Misplaced Pages

User talk:Callanecc: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:58, 9 December 2013 editCallanecc (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators73,417 edits Manually archiving to User talk:Callanecc/Archive 7← Previous edit Revision as of 23:07, 9 December 2013 edit undoCallanecc (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators73,417 edits →Sheldrake: ReplyNext edit →
Line 283: Line 283:
::   p.s. I do fully understand that CU isn't *mandatory* in clear-cut cases, and am not saying that Vzaak is wrong about 23 being a tumbling-sock, or even that the one-month-block is wrong. My main point is that I would like to make sure all concerned ] with each new editor that shows up. Sheldrake and allies are in the news, trying to send people here to edit. Coyne and skeptics are in the news, trying to send people here to edit. We are gonna have '''actual newcomers''' show up, making arguments they copied from one group or the other. We should not drive them away, just because they are beginners, or just because they hold certain positions. ::   p.s. I do fully understand that CU isn't *mandatory* in clear-cut cases, and am not saying that Vzaak is wrong about 23 being a tumbling-sock, or even that the one-month-block is wrong. My main point is that I would like to make sure all concerned ] with each new editor that shows up. Sheldrake and allies are in the news, trying to send people here to edit. Coyne and skeptics are in the news, trying to send people here to edit. We are gonna have '''actual newcomers''' show up, making arguments they copied from one group or the other. We should not drive them away, just because they are beginners, or just because they hold certain positions.
:: &nbsp; Some of the points made by 71 before the semi-prot which kept *me* from mainspace-contributions are in fact valid. They were not an outright vandal -- nor were they an intentional sock from what it looks like. They were a student, unfamiliar with at least some of our bazillion rules, and with ]. Prolly nothing can nor should be done, to reopen that case of 71, but rather than a perma-ban on all IPs on sight, and treat everyone who holds positions "x, y, and z" -- <gasp> that sounds just like something tumblemumbler once said! <oh nohz> -- with automatic presumption of guilt, I ask everyone to please use the ] only when necessary, and preferably ask questions ''first''. :-) &nbsp; Hope this helps. ] (]) 15:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC) :: &nbsp; Some of the points made by 71 before the semi-prot which kept *me* from mainspace-contributions are in fact valid. They were not an outright vandal -- nor were they an intentional sock from what it looks like. They were a student, unfamiliar with at least some of our bazillion rules, and with ]. Prolly nothing can nor should be done, to reopen that case of 71, but rather than a perma-ban on all IPs on sight, and treat everyone who holds positions "x, y, and z" -- <gasp> that sounds just like something tumblemumbler once said! <oh nohz> -- with automatic presumption of guilt, I ask everyone to please use the ] only when necessary, and preferably ask questions ''first''. :-) &nbsp; Hope this helps. ] (]) 15:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
:::Checkusers won't connect and account with an IP address, so wouldn't be helpful in this case. The behavioural evidence was pretty overwhelming when you look through in the SPI and archive. More of a block hammer, the ban hammer has already come down. Fringe science will always be an area where there will be returning socks so blocks and page protections are and will be reasonably common unfortunately. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 23:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


== Thanks for the SPI help == == Thanks for the SPI help ==

Revision as of 23:07, 9 December 2013

User talk:Callanecc/Header


Congratulations

I'm happy to inform you that, due to your successful request for adminship, you have now been promoted to an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me or stop by the administrators' noticeboard. Congrats! Andrevan@ 02:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Good luck with your new mop! Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
And G-Double-O-D-J-O-B Good job! Good job! Three cheers for Callanecc! Jianhui67 04:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Give it time... Yunshui 雲‍水 08:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

A bro I'd like to share coffee with.

Thank you for the quick reply time to my notice on the Admin whatever noticeboard for vandalism x3 I forgot what it's called. Anyways thanks for a quick reply time. I was actually kind of stalking your RfA and I was going to +Suport you but I think you have to have so many namespace edits before you can vote on RfAs? Do proper reverts count as namespace edits? NDKilla 04:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
No worries and thanks for the coffee. As far as I'm aware the only requirement to vote on an RFA is to have an account. But you need to make sure that you are experienced enough to be able to properly assess whether the candidate would be a good admin. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, well.. Thanks. I don't know if it was a personal request by one of the canidates on their RfA only, but I saw somewhere 15 or 150 mainspace edits or something.. Anyways, Cya around and GL with the adminship. First admin action? Didn't you just protect some page? Idk I got an email about a change to one of the request pages I was watching. NDKilla 04:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
150 mainspace edits is the requirement for the Arbitration Committee elections, that could be what you're thinking of. I blocked three accounts. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


Oh, it might have been that. Idk. Thanks :DD Time to get working on my essay. Misplaced Pages has stolen my life. @_@ NDKilla 04:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Your RfA

The admins' T-shirt. Acalamari 09:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Callanecc! I see that you haven't been given any appropriate clothing for your new job yet; never mind, here's a t-shirt. :D Congrautlations on your successful request for adminship! :) Acalamari 09:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Haha, thanks. :) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

DS review

Please can you explain why you reverted my comments at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2013 review? As far as I can tell the review has not been completed and is still open for comment? Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted myself, sorry about that, I have absolutely no idea how I managed that. Sorry again. I am however going to remove the rollback link from my watchlist just in case it was that. Sorry, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
It's ok, everybody makes mistakes. One apology would have been plenty though ;) Thryduulf (talk) 10:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

So you like the mop, then?

