Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:57, 5 June 2015

Callanecc is busy and may not respond swiftly to queries.

User talk:Callanecc/Header

Eric

A week's block for trivia was a bad and unconstructive action, and a week at that. However he had broken the terms of the GGTF ruling, so no real excuse can be made on his part. A wiser admin, with their eye on the broader picture, might have blocked for a day, or even a minute.

Extending this block to two weeks today is egregious, even by the standard of Eric-blocking. It's pointless, it's vindictive. For you to extend it yourself makes it look even more so. If something "needed preventive protection" (and why else?), there are no shortage of less-involved admins who would have jumped to defend WP as needed.

I expect you to ignore my comments. I wouldn't even be surprised if you then blocked me in return (yes, my expectations of admin behaviour are that low). This was a bad block though, made worse by its extension, and please don't think that it is supported by all other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• I don't support the block. Sorry Callanecc. You have done many good things here, but this is not one of them. The only reason I'm not simply unblocking is that that will only stoke the fires of those who like to clamor about Eric's posse, and that will hurt him in the long run, and create yet more shit storms. I keep hoping that you will either change your mind or respond to the many dissenters. Drmies (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• To speak up for the people who do their best not to care about Eric: This block is totally warranted. Eric is purposely acting to get these blocks. The guy surely knows how to research and write, but when he wants to be, he can be incredibly nasty. He poisonous to himself at these times, frankly. We only have one life.--Milowent • 15:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Milowent, I love you like a brother, and you're always welcome on my couch, but I call bullshit. Yeah, sure, violation. Listen, the guy links one little thing on his own talk page and the whole project is derailed? Why do people look at his talk page in the first place? I mean, who gives a fuck? They don't look at yours. No, that's not a hand being forced, it's someone looking for trouble and finding it. Admins aren't obliged to block every time someone wants them to--thankfully, since someone thinks I should be desysopped for not blocking when I can. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Drmies, reasonable geniuses can disagree here, to be sure. I have an 11-year old son who I butt heads with just like Eric does with Misplaced Pages. Is it my fault when I escalate things he does to deliberately provoke me? Perhaps. But he drives me fuckin' crazy because he's too much like me sometimes. Like Eric, he wants to know he is loved.--Milowent • 03:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Linking to a post from the Misplaced Pages Gender Gap email list on his talk page surely violates the letter and the spirit of his GGTF topic ban. And to do that while being blocked for a current violation? It seems like Callanecc's hand was forced. Eric just can't seem to keep himself away from the GGTF. Both the block and its extension were easily avoidable. The only question in my mind was the correct length of the block. Was a week or two weeks warranted? That is up to admin discretion. Liz 16:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Liz, I would like to know where you find the "spirit" of Eric's topic ban. Irony has been mentioned, did you notice? - Working on pieces about spirit, Luther, Bach and Pepping, and pictured, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Liz, see above. No admin is ever forced to do anything they don't want to. Look at me: I've been quite successful at not blocking a whole bunch of times. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not going to ignore questions about my admin actions when they are made reasonably and with civility and I don't see how blocking you (Andy) would be anywhere near justified or reasonable or anything else which would make it okay. I would have hoped our interactions up to now would have shown that. I definitely don't think it's supported by all other editors, there are very few things which are supported by all other editors, especially at AE and even more so for valuable, long term contributors.

Milowent's comment is of where I'm coming from. If you are intentionally violating the editing restrictions, which the one on the talk page definitely was, then that becomes disruptive by itself regardless of the location, especially (as many have pointed out) that Eric's talk page is one of the most watched pages on the project. Regarding why I say intentionally, obvious I can't read Eric's mind, but, he was blocked for breaching a TBAN (which in itself was extremely obvious given the comment, edit summary and page - I'm not allowed to comment here but I will anyway) so he finds something which has what he is topic banned from written on it and posts it in the only place he can.

