Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:36, 6 January 2015

Callanecc is busy and may not respond swiftly to queries.

User talk:Callanecc/Header

Violation?

Happy New Year Callanecc!

Callanecc,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. NorthAmerica 11:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

2015 already

Hi Callanecc. No frills - just a quiet ‘’all the best’’ to you for 2015 and I hope you’ll continue to be around on Misplaced Pages for a long time to come.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, and the same to you Kudpung. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:ARBIPA case log is still collecting notices

Hello Callanecc. Please see User talk:Laser brain#New logging system for DS notices (since 3 May 2014). It seems that 18 entries for DS notices have been added since 3 May 2014. Back in September, User:AGK did a notice cleanup for ARBPIA, saying 'NO FURTHER ALERTS SHOULD BE LOGGED HERE' but it seems that other cases may also need attention. Arbcom should have clearly written down 'don't log notices any more'. AGK's entry in ARBPIA is mostly in hidden text. Still, don't you agree that Arbcom's wishes are clear enough to justify trimming the ARBIPA notice log back to 3 May? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep, done. Plus if any of those notices were not using the automatically logged Ds/alert they don't count anyway. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for your edit at ARBIPA. It's still unclear why Arbcom would not have published the new advice more visibly. Maybe they want to avoid the trouble of a new motion? What would be the pros and cons of adding something to the visible text of WP:ARBIPA:

Note: New notices or alerts of discretionary sanctions should not be logged here. See Template:Ds/alert for the new notification system. To determine if an editor has been notified, search their user talk history for the tag 'discretionary sanctions alert'.

I'm responding to the modesty of only giving the advice in the hidden text of the case log. EdJohnston (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

There's already a notice (somewhat inconspicuous I guess) at the top of the notifications section in most cases which says they aren't to be logged anymore. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think this needs a tweak

Thanks for updating the OS/CU stats. However, I think a tweak may be needed - probably changing the headers to match up the months? Since I didn't collect the information myself, I'm hesitant to make any changes. Well, that, and I hate editing tables... Risker (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't blame you, especially this table. I managed to miss the most obvious thing to update, but fixed now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Typo notification

Hi Callanecc,
Thanks for the notification. I have no intention to submit evidence, but I noticed that your messages started with "You recently recently offered a statement...". I'm not sure what template you use, but it would be a good idea to fix that. Regards, and happy new year! --Biblioworm 00:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

That was me, I had to change the template we normally use to include the box and missed that bit when I removed the template code. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban

Does this mean I cannot communicate with editors on that page with whom I have also worked on non-ISIL/ ISIl-related articles? How does this work? P-123 (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You can talk to everyone except GregKaye as long it isn't regarding ISIL. Have a look at the top points at WP:TBAN (and WP:IBAN), does that help? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

This was necessary and I applaud the decision. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

DigitalOcean

When I did the Google search, our article came up, and I looked at it and at their website before posting my last comment to the SPI. I'm afraid I still don't get it, but I didn't want to clutter up the SPI anymore with our discussion. Our website says it's a "cloud hosting provider". It never mentions that it provides web hosting (other than a cat). The same is true for their website. Clearly they do provide web hosting based on the IPs and the geolocate, but I still don't see it from looking at either our article or their website or any of the other hits on the Google search. Perhaps I'm just not experienced enough to connect all the dots.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a virtual private server (from page title on Google), offers cloud hosting. This bit is pretty much all I needed: "Deploy an 512MB RAM and 20GB SSD cloud server in 55 seconds for $5/month". This one uses more "modern" wording unlike others which say "web host". Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks and query relating to close of AN/I

Thanks for bringing the AN/I to a close. I realise that it contained a lot of content and, from comment by PBS, there is perhaps fair implication that some of it was unwarranted. Given this I would like to open up to any guidance that you may or may not see suitable to give.

In your closure you stated that: "GregKaye (talk · contribs) is warned that any further misconduct in the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant topic area will likely result in a topic ban." If either is easily performed I would appreciate either clarification of topic area or a review of this verdict.

I had privately broached matters re an edit privately on an editor's personal talk page. Other issues were raised and conducted away from the article. I responded to contents in two article talk page threads but had not raised contentions. I do not see misconduct. I have tried to argue strongly but fairly in all related forums while attempting to juggle all the issues involved. I collapsed a thread that I took to be a digression within the talk page thread but immediately contacted PBS to check whether this was justified and, with first notification of guidelines based objection, I reverted the collapse. From my perspective that is all and my thought, at this point, is to add a comment to this effect following the collapsed section of the AN/I.