Looks as though you've hit the ground running... Leave something for the rest of us to do! Yunshui 雲‍水 12:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I do, finally being able to do some proper cleaning up is quite helpful. Hey, I have to make up for all of those "it's about time" comments. But you are very welcome to the A7s. :P Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Of course you do when it has special abilities which fascinated you to try them all in a day. JianhuiMobile 12:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
If I'd known you planned on clearing the entire admin backlog in a single day, I'd have nominated you years ago. A7s; gee, thanks... Yunshui 雲‍水 13:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
If I were Callanecc, I would have did that as well. Normal thing... Jianhui67 13:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Today might be my last day here. I may leave Misplaced Pages for a while. For my AFCA course,I will get back to you when I am back. Thanks. Jianhui67 15:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Try this coffee. You'll feel well. After all this moping on English Misplaced Pages floor you'll like it! Guaranteed! Ha ha. Anyway a big huge and big to the power infinite congrats for a successful RfA and of course becoming an admin. Hope you like your new rights.

PS: Don't forget to drink it. it's still hot. If you need any sugar or milk then add them. Pratyya 14:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

A cup of tea that I would like to share with you!

Being an admin is going to be hard. Good luck. Epicgenius (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

One more favour

I have one more favour to ask you before I leave. Can you help me to view my deleted CSD nominations before I created my CSD log and tell me the criteria I tagged by email? Thanks. Jianhui67 15:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you did the things I told you to do? Don't know why I can't stop visiting Misplaced Pages. I am very blue now. JianhuiMobile 04:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you come to IRC now? I have stuff to talk to you. JianhuiMobile 06:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the perfect solution. Debresser (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

You declined to take action against Spyonrunce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the grounds that the account "has only received a level 2 warning and last edit was a few hours ago". You should note that this account is a sock of the serial Runtshit vandal, who has received countless hundred warnings over the past several years. Further, the sort of abusive edits made by this editor should have attracted an immediate indefinite block irrespective of this history. RolandR (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok my mistake, thanks for the message I'll know that one for the future. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake

Hi, thanks for your comment on Sheldrake talk. I am trying to avoid reverts and edit wars, but this edit just makes a mockery of the article/wikipedia. It's very difficult to do any work in such conditions. Grateful for any advice you have on how to proceed without edit warring. Thanks. Barleybannocks (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Barley, my suggestion on page which is that contentious and unstable is to suggest all changes (apart from really uncontroversial ones, like fixing unambiguous typos) on the talk page (or put your changes on a subpage so people can see how it will look) to gain consensus before making the edit to the article. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Callanecc. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 12:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Blurred Lines 12:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Patriotic Nigras

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Patriotic Nigras. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

?

About the protection thing. I was trying to comment how I agreed the page Human Gene thingy should be protected and started a conflict though. Ive been on Misplaced Pages for nearly 3 years. Also what exactly does "Preemptively mean? (I'm 15.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobherry (talk • contribs) 02:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to your requests for Rockefeller Center and Rudolph... Pre-emptively means that we don't protect articles because vandalism will or might happen only in response to vandalism. Your Rockefeller Center request for example. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Bobherry talk 03:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Barnstars

Also how do you get a barnstar? I've been on for nearly 3 years as I said and haven't gotten any.Bobherry talk 02:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

See WP:Barnstar - other editors give them to you, but they don't mean anything other than that social aspect. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Bobherry talk 03:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for fast replies on your talk page! Bobherry talk 03:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Congrats on becoming an Admin! Bobherry talk 03:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

November 2013 GOCE drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors November 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter
The November 2013 drive wrap-up is now ready for review.
Sign up for the December blitz!

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest and Torchiest, Baffle gab1978 and Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and Jonesey95, and The Utahraptor and The Utahraptor.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


Admin abuse

Thanks for reverting this and finally closing down that time-sink. Sad, but inevitable.

I think I shall start a "testimonials received" section on my user page. I have had worse than that, and no doubt you will, though after four years I am still waiting hopefully to be called a rouge admin. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 10:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I got a tad nervous when I saw that page title, thought I'd stuffed something up in my first few days.
No worries. Related question, has the user sent you any emails after I removed talk page access? Unfortunately that's something which comes with the territory of being an Arb Clerk and as you said an admin, but you never know I might be lucky. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
No, no emails. He kept referring to "emails" in his messages, but I think he meant ordinary WP messages. If I do get abusive ones, I would have no qualms in turning off his email access. Someone, probably Beeblebrox, has written an essay on the lines of "Cries of ADMIN ABUSE are usually correct - an admin is being abused." JohnCD (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The email they sent me wasn't anything worse than what they put on their talk page so I just ignored it. But had they sent the same thing to you I would have removed access. But looks like they've figured out the message. Sounds like quite an accurate comment, you get a different perspective once you are an admin and have been on the receiving end (quite mild though it is). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Can You Help Sorting Out This Mess?

Hello. I need your help in regards to Attack at Golden Dawn Office on 1 November, 2013.

  1. Currently the following pages exist in relation to the topic: Manolis Kapelonis Μανώλης Καπελώνης Γιώργος Φουντούλης Giorgos Fountoulis Murder of Manolis Fountoulis and Giorgos Kapelonis to Neo Iraklio Golden Down office Murder of Manolis Kapelonis and Giorgos FountoulisMurder of Manolis Fountoulis and Giorgos Kapelonis to Golden Down office. As you understand a mess has been created, over an article that is facing notability problems. Is there a way to clean up all or some of the mess?
  2. It has been suggested that the article be merged with Terrorism in Greece. Th incidence is also covered in Golden Dawn (political party). The only editors that defended the article not being merged were 2 entirely new editors (1 was the creator of the article) with no previous contributions. The creator of the article has yet to provide any evidence for the notability of the page. Could you take a look at Talk:Attack at Golden Dawn Office on 1 November, 2013 and post your opinion as well, and if you conclude that a consensus can be claimed, to take action? This article has made a mess the last few days, with vandalism taking place at Murder of Pavlos Fyssas as well. --Tco03displays (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
My suggestion is that you follow the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Merging#Proposing a merger. Given the contentious nature of the article I think it would be better for a merge discussion to take and the two AFDs come to their end after the requisite seven days. Once that has been done we (uninvolved users, in this case probably admins) can close and implement the discussions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I see. Then this is still within the timeframe of discussion. I'll check it in 5-6 days. --Tco03displays (talk) 12:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Make sure you follow the instructions here as well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Also please note the WP:PROD does not apply to redirects. These need to be discussed via a WP:RFD. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations...