Regarding whether to block or not to block. For the first one at AE (and for the record I agree that the second diff of adjusting the colon didn't really need to be reported) the comment, edit summary and location were (it seems to me) daring someone to block him. If we don't block we show that a different set of rules apply because he's a 'content creator' and so reinforce this to him and others (which doesn't prevent it happening again). If we do block we get days of drama about it. Regarding the second one on his talk page, I've addressed it above and in the sentence before this one. The really short answer is, if you want to be a part of a community then you have to follow the community's rules and expectations if you don't then you get (technically, as we've tried personally through the bans) prevented from breaking those rules and expectations.

Regarding block lengths. The last two blocks were for 2 days then 3 days, plus there was an IBAN as well. The enforcement provision in the case states that restrictions should be enforced with escalating blocks (eg because 3 days hadn't prevented it happening) so we're starting at more than 3 days. The provision also allows the first enforcement block to be one month so we're talking relatively long block lengths. Given that the edit was obviously covered by the ban (comment, edit summary and page) I think a week is reasonably lenient from what is normally handed out at AE. The second block is pretty much the same thing, block is escalated for a further violation (and since it was while blocked and a violation of two restrictions I think two weeks is pretty lenient for AE as well) and talk page access is removed to prevent a further comment.

I don't intend to change the block myself (and since it's AE others would need to "clear and substantial consensus") unless Eric discusses the issue with me as I believe that it is still the correct response to Eric's actions.

Moving forward, if Eric wishes to appeal I am perfectly willing to discuss it with him. There is also the option for anyone to take this to ArbCom as a case to review my (etc) actions (a case, as an appeal at AN/AE/ARCA can only be initiated by the blocked user).

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Callanecc. Do you think that the block will make any difference either to Eric or to the project? Do you think Eric was reported because EvergreenFir was offended or because she was thinking of the person rather than the content? Do you think that, when a comment has sat without admin attention or user comment on a highly-watched page for many hours, it is really justifiable or useful to apply the letter of the law? Were you informed of that comment, as the conspiracy theorists seem to think? Can you actually see the irony that was being referred to by Eric? Do you think it sensible for Arb Clerks even to get involved in AE blocks or discussions? Are you aware that first-mover advantage works in favour of the blocking admin in these circumstances? Is it sensible for someone who has recently imposed a block then to impose a further block? What would you have done if some other admin had responded to the "irony" post before you, saying "I've reviewed this: it might be considered a technical breach of their IBAN and TBAN but isn't worth bothering about"? - Sitush (talk) 06:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully, the point of blocks is to prevent the behaviour occurring, if Eric sees that the restrictions are being enforced hopefully he won't breach the restrictions.

It doesn't really matter why the vio was reported, or even that it was reported. What matters is that the restrictions on Eric were obviously breached. Regarding personal motives for reporting, you'd need to ask EvergreenFir, but as I said it doesn't really matter.

Yes, hence why I blocked. See my long comment above as well. Also, dismissing a blatant violation of two editing restrictions while you are already blocked for breaching one of them as just enforcing the letter of the law really isn't appropriate in my opinion.

I was just following some of the pings I'd received, started at the bottom and saw the comment. For the record I hadn't had any offwiki contact about it before either block. After the blocks one person who isn't an arb, a clerk or a functionary sent me an email to check in with me (how I was feeling after some of the comments which had been made), I don't think that they've commented on the blocks (though I haven't searched through their contribs, just haven't seen the username).

Why does it matter if I can see the irony? That doesn't and shouldn't affect whether editing restrictions are applied and enforced. Consider vandalism on the free speech article, preventing people from editing (or PC1) is very ironic but the name of the page being protected isn't and shouldn't be considered. Because someone says being blocked is ironic (I know I'm simplifying it) doesn't mean they shouldn't be blocked if there is misconduct which warrants it.

I don't see why not. The same could be seen for functionaries who (like clerks) are appointed at ArbCom's pleasure.