I am also confused as to the guidelines that Misplaced Pages either does or doesn't enforce. Even though this is clearly my problem any help in showing what is what would be appreciated. GregKaye 06:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The main reason I included it was because not including anything (given that a TBAN) had some support would not have been appropriate. There isn't anything per se which I can give you as an explicit example (though I haven't looked in detail) but due to your interactions with P-123 and the comments made about them there is some misconduct (which is dealt with with the IBAN). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for closing it -- I would have done so today if other admin had. The ban needs to be recorded in Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant {rather than /as well as} at Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions as that is where editors/admins will look for editor bans round and about the ISIL. -- PBS (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason I didn't is because it was imposed with the authority of the community (hence WP:CBAN) not under the general sanctions, I've added a note about the TBAN to GS/ISIL. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Callanecc, I hope that no offence was taken by the above. Looking back there are certainly better ways in which I could have directed and conducted my side of things. I also have to take on board the views of editors regarding failings of my later presentations as well. I appreciate that there were opposing requests presented in proceedings. I am also thankful for your leniency with me. I appreciate that there are things that I could have done better throughout. I considered the above position worth presenting as, from my perspective, a one time (preluded) breaking of the consensus ban. It is not something I plan to do again. Thanks again and, if it's not to late, happy new year. GregKaye 15:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Your advice for when compromise is not an option...

Callan - I think the rough consensus had changed to accept the pejorative terminology as opinion rather than statement of fact. Unfortunately, it appears Srich's very generous offer to compromise has been rejected. I also received a couple of mild threats on my TP which I quickly moved to my archives. I do not wish to take any action against that behavior, because my warnings seem to have been effectual but I do find it very disconcerting considering the minor changes necessary for policy compliance. Editors who have far more experience editing BLPs have weighed in and agree that statement of fact labeling of Griffin is a violation of policy. In light of the resistance we are still getting from a few editors despite offers of compromise, and considering the sanctions in place, I think it is time to move the article to a high level of DR where neutral eyes who are familiar with BLPs can settle the issue once and for all. Please help me with regards to the proper steps to take. Atsme☯ 14:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:DR. I'd suggest BLP/N (if not done already) one RfC at a time about one issue at a time, or formal mediation. There comes a point when you need to drop the stick and accept that consensus is against you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Callanecc (talk • contribs) 06:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I was considering asking an admin to act under discretionary sanctions relating to pseudoscience on the Griffin page, so I thought I'd ask the one who recently issued everybody with the warnings. Guess who I was going to ask for sanctions against, for disruptive editing and tendentious editing? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I've been considering the same thing, but this type of thing is usually better at WP:AE where the case can be made much more clearly. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Callanecc - rough consensus is with, not against me, but thank you for the DR information, and your wise advice. Following are the editors who agree the lede needs to be changed:

• Carrite - agrees it conflicts with NPOV and violates BLP policy, (he has edited over 500 biographies, which I felt was important to note);
• Srich32977 - agrees;
• Atsme - agrees;
• TheSwitzerdude - agrees that "it does NOT belong in the lead paragraph or in the infobox."
• Cullen - agrees that "Conspiracy theorist is not a job title."
• Pekay2 - agrees "The contentious label "conspiracy theorist" in this BLP can not be used as a statement of fact"
• (uncertain about sources used): Arthur Rubin - his uncertainty confirms the statement of fact argument;

Thank you for the time you've invested. It was never my intention to create more work for you, only to get the article right so it can be improved and expanded as a DYK, and potential GA. Atsme☯ 04:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Jqadri

Thanks for blocking Jqadri.

However it's more than just edit warring. It is BLP violations and making legal threats. I doubt this editor will stop once the block is lifted, so an indef might be more appropriate. Thanks. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I saw it on ANI as well, I'd rather wait the three days and see what happens, mostly likely they'll either move on or they'll create a sock. If they end up doing to same thing it's a quick trip to indef. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Your "clerk" action