....on your successful RfA! Good luck out there. hmssolent\ ship's log 13:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Mmmm, thank you HMSSolent! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Block Evasion

Hi Callanec - just wanted to let you know that this diff is not a block evasion - User: 130.88.164.18 is his own man (or woman).Legionarius (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

All About She

Hi there! I was just contemplating whether or not to start creating an All About She article through my userspace when I noticed that someone had recently created the page and you'd deleted it. Would you be able to restore the original contents to a new userspace e.g. User:Djunbalanced/All_About_She? Their new single entered the UK midweeks at #11 which has already guaranteed it notability. I'll wait until Sunday's chart before going ahead with a new article but in the mean time I'd really appreciate seeing the old one! Regards, DJUnBalanced (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

My warning

Hi, I was recently warned here about my edits to Rupert Sheldrake. I don't think the warning is fair - as it comes from an editor on the article who is inserting his own content contrary to multiple sources listed on the talk page. I would appreciate a second opinion, since previously you seemed to suggest the edits I am now being warned for were partially responsible for you not locking the article. Barleybannocks (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It's probably not a bad idea to get consensus, because your edits are some of the more controversial ones to the page. The only reason I mentioned your edits is because they were evidence of at least someone moving on from the POV template war. As it's an arbitration enforcement warning there is nothing I can do regarding the warning itself. However I would suggest that gaining consensus over any edit isn't necessarily a bad idea. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I just want to check. A single administrators can force their own non-consensus version into an article by banning/threatening to ban anyone who changes it. That is, the administrator edits their version in, threatens the ban, refuses to agree on talk to any change no matter how well sourced and how unsourced their version is, and then the ban threat means nobody can ever revert. Is that really the way things are supposed to be?
And, also just so I know, could you tell me which of my edits you feel were controversial?Barleybannocks (talk) 10:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that Guy hasn't edited the article enough to be considered WP:INVOLVED, although I didn't look too deeply into the page history. A consensus is yet to form on the talk page, and the best way to do that is to talk rather than edit, and there have been a few times I've been tempted to protect to force that. Whether one person refuses to agree or not doesn't matter if the consensus is against them. Also just clarifying, it's a bit different in this case because Guy is undertaking this action as arbitration enforcement under discretionary sanctions which no single admin can overrule, but you can still appeal a sanction or warning to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. In terms of which edits are controversial, that's a question best asked to Guy on his talk page (in a friendly way). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I have asked him, about five times. He refused to answer and threatened to ban me if I asked again. Is this kind of bullying standard on Misplaced Pages? Barleybannocks (talk) 11:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I've left a message on his talk page. As I said I think your edits on the talk page more more contentious then those to the article. I just did a search of your username on the talk page and almost every editor was disagreeing or trying to convince you of something else, not just Guy. So from that side I can certainly see where he is coming from. You need to bear in mind that when (all/most) other editors disagree with you, you need to comply with the consensus which they have come to. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
As far as I can see, my edits on the talk page have primarily been all about citing numerous high quality sources in support of a very brief statement in the introduction stating a widely known fact which is suppressed on Misplaced Pages for some reason but appears almost everywhere else Sheldrake is discussed (ie, he has a small degree of scientific support/interest in his work). I can certainly see how citing sources disrupts people's abilities to retain a very biased BLP. It is also, however, very much in line with the Wiki's core policies even if antagonistic to the aims of some editors. Anyway, thanks for your message to Guy, I doubt it will make a blind bit of difference.Barleybannocks (talk) 11:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
It's not "suppressed" it's just not there because nobody's found the right way of saying it. You are over-reacting, something which is (to labour the point) one of the things that distinguishes problematic from harmless single-purpose accounts. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake

The problem with barley's edits is that he asserts that his bias is neutrality, insists that his wording is a compromise between his wording and other people's, and the fact that he's a WP:SPA determined to Right Great Wrongs, having arrived after Sheldrake exhorted people to fix the "problem" of an article that accurately identified his ideas a s nonsense. The article needs stability and measured change, not edit warriors who represent their POV as the neutral POV, despite the very obvious fact that it isn't.

You know that SPAs usually have a deep commitment to a POV and there is an imbalance of motive between the SPAs and the rest of the community (e.g. Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion).

I have asked barley to stop editing and instead achieve consensus on talk for changes he wants to make, in an attempt to avoid having to start banninating people for disruption.

I have by this time done quite a bit of reading on the background to the Sheldon problem, more eyes is always good, have you also researched the subject? Basically, Sheldon has advanced an unfalsifiable conjecture which essentially mirrors the claims of parapsychology, fair tests of his ideas are virtually impossible due to their largely untestable premises, and (the important bit) there is virtually no discussion of his ideas in the professional journals of the relevant field - the primary discussion of his ideas is by philosophers or people who criticise them. Sheldrake's response is to say that science is a set of dogmas (and invoke Kuhn, as every crank does). Comparison with quantum statistic mechanics is valid: QSM was viewed with suspicion and rejected outright by Einstein, but it prevailed because it was a more coherent and complete explanation of the observed facts than was strict determinism. Shedrake's ideas do not pass that test: they make sense only if you accept his base premises on faith.

