User talk:Callanecc/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Griffin

There is a difference between calling him a conspiracy theorist (RFC says no) and stating that he is a promoter of conspiracy theories (infobox says yes, consensus on Talk is very firmly yes, RFC had no real opinion because it wasn't put). We have a ridiculous situation at the moment where the infobox says he is known for conspiracy theories (true) but basically one user, who seems to accept that Griffin's views on the refuted cancer quackery that is laetrile are valid, refuses point blank to countenance any mention at all of his being known for promoting conspiracy theories in the lede. Absent the input of Atsme, we would not even be having the discussion. Feel free to sort that out. Guy (Help!) 08:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The RfC has held that calling him a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence is a no go. One of the major problems with edits to the article has been that people make controversial edits (which this plainly is) without first getting a consensus, especially on an issue which has been widely discussed and consensus was against. You could argue that it's extending the RfC outcome past the question the RfC put, but if the closer believes that is the consensus then it stands until it's overturned. As I've said to others, if you believe that there is evidence of disruption from a user, feel free to submit an AE report so that it can be examined. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The warning you gave Guy is misplaced, and not complying with the Arbcom decision. It should be cancelled. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean with "not complying with the Arbcom decision" (which is in this case WP:AC/DS)? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean. I was wrong when I said Arbcom above, I actually meant "The RfC". I should have written "Your warning does not comply with the RfC and should be cancelled". Sorry for any misunderstanding. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I stand by what I said in reply to Guy re this above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I know I'm being pedantic, but you are wrong on this. On the other hand, Guy is a big lad, and can look after himself. I would ask you to consider the difference between "promotes conspiracy theories" and "is a conspiracy theorist" during a quiet moment today. They are not the same. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that they are different, however the spirit of the RfC and the discussions about it and reverts on the article have held that labeling him anything to with conspiracy theories in the first sentence is likely a no go and there is controversial and needs to be discussed on the talk page and a consensus reached (like what was done with the infobox) before the controversial edit is made. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This is the problem with ratchet sanctions imposed on fringe topics, the page only goes one way, due to chilling effects on mainstream editors who are reluctant to edit under such conditions for fear of over-reaching admins, which of course I wouldn't suggest you are one of. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Callanecc, unusually for you, you are actually wrong. The spirit of the RfC is not that there should be no mention. The close says: "Closing as "no". The opposers demonstrate quite well that this is a derogatory characterisation of the guy, a fundamental non-compliance with maintaining a neutral point of view. Of course, something cited to Griffin's own works, wherein Griffin specifically calls himself a conspiracy theorist, is a valid source for saying "self-described conspiracy theorist"." So Nyttend does not close the door on the idea even of calling him a conspiracy theorist, but actually I did not call him a conspiracy theorist. I reflected the fact, uncontentiously included in the infobox, that he is known for promoting conspiracy theories - which is simply a summary of the body, per WP:LEDE. On top of this you should check Atsme's history there; she has been promoting for a long time the idea that his advocacy of laetrile is valid and scientifically supported. Atsme said she would leave this article in the face of the errors in her work being pointed out by numerous others, but has decided to return to her crusade. The idea that the Fed is a sinister cabal, laetrile is a cancer cure suppressed by the FDA and so on - these things are conspiracy theories, We show at length in the body that advocating conspiracy theories is not just a thing Griffin does, it is the thing he is best known for. And yet you sanction me for a single revert - one revert in the entire history of Wikipedia, not one revert per week - to reinstate a substantially neutralized version of the contentious statement, on the grounds that apparently "X is a conspiracy theorist" is the same as "X is an author known for promoting conspiracy theories", despite the obvious lack of parity between the two. So: you have made a mistake. I was even accused of "reverting" to text that was not actually a revert of any kind. No big deal, everyone makes mistakes, especially me, and you are busy, so the occasional slip is inevitable, but the correct response to a mistake being pointed out is to undo it. As several people have told yo,. Atsme has a bee in her bonnet and her views are completely out of line with policy. Most of those working to prevent her from skewing the article, with her endless vexatious requests for non-neutral content often based on terrible sources, appear to be very well informed as to the status of the theories advanced by Griffin, and their reception in the reality-based academic world. We're not the problem. Atsme is. Guy (Help!) 18:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

From what you're describing Guy, it sounds like a case really needs to be brought up specifically about Atsme at Arbcom with regards to fringe/psuedoscience sanctions as complaining about it won't really do much good elsewhere now. I was actually seriously considering doing that myself as a mostly uninvolved spectator at the article, but I don't have the time to sort through all the history again or write up a decent case this week now it seems. There's seems to be a lot of posturing whenever Atsme's behavior comes up, so I'd want to make sure that any case that is brought forward is extremely concise (as can be) in showing examples of the problematic behavior and what policies/Arbcom decisions the behavior butts heads with. I'm still watching the article, so maybe I'll revisit the idea of starting a case soon if no one else gets to it and it still looks like the best course. Hopefully someone with relatively clean hands in the matter bringing it up cuts down on potential drama (i.e., only a content dispute, trying to get rid of opposing editors, etc.). Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that would be a terrible shame, as Atsme is really a delightful person, but it is very likely that a topic ban will be needed - this would not, of course, require an arbitration drama-fest. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

A shame indeed I agree. However, I should specify that I meant Arbcom enforcement using currently existing remedies and not a brand new case from scratch. Maybe the enforcement board isn't quite the right venue though.

Callanecc, if Guy, myself, or anyone were going to bring up Atsme for battleground behavior, issues with WP:PSCI, and the overall disruption that comes with that, what do you see as the proper course of action? Should one go to ANI since a specific sanction imposed by you hasn't been broken yet in this case, or is it more appropriate at this time to go to WP:AE for this broader behavioral issue with general principles from the Psuedoscience arbitration case because the article is now subject to discretionary sanctions? Not sure what would take precedence in this case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest WP:AE, as it is generally more straight forward and better equipped than ANI at dealing with issues where longer term behavioural issues (like battleground) or issues which aren't as obvious, especially when discretionary sanctions are authorised. You wouldn't necessarily need to show that they've violated ARBPS principles just that they are behaving in a way which is inconsistent with WP:AC/DS#Guidance for editors which are much broader. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

---

So, I'd ask you to strike the logged note at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2015. Even accepting that you placed a 1RR restriction (which I did not notice), that was only one revert. I added the text for the first time on Feb 5 ([1]) and reverted its removal on 16 Feb ([2]), so not only does this not violate one revert per week, it doesn't even exceed one revert ever. A courteous note of the 1RR, whihc I had not spotted, is all that was needed. Please remove the logged item as it is inappropriate: it is totally unrelated to my impatience with the civil POV-pushing on acupuncture, and it is not justified bymy actual edits to the article, which are few and far between and entirely in support of my understanding of policy and the consensus in the RFC (as explained above). The article is subject to a long term effort to whitewash legitimate criticism. the prime culprit said she was going to leave it alone, but has come back with all guns and text-walls blazing. This is going to get nasty and it's important to be fair and accurate, not slap warnings on people who haven't actually even technically infringed anything, let alone gone against the spirit of policy. You're probably aware that I am a very strong supporter of WP:ARBPS and the policy on WP:FRINGE. Guy (Help!) 12:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The warning wasn't related to 1RR, and as I said in the 1RR Question section above I don't believe that you've violated it. And there's a note about 1RR on the talk page and an editnotice (which is pretty large).

The warning had to do with adding material which, based on the RfC outcome, was contentious and shouldn't have been added without a consensus. The comment above casts aspersions and does address the reasons for warning. One point which relates - yes we need to be fair and accurate, however consensus is used to define what fair and accurate looks like. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

That last sentence is a real mistake. It means that if advocates of "fringe" perspectives show up, we'll contaminate the encyclopaedia with all sorts of rubbish. Your approach here really bears some reconsideration. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm on consideration I agree, consensus and experience determine how different interpretations of the various policies and guidelines should affect the content. For example a consensus (or absence of disagreement) determines whether a source is reliable by comparing it's attributes to policies and guidelines. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean you agree with what you wrote earlier, or with me? If you're reiterating the view that consensus determines everything, then this would (in the scenario I suggested -- a bevy of fringe pushers) be inconsistent with WP:PSCI, a fundamental part of NPOV. This has to be the same as with BLP: a consensus of local editors cannot override BLP (a principle that is well entrenched in our practice). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you. And I rephrased as consensus determines how different interpretations of the various policies and guidelines should affect the content. For example, whether PSCI applies in borderline cases or how the views of the scientific community should be displayed prominently for example. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It works the same on both poles which is what we are experiencing now in the reverse of Nomo's speculation. Is the goal to make this BLP exemplary to others who dare author anything that contradicts mainstream, a risk that will result in you being forever contentiously labeled in WP? [3] I fail to see how such an approach is compliant with any policy, much less FringeBLP. As the article edit history will show, any editor who tries to expand this BLP with biographical material is quickly reverted, an action that is evidenced by my attempts to correct passages that were determined to be fundamentally noncompliant with NPOV by consensus. If an editor wants to add negative material, the latter of which I believe is the result of a misinterpretation of "fringe" and how a BLP is supposed to be written, they are encouraged to do so as evidenced by the most recent attempt to add a poorly sourced anti-Semitism attack. In fact, FRINGEBLP is a circular reference to BLP, so I don't understand the confusion. I have not written anything that promotes or supports Griffin's view on anything and I have always made prominent the mainstream views as they relate to his book. Stop and think about what is being said and match it to the edits as I have done. The controversy at Griffin is not about amygdalin (B17) or what NCI, NIH, and the FDA have actually determined because I've included and sourced that information as required by policy. The controversy is about contentious labeling of a BLP in Wiki voice. It's about an all-out attack on a BLP because he writes books about controversial topics and encourages readers to look at the evidence and form their own opinions. I have provided the RS that meet verifiability and truth in my pursuit to get the article right and am still facing opposition based on spurious claims. I am not going to change my method of writing because I am being threatened repeatedly by the same editors who have nothing on which to base their claims. It has become a conduct issue because of the latter. I know full well that when I write something, my passages follow strict adherence to BLP policy, US Laws, and the 3 core content policies. I never claimed to be perfect so if I have overlooked something, I look to GF collaboration to help correct it. End of story. Atsme☯^Consult 15:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

