two more accounts as mine, not Rafikhsk or any other. Why Elockid didn't blocked Rafikshk and it was only you who blocked it. There must have been some mistake like I said. If there was any connection with any other accounts DoRD would have said "likely", "possible" and named other accounts, but he didn't cause there were none. Can we discuss with both DoRd and Elockid that how they investigates, especially DoRD? As for ANI, thanks for mentioning, I have commented there. Please note that I always avoided edit warring and I was always the one to open talk page sections.[16] D4iNa4 (talk) 12:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi D4iNa4, I'll have a closer look at everything later (including the ANI thread). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion about the Huma Abedin article

At WP:AE you've recommended a 0RR for some participants. In your mind, does that prevent any existing text from being removed from the article even as part of a sentence revision? The ancient meaning of "revert" was an edit that restored a previous version of the article. When people defined the 0RR that could be what they were thinking. But in practice, it's not so easy to draw the line. EdJohnston (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I interpret it as removing part or whole of another defined person's edit. Which is not necessarily going to make the article look identical to what it did in the past, for example they might remove another person's change and add something in a different part of the article. My test for reverts is that I need to be able to see that part of the article the same as it was at some stage in the past. Therefore the rule is there to prevent edit warring rather than just getting in the way of allowing constructive editing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Idea

I'm hardly your best friend, and it's not as if I think you're the perfect candidate, but considering how extremely weak the field is right now, I think you should consider running. (And who could refuse after such an effusive recommendation?) BMK (talk) 08:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was a surprise! I was actually thinking I wouldn't nominate a week ago, but I've mostly changed my mind over the past few days (and your comment definitely made a big difference. This might sound corny but it really was heartening that you'd ask me (and put me at least close to being in a group with NE Ent and NYB). So, thank you! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. BMK (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Callanecc, can you check this edit out? Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Others generally don't subscribe to it, but you'd have to ask the Committee whether they can just request it or there has to be a need. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of military occupations

I'm trying to figure out why you locked the article. You have a user violating 1rr on basis of rather weak argument.They are willing to let the Gaza listing stand but only if their unsourced original research is allowed. They lack a valid reason to actually remove the material. They didn't challenge it on the basis of it being unsourced and it is sourced. They challenged it on the basis of original research and simply not liking it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between blocking and protecting is primarily administrative discretion. There were a couple reasons I decided to protect:

the first is that they are talking on the talk page and I'd rather encourage that rather than prevent (punish) that,

and the second is that they were half-way through filing an arbitration request.

The other thing is that depending on your definition of a "revert" this wasn't one as it didn't revert a specific editor and/or revert to a specific previous version of the article.

Primarily though it was the first one. Now that they have the DS alert there is much more latitude to act (ie deal with the DONTLIKE) as needed. I was actually tempted to revert the article back to the stable version but decided not to given that the protection was short. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's reasonable. Thanks.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions question on R&I

Race & Intelligence is under discretionary sanctions broadly construed etc. Would this apply to disruptive and uncivil editing around race/ethnicity - but unrelated to its intersection with physical/mental characteristics? The wording is a bit ambiguous in the final decision, it says 'the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed' - I read that as it requires race/ethnicity in *combination* with their impact on human abilities to qualify, however 'broadly construed' has been in the past taken to include individual parts of active sanctions. (Essentially there is an uncivil editor arguing over the use of race or ethnicity, and while being able to warn on R&I sanctions would make it a lot easier, I dont think it applies, but wanted to get a second opinion, because if not, due to the lack of any enforcement of basic civility, its going to be difficult dealing with them.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that it's not covered given that the remedy specifically includes "intersection", but you'd need to ask the Committee for a definitive answer. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]