The Chopra quote is telling: Chopra thinks he's building bridges between science and religion. You can't. They are non-overlapping magisteria, and increasingly scientists reject religion altogether due to the lack of coherent testable frameworks.

Barley is here to support Sheldrake, and that is orthogonal to Misplaced Pages's purpose. I have a lot of experience with contentious biographies, and I'ma n OTRS volunteer, so I am comfortable that when I judge the biographical element to be compliant with WP:BLP I am right. Barley doesn't seem to accept that, and wants to re-argue the case ab initio rather than build on what's already there by addressing specific issues. That's the problem I'm trying to manage. Guy (Help!) 12:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Guy, my argument is that we go with the sources, not our own opinions. In that respect I am neutral - I understand the irrelevance of my own views. I offered three different version as compromise - you refused to acknowledge they existed. It is notewoprthy that in the recent request for admin action, 4 neutral editors all claimed to have been effectively driven off by the actions of those (like you) fiercely opposed to Sheldrake, and in each case they complained of being considered Sheldrake fan for opposing the more reactionary views. Barleybannocks (talk) 12:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Guy, I've done a bit of research into Sheldrake and his views, but not as much as most editors involved in the discussions, which I think is a good thing because I can't be biased either way. In saying that, I really do understand where you are coming from and the frustration you (both) are suffering. But someone involved in the dispute threatening bans really isn't going to resolve anything, and (as can be above) does the opposite.
Barleybannocks, it looks like Guy is trying to actively engage you in the bottom section of the talk page. He's asked a straight question and backed it up with a policy, so it's over to you. If you can find a reliable secondary science-based source from a which clearly states it (and even better if you can quote it), if you can't then the point that Guy has made, re WP:SYN, stands.
This is a good example of what tends to happen on the talk page, someone (recently, generally Barley) suggests that a change is needed, they receive general agreement that it should be included. But it falls down because no one can agree that a source states it. So it will be interesting to see where this discussion leads, and if there is a source which someone can find. Plus of course the consensus building about what is actually added to the article, which I hope will be discussed rather than just done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Indeed it will be interesting. Barleybannocks (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Barley, no, the problem is that you want to go with your own interpretation of the sources, some of which amounts to novel synthesis. I fully understand that you do not perceive this. That's the root of the problem. I am trying to coach you in how to achieve changes, but unless you stop rejecting everything I say because you don't like its implications, you're not going to learn anything. I have been here a long time, I know how Misplaced Pages works. Guy (Help!) 16:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Your interpretation of Misplaced Pages may be correct, but your reading of the sources is simply wrong. All three sources I cited at your request talk about the support from scientists for his scientific work. That is just an uninterpreted fact. See the links on the talk page for details as well as my quotations from each.Barleybannocks (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Unlike Guy, who just complained about how angry he was to have wasted time on the 2012 book, I have not read any of the Sheldrake books. But I have spent a long time reading the wikipedia history of the involved editors. And I don't call the BLP "Sheldon" by mistake. Callanecc, I'm happy to fill you in on the backstory if you like, but methinks you alone (no offense) won't be able to calm things down. The problems of warring will stay persistent, if there are only a small number of people involved. It has been a battleground since July or August, with hundreds of kilobytes of talkpage discussion, all leading nowhere.

  Suggestion: can we bring in a bunch -- like a couple dozen -- randomly selected editors, and have short time-limited byte-limited discussions about each paragraph in the article, from top to bottom, repeat as needed until NPOV is achieved? That seems more likely to generate progress, but the last time somebody asked for outside input, they got hammered for allegedly canvassing. Your hands are probably clean enough that you can get away with recruiting, if you use PRNG to select the victims helpers.  :-)   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