---

Arbitration enforcement requests go thataway. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Callanecc, it appears you are being tag-teamed very much the same way I have been. It also appears a few have teamed-up to beat your 1RR: [4]. Their comments about me are nothing more than WP:Casting aspersions - not one diff has been provided and I expect action to be taken against my accusers. [5] <-- Roxy has not acted in GF. [6] <-- He also supports a statement that is fundamentally noncompliant with BLP: [7] <-- I have asked repeatedly for the editors who support that contentious statement to please source it or remove it. [8] <--This link disproves their claim, and there are others like it in his books and DVDs. Contrary to what JzG stated, I edited with great respect for PS-FRINGE. I used inline citations with inline text attribution for the contentious material, and I clearly stated the mainstream view on laetrile. You have already seen the passages I wrote, all of which were quickly reverted apparently because they were neutral, therefore failed to discredit this BLP. They have blown the fringe theory aspects of this BLP way out of proportion - UNDUE. Perhaps they think their POV of fringe gives them a license to defame a living person. The contentious material that was added and/or they want to keep is not properly sourced and/or improperly cited, some of which includes out of context opinions made to appear as facts, clearly violative of BLP. JzG is over the top on this article which I find most disappointing. It appears his personal crusade against quackery has clouded his judgement regarding BLPs. I have asked him to please stop attacking the man (see the diff I included above), and to follow in accordance with WP:FRINGEBLP: All articles concerning these people must comply with Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons (WP:BLP). [9] <-- JzG and Steeletrap are attempting to label him anti-Semitic. [10] <-- They have been relentless in their defiance of consensus. Steeletrap just made the following edits: [11] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G._Edward_Griffin&diff=647638006&oldid=647637736 [12] [13]. Guy has not stated one word of truth about my writing or intentions. The fact that he is doing what he is doing now should give you some indication of what I've had to deal with since he first came to Griffin chasing quackery. Sadly he isn't there to collaborate with a NPOV. He has an agenda. I find it curious that Kingofaces is so quick to join this fight considering he has so few edits (1,479) under his belt [14], has not edited this article, but was quick to team up here and at a few noticeboards against me. He certainly seems awfully familiar with ARBCOM to have so few edits and to have been basically absent from any discussions or edits at Griffin. Could be a case of WP:NOTHERE. It is obvious they are after me because I expect editors to respect policy, source properly, include inline text attributions for disputed statements, and get the article right. What they are doing now is unwarranted and shameful, especially considering I haven't made a single edit to Griffin since Feb 9th. I already know it will be quickly reverted by the tag team. It can't get any more obvious than what it is now, Callan. They should be banned from this article so GF editors can expand it from start-class to GA and make it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, the latter of which is exactly what they don't want. I think the term I'm looking for that best describes Atsme☯Consult 05:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

So you think it's valid to issue an official warning for a single revert, ever, supported by a stated rationale? That is an unusually dogmatic position.

You say the RfC does not permit calling him a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence. And guess what? I didn't. I did say that he is known for advocating conspiracy theories, which is different, and aligns precisely with the infobox.

As you consider this, think for a moment on the subject.

G. Edward Griffin advocates conspiracy theories over the origin of the Federal Reserve, states that while the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are a fake, they nonetheless document a real Jewish conspiracy, asserts that the medical and scientific establishment are conspiring to suppress laetrile, which he asserts is a cancer cure, albeit based on his simplistic view of the nature of cancer, he states that vapour trails left by aircraft are chemtrails, he has advocated the theory that 9/11 was an inside job.

He is known almost exclusively for his writings on these subjects.

He does not originate conspiracy theories, so is not a "conspiracy theorist" as such, but he is known for his advocacy of conspiracy theories, and in fact if he was not known for doing this on Glenn Beck's show, we almost certainly would not have an article.

So: I get a sanction for violating 1RR, which I didn't, since one revert by definition does not violate 1RR, by adding text that matched the infobox, and which is substantially more neutral than the text originally complained of. You might, of course, consider that I am habitually careless with biographies. As an OTRS volunteer you will be familiar with the standard advice to biography subjects. I wrote that, pretty much in its current form. I think you have been unfair. I think you are doubly unfair in linking that to a previous warning that was considered over-harsh by a significant proportion of those who commented, and which does not relate to content, but to impatience with a POV-pusher. I think you have been harsh, and I invite you to reconsider. Guy (Help!) 18:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Guy keeps obfuscating the details of Griffin's literary works. David Barstow (NYTimes, 3 Pulitzers) states: You need to know who Edward Griffin is, and how his book The Creature from Jekyll Island plays into this. [15] And book reviewer, Michael J. Ross who states: In the United States, the central figure in this ongoing drama, is our central bank, the Federal Reserve, whose history, power, and effects are explored in G. Edward Griffin's fascinating book The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve. [16] and Argentinian author, Adrian Salbuchi: In 1995, American investigator and author, G. Edward Griffin, published what is clearly the most authoritative book on the “FED” – as it is colloquially called in banking circles and by the mainstream media – “The Creature from Jekyll Island”. [17] And most recently, Atsme☯^Consult 21:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

first source there is interesting. Barstow says that if you want to understand Tea Party subculture, you should read X, Y, Z. Griffin is one of the things you should read, yes. 2nd source is a blog posting written by a web developer, on a website that frankly acknowledges it is not mainstream, owned by an investment firm (https://www.puplava.com/) that i believe advocates investing in gold. Not what you want to bring in a controversial article. Third source is RT. Not reliable except for basic facts; not for anything controversial. Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. And let's not forget the chemtrails, 9/11 Truth, anti-vaccination, cancer quackery, AIDS denialism, Zionist conspiracies, Illuminati etcetera etcetera. He is a very fine demonstration of the established fact that people, having once fallen into a conspiracy theory, tend to take on other conspiracy theories. I haven't yet found one that he actually admits is wrong. Before Atsme started I had no real idea of who Griffin was. In the first instance I thought that no intelligent person could possibly be that whacky. And then I read his website, which makes Infowars look like the New York Times. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

What you need to read: [18] --Pekay2 (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I've never said the warning had anything to with 1RR, what I said what that there was consensus in the RfC against this and using a different phrasing doesn't change that (and is at worst gaming the system). There is a consensus against it, whether with the precisely the same wording or not, as you knew. Arguing semantics (advocate or promoter of conspiracy theories) isn't going to change my decision, nor is trying to prove that he is one as I can't override the consensus only enforce it. As the previous warning (which I note this edit is getting close to violating) was for a similar area it is standard practice to remind people that another warning (even if for a different thing) may be taken into account. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand that point, but actually I did think it would have consensus, since (a) it matches the infobox (which was not challenged in the RfC), (b) it is not the text complained of (difference between "conspiracy theorist", clearly pejorative, and "known for promoting conspiracy theories", an NPOV summary of the body of the article, which lists many of them) and (c) it represents a compromise between the visceral hatred of one extreme for any mention of the problematic nature of his conspiracist views, and the more moderate editors who have absolutely no problem with calling a spade a spade, given that he is known only for the promotion of conspiracy theories.

I think the current talk page also reflects a reasonable consensus that this more anodyne version is widely supported. We should not have to have a !vote on every word int he lede. WP:LEDE says summarise the body, and the entirety of the body describes his advocacy of conspiracy theories.

Unfortunately there is one editor who seems determined to use the article to legislate legitimacy of a quack cancer cure, for reasons I cannot fathom. This WP:CPUSH is causing a long term problem; as you know, the major problem with civil POV-pushers is that they wind up the reality-based editors to the point that they get sanctioned, and they never give up, hence problems with articles like cold fusion. It is quite vexing having to constantly explain that, say, a new study in vitro showing some potential therapeutic use for a compound derived fomr amygdalin, does not, will not and cannot validate the idea that amydgalin is a vitamin, lack of which causes cancer, and that the medical fraternity suppresses this. Our article makes it absolutely clear with robust sources that amygdalin (aka laetrile) is exploitative and illegal quackery. Having an editor trying to legitimise a book promoting it, on the basis that reflecting the reality-based view somehow violates BLP, is a problem for NPOV. And yes I know I should not let such foolishness wind me up. Guy (Help!) 10:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@JzG: Call me gullible, but that's what I needed - an explanation of what you did and why. I'd suggest in the future that might want to lower your bar for what is controversial on that article.

No you shouldn't, not that easy I know. But what you don't want is for if/when this eventually ends up at AE for someone to look through your edits and believe that Atsme was pushed or harangued through incivility or personal attacks on your part. As that will very likely end up with a block or ban for you and a warning for Atsme. Also I'd suggest you temper the words you use to refer to Griffin, again if a case is presented where you're calling him things which could be construed and Atsme is being polite and civil, it's you that the eyes go on first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. And I fully acknowledge fault: this article (or more specifically the drive to purge it of references to the refuted nature of the subject's beliefs) is certainly messy and it was naive of me to assume that the partisan(s) would take anything less than the broadest possible interpretation of the RfC. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Callen, I've been following what I see as Guy's hostile tone and falsities. It's obvious he is referring to Atsme ("one editor") and making ad hominum attacks upon him with untrue statements. I see no focus by Atsme legitimizing or discrediting Griffin, whereas Guy's comments clearly focus singularly on discrediting Griffin. As I see it Guy is an attacker (of Atsme and Griffin) and not a BLP creator. It seems to me that Guy has passed the point where action is required. Please read the following diffs [19][20][21]--Pekay2 (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Already dealt with that in my last reply and again in this one. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Help at Griffin

I accidentally hit a revert button when looking through for the diffs you wanted at Griffin and I tried to revert my own revert, but it wouldn't let me. I don't know why that is happening - it's twice now. Atsme☯^Consult 15:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• PS - I was able to revert back. Soooo sorry. It is happening when I click on previous edit in the diff view. Strange. Atsme☯^Consult 15:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Need clarification of 1RR sanctions please....