The person who advocated for a party to be banned subsequently imposed sanctions against that party, and then submitted evidence against the party they sanctioned with opinions about the sanction they imposed in the very same comment without intervention from you. If after seeing my comment which pointed this out you had hatted the discussion, that would be one thing, but you collapsed my comment alone. Unless an arbitrator specifically directed you to collapse my comment alone, please remove the collapse box. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The two comments above yours were alerting the Committee to events which had happened (in Ryulong's case possibly preventing him from contributing to the case) and which the Committee needed to know about. Your comment was your opinion which you had already placed at ANI, the post was for the Committee's information about the sanction and a link to the appeal not a running commentary, which doesn't help the Committee arriving at a final decision (if for not other reason than they already have a link to the discussion). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The edit notice asks for a post containing a short and neutral summary. In contrast, the "post" expresses a clear POV opinion about the severity and merits of the sanction "(in my opinion mild)" - and reads as evidence, rather than information, given that he had also sought a ban against the sanctioned user. This establishes one of two things - the community is being misled by the committee as a consequence of the edit notice, or the issue was for whatever reason overlooked by you (which is what my comment avoided bringing attention to). But if you've made your choice for the committee, that has determined mine also. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I was hoping that I wouldn't need to archive top and bottom it as it would stop where it was. However once you made your comment I was no longer able to leave it, only reason it isn't all hatted is because the outcome of the appeal (depending on when it's closed) might need to be added there so it's useful to have context. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to let the record reflect that I came here in respect of your collapsing, not your archiving. I would have thought that the link to the appeal is sufficient to inform them of the outcome, if it is sufficient to inform them of the parts in which I am addressing them, both directly and indirectly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

True, however a brief message the result of the appeal is helpful in closing the issue. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

AE case

The Steeletrap case also refers to BLP discretionary sanctions. It is not solely about topic ban violations.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Appeal of RFPP decline for Douchebag. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI: Please see closing admin's comments. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Given that the last confirmed sock/vandal to edit it was 2012 I can't see a justification for full protection but it's not worth the effort with Hasteur acting the way they are and mostly getting away with it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Especially so given that it was the opinion of four admins (including protecting admin when it was protected) that full isn't needed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason it's not been vandalised much since 2012 is because it's been FP most of the time. Any time the protection wore off for just a few hours the vandals were back. What do you expect with a page with a name like that? I'm happy to take full responsibility for protecting it. However, I do not, and never did, condone Hasteur's agressive manner of communication with other editors. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a reason for an indef semi until there are confirmed accounts editing it and blocking can't deal with it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

With Douchebag it's not a question of GF and running another SP experiment, it's a question of applying what has already been empirically established for years and giving all of us a rest. It's a classic example of how IAR works best - although there are no hard and fast guidelines at all for situations like these. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Why isn't it time to experiment with SP? The full protection is based on edits from 2-2.5 years ago. If it had been full protected since then it would be difficult to argue that semi protection shouldn't be tried out. Overriding another admin's action to impose full protection is excessive when considering the following from the protection policy: Brief periods of full protection are used in rare cases when a large number of autoconfirmed accounts are used to make a sustained vandalism attack on an article (emphasis mine). This isn't brief, there may have been a large number of accounts in 2012 but there aren't now, and you can't say it's sustained if the last time it happened was 2012. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

C'mon Cal, you're an admin too, don't Wikilawyer with me of all people - I know WP:NO-PREEMPT inside out and backwards too. If you don't like the FP change it back to SP, nobody will argue with you (except perhaps Hasteur) although there are also plenty of admns who agree with the FP. I won't wheelwar with you, after all it's only a DAB page and it might be interesting to see what happens, but ask yourself why there haven't even been any serious edit requests for nearly two-and-a-half years either? I've had that DAB on my wl for years and if Hasteur hadn't gotten involved in it there wouldn't have been an ANI, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and the rest would be between me and Joe. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

(tps) What about semi + PC2? It's technically against policy, but then so is indef full prot and we've all been around the block enough times to know that policy doesn't cover every possible scenario. I'd say it's worth a try, though this all seems like a lot of fuss over a dab page. Couldn't we just have a full protected redirect and hatnotes on douche? Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It is quite a bit of fuss over a dab page, and it's probably worth just leaving it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Not much I can add to that, but AFAIC, I really don't have a problem with full indef or full multiyear, and that if I'd realized how busy off-wiki I was going to be the last few weeks I probably would have. I don't feel preempted, I was absent, and y'all were ALL doing the best you could by the encyclopedia. As it should be. I probably wouldn't SP+PC2 because I've been assuming that the issue is mostly Edison,revert,Edison,revert,Edison,revert disruption, and who wants that in the article history. I recommend leaving it as is, and allowing me to buy any/all of you a beer the next time we're in the same part of the world. Cheers, --j⚛e decker 05:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Right I hope I'm doing this right and hello!

Greetings. I just had an email from you about setting up an account where you gave me the go ahead and here I am! I am however really quite scared that I'll be labelled as a sockpuppet so could you write on my user page that I am in fact no such thing (Because you are obviously an administrator). I cannot be bothered for a pointless and unfounded witchhunt. EverCriticised (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Closing clean-up

Hi, I noticed Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark_Worldwide still has the "This case is currently open" box. I might have removed it myself, but I don't know if the watch-all links should also be removed, as in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity_of_Jesus. Manul ~ talk 20:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

With your blessing?