74.192.84.101 that sounds like a really good idea. The only difficultly will be that we'll need to find editors who are willing to do it. Perhaps another option would be to do something similar to the moderated discussion which was done for the Tea Party movement article. What do you think? In any case I've imposed a 1RR restriction on the article because I'm sick of the constant edit warring going on. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
You can call me 74 please, it is shorter. Agree about the difficulty in finding helpers, which is why I suggested that we go paragraph by paragraph... preferably from the bottom up so that the controversial lede is handled last... with brief statements by the WP:INVOLVED people (those that are still able & willing at least). If we try to pull in a dozen people that are willing to read the talkpage back to April, when IrWolfie first got involved and the TEDx thing started heating up, plus deal with the same conditions while they try to help, we won't find *anybody*.
  I'm sure that JzG will complain that this approach is starting all over, and wasting All The Good Work done so far, that pro-sheldrake-fanboi-IP-non-admins are trying to screw up, but since late July mainspace has been under a controlled environment where insta-reverts are the norm. The folks doing the controlling feel unfairly treated, because they are trying to follow policy, as they understand it... but they are firmly convinced that WP:MAINSTREAM and NPOV are *identical* which means they are happy to ignore Reliable Sources, if 'virtually' all of the 'real' true 'academic' scientific 'professional' mainstream believes something else. They will be delighted with the imposition of 1RR, methinks, because it will help defend the currently-slanted version which is in mainspace today.  :-/
  There are some sources, like Noetic Institute, which actually *do* likely fall under WP:FRINGE constraints-n-omissions (because they populate their peer-review boards with people that believe in telepathy already rumor has it), but in general the BBC is *never* a fringe source, even though it is not a tenured mainstream-ideas-only professor of hard science at a major research university. I will look into the tea party thing, and see what it says. But the difference here is that there are very few hardliners about Sheldrake in the wider world. Most folks, including me up until October 23rd or so, have never heard of Sheldrake, and will thus easily be able to approach his BLP without any bias, as long as we pick them via PRNG across all wikipedians, and not from the regulars at WP:FTN nor the regulars on articles under discretionary sanctions. The same cannot be said of the Tea Party, which most editors have heard of (in real life *and* on wikipedia noticeboards). So perhaps Sheldrake is an easier problem, in a way.
  p.s. Your well-intended (and usually entirely reasonable!) suggestions, that Barleybannocks should just post to the talkpage, and make sure he has "consensus" from everybody there -- including the five or six folks there now who spend the majority of their efforts at WP:FTN like Mangoe and Barney and Vzaak -- is going to result in zero changes to mainspace. But one lone editor, with policy and the five pillars on their side, ought to always trump wiki-voting on the talkpage, right? Right. If we want a *real* consensus, the kind that doesn't crop up again next week, the kind that can break the back of the dispute, we need to bring in a bunch of uninvolved editors that have *not* spent hours and hours (and especially not years and years) in the Pseudoscience/WP:MEDRS/PoliticsOfControversy trenches, on *any* side.
  Sheldrake has some aspects of his work (which crosses half a dozen academic disciplines), which are positively WP:FRINGE science, but that particular anti-pseudoscience-brush is being used *very* broadly indeed here, to downplay things well outside the purview of science-claims, and skew the page. Quite frankly, rather than further locking down the current mainspace, I would prefer if you opened it up wide, removed even semi-prot so that myself and other anons could finally edit (some of us for the first time)... and then immediately called in a couple dozen uninvolved and truly-randomly-selected editors to watch what happens, in mainspace, tamp down any disruptions, and help achieve lasting consensus, paragraph by paragraph, from the bottom up the page all the way to the top. Might take a week to prepare, and a week to traverse the page, but prolly worth it. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I said above that it would indeed be interesting to see how my citation of three supporting sources (almost verbatim re my suggested edit) would go. Well, we now have had the well sourced suggested addition removed from the article yet again, and the talk page is now awash with the personal opinions of editors demanding the sources be rejected and that their opinions take precedence. So, we have three secondary sources explicitly stating Sheldrake has received a small degree of academic support; we have secondary sources talking about some of the academic support he has received; and we even have examples of that academic support in action as it were. And in response we have this kind of thing , which is mindboggling. What would you now suggest? Barleybannocks (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I would like to understand how Barleybannocks has been disruptive on the talk page, Callanecc (talk. I'm interested in this page primarily regarding the recently declined ARBCOM case, especially regarding the harassment of editors. What it looks like to me is that one group of editors will provide challenging argumentation and just because they are arguing, it's considered disruptive. Is arguing on a talk page disruptive? If it is, arn't all sides disrupting the talk page? From my POV, I see Barleybannocks (talk) just making argumentation - and if it gets heated, it's because there is a lot of harrassment from one side of the editors to the other. 23.241.74.200 (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that that's the reason for disruption, and no as long as the argumentation is to try and reach an outcome and isn't harassment and is mostly civil then it isn't disruptive. Regarding completely unlocking it, it's not going to happen for a couple of reasons: (1) is that I (nor any other admin) wants a free for all, out job is to stop disruption to the article (semi protection and 1RR), and (2) is that the semi-protection was imposed as an arbitration enforcement action which means that no admin can unilaterally remove it. That's why I was suggesting we do it on a subpage of the main article because it won't be subject to those restrictions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, about the wild-n-free unlock scheme, I had to try, eh? It is frustrating not being able to change mainspace. Are you saying that semi-prot is *specifically* there because of some AE action, or just that any discretionary-sanctions article which gets semi-prot cannot be unprotected because there is a *general* rule about unilaterality? Who can unprotect, in other words? As for keeping order if mainspace were suddenly to become the encyclopedia anyone can edit once again, on the day when the article was deprotected, instead of "punishing groups" with semi-prot and now 1RR, you could instead keep order just as well, by preventatively-blocking (with clear warnings first please! :-)   individual offenders for their individual behavior. Presumably that approach is what will keep order on the proposed subpage, correct? Anyways, I understand some things are wiki-politically infeasible; no worries.