See the following: [22] [23] and [24] Is this not a violation of the 1 per week 1RR? Perhaps I'm not understanding what it means, and I would appreciate clarification. Sorry to be a bother, but actual practice is the best way for an editor to learn about such matters. Atsme☯^Consult 20:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the history - it appears to be 2 clear reverts in 3 days. Collect (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

In my view, the first is a self-revert and so is not relevant. The 2nd and 3rd are serial edits, not reversions. So none of them are reverts of the sort that the 1RR restriction is concerned with, which is to prevent edit wars where editor X adds new content (as happened in edits 2 and 3), editor Y reverts it (fine under 1RR), X restores it (fine under 1RR) and Y re-reverts (breaks 1RR). Self reverts are not part of the concern, and neither is adding new content. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

What you're not considering is the self-revert was the result of an original revert, so let me redo the diffs: [25] [26] [27] [28] and [29] The more I look at it, the more it shows violation of 1RR far greater than what SRich did that caused him to be blocked. Steeletrap was warned - was actually taken to AE. Now something needs to happen. Atsme☯^Consult 22:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

There was 1 self-revert, but the other edits in the contiguous string actually count as a "real revert" AFAICT. YMMV. Collect (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

This string counts as 1 revert. If you can show that this 2nd string is a revert of a more or less recent edit it would violate a 1RR/week restriction.TMCk (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

in the new list of difs provided by Atsme: first one is an actual revert; 2nd adds content, 3rd is a self-revert that removes 2, 4th and 5th are serial edits add new content (better, changing existing content to say something it had not said before. Some one might see this as going back to an earlier meaning; that is a subtle analysis that I guess you want to callanecc to make - if so you would probably help yourself by showing the older meaning that Steeletrap was "reverting" to). There is only one revert there. Steeletrap is at the 1RR limit until a week from the 1st dif, which is 22:25, 17 February 2015. That is an analysis under the 1RR rule. Callanecc has given warnings for adding content that is very likely to be reverted without prior discussion as he did with Guy, however no one has reverted this yet; 4 & 5 seem to be acceptable content to everybody (or, those who would revert it, are awaiting expiration of their 1 weeks. or those who might revert it are not deeming this worthy of using their limited revert power). I see no violation of 1RR. Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It violates a 1RR/week restriction per the scenario brought forward by The Magnificent Clean-keeper in that the diff was a revert of Revision as of 22:50, February 19, 2015 (edit) made by A1candidate [30]. End of story. Atsme☯^Consult 23:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Nope. That's a ce with a tiny add on, not a revert perse.TMCk (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

agreed with TMCK: Steeletrap's edits 4 & 5 were not a revert of A1. here is the change A1 made, which was to the part of the lead about cancer; Steeletrap's subsequent edit copyedited the part of the lead about Noah's ark.Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

TMCK - what is a "ce"? Ok, so let me wrap my head around this. We have this edit [31] which (Undid revision 647499643 by Lawrencekhoo (talk) ) on Feb 17 2015. That's 1 revert, right? Then the 2nd revert would be this one a few days later, [32], but because that revert changed the meaning of something that wasn't edited within the past week or so, it doesn't count as a revert? Wow, that's pretty confusing. So I can add passages to the article, make reverts as long as they don't involve recent edits, change the meaning of the passage by adding bits and pieces of information without getting consensus first as long as I do it in 24 hour intervals? Atsme☯^Consult 01:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

ce=copyedit. reverting means either undoing what another edit did (hitting "undo") or changing the text to mean what it used to say but just using different words. Above I wrote "one might see this as going back to an earlier meaning" and I was referring to the latter. If you think Steeletrap's 4th & 5th edits were a "revert" in that sense, you should show the diff he was reverting back to by changing the words. Adding content is generally fine and is not a "revert" but in this context of a highly contested article, Guy did that and received a formal warning for making changes that were clearly not going to be accepted. So you cannot be BOLD and just add stuff as you please. As when the page was protected, under imposed discretionary sanctions if you want to make edits that it is obvious that others will dispute, you should propose them first on Talk. Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• I see the first serious of edit resulting in this addition of content (5 on 17-18 February) and this addition (2 on 20 February). Unless someone can show me where that content has been in dispute (or has been reverted) then I don't see a 1RR vio here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• Callanecc I think the diffs you requested follow below:
• First diff - revert [33] and dispute: [34] (dated Feb 16) with support of dispute: [35] My concerns are that Steeletrap reverts and adds contentious material despite consensus: [36] and possibly in a tag team effort: [37]
• Second diff to show revert with add-on [38]
• Now we also have ongoing violations of consensus: [39], and are now getting some foul smelling hanky panky that appears to be a concerted tag team effort, but then I don't know enough about such tactics to make a judgement call. I thank you for the PP, but will you please revert to the more stable version before the conspiracy theorist terminology was added? Also passages, we are now seeing passages added with terminology like "quackery" stated in Wiki voice citing 30+ year old OR and non encyclopedic witch hunt terminology instead of citing updated sources with inline text attribution stating that laetrile was banned as a cancer treatment by the FDA and proven ineffective by NIH and ACS. FYI, as was pointed out in the following diff, [40] research actually does indicate there are "components of amygdalin that may be therapeutically useful in cancer, that is an ocean away from saying that laetrile cures cancer." No one ever said laetrile or amygdalin cured cancer, not even Griffin, but he has been accused of saying it without citing verifiable (not false) citations or inline text attributions which I have asked for repeatedly. Atsme☯^Consult 15:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
• PS: I was once told that adding material was different from actually changing what was there, and that deleting material to add was still considered a revert. Is that not true? Atsme☯^Consult 15:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

You should do a RfB.

You would be perfect for one. Also how would I do a RfA? :( Bobherry talk 20:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

If I'm not ready for an RfA how else can I fight Vandals? I already have Reviewer and Rollback permissions. Bobherry talk 20:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bob, the role of a crat is reasonably narrow now that they don't be renames locally. It pretty much only consists of adding and removing the admin and bot permissions, which isn't really someone I'm interested in getting into at the moment. But thank you for the suggestions.

Regarding yourself and RfA, have a look at WP:RFAADVICE & WP:RFA Guide. At your current rate of activity I'd suggest you probably need to spend another year or two of editing. If you want to continue doing vandal fighting type things you might consider using Huggle or Stiki. However if you are wanting to go for RfA, I'd suggest beginning to look at other areas, such as writing articles or expanding stubs to show you understand how to write article content. It might also help if you get involved with AfD, both contributing to discussions and doing non admin closes as long as you do them properly. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I recently started doing non-admin closures. Someone showed me a plugin while back which I use that makes it TONS faster. Good Luck. Bobherry talk 20:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

User talk:66.74.176.59

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:66.74.176.59. Please help us. Thanks. Bobherry talk 21:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Checkuser could had been used

On https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toilet_humour&action=history , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FARTING_Nazis_Good&action=edit&redlink=1 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Reidfart seem like they are the same person. They are both also mobile edits and around the same time. Just saying. They both are blocked now too.Bobherry talk 21:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

What are you referring to, an SPI? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I meant. Bobherry talk 18:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

What's the name of the SPI? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Quick Question

Is my signature ok? It took 15 mins to edit. <mark style="background:red">[[User:Bobherry|<font color="gold">Bobherry Userspace</font>]] [[User talk:Bobherry|<font color="silver">Talk to me!</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Bobherry|<font color="gold">Stuff I have done</font>]] </mark> Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 20:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Not really my area of expertise, but I think a couple of those tags have been depreciated, Technical 13 can you help? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• You'll have to pick a better color scheme. I can't read it because your contrast ratio is way too low. Please use http://www.msfw.com/accessibility/tools/contrastratiocalculator.aspx to pick colors that meet at least Level AA. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 02:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Puppetry accusation

Hello-

With this edit, an editor is accusing me of sock puppetry and says that you confirmed it. I absolutely deny any such accusation, and I request that you address it appropriately. I edit with one account only, and I do not ever edit logged out.

The editor is also making accusations of COI. I have read and am completely familiar with COI, and no such conflict exists. To place public accusations, such as the editor did at my talk page and on Talk:Landmark Worldwide, without regard for the previous discussions that have occurred and the previous review that occurred (and found no conflict), is a personal attack. I request that it and the puppetry accusation be oversighted.

Thank you, Tgeairn (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I think your input might be useful at the current AE regarding this general subject as well. John Carter (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Tgeairn: Sent you an email. @John Carter: Hopefully I'll get a chance next week. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe

At this case page, there is a section called "amendments". One of the amendments is the recent motion passed at ARCA to rescind the DS status of the block of Russian editor1996. I find this confusing. That motion was not an "amendment" to the case in the same way that the other things listed there are. Should it not be listed separately as a motion? I cannot see how that can be considered an amendment to the case given that the case itself was not amended. RGloucester — ☎ 18:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Because the sanctions were authorised as a remedy in the case any sanctions issued pursuant to that case are considered as being issued under the authority of the case therefore that's where the amendment goes. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Concerning the recent successful CheckUser on Tirgil34

Hi. I noticed that during the recent successful CheckUser on Tirgil34 (talk · contribs), you discovered two other probably related accounts. I have some experience with this user and was the one who provided evidence against Kervani (talk · contribs) and LazarozI (talk · contribs), who you were able to confirm were socks. Could you tell who these other accounts are so that i could investigate them, or would that be against policy? Krakkos (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Krakkos, there weren't enough edits (I think one had none and the other had 1) for me to do much with so it probably wouldn't help even if I did give you the usernames and it would be against policy as well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your reply. Krakkos (talk) 11:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

name mentioned at AE

It looks like some of the discussion here, and perhaps some of the information not specifically mentioned here for privacy reasons, may well be relevant regarding a new thread at AE regarding Tgeairn. As some of the information you are apparently implicitly privy to may well be considered important for the resolution of that discussion, I think any input you might have, either directly or through privileged communications through, I guess, e-mail, might be very welcome. John Carter (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I've commented, there's not much more I can say even by email. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Question about paid editing

Hi. Considering your comment on the Tgeairn AE case, what would you consider to be evidence of a Terms of Use violation for paid editing? I don't ask this to be a smart aleck, but because I'm really not sure what would be taken seriously as evidence of this. It's relatively easy to tell when most violators have a COI, because they blatantly violate rules against promotion to push their business or organization. It's less easy, but still possible, to identify an undeclared COI if one sees a history of pushing something in multiple articles, but how does one demonstrate that editing is being paid for, especially when the editing could be paid for by multiple sources, and therefore spread over multiple subject areas?