Hi Callanecc. On this user page your name is taken in vain. It's obviously the serial sock-puppeteer LouisPhilippeCharles (talk · contribs), so I'm curious to know if you have really encouraged him to return. Favonian (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Favonian: They appealed on UTRS with an not blocked IP so I said that they should be able to create the account themselves. They either didn't mention or I didn't notice if they did say that they were LouisPhilippeCharles. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

This user has always economized with the truth. May I block his latest sock and bulk-revert his usual contributions, or does the UTRS process somehow prevent that? Favonian (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Go for, it's just another avenue for appeal to admins. Given that they're coming back around every six months, could it be a misinterpretation of the standard offer? Maybe worth getting them to read it but with 12 months away (and preferably on another project), up to you? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• For reference, it is UTRS appeal #12750. He mentions being blocked by Favonian (in particularly impolite terms) but doesn't mention any account name, and the IP used to filed the appealed was indeed not blocked, so the best we could do (without CU) was to reply "this IP does not seem to be blocked and you should be able to create an account", which is technically correct. He seems to have taken that as a blessing for renewed socking. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oh, he's been informed about the standard offer more than once, but has always chosen to seek alternative paths back. Thanks for your speedy reply. I shall do what needs doing and retire for the night. Favonian (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	It works. Thanks again. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Query.

User A takes actions that are problematic. User B takes actions that are (identically) problematic. Directly linking the two would require presenting evidence that falls foul of the outing policy. Which of the following is the best option?

Option 1: List evidence of User's A & B separately on evidence page but not directly linking the two and email Arbcom privately with the evidence (that violates outing) indicating they are the same person.

Option 2: Only list evidence of User B, despite the fairly conclusive evidence as per above.

Option 3: Submit everything privately - while offering maximum protection against outing, equally offers minimal amount of transparancy.

Regards. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Does it relate to an arbitration case or sockpuppetry in general? Generally it would be better to submit it all privately and ask the body you send it to whether they would also like you submit bits of it publicly. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case, if it was sockpuppetry I would just post it all at SPI and let someone else worry about what parts need to be redacted. Thanks for clarification Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

If you've got private evidence which is related to sockpuppetry you need to sent to the functionaries as outing is outing. No worries. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Charlie Crist

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 05:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Only 4 edits in last 30 days. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

And mostly constructive ones at that. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 10:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

BLP Question

Given that Silver source is an op-ed and makes an accusation against living persons, why do we not remove such sources when they are little more than attack pieces? WP:IRS and WP:BLP strongly advise against using poor sources about living persons. An accusation against living persons should require more than an op-ed piece to include mere "opinion" of wrongdoing. I hope I am not crossing a line here - but op-ed pieces are clearly not the high-quality reliable sources required and I question whether they should be used at all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

As there is disagreement the only reason I could remove the source and content is if I thought there was a serious enough BLP violation in having it in the article to override the discussion, which I don't. The content which was requested be removed doesn't make an accusation about a living person it makes a comment that there may have been a COI due to the circumstances, not the people involved. So I'm not concerned enough about a BLP issue to remove the content and source on that basis, so I need a consensus to do so especially given that there is disagreement. Having said that I agree that a better source would be better. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Igor Radusinovic

During the AfD run, the article was moved Igor Radusinovic→Igor Radusinović. You closed as delete but only deleted the article mentioned in the nom--just the redirect to the moved article. I deleted the actual article. DMacks (talk) 07:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail

Supersaiyen312 (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Can I invite you to help me judge this matter on cryptocurrency?

I recently removed Blackcoin from the cryptocurrency page , and another user(:Greenman) quickly came and undo my editing. Claiming he has 'more experience'. However, his edits lacks credit, and I look further into the matter, I realize he was the same person that previously tried to 'stop Blackcoin's page from deletion', he claims his sources on the blackcoin page are legit as they are from 'Reuters' and 'wall street journal'. However the Reuters one was a press release forward, and the wall street journal release was a blog page. (I have also stated so in the blackcoin talk page now.), Excuse me if I say so, but this looks like a 'clear attempt' to mislead, especially if said user claims to have years of editing experience. This same user also previously tried to added Blackcoin to cryptocurrency and ignored other users asking him to wait, and he just added it anyway. (he cited as blackcoin page valid, he can add blackcoin to the table, but as my above discoveries just shows blackcoin references are all blogs). For my discoveries on blackcoin reference, I am trying to discuss on BlackCoin page, if you have time, I will like you to take a look too. I hope inviting others to take a look as a 3rd party judge is the right thing to do here. Feel free to let me know if you feel I am not doing this right. Thank you. WinterstormRage (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)