Yes, I mentioned something similar in my comment above.

In response to further misconduct during the block especially when it relates to the reason for the initial block. Having said that some examples of when it might (though not all the time) not be appropriate to modify a block would be when there's ongoing appeal, the misconduct directly related to the appeal or it was directed at the enforcing admin. It's also necessary to consider AE blocks are slightly different as well as there is a hesitancy to modify them at all without enforcing admin saying okay. In other situations it happens regularly, consider an account being blocked a week for socking, three days later the blocking admin notices another sock and reset/extends their original block.

If they were uninvolved, ask them about it on their talk page giving my opinion as the original enforcing admin on why I believe that further enforcement action is necessary (e.g. block isn't preventing the vios).

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure you're a nice guy Callanecc and everyone has assured me you're a good admin but a quick skim through your recent contributions suggests you are more interested in dishing out punishments than writing an encyclopedia, and that's seriously worrying. I urge you to find a neglected article, improve it and ask Eric to GA review it. You will immediately see why people are so defensive about him being blocked. I sincerely believe nobody can truly understand that unless they've done substantial content work. In my view, content writers are the heart and soul of the project. Ritchie333 09:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. And please feel free to get involved in some of the enforcement areas that take up my time (onwiki at the moment it's primarily WP:AE & WP:SPI). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems like you're implying a dichotomy exists re competing values/objectives (content creation vs policy enforcement). That dichotomy probably does really exist, and I think that might be a complicated topic. But consistent w/ Ritchie333 reminding you what is "heart & soul", here is excerpt from your successful RfA ended 3 Dec 2013:

2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?
A: The articles I've created, because at the end of the day that's what Misplaced Pages is for. Content creation doesn't come easily to me so when I create articles like Dave Sharma I'm quite proud and happy with it. But I think my best contributions are in the various places where I can help others

(Could it be your "better angel" has evolved by your experiences in clerking & the other enforcement roles you pointed out!? Combined w/ the acquisition of admin power !? To the point where an editor like Richie333 sees a need to remind that you appear to have "left the building" and holed up in a different one across the parking lot!?) IHTS (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Not me suggesting the dichotomy. But regarding your other points, it's probably true however see my comment above. In any case I don't see how discussing me has much to do with this block. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

What "comment above"? I don't see how discussing me has much to do with this block. That's curious, as if separating or disassociating yourself from the block. (It's axiomatic that actions are a function of decisions to act, and decisions are a function of knowledge + values + attitudes + objectives etc., and those are functions of an individual. If the block exists in a vacuum or disjoint from you as you're seeming to suggest, then why do you suppose the many other admins who saw the same conditions as you didn't exercise any block, but you did?) IHTS (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The one in reply to Richie. My point was that assigning the reason that Eric is blocked to the admin who did it, whether it be that they don't write heaps of articles or that someone told them to do it are ways of removing the responsibility for the action (Eric's TBAN & IBAN vios) to the enforcing admin rather than accepting that Eric was in the wrong and moving on. You can see that quite plainly on his talk page, it isn't that Eric is in the wrong, or the block wasn't the best opinion (although that is there), it's the personal motives of the admin who did it. That kind of approach really isn't useful or constructive, which is why we have WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF & (to an extent) WP:NPA. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

You talk with clouds of dust, Callanecc. (I had this same problem with you at Panda's arb case, where I could not for the life of me figure out how you were counting numbers of diffs provided by commentators, and after two attempts trying to get you to clarify, you gave confusing responses and were unable, forcing me to give up.) Multiple editors have been telling you that you have a bent toward viewing things in terms of strict enforcement and seeing in black & white. My suggesting that you take a look at that gets consistent IDHT and dismissive pat responses "not helpful" and "unconstructive". Wrapping in your fish paper "why we have WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF & (to an extent) WP:NPA" is more of the same (IDHT/dust cloud). (I have no idea what you are trying to say, unless it is the same argument you keep proffering: that any self-reflection before admin action is something to be avoided, since will somehow disable you from ever imposing a block in any circumstance. That's not what I've been suggesting. But you love dust clouds. And I don't like being frustrated after communicating as clearly as I possibly can, either re diff counting or this issue. So again, I GIVE UP.) IHTS (talk) 08:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