Unlike some Wikipedians, I am strongly opposed to paid editing, but that doesn't mean that I have much sense of how to uncover it. What would you be looking for? BMK (talk) 06:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I meant, there's no evidence which has been provided to me that there is paid editing in addition to the COI. There have been a few times where we've been provided with evidence of someone getting paid to create a specific article then that article appearing soon after. Really there's no way to uncover paid editing (except self-disclosures) with only onwiki evidence. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's what I thought. Thanks for your response, I appreciate it. BMK (talk) 08:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Karthikeyan

I didn't notice the dates of the 2 users until you mentioned it-thanks I guess I should of paid more attention! Wgolf (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2015 CUOS appointments

Please note the nominations have been posted, and there are standard questions to be answered. Members of the community may also ask questions, so please monitor your nomination(s) until the comment period is concluded on the 18th. Those who are running for both flags have two sections, and two copies of the standard questions -- the first two, at least, are likely to have different answers, so this isn't redundant. (The third one, well, it does.) Thanks for your willingness to serve. Courcelles (talk) 06:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you help on G. Edward Griffin Talk?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Atsme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

G. Edward Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It has become clear to me this morning that Atsme is the major problem with editing in this article right now. Today is an excellent example of the problems:

1. Atsme lists reasons that she believes the person is notable. This is a legitimate post. There are still open questions as the the notability of the person.
2. I respond saying that she should identify how the items she outlines align with policy.
3. She says "I don't argue for the sake of argument..." Seeming to attempt to shut down the argument she started.
4. Guy mentions that the one quote is rather incidental and that the WSJ article may not be relevant to the discussion.
5. Atsme calls Guy disruptive for bringing up the notability issue in the thread she started.
6. Nomoskedasticy argues that Atsme is hypocritical.
7. Atsme claims that Nomoskedasticity is personally attacking her.

This situation has played out time and again on this talkpage and it is clear to me that the disruptive element is Atsme. Will you do something about this?

jps (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

JPS as a newcomer to this discourse, calling Atsme the disruptive element, demonstrates misunderstanding of this situation. Atsme has done nothing but attempt to prevent a negative, defamatory BLP from being created in WP voice. Some editors have used terminology that is clearly not neutral or encyclopedic in tone. On talk pages I see the most outrageously insulting and demeaning comments about G. Edward Griffin that I have NEVER seen anywhere else in any source of any kind. There appears to be an editing agenda at work here, which Callanecc already made prior reference to, as tag teaming. Griffin is very notable by WP notability policy, which is apparent at Amazon, Youtube, Google and any other search engine. The critical editors here have yet to produce RS critiques. For example, I'm unaware of any mainstream media opposition to Griffin's Creature at Jekyll Island, while searches highlight multitudinous corroborating sources. Atsme is not the problem here.--Pekay2 (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• blink* WP:KETTLE on the WP:TAGTEAM. Less generous folks might accuse Pekay2 and Atsme of WP:MEAT. jps (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Out of my entire preceding commentary (with no personal attacks), which held the presumption of you being unaware of the details of the discussion as a newcomer, I am stunned at your ad hominem focus upon me rather than responding to issues I raised re: Griffin. --Pekay2 (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

PS: For the record, I am nobody's 'meat puppet' and I would vastly prefer a refocus of responses to my Griffin comments.--Pekay2 (talk) 03:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

This is out of control. Pekay2 all but accused me of WP:TAGTEAM immediately above, but when I point out their lock-step agreement with Atsme it becomes time to accuse me of a personal attack against them? This kind of rhetoric is being nurtured and it is just bizarre. jps (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Callanecc regarding the spurious allegations by jps:

• Diffs 1 & 2 - Guy started the notability discussion about Griffin with more of the same contentious statements he has been making about this BLP. (See last para) [41]. You are already well aware of Guy's behavior and bias which flies in the face of NPOV. I have cited numerous RS in the past regarding Griffin's notability which has actually grown since his article was first created in 2008 when Arthur Ruben questioned his notability. [42]
• Please look at the following pathetic comment by an IP, a comment that is certainly not suitable for an encyclopedia: [43]
• Diff 3 - jps recently joined the Griffin discussion, but he is not a newcomer to WP. He is casting aspersions against me, starting with his comment that I am attempting to shut down the argument and falsely claiming that I started the argument. Again, I did not start the argument, I simply moved the argument Guy started to its own section. [44]
• Diff 4 & 5 - I don't think there is any question regarding Guy's behavior at Griffin beginning with the day he arrived [45].
• Diff 6 & 7 - Nomoskedasticy's PA isn't the first time: [46] - he stated, "then you castigate someone for writing a post that departs from your own narrow strictures." Callan, as you know, I have followed consensus and strict adherence to policy. My edits have been reverted, and you know full well there has been tag team activity, bullying, false allegations, abuse of warning templates and threats on my TP, hounding, and I have already provided those diffs numerous times thinking they would be acted upon according to DS. I have done my best to maintain a polite demeanor despite what I've had to endure at Griffin.

Callan, can you also please explain to me what policy allows an editor to wipe their slate clean of all edit history by simply changing user names as demonstrated here: [47]? Is this an acceptable practice on WP? Atsme☯^Consult 04:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It's best to focus on article content, or at least focus on something. Re the last point: see WP:UNC which explains what happens when an account is renamed. Johnuniq (talk) 06:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ProfessorJane

Hi Callanecc! Looks like User:ProfessorJane is back again. I'm wondering if you can re-protect Forbidden City and Two Chinas. HkCaGu (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Longboarding

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Harassment

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Harassment. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

User action

I wasn't sure exactly how to handle this, but I didn't want anyone thinking it's an active account, so I put the doppelganger template on, but this still doesn't look quite right. I know the user's current Username, but I wasn't sure about liking to it...there may be more to the reason there's no linkage (harassment, etc). Dreadstar ☥ 15:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess the other option would be to just put a hand written note there explaining that it is a previous account of a current user but that the username isn't there for privacy/harassment issues. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I did exactly that! Dreadstar ☥ 03:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

DS alert error?

FYI report is here. I'll ping AGK too NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Gun Politics Task Force

In the interest of transparency, full disclosure, just wanting to "not screw up" in light of my previous Topic Ban, I wanted to let you know that a Firearms Project member (User:Rezin, the interim project coordinator while User:Mike Searson is Topic banned from gun politics) and I have been working on a WP:TASKFORCE idea in order to better organize and compartmentalize the broadly construed "gun politics" articles and distinguish them from the mainstay of the project which are predominantly and scholarly technical and/or historical in nature. It's been acknowledged that some firearm articles will continue to have a "political element" in them giving the high profile nature of its use (i.e. the rifle used in the Kennedy assassination, etc.), but there appears to be a desire to distinguish this category of articles from the original intention of the main project. A discussion has been started on the projects Talk page, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms#Proposal:_.22Gun_Politics_Task_Force.22. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Query to the Audit Subcommittee

Hello. As per Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Audit_Subcommittee#Procedure, I have twice emailed the audit subcommittee regarding a potential misuse of CheckUser tools. I have not received a response to either of those emails, so I am attempting to ask the relevant questions here without revealing private information.

Multiple editors (Manul, Astynax, and John Carter) are claiming that a member of this audit subcommittee has (off-wiki) provided them with evidence of sock puppetry by me. I deny that any such evidence could possibly exist (given that I have never engaged in puppetry of any kind, ever), but that is not why I am coming here.

I am coming here so that this subcommittee can determine if a member performed a CU, despite a recent SPI request being declined, and – if a check was run – what the reasoning was per Wikipedia:CheckUser#CheckUser_and_privacy_policy (“The onus is on an individual CheckUser to explain, if challenged, why a check was run.”). And finally, why CU results would possibly be given off-wiki to other editors to resolve.

I find it extremely unlikely that an audit committee member is in any way involved in providing personal or other non-public information to editors, or in discussing any off-wiki “evidence”, but the editors are claiming such.

My questions:

• Was a CU run against my account?
• If yes, by whom and at who’s request?
• What was the rationale for running the check (why was a check run)?
• Did a CU provide personal or other non-public data of any kind, including insinuation or anything that could be interpreted as linking my account to others, to other editors off-wiki?

I request an Audit Subcommittee investigation of this situation and the involved editors' claims.

Thank you, Tgeairn (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chan f.c.

Callan, I just wasted about 30 minutes trying unsuccessfully to get {{sock}} to work the way I wanted it to. I want to specify a different master and use the spipage parameter to point to the Chan SPI. I've done this before, so I don't know why I was having such trouble. How should it be coded? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

{{sock|1=PolandMEC|2=cuconfirmed|spipage=Chan f.c.}} should work, if the documentation is correct. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to provide a link to the SPI, though... hmm. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Using |evidence=[[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chan f.c.]] instead of |spipage=Chan f.c. does provide a link to the SPI, which is the intended result, but it's a bit of a hack and it is still worth looking into why |2=confirmed (or |2=cuconfirmed) doesn't allow a link to a SPI to be specified. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Yup, that was my experience, too.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23 and Salvidrim!: It seems to be working for me, see User:Callanecc/sandbox2. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I didn't save the version that wasn't working, so there's nothing to show you, but I coded it correctly, and it didn't work at the time. I can also see that the template hasn't changed, so the proper inference is that both Salvidrim! and I did something wrong. I can't explain it, but it no longer matters. If it ever happens again, I'll save it somehow.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I can't work out what might have happened. I guess there might have been something being changed server-side which stopped something from working but who knows. Maybe it was something screwing with the preview, who knows. If it does happen again a screen shot of the code, what is produced and a note where the 'sockpuppet investigation' link goes should be all I'll need (hopefully). Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Two SPIs

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beh-nam, you had made a nice investigation there before. Also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thigle, I could provide more behavioral match, but I also thought that it is already long. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused

As requested I added this to the report but found it was already open so didn't change the tag. Now back on hold. What else do you need? Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, meant to block it (which I've done now). When you add them could you please add them to the list of suspected socks as well as changing it to open and adding a bit of evidence. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

2014–15 Chelsea F.C. season

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 09:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You close Thargor Orlando AE request - DHeyward below it is the same thing.