  My take on the subpage question, is that it seems fine... though I'm not sure I grok what you mean exactly... we can even make it a subpage of some page in userspace, rather than mainspace. I suggested that at one point, namely that David our BLP specialist and Josh our most experienced FTN specialist should hammer out an article in userspace which embodied a two-way compromise-consensus, and then see if we could bring more and more folks onboard. Is that what you are suggesting now, a temporary "NPOV fork" of the mainspace content, edited in a sandbox where collaborative WP;BOLD edits are not so risky, and a moderator can apply the firm guidance necessary to maintain justice/peace/etc? Plus maybe, if we start with a clean slate, we can attract a dozen uninvolved editors, and let them do the rewrite, unmolested? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
The article was protected as a result of this arbitration enforcement request (it's the one right at the bottom), as a means to prevent sockpuppetry and enforce the topic ban. User:Sandstein or an appeal to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement (plus to ArbCom if none of those work) are the only ways it can be unprotected. Warning then blocking doesn't work as well because they can change IPs, or create accounts. Plus as you saw on the page when I imposed 1RR there were somewhat slow moving edit wars. In a way 1RR allows for new material to be added, e.g. add it, someone else reverts, inserter puts it back, person reverts again and is blocked for breaching 1RR. I image keeping the subpage unprotected, except if protection is needed, but I hope not.
Probably Rupert Sheldrake/Draft. Yep that's what I'm thinking, with the option of fully protecting it and implementing changes when there is agreement on that page's talk page if all that happens is edit warring. But probably worth waiting for a month or two. Though if you'd like, feel free to sound those two out about it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
User:David_in_DC has by choice left Sheldrake in particular -- plus in general any WP:FTN-related topics or articles or discussions -- indefinitely, and will not be returning anytime soon; he felt bullied, and was wrongly accused of being a Sheldrake-fanboi. Quite frankly, we don't *have* another person of his BLP-caliber any more, willing and able to work on the Sheldrake article. JzG would prolly be happy to volunteer as the "BLP-specialist" but he is simultaneously also a "FRINGE-specialist" and firmly convinced that WP:MAINSTREAM and WP:SPOV is policy; nothing in mainspace would likely change.
  Anyways, it seems certain this basket-case will drag out for a couple more months. I didn't really expect otherwise, but I can say with reasonable certainty that the slow and steady approach will just allow current wounds to fester, and recently-just-forming grudges to harden. Maybe in 2014 the new arbcom will accept the new case, and issue some new guidelines. Anyhoo, disappointing as the outcome is to me, I'm not unhappy with you being the bearer of bad news Callanecc. Appreciate your efforts, and will try to help where and when I can.
  I will look into the links, thanks, and see if Sandstein is willing to de-protect. With 1RR imposed, that might actually not be difficult. On the other hand, see the puppet-commentary, below. Thanks for improving wikipedia, talk to you later. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Callanecc, the Tumbleman sockpuppet you just blocked made an appearance in this thread, and you replied to him/her. Admins have called Tumbleman "a thoroughly disruptive editor, and either a troll or else someone with serious WP:COMPETENCE issues", etc. Would it be OK to {{hat}} all of Tumbleman's comments at Talk:Rupert Sheldrake? Allowing the comments to stand would seem to reward this continued block evasion behavior. Actually I would rather delete the comments altogether, or at least the ones with no response. vzaak 03:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the comments which no one has responded too, but I'm hesitant to do much with the ones which people have responded to. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Agree that tumbleman was WP:NOTHERE, and posted some theories to that effect. Strongly disagree that anyone who types "Skeptical POV" ... which is an opinion grounded in policy which more than one person holds ... or most especially anyone saying Sheldrake ought to be called a biologist, as plenty of Reliable Sources explicitly say ... is therefore Just.Like.Tumbleman.WP:OMG. Vzaak does very good work -- both on the article prose and on SPI preliminaries -- and both are appreciated. Did somebody run checkuser, though? Or contact 23 to see what they would say?
  We have a problem with persistent puppets, it is clear, and that is helping poison the atmosphere even further than it already would be for other causes. But I'd like to be very thorough and transparent with the use of the ban-hammer, and doubly especially so, since it looks like there are at least a couple more months before we'll be anywhere close to even a cease-fire in mainspace. The modus operandi of Tumbleman-et-al is to mimic the arguments of others; that does not therefore mean others (who are not socks) that hold a similar position, put forth a similar argument, or reply sockpuppets, are therefore themselves wrong on the merits (nor for that matter does it make them Sheldrake-fanbois).
  p.s. I do fully understand that CU isn't *mandatory* in clear-cut cases, and am not saying that Vzaak is wrong about 23 being a tumbling-sock, or even that the one-month-block is wrong. My main point is that I would like to make sure all concerned WP:AGF with each new editor that shows up. Sheldrake and allies are in the news, trying to send people here to edit. Coyne and skeptics are in the news, trying to send people here to edit. We are gonna have actual newcomers show up, making arguments they copied from one group or the other. We should not drive them away, just because they are beginners, or just because they hold certain positions.
  Some of the points made by 71 before the semi-prot which kept *me* from mainspace-contributions are in fact valid. They were not an outright vandal -- nor were they an intentional sock from what it looks like. They were a student, unfamiliar with at least some of our bazillion rules, and with WP:BITE. Prolly nothing can nor should be done, to reopen that case of 71, but rather than a perma-ban on all IPs on sight, and treat everyone who holds positions "x, y, and z" -- <gasp> that sounds just like something tumblemumbler once said! <oh nohz> -- with automatic presumption of guilt, I ask everyone to please use the banhammer only when necessary, and preferably ask questions first.  :-)   Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Checkusers won't connect and account with an IP address, so wouldn't be helpful in this case. The behavioural evidence was pretty overwhelming when you look through in the SPI and archive. More of a block hammer, the ban hammer has already come down. Fringe science will always be an area where there will be returning socks so blocks and page protections are and will be reasonably common unfortunately. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the SPI help