No I'm saying that blame or complete responsibility for the block is being assigned on the person who made it (for example, it's case govcom told him to, or it's cos he doesn't write articles) rather than the person who got blocked. And that isn't a constructive way forward. If the restrictions should apply to Eric or content writers in general then that's a policy discussion to start with the community. Admins need to act in the best interest of the project, my basis for the block (as I've explained above) was that editing in an area you are banned from and doing it again while you are blocked is disruptive. I've said before that I lean towards stricter enforcement especially on arbitration remedies (as opposed to applying a restriction initially) but I'd contend that most AE regulars do (I haven't done a statistical analysis or anything like that). I'm not sure where you're getting "self-reflection before admin action is something to be avoided" from, my point (as I said at the start of this edit as well) is that encouraging self reflection is one thing but what's happening is that the reason for the block is being assigned to the admin who made it rather than the person who was blocked (in other words, all my fault rather than Eric's three vios). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

While I admit the comparison is slightly over the top, I encourage you to read – and give a thought about – Stanford prison experiment. Here's a selected quote: Prisoner No. 416, a newly admitted stand-by prisoner, expressed concern over the treatment of the other prisoners. The guards responded with more abuse. When he refused to eat his sausages, saying he was on a hunger strike, guards confined him to "solitary confinement" The results of the experiment have been argued to demonstrate the impressionability and obedience of people when provided with a legitimizing ideology and social and institutional support. The experiment has also been used to illustrate cognitive dissonance theory and the power of authority.
I believe our duty is to be ethical in the first place, and obey the rules only if we feel they are just. I think you failed to do that. No such user (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@No such user: The comparison doesn't really work for the reason you stated plus for the first TBAN breach at least Eric wasn't pointing out that other users were being mistreated he was blatantly breaching his TBAN to say that he was breaching his TBAN (which is the more 'extreme' interpretation). Why do you think the "rules" (the topic and interaction ban?) were/are unjust? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't have much issues with the first block: Eric was clearly testing the limits, and he really didn't have any business to do on that page. I am deeply concerned about the second, and the unfair rules surrounding it: it's the "broadly construed" gotcha of the topic ban combined with the "first mover" advantage of the AE blocks that gives a free pass to the "just following the rules" trigger-happy admins. It took several years of grief, criticism and admonishment to get Sandstein off the AE: his blocks were always within the rulebook, always within the "admin discretion" range (and on the harsh side of it, of course), and every so often unilateral, unfair and driving valuable contributors off the wiki (ex: User:Sean.hoyland). We don't want a Sandstein II.
And I don't see anything wrong with the comparison: Eric expressed concern over the silencing, refused to eat his sausages, and was sent to a week of solitary confinement. No such user (talk) 07:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you think the edit which resulted in the block extension was a vio of the TBAN and/or IBAN? I'd have absolutely no issue with him expressing concerns with the block (as I said I said I'd be happy to discuss it with him, whether an appeal or not) the issue was that he did it by breaching two of his editing restrictions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Mu. Whatever it was a technical breach of, it was an act which did not harm Misplaced Pages or any of its users in any way, shape or form, and it was expressed on his own talk page. The only sensible course of action was to ignore it, just as everybody had done thus far. Just as we are supposed to IAR to perform an action which improves an encyclopedia, we are equally supposed to not perform an action which hurts it. Your block was hurtful not just for Eric but also for many people who came here to protest, and only serves to aggravate the (in my opinion quite real) rift between the "content builders" and the "govcom". No such user (talk) 10:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

PP

Hi Callanecc. Thanks for the revdel etc, but please