In fact, in "DHeyward," MarkBernstein complains about my comment that his "Thargor Orlando" AE request should be closed because he is topic banned. I said the same thing you said but face sanction for it. Not sure what sanction you are endorsing or why. This is the edit MArkBernstein brough to AE [48]. As you said, he shouldn't be there. --DHeyward (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Replied on clerks noticeboard given the majority of your comment is there. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Your top of talk page said you may be unavailable so I brought it for more eyeballs that understand arb space policies. Thanks! --DHeyward (talk) 04:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Theduinoelegy

I've removed talkpage access, since they were using it to repeat the behavior that got them sanctioned [49]. Acroterion (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Acroterion. I'm considering whether it might just be in the best interests of the project to indef them. But there's not too much harm in giving them a little rope. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I had the same thought. I have little hope that they'll change their behavior, but am willing to give them one more chance. Acroterion (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Response

Weren't you pretty quick to close the discussion? There was one involved editor opposed to the ban, one uninvolved in favor, one uninvolved admin in favor but considered himself uninvolved, and another admin who was undecided. There was no real clear consensus, especially compared to the lengthy other requests. Also, no one ever responded to what I said about a 1RR or shorter ban. Theduinoelegy had three months after two ban violations, and you only gave him a week block. Considering this what I said about all the other involved edit warers just getting warnings, would you consider a 1RR, shorter ban, or warning instead? --Steverci (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Consensus isn't required for arbitration enforcement actions. After reviewing the evidence and comments I felt that a topic ban was called for. Moving forward I'd suggest two options:

1. Wait three months editing constructively in other areas then appeal either to me or AE/etc.
2. Give it a month or two of editing constructively in other areas and appeal to me then we can discuss lifting it or replacing with 1RR.

This is just my opinion but I'm probably one of the stricter admins who monitor AE when it comes to imposing sanctions but probably one of the more lenient when it comes to lifting and lessening them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Timelezz

• Hi Callanecc , just wondering if you could have a look at this[50]. I notified SV too but I don't know if she's uninvolved in this area - so it might be best if you handled it--Cailil ^talk 13:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It's looks like it's at watch/rope stage at the moment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I'm on the same page - but it's good to have uninvolved eyes on it--Cailil ^talk 14:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Keith Haring

More still: User:XmlgproX. Apparently the page needs either to be semi'ed longer, or if you want to Watchlist it it can be a honeytrap for socks of that group. Softlavender (talk) 04:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Blocked and semi'd for two weeks (plus another sock I found). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

truck

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 07:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Griffin

Would you mind taking another look please? Richard Arthur Norton is making a good-faith attempt to provide sources firmly establishing notability but it is pretty clear his edits don't enjoy consensus and some of the sites he's linking to are subject to what I consider to be an extremely idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:RS - including Natural News and whale.to, two sites beloved of the crankosphere but cited as sources in no other articles on Wikipedia. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want me to do. I'll keep an eye on the discussion and whether it turns into an edit war, but other that I don't see a need for administrative intervention at this stage. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

There was a brief edit war. I believe it is simmering now not boiling, but it is likely that either a period of full protection (at he wrong version, naturally) or possibly a reapplication of the 1RR restriction, may be warranted. Guy (Help!) 15:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Griffin warning

Callanecc, please tell me why my comment was uncivil? Specifico stated (my bold): "P.S. Your mistaken that Forbes' bloggers are notable experts on the subjects of their writings. Talking about the NY Times doesn't make Forbes' bloggers RS. You may think I'm mistaken." [51] I responded to him in a polite fashion with a smiley repeating what he actually said - that wasn't done with the intent to be uncivil, it was done with the intent of being kind and polite. I am so disheartened that you would consider that uncivil to the point you would send me a warning. You know full well what I've endured, and never once responded to any of them in kind. In that same thread, SPECIFICO accused me of tendentious editing [52]. That was casting aspersions. I said nothing. I have never spoken out of turn, or said anything to anyone no matter how hard they baited and harassed, and you accuse me of incivility? Please explain why you accused me of such behavior. Atsme☯^Consult 03:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• PS - WP:BLOGS clearly states: Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, so he was mistaken, and my comment was in response to content unlike what you stated in the warning. Please retract the warning here [53]. Atsme☯^Consult 03:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The pun regarding SPECIFICO's username and adding the rolling eyes are the bit which is incivil. Just as in the past I'm not going to make substantive comments on the article content, nor at this stage do I believe that administrative comment is needed on the sources. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a smiley, Callan, the cutest little smiley in my collection which is why I like to use it. It is not an animation so it doesn't have rolling eyes. It represents happy and to my knowledge, there is nothing uncivil about being happy. The world would be a sad place if a smiley now represents incivility. Replacing an "a" with an "o" to match a user name was not meant to be uncivil or derogatory. Specifically and Specificolly is simply a play on words, not one thing uncivil about it. My goodness. A simple 7 word comment that he was mistaken about Forbes not being a RS was in no way intended to be uncivil. It was a simple fact, and I believed the smiley would keep tensions low, without my response being misconstrued. Unfortunately, that isn't what happened. Please explain the steps for appealing your decision and getting the ARB warning revoked. Thank you. Atsme☯^Consult 13:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

A quick visit to the talk page today, and I see at least one other editor feels Atsme is WP:TE. I have seen many editors topic banned or worse for lesser disruption. Editors are abandoning work on the article. It's a waste of time. This kind of thing happens over and over in WP articles which have a small minority of very persistent editors who outlast the larger community and stall or subvert progress on the article. Atsme's already been warned. I have no idea what the next step should be. SPECIFICO talk 14:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Callenecc, shouldn't the notice on Atsme's Talk page be the official one, with the correct wording, rather than a few kind words from yourself? I have seen editors escape sanction because the warning issued was improper, or no warning was given at all. Just asking for clarity here. Thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Callanecc, SPECIFICO just cast aspersions against me in his statements above, such as topic banned or worse for lesser disruption, and Editors are abandoning work on the article, etc. I expect administrator action because this type of behavior is unwarranted. Atsme☯^Consult 20:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, please remain calm. Only my first sentence, a factual statement, relates to you. I cast no aspersions on you. I know nothing about you. SPECIFICO talk 21:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks like you're getting drug into this again Callanecc. Just letting you know there's been some additional snark at the articles deletion page [54] from Atsme in addition to the warning you gave about comments towards SPECIFICO. It reads like a strangely veiled insinuation at suggesting hounding behavior on an unrelated topic to the discussion even if it is just intended as snark. Disruptive to the conversation anyways. It looks like the incivility isn't really getting any better with the typical behavior that's been described before of lashing out at other editors that don't agree with Atsme. Either way, that's just a heads up for now. I might revisit the idea of starting a case at WP:AE with these problems starting up again (doesn't appear that huge of an undertaking since we're limited to 20 diffs), so I'm not asking for anything at this time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Your comment is misleading, and yet another attempt at casting aspersions with the following unwarranted comments:

• there's been some additional snark at the articles deletion page - the snark did not come from me, but I do hope Callan has the time to review the discussion because my reply to your snarky comment was not snark;
• to the warning you gave about comments towards SPECIFICO, - that topic is being discussed here now in an effort to clear up the misunderstanding;
• strangely veiled insinuation at suggesting hounding behavior on an unrelated topic , - another unwarranted aspersion based on your POV
• Disruptive to the conversation anyways. - another unwarranted aspersion to distract and create an illusion that hides your tendentious edits referring to the sources as "a joke" which was highly disruptive to the conversation. Is what you're doing now referred to as WP:Gaming the system?
• It looks like the incivility isn't really getting any better with the typical behavior that's been described before of lashing out at other editors that don't agree with Atsme. - blatant aspersion. It has to stop, Callanecc, because it has been relentless.

FYI, my response was sincere when I offered to help with the article you created, Monsanto_legal_cases. Court cases are often dependent on primary sources, and can be tricky. My suggestion to make it a list was also sincere because I believe it has potential to be a FL which is something that has attracted my attention of late. I have worked hard to accumulate what few articles I've helped promote to GA, FA, and FP, but I don't have an FL, yet. Perhaps if you would AGA, you would see a much different editor when reading my comments. Atsme☯^Consult 13:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that you're engaging in your WP:IDHT behavior pretty regularly again, which is why you've been skirting towards administrative action being proposed for while now. That's where the joke reference came from because you've been made aware of some of these things multiple times either with regards to general community consensus or at the article itself, but you act like you never heard it later and appear to try to plow ahead hoping it will stick again. It's disruptive, and you've been made aware of that time and again. People aren't going to take you seriously when you continue to do that, but it's rather pointless to discuss this here further since you've made it clear you don't want to hear that your behavior is problematic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Callanec, in response to this [55] I'll point that I didn't provide diffs because I was directly addressing Atsme. They clearly don't like the warnings, but there's no need to provide diffs for Atsme specifically about things where reasonable attempts have been made to make them aware multiple times. Doing so here for them won't make any difference. For you or anyone else reading this though, I briefly summarized the the combination of battleground and IDHT behavior by ignoring other folks and trying to plow ahead combined with lashing out at another recent AE case. [56]. Part of that problem is ignoring other editors when challenged on content when Atsme doesn't agree with their viewpoints as what happened at the deletion proposal.[57] Others have recently warned Atsme about this plowing ahead behavior. [58][59][60] Ironically this response by Atsme [61], supports the idea of further IDHT behavior when taken in the context of other diffs I'm arranging for an WP:AE case. This isn't AE though, so I'll save laying out the case for there rather than continuing the conversation here since the array of diffs really are needed for other folks to follow if it's going to go further than this. I'll note that I'm not committed to pulling that trigger yet, so I'm planning to continue watching the article and see how things go before submitting anything. There's not really anywhere else for this conversation to go at this time though, so feel free to re-hat this if you want, and I'll provide the case at AE with more details if it looks like things aren't going to improve. If something isn't clear that caused you to hat this before, I'll gladly briefly clarify, but I feel like things should be decently covered. Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