Thanks for sorting out my post on Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Stubes99/Archive. Despite being an admin for over two years now, I never really got around to doing much at WP:SPI, so it's greatly appreciated. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

re: Reviewer user right

Hello there!

Thanks so much for your granted and nice to meet you. -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure, use it well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Kleargear

Would it be possible to lock Kleargear such that only signed-in editors (in other words not IP editors) can edit this article? There seems to be a lot of disruption from (probably) a single editor using multiple IPs... =//= Johnny Squeaky 00:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get enough time to thoroughly review the situation. But it looks like you need to try and discuss the situation with the IP user, relating to WP:UNDUE. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Looks like Richwales did what I was intending to do. This is content dispute related to WP:UNDUE and needs to be resolved through discussion not reverting. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for you assistance (and Callanecc as well), I think locking the article for a few weeks will result in cool heads. It's difficult to discuss things with editors who do not respond rationally. In principle, I agree entirely with the IP editor, but turning an article into an emotional litany of WP:UNDUE only serves to undermine the overall validity of the article, and indeed Misplaced Pages. =//= Johnny Squeaky 22:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Precious

living people
Thank you for quality articles on people, active in diplomacy (Dave Sharma) and international education (Alec Lazenby), for welcoming new users and articles, for teaching new vandal patrollers, for performing also minor admin tasks, for picking up ideas, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this Gerda, it means a lot. Especially as a new admin still finding my feet. Thank you! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
No, no, no! (Hi Gerda :-)
  Beware, BEWARE, oh Callanecc -- lest ye be ensnared by the Notorious WikiCriminal Gerda! She purloined that wikiGem off the body of one of her infoboxen victims, no doubt! Assume bad faith, with utmost haste!
  (No infoboxen were harmed in the making of this humour. WMF is not responsible for any failure to roll on the floor laughing out loud. ArbCom disclaims all responsibility for content disputes. Please post all complaints, in triplicate, to three distinct talkpage sections at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales, on three distinct days, between the hours of 9AM and 5PM UTC Monday through Friday. Use only blue or black pixels in your posts; no redlinks allowed.)   Officiously yours, 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
74, why didn't YOU report me, in triplicate? - Discuss Talk:A Boy was Born vs. A Boy Was Born when you get up from the floor, - big issue, the MoS is at stake, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
AGF: on one page of the infoboxes case it was mentioned exactly twice, and one of them was "AGF is simply not appropriate here — unfortunately we have assume the worst". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

formally moderated discussion for 3 months, vs Quik-n-Informal™ Consensus-By-Callanecc's-PRNG-Chosen-Cabal for 3 weeks

Although the attempt by SilkTork was good, it "officially" took three months, and still ended up back at ArbCom. 

 (cur | prev) 08:53, 11 April 2013‎ SilkTork (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,427 bytes) (+15,427)‎ . . (creating)
 (cur | prev) 22:35, 3 July 2013‎ SilkTork (talk | contribs)‎ . . (242,513 bytes) (+1,328)‎ . . (Withdrawing) (undo)

Not trying to discourage you... but are you volunteering to be moderator for Sheldrake, much as SilkTork was the moderator for Tea Party movement? And was there any attempt to bring in uninvolved editors by Silktork (or other folks) for the Tea Party thing, or was it just all the same regulars in a new venue, plus the moderator trying to maintain order by topic-banning the egregiously-unruly? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I think there was an attempt but people got scared away from it. Not volunteering to moderate (although it will be somewhat required) I was thinking more of the format. But instead to duplicate the article on a subpage, and discuss each section on that page's talk page. I think the problem will be finding completely uninvolved editors who are willing to devote their time to it. Any ideas how to recruit them, because I can't be seen to select people? In any case I don't think it's going to work over the holidays, but in a couple of months it's something which is much more likely. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think there are two ways. One way -- which I'm reasonably sure will *not* be acceptable to the FTN folks -- would be to send a neutrally-worded talkpage spam to every member of the WP:ASSIST and WP:RETENTION member-lists, asking for volunteers willing to devote 15 minutes (min) per day for the period from Monday 9th Dec through Fri 20th Dec to fix a WP:BATTLEGROUND before 2014 arrives. Exclude anybody who has ever edited the Sheldrake talkpage, the Sheldrake mainspace, the Chopra articles, or has posted at an FTN noticeboard in the past six months. First come first serve, we take the first dozen that show as our actives, and the next dozen that show as our backups. Then, we have twelve UTC-days, and we would need to cover about 2 or 3 mainspace-paragraphs per day, to get through the article completely. I would vote 3, which means, five minutes hard thought per editor per paragraph, plus we'll be able to revisit a handful of them that final weekend iff needed.
  However, all the folks that come from those groups -- myself, Liz, Lou Sander -- are now officially sheldrake-fanboi-material, at least to the woo-fighters on the sheldrake page.  :-)   Such folks see us as no better than eeeevvviiiilll sockpuppets like Tumbleman, anti-wikipedians, one and all. So, rather than spamming wp:assist and wp:retention, we can conceivably do a much broader sort of volunteer-gathering thing. We can use the API to get a list of the 29k active editors (their usernames). Then, we can create an exclusion-list... folks who have edited sheldrake, folks who have edited FTN, folks who have edited whatever-the-various-factions-are-threatened-by. We write a script that will populate the exclusion-lists (for instance the first exclusion-list of folks that have edited sheldrake mainspace is pulled from the edit-history of the page via the API). Then, we find how many folks remain. We get a computer-script to PRNG-randomly select 24 usernames off the list. Then, we follow the procedure above, and try to get 12 actives, and 12 backups. If after 24 hours we have not gotten enough folks, we tell the computer to pick another 24 names. And so on.
  One way, which was "suggested" at one point... and since then has actually occurred in practice, which is why Mangoe and JzG and BobRaynor and so on have appeared recently... was to get uninvolved editors *from* the FTN regulars.  :-)     So call that option#0, and consider it already implemented and working. Anyways, do you think that option#1 or option#2 can work? My goal is that *only* these somewhat-randomly-picked editors will be permitted to edit the subpage. Nobody on the sheldrake talkpage now will be able to make any changes, even to the subpage-talkpage. We can supply *sources* if we wish, and there can be the usual discussions on the *regular* sheldrake talkpage... whoever is the subpage-moderator will have to read both, unfortunately.  ;-)   Does this make any sense? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Anything which resembles soliciting editors from random talk page messages probably won't be very welcome. I was thinking perhaps a message on Template:CENT and maybe on the dispute resolution noticeboard, asking for some uninvolved editors to help work it out. On the talk page, I think a section for each section in the article on the subtalkpage, and within that (level 2) section, a subsection for people currently editing and a subsection for uninvolved editors. But as I've said I think it'd be better to wait for a month or two, plus to see where current discussions are going. The problem will be if we don't get enough volunteers, which is likely. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
There's doing what will be welcomed by all, and then, there's grasping at straws to avoid grudge-o-pedia. My suggestion was squarely in the latter category. Prolly too late for that, now, methinks. Your approach of using DRN is sound... but they are understaffed... and this is a *big* talkpage we are talking about here, in a discretionary-sanctions zone. Even if the DRN folks dropped everything, and zoomed over, it seems unlikely we could get half-a-dozen of them for a week, let alone two dozen for two weeks. As for CENT, that seems to be more policy-oriented. This, right? For instance, the RfC on whether to allow anons to comment once WP:FLOW arrives (gag) is here, and attracted 43 people to !vote. Several of them commented twice, but in general they read the two paragraphs at the top, bang-voted in the category they wanted to win, and then left. Luckily btw, only 9 voted to perma-ban anons.
  We *could* do something like that, with an RfC for intro-para-one (in multiple variations for the various different folks involved)... but I doubt it would actually work in practice, too many closely-related variants. Doing it sentence-by-sentence (or even better sentence-pair-by-sentence-pair) would cut down on the dupes, and might be worth it. Once we've ironed out neutral tone for each sentence, paragraph by paragraph would be much easier. Sentence-pair by sentence-pair would take months... but it sounds like it will take months, no matter what. Is it too crazy to cdr down the list, line by line? And if so... how to we notify new folks? We could send out a "new" request for eyeballs, every 20 sentence-pairs, or something? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Sublimeharmony/sandbox11