All I asked was for you to point out what specifically was notable about the person with your best sources rather than a long list that appears to be a shotgun approach without anything clear or pointed towards the question. Instead, you went off on a tangent about an entirely different article without actually trying to address the problem. That's disruptive. As I mentioned before, I'm starting to think about filing a case at AE again (after taking a wait and see approach), so you can help yourself by attempting to work in a coherent manner or just shoot yourself in the foot instead. It's not a hard path laid out for you at all if you choose to forgo the drama. I'll see you at the deletion proposal if you decide to do so. If it's not, then it won't be here but at AE so Callanec doesn’t need to deal with this on their talk page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Callanecc, please do something about Kingofaces. His statements above are unwarranted, not to mention factually incorrect which explains why no diffs accompany them. I am not engaging in WP:IDHT, and I don't know where he got the idea that I have "been skirting towards administrative action". Such comments are troublesome and quite disruptive as it forces an editor to defend his/her credibility. If/when I've done something determined to be inappropriate, I quickly apologized and did my best to avoid to repeating that behavior. We are all human. The fact of the matter is that I have made few edits at Griffin as a result of the aspersions and assaults against my credibility which appear to be an unmitigated attempt to coerce me into leaving Griffin and stop editing that article all together (I can provide those diffs as well if needed). I have always respected the decisions made by our admins, including you, Nyttend, and also Drmies, who in his final evaluation of the review of initial close brought a new perspective to light. I added those close reviews back to Griffin Talk just the other day as a reminder to all, and also for the benefit of new editors. Perhaps some action should have been taken to stop the editors who kept reverting and adding back the contentious label in the first sentence of the lead, as it was determined to be violation of policy. It appears some of those same editors are of the mind that community consensus supersedes policy. Dealing with this WP:Recentism style of PAs on me as a result of my accidental placement of emoticons in a subsection title, along with the the ARB warning that resulted is tiresome. Callan, I hope you will find some time to review the evidence I provided below which substantiates the inadvertent error, and will make a determination to revoke the ARB warning. Thank you. Atsme☯^Consult 20:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's see if T13 can shed some light onto what happened with the emoticons. Regarding the aspersions, I have been keeping an eye out and will continue to do so and deal with it as I see it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

T13's response [62] He thinks it was caused when I reduced the size of the window. Callan, there is ample evidence that proves the emojis were added inadvertently to the section title. I removed the rogue emojis as soon as I discovered what happened. Under the circumstances, I think it would be appropriate for you revoke the ARB warning, especially in light of the fact you initiated it because of the emojis. In comparison, your responses to those editors who have repeatedly cast aspersions against me even after being warned resulted in you hiding, hatting or archiving them which demonstrates favoritism, and a possible breach of Proportionality. [63] I will wait for your response before I file an appeal. Atsme☯^Consult 18:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know what light I can really shed. I've looked at the diffs presented on my talk page, and I see the screenshots below. It appears to me that Atsme is running some scripts that are doing some things that they aren't entirely aware they are doing. One of the scripts is behaving in a way the moves the cursor from the end of the edit box to the beginning (like wikEd does to me and it drives me nutz sometimes). This is why there are some smileys before the section header. Also, it appears the however those smileys are populating that edit bar (I haven't the time or interest to research what puts them there, although I'd be happy to look at the code and propose a solution if someone else wanted to find the code) wordwrap in a poorly implemented way that puts some in front of or behind others. I do believe that the combination of those things caused those three smileys to be placed inadvertently in the manner that they were. I've advised Atsme to avoid using that toolbar until it can be fixed due to this, and I have no idea what the rest of this discussion is about. I'm technically still on a wikibreak for RL stuff I'm dealing with. Good luck and let me know if I can be of any more help. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 18:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Callanecc, your attention is needed here. Are you going to revoke the ARB warning you issued against me? Atsme☯^Consult 14:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Atsme

• Atsme One of the emoticons you put there (two of the three at the top which broke the section header) is called "rolleyes". The instructions are linked on your talk page, see WP:AC/DS#Appeals. Can you explain why you think it's casting aspersions, the only one I can see there which could be is the implication that editors are leaving the article because of you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

  The lead emoticons were accidental. I didn't even realize it happened, and I'm still not sure. I thought another editor put them up there, and when I got the notice from you, I went back to see why another editor could use emoticons, but I got a reprimand for it. When I looked in edit review, there were no individual edits adding emoticons. I am not the kind of person (editor) who would tamper with a page by adding emoticons. I only used only one emoticon called "mm". I also noticed that when I'm in edit view, and reduce my window size, the emoticons overlap, so I'm thinking that's probably what happened without my knowledge. I deleted them when I realized it was me who inadvertently added them. I'm embarrassed that it happened, especially the fact that at my age, I still enjoy the occasional smiley. I will take screen shots and upload them when I finish responding here to prove what I'm saying is true.

  As for the aspersions, you hid one here [64] and then he repeated the TE allegation again under Griffin warning with no diff provided. Just another unwarranted allegation. When I disagree, I'm considered the tendentious editor, but let's not forget, my concerns over noncompliance with NPOV were correct, and I believe the concerns I have now are also correct. Why am I considered a TE? In addition to his groundless allegation of editors leaving, he went on with the following comparison very persistent editors who outlast the larger community and stall or subvert progress on the article. I find that extremely offensive. Again, no diffs. Then he says, Atsme's already been warned. I have no idea what the next step should be. What exactly does that imply? That I'm guilty of something that requires a "next step" before I've even had an opportunity to defend myself in this one. Add to that, the following [March 8 2015. I will upload the edit screens so you can see how that accident occurred. Atsme☯^Consult 03:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Demonstrates squinched emoticons when resizing window

When you go through the edit history, the following edit summary shows a strange bracket config. That's the only thing I can think of that would have caused those emoticons to run wild. See screen shot for the parenthesis to be in middle of "n" in mistaken.

Crazy parentheses in middle of word

Callanecc, I just requested input from Technical 13 in an effort to resolve the emoticon mystery. Atsme☯^Consult 22:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

SPECIFICO

• SPECIFICO If you believe further action is required feel free to file an AE request. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I hate to think it's come down to that. I have neither the time nor the interest in compiling diffs, writing an essay about the situation, or fingering any individuals. Frankly, I was hoping that, with DS, we'd get some law and order without the drama and effort of an AE or ANI approach. If AE must be the "next step," it's not one that I will be able to do anything about. Thanks for the note. SPECIFICO talk 00:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen enough, on my own, which would warrant anything further than the warning I've given. However I'm not looking at a list of dates diff with explanation I'm working from memory and my opinion of Atsme's conduct (which overall I haven't had a problem with). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, no I wasn't suggesting you are approaching this incorrectly. If you do take another look, I think that it's worth noting that while the editors who lived through the 1RR period have continued to act with restraint, it would be good if we could somehow ensure similar restraint on the part of recent or future arrivals. Personally I would recommend reinstating the 1RR. I think it encourages talk page cooperation. SPECIFICO talk 01:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, see Talk:G. Edward Griffin#Article sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Roxy the dog

• Roxy the dog In the grand scheme of things the edit wasn't that bad and on an article that wasn't as controversial and being monitored probably wouldn't have resulted in much if any action. I'm not sure what you mean with the 'official one'? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

you didn't use the proper template to issue the Alert, that's all. I was making the observation that if an Admin wanted to sanction Atsme under discretionary sanctions right now, they couldn't because you didn't issue the Alert correctly. They would have to do it again, this time properly, before any further steps. Just trying to help. That was far too confrontational, I apologise. Allow me a little while to - 1. Eat my tea, currently being prepared by my human, and 2. Compose a far more constructive response, which will leave a better impression of me. (no smiley here) -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah I see what you mean. I didn't alert Atsme as they were already aware (search for "sanctioned for edits in another separate but related topic" on the DS procedure page), I issued a logged warning (which is a sanction). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't understand what you had done here, did I? I thought you were issuing the DS FYI alert, but no, that wasn't the case. sorry. Um, would it be possible to erase, salt, delete, remove sanitise etc any mention of Roxy from this page. It's very embarrassing! -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 07:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Including and especially eating (not drinking) tea? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Query about broad topic ban on all Arab-Israeli issues

Ubikwit has such a clear topic ban. [65]

Ten Lost Tribes has sections which, IMO, are clearly related to the topic ban.

[66] clearly removes a reliable source placing the tradition as BCE and placing it as simply "post-biblical" and in the " the 7th and 8th centuries CE."

It re-adds " Recorded history is at variance with the legends elaborated in apocryphal texts." without a citation for that claim.

It re-adds: "Some DNA studies have refuted any connection between modern-day ethnic Jews and most of the ethnic groups discussed below as possible Lost Tribe candidates." sans citation for the claim (which is the "Jews now never were in ancient Israel" general claim sometimes found in the Arab-Israeli articles)

It re-adds the unsourced claim: "Whether these groups were absorbed into the population or remained distinct groups, or returned to their tribal lands is not indicated."

It re-adds the unsourced: "People could only interpret new peoples in relation to their idea of Biblical history."

It re-adds: "Apocryphal accounts concerning the Lost Tribes, based to varying degrees on biblical accounts, have been produced by both Jews and Christians since at least the 17th century" which is unsourced, and appears aimed at implying that the stories are of relatively modern invention. Problems are that the "stories" go back to before CE, and are referred to in Islamic writings long before the "17th century." This is thus both unsourced (editor relies extensively on one source at most) and specifically argumentative in the Arab Israeli area.

It re-adds: "Historians generally concluded that the groups referred to as the Lost Tribes merged with the local population" i.e. such groups cannot be "Jewish" as they merged if they ever even existed.

It re-adds: "In declaring his conviction that "the Lost Tribes are indeed nothing but a myth", Parfitt writes that ..."

Noting that Tudor Parfitt is used for almost every statement in this article at that point it seems. The funniest part is that Parfitt actually supports the "lost Jews" positions based on DNA evidence.

It re-titles a section as "Groups which claim descent from lost tribes" from a NPOV title "Groups affirming traditional Jewish descent" which appears to be a far more neutral section title unless one wishes to stress that such "descent" is pure 17th century myth.

The sum of the edits appears to be that any claims of "lost tribes" is mythical, that the modern Jewish land claim is invalid because all the tribes "merged" with other groups, and the new claims date only to the 17th century. Sigh.

In short - did this edit breach a clear topic ban for Ubikwit or not? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at a couple of other reverts here and here of Collects today, and the text with which he replaced the reliably sourced text. Note that there is also an AfD discussion here about a related article where the consensus is that "member" is the appropriate "POVnaming", etc.

On the AfD discussion [67] and Talk pages [68][69][70] he placed the same off-topic text. I've hatted it as NOTFORUM (not getting the template right), and been reverted here and here, and accused of violating Talk for the hattinghere. I reverted the revert once on one page with the edit summary please read the policies WP:TALK#OBJECTIVE, WP:NOTFORUM, and was reverted again before being accused of violating Talk. I've left it alone after that, but edits like this continue [71].

I'm not the only one that has raised an issue with Collect regarding his comments/edits on those pages [72] or related BLP/N threads.

I'm refraining from even the semblance of edit warring on the Cambone and Zakheim pages, but there is another peer-reviewed source to add. [73]

The Ten Lost Tribes article is another example of Collect following me and looking for something to complain about, even though the text on that article has basically been stable with consensus. I started editing it a couple of years ago.

Finally, last week Collect was complaining about my editing to another admin, Swarm.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - I would note that I still do not consider "signing a letter" to be the same as being a "member" of any organization, as my edits have made clear.

I further note that I did not reach "ten lost tribes" via Ubikwit, but by my earlier edits aeons ago on Judaism and related topics so for me to follow someone to a general topic which I had edited well before that person is an interesting bit of time travel theory <g>.

I also note that hatting any discussion in which one is a participant is likely to be objected to by others, so I do not know precisely the relevance of that cavil. If Callanecc wishes to see my position on following non-negotiable policies, I think the deletion discussion is a good place to look ... [74] and [75] are fair representations of my absolutely horrid position. As are my posts on User talk:Jimbo Wales. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think these are violations of the topic ban. Generally, the consensus at AE in the past has been that the discretionary sanctions apply to the conflict which is between what we currently consider to be Arabs rather than around the time of the Kingdom of Israel. However, you can bring it up as evidence when we look at removing the topic ban after the probation period. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Incivility?

Hi, Callanecc. I am moving this "warning" from Atsme (posted at Talk:Steven Emerson and my user Talk page) to your Talk page for review and advice.

Xenophrenic, your comments above are violations of WP:INCIVILITY [76] and here [77] per racial, ethnic, and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities. I placed a warning on your TP, and notifying Callanecc before this discussion elevates as a result of your unwarranted remarks. This article is under BLP DS, and also under PP. You have been reminded. Atsme☯^Consult 05:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

During the course of article improvement discussions, I noticed some insensitive comments from Atsme relating to religion, and I asked if I was reading those comments correctly. In response to my expressed concern, Atsme posted the above warnings accusing me of making racial, ethnic and religious slurs (!?) and indicated she would notify you. Since the pinging utility does not appear to be always reliable, and since Atsme feels you could be of assistance, I've initiated this discussion here. Your input would be appreciated. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

It probably is better that he brought this situation here because I find his actions appalling. Per the diffs he provided above, I was discussing article content and sources when I said, The sources cited are books written by proponents of Islam who are expressing a particular viewpoint. He then responded with an unambiguous assertion that I was being critical of Islam which is grossly untrue and uncivil, and deserving of DS. His actual statement, Because what you typed sounds like a criticism of Islam, the religion and its proponents. I was kind enough to issue a warning, and I pinged you which may explain why he brought it here. It is a gross incivility to imply that I am being critical of Islam and I want it nipped in the bud before it elevates which is why I pinged you from the Emerson TP. You might also want to review some of the ongoing work in my Sandbox and what I've already contributed. Following are a few examples without going into detail: [78], [79] Furthermore, Xenophrenic has been extraordinarily argumentative at the BLPN that we thought had been resolved as evidenced by Serialjoepsycho here: [80]. Atsme☯^Consult 16:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

It would be helpful, Atsme, when you say "His actual statement...", that you repeat my actual statement. Not just the snippet portion you feel supports your narrative, removed from its full context. I trust Callanecc will read our discussion in full regardless, but your incomplete quotation of me conveys an inaccurate tenor of the conversation and is unhelpful. At no time did I "unambiguously assert that you were being critical of Islam" — nor would I. In fact, I was incredulous as to what I was reading and assumed either you had mistyped or I had misread, and I appealed to you for clarification. What I did unambiguously assert was that your comments could be perceived as dismissing reliable sources simply because the scholars are also adherents of Islam, or because their academic institutions had received donations from Muslims — and that is not a valid challenge to the reliability of sources. If I am wrong about how your comments might be perceived, and that I should not be concerned, I'm certain Callanecc will let me know. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Since I've been pinged, I do not consider that Xenophrenic has been uncivil. If so, I'd say mildly so and in the same bounds that I and others have. I'd call this reasonable as well considering the over all situation. The discussion does seem to finally becoming fruitful. I don't see myself that the two involved contributors here, Atsme or Xenophrenic, have said anything wrong in regards to race, religion or ect. I would suggest to each that it may be that each of you upset the others sensibilities in that regard. Perhaps, in that regard, in the future you both may consider exercising a little restraint for the sake of each others sensibilities. I leave that for the consideration of the two of you.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• This comment is out of line, but not worth more than a stern knock it off. I don't see a problem with this comment. In fact I think it raised a good point regarding ...who funds the Islamic studies at Cambridge, and the distinguished scholars?. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

IP Block

I attempted to edit my new article and received the following message, "The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be a web host provider. "

I am a U.S. Army veteran living in Spain. Possibly, that is the IP issue. Otherwise, I don;t understand.

Please advise what I need to do.

Kindest regards,

Charles D. CarterCharles D. Carter 05:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ARADCOM (talk • contribs)

Hi Charles, could you please email me the full message you are given when you try to edit when you're logged in. I'm after the IP address you're using in particular so I can try and find the block which is affecting your account. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Zotteteen1

Hello, Callanecc. I've just run a number of checks for the unblock request on this user's talk, and I'm pretty sure that they are  Unrelated to the other accounts in the SPI. It looks like the other accounts are a known xwiki vandal who has a habit of impersonating other users (see nl:WP:Checklijst langdurig structureel vandalisme/Futbase), and since Zotteteen1 has over 26K edits on nlwiki, I'm thinking that an unblock is needed here. I was about to do it myself, but I thought I'd check in with you first. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've unblocked them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I've gone with full protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Balaji E.M

Thank you for removing Sppedy deletion tag for ScholarGeek and Just Rich Gates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balaji E.M (talk • contribs) 08:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The ARB warning for inadvertent emojis

Callan, as evidenced above, Technical 13 provided an explanation for the inadvertent emojis which motivated the ARB warning you issued to me under CAM DS. I wasn't sure if you saw his statement. Are you going to revoke the ARB warning, or are you expecting me to go through the process of an appeal? Please advise so I'll know what steps to take next. Atsme☯^Consult 13:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking about it. Considering the extenuating circumstance (you didn't realise that it had added them to the top) but that still leaves me with the point (and what T13 said) that it wouldn't have added them unless you had clicked them. I've also got the pun on SPECIFICO's username (whether it's good faith or incivil) to consider. And that you didn't reply with reasoning until after the warning, which is something you have mentioned that others aren't doing (and is bad for discussion and developing a consensus). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

No, Callan, I only clicked on one emoji. Technical 13 explained the problem when he said, Atsme is running some scripts that are doing some things that they aren't entirely aware they are doing. I did not click on 4 emojis. The one and only emoji I clicked on is the one that precedes my sig. The others were the result of a bug in the script whenever I reduced my window size which caused them to pile up on each other, and end up in places they didn't belong, even though I clicked on only one emoji. I uploaded images showing what happened. I am very disheartened by your accusation that I'm lying, not to mention your ARB warning against me under CAM DS. I feel that I've been discriminated against, especially in light of the favoritism you are showing toward others who have demonstrated incivility toward me while you did little to nothing to stop it. You hid one of the offending comments, hatted a few discussions wherein I provided the diffs, and archived others while focusing on me for a nothing comment that doesn't even come close to being uncivil. Show me where inadvertent emojis and GF puns are uncivil, or is that another of your discriminatory judgement calls? The one time you did act, the editor's incivility was so blatant, you didn't have much choice, but even then you only issued a warning and turned right around and revoked it. Comparatively, that warning/revocation VS the ARB warning you issued against me for an emoji accident and a pun that was intended as GF humor demonstrates favoritism if not discrimination, and is grossly disproportionate. If you truly believe I'm a liar and that I have been uncivil because of the following comment: Sorry, Specifico, but you are specificolly mistaken. Atsme☯^Consult 01:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC) then sadly, it appears I may have to take a course of action I have tried very hard to avoid. Atsme☯^Consult 08:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I read that bit from T13, but also the other bit which said that it may have inserted them at the top of the wikitext rather than at the cursor. So the decision I need to make is whether it was the script, an inadvertent mouse click or trying to put them in there and it not working. I didn't say you were, I said those are the things I need to consider and that I am considering them. You can appeal if you want, or give me a day or two so I can go through the evidence and make a decision which I can defend. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I promise, the rogue emojis were accidental. As T13 pointed out, the addition and placement of the rogue 3 appears to have been inadvertently caused by a wayward cursor after I squinched the console when reducing the window size. It's an inadvertent byproduct of GUI and a buggy script. Some scripts simply don't work as well on Macs as they do on Windows. You've worked with me long enough to know that I have always tried to be polite, even when I've been pushed to the edge, and would never/have never done anything that childish. I may be semi-retired, but I'm certainly not to the point of regression where I run through the house naked and stop long enough to plant emojis on WP. Granted, I can be persistent in getting an article right, probably to a fault, but that's just the after-effects of a 30+ year career. I'm working on it, trying to just let it go and accept the fact I'm not a publisher anymore. I have always done my best to AGF and act professionally which is what makes this occurrence so ironic. The one time I stepped out of the box and attempted a bit of humor to cut through the tension, I end up here in a discussion over rogue emojis and a pun. Believe me, just a word of warning from you is embarrassing enough and quite humbling. T13 advised me to stop using the console, which I have done. I will refrain from future attempts at being punderful. Atsme☯^Consult 15:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Griffin article

Hello, Callanec. I am still learning my way around, so please forgive my addressing you on your talk page if that is incorrect protocol.