Just so you know, I think Rybec was using that as evidence for SPI, so I don't know if it should necessarily be deleted. --Rschen7754 03:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Undeleted, I was just following links from a PROD I'd deleted. Didn't see your previous delete and restore on the delete page. Thanks for the message, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I also linked to it from Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Morning277. Thank you for restoring it. —rybec 10:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Request

(Not evading my wikibreak enforcer on my main account)

Help me to extend my wikibreak from 10 December to 11 December. Do not do anything else other than that. The Wikibreak Enforcer script is at my vector.js. Thanks. Also I sent you an email yesterday but you did not reply. So I might as well send here. JianhuiMobile 03:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not block evasion, because you're not blocked, and I've changed the date.
Replied. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello Jianhui, this is 74 again, you may remember me from the Kudpung page, small world.  :-)   Be not disappointed that you could not empty the ocean with only a spoon! Your efforts are still appreciated, because every little bit helps. (That exact logic is why I'm donating my brain to science.... every little little bit helps. :)
  Enjoy your wikibreak, may you cultivate new interests and fascinating tales, plus enjoy old hobbies and relationships, so that you may return to the wikiverse renewed. Carpe diem. p.s. Callanecc, methinks the term 'evade' was speaking of a *self* enforced wikibreak-mechanism... Jianhui is parenthetically reminding themselves that, as long as they are only asking for a wikibreak-enforcer-tweak, it does not *really* count as evading their self-imposed enforcer-script.  :-)   I have the same mental conversation with myself, about various alarms/notifiers/similar, which is why I venture to guess at the explanation for Jianhui's phrasing. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Also relates to a conversation we had by email not to long ago. But yeah I know that's what he meant, I was just being intentionally dense cos of the email convo. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Callanecc,

I am anonymous contributor here. I have been complaining to the other admin about certain violations caused by one editor here. To cut it short here is the section of his talkpage where I made my complaints: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Rmhermen#Complaint . I am pretty much every IP in that section of the page. My request to you is if you could check more carefully violations and vandalism that certain editor is spreading on Balkan-related pages.

Thanks TaaTaa 212.178.228.36 (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems like pretty clear case of sockpuppetry and abuse of multiple IPs to me. Create an account and use it to do all of your editing rather than spreading it around multiple IPs and ranges. Once it's clear who you are and exactly which edits you are making. And that you aren't one of the many banned users in this area. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Ah, you are all the same.........212.178.228.36 (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes and no. When we see a bunch of dynamic ranges all warring over the same content, which has also been the subject of long-term banned editors, it's pretty difficult to have any other reaction than to protect the articles from disruption. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Help

Hi Callanecc, could you please help me with this sockpuppet investigaton that I made yesterday? Blurred Lines 01:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I've commented there, the behavioural evidence doesn't really convince me because there isn't a distinctive editing style of the IPs/accounts and apart from the one reasonably high profile area they don't share any others. There is a reasonable likelihood that the IPs might be related to accounts, but without more edits I can't really be sure. But I have left to open for more experienced admins to comment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but didn't you noticed that after I reverted one of the IP addresses edit, that Savebriangriffin was created after that, then when someone else reverted that edit, Hi the man was created also in that time to revert it. Does any of that information I provided ring a bell? Blurred Lines 01:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I saw that, and might be worth adding to the report so that's is clearer for others when they review the case. I think it's probably pretty likely that they are the same user, but there isn't the evidence there that I'm comfortable blocking. Possibly because I don't have enough experience with the little things yet, but the regulars at SPI might see something I don't. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, let me ask this, doesn't the Savebriangriffin username violate the username policy, as the user's name is popular (promotional to Brian's Death) to search on Google. Blurred Lines 01:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Nah it'd have to actually promote an organisation or company, see WP:CORPNAME. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Declined prod at Wargame: Red Dragon

Would you like to add references to this article? Otherwise I'll have to escalate this to AfD :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to go to AFD, I still have notability concerns, it's just that I was concerned it would be controversial. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Did a small correction to your message

Problem at WP:RFPP

Thanks for the explanation in this edit. The decline did seem odd, and out of character for you, and it is reassuring to know that you didn't intend it. That damned problem of the number of sections changing before you click "Edit" is very easy to be caught by, and as a matter of fact, just before dealing with that request, I myself had almost been caught out by it on another request. I just noticed as I was about to click "Save". JamesBWatson (talk) 14:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed it is, especially for the last one you check. I generally have the page open in one tab, then edit each section in a different tab so get caught out. Don't know why I missed it this time. Thanks for you double checking! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)