Thanks for your welcome message. I noted your warning re my comment on G. Edward Griffin and can assure you that the question of whether or not to delete the article on Griffin is one of many subjects to which I plan on contributing input. My widely varied interests include monetary science, health, common law history, and suppressed technologies.

Kind regards, Lux Logos (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lux Logos, the alert was just to let you know about an administrative situation on Wikipedia that you need to be aware of if you're going to edit in this area. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Possible WP:SOCKs but no edits

Hi Callanecc. How does one handle some newly created accounts that have similar names, but no edit history on any of them? These are the ones I'm referring to:

• 21:32, 19 March 2015 User account Magrabbitvn (talk | contribs) was created
• 21:40, 19 March 2015 User account Magrabbit Inc (talk | contribs) was created
• 21:43, 19 March 2015 User account MagRabbit Software (talk | contribs) was created

I noticed MagRabbit Software first in the user creation log and left a {{uw-username}}, then I noticed the others. They're all WP:CORPNAME accounts but with no edit history. Since they really haven't done anything bad yet, they couldn't be handled at WP:SPI. Should I just template the other two with the same warning? --Drm310 (talk) 04:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd leave uw-username on their talk pages, and maybe also a message about what sock puppetry is. It's something I've come across a few times when doing an unrelated CU, and it's just a matter of keeping an eye on it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Done, and done. Thanks for the guidance. --Drm310 (talk) 05:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

new essay

The case against me is vexatious indeed - I shall not contend against those who taste blood. The main complaint even includes my essays - so I wrote one which I hope you will appreciate WP:Wikipedia and shipwrights. It would be fun to see how others react, indeed. Warm regards, Collect (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The refs to swearing are so very very well observed. Bugger. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Please also consider placing MB talk page on GG list

Otherwise baiting will continue just like this particular incident started. There is no reason for any editor to post GG material there while topic ban is in place, not just MB the user. --DHeyward (talk) 04:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by placing it on GG list? MB can remove new sections which relate to GG, say that he can't comment or just ignore them. It wouldn't surprise me if he started doing that that people trying to bait him will stop. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I mean use DS to prevent anyone posting GamerGate related material on his talk page for the duration of topic ban - the original EL was not by MB. That's what started all this. It removes the social aspect of discussing GG which was what caused this. There's no reason anyone should post there as MB can't respond. It takes away baiting from all sides. --DHeyward (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

An interesting idea, I'm on the fence about whether the difficultly in advertising and enforcing will make it effective but I'll bring it up in the AE thread. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice at the top and allow any admin to remove and warn offending editor. Otherwise, I'd bet it becomes a link aggregator place along the lines of "Hey MB, though you might like ..." which I don't think will be helpful. --DHeyward (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Sanction review

As the closing admin, I'd like you to review the topic ban placed on me with this being the appeal of ending it. As per the close, [81], I was not entirely wrong. The word "major" was added due to one of the sources I reviewed (and is also only being kept out due to lack of consensus, I think I had a right to share my deductions in forming that consensus) but most of issues were due to my opposing of blanking the term "victory" in which I was not wrong. As far as the other things such as casting aspirations go, it was recognized in the AE that all of them were not wrong rather I had recently faced enough to get to the conclusions of following based on the diffs I gave then... with that said and leaving the objections aside, my main point is that I have long ended engaging OZ and have not violated my ban. As such this is topic is closed and also [82] reviewed which most probably is going in the closer's way.. I don't mind what sources are used as far as consensus is followed. Furthermore, I've also been banned for a around a month, it can be reduced for being stale as all that contention is stale and the sanction is no more preventive - plus my behaviour in other topics hasn't shown any disruption. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not about whether you were 'right' or not but about who you went about it. However given that the use of sources was involved I can see how you made that connection. Having said that, I'm willing to accept in good faith that you realise what you did wrong and have learnt from it. However I'm not convinced that you will make good, constructive, collaborative edits to Battle of Chawinda, so I'd be willing to replace your current topic ban with a topic ban from Battle of Chawinda until the expiry date of the current TBAN (12:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)). How does that sound? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I see the consensus finalizing that infobox anyway and I can live with that (the article was really not on my top priority, I just went after some old sock master who was reverting to completely opposite statements and fell into this mess). So your offer is fine by me. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It was not just Battle of Chawinda, but many other articles. On Operation Dwarka he continued to edit war over results and never discussed them. On Inter-Services Intelligence activities in India he edit warred over making a conspiracy theory look clean. On Operation Chengiz Khan he restored the statements that were removed a year ago because they were unsourced since 2012, and his edit summary reads "Restored consensus version.. no intermediate useful edits"[83], misleading indeed because he had never discussed them. And a few others. Even if the topic ban is limited to Battle of Chawinda, I am certain that we will still have a number of unnecessary edit conflicts. Since the topic ban, TopGun has not made even 75 edits to main article space, I doubt that how he proved that he can edit without conflicting. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:VOLUNTEER is all I have to say to you, I don't have the time to edit that much neither should I be expected to have to satisfy your arbitrary criteria of edit count. About the sanction, I'm not going to debate my reverts to proven socks and other disruptive editors with you. I've said all I had to.. it's for Callanecc to decide. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

OccultZone your conduct on those articles is not great either. In fact having seen the reverts from both of you I'm of the opinion that it might be useful to impose 1RR on both of you for any edit which relates to the India-Pakistan conflict (with the clarification that you may only revert accounts and IPs you believe to be socks without reference to 1RR if you have reported them). Opinions? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind 1-RR for the length of my original TBAN (or a voluntary 1RR if not sanctioned)... but it will only make sense if it is symmetric to OZ or I might be effectively be blocked from making edits by simply being reverted out if OZ chooses to revert me twice every time. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking my original offer for the TBAN (ie just Battle of Chawinda until the original expiry) and 1RR (for the same period of time) for both of you long term 6 months, a year, indef (not sure yet, one of the reasons I asked). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I have never reverted more than 2 times unless it was a sock(usually Nangparbat). While TopGun usually reverts on the sight without even looking at the sources or the information. There are no instances where he would open a new thread on ATP and explain his edits or he would reply to any older thread that concerns the content. He usually sees what is actually favoring his opinion and that he would create unnecessary edit conflict. It is very hard to return to a stale version because TopGun normally never agrees with others. Not to forget that TopGun had violated his TBAN once[84] and even if he was not aware of it, still that edit misrepresented the source. These articles had no edit conflicts for more than a month between users, which is a good sign. Although there are some instances where some of the editors have socked,[85][86] its not that serious issue. I have never seen anyone actually alleging me of edit warring for ages. Considering that I have made over 170,000 edits, I have not been blocked even once. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

"TopGun usually reverts on the sight without even looking at the sources or the information" is casting aspersions and will likely get you blocked. There are three on Operation Dwarka and that's without looking at anything other than the links you gave me. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Refactored. Thank you for informing. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been reverting people even close to 3RR else where since my ban, so why would I editwar in the long term. Priors were related to well known hounding / baiting by a sock. 1RR as such will only slow down collaborative editing. I recently had a DYK approved from the military topics. I don't think I can develop articles that fast under 1RR. It can always be thrown in if an intentional editwar is seen in future though. Don't know why OZ is continuing to focus on me and mention my self reverted possible violation after clarification. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm just talking about since you're ban I'm talking long term (can be seen in OZ's links and in your final warning from last time). You shouldn't be reverting people when you write articles, if you are it means you need to stop and discuss with them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I've already agreed to an article specific topic ban, and don't mind a 1RR for the same time. I do contend that there's been nothing new that warrants an extended 1RR as the "last time" was proven to be a deliberate socking, following and what not and all those issues are stale. I don't see how this stops an admin from putting me under 1RR when the issue arises as far as "long term" is concerned about the Indo-Pak conflicts. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Ok this is what I'll do:

• I'll replace TopGun's TBAN with a TBAN from just Battle of Chawinda for the same period of time.
• I'll log a reminder (not a warning so it doesn't need to be taken as seriously in future AEs) that any edit warring on India/Pakistan related article can be dealt with by 1RR (I'll include my wording above).

How does that sound to both of you (without repeating what you've said above)? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Fine by me, as before. I would have asked for an IBAN, but from my prior experience, even many of the most experienced admins are not good at enforcing that properly and it wastes the community's time with meta-bickering. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• That's better, considering that we have no consensus for rejecting this appeal, neither there is consensus for increasing the scope of article ban. Good luck TopGun! OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This is AE, consensus is not needed. I appealed only to Callanecc, not to you. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking IBAN as well, but given the crossover of your editing interests, it would likely need with a TBAN for one or both of you as well. Ok I'll action my two dot points in a sec. OccultZone regarding "we" as the enforcing admin I don't need consensus to change the sanction I placed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Why the above conversation still remains unarchived? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

My comment is a penguin

Might want to verify the link to my comment... [87] 😄 // coldacid (talk|contrib) 04:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Fixed, that's what happens when you get distracted mid sentence. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Figured it was a copy-paste thing, I have issues like that with Firefox from time to time... // coldacid (talk|contrib) 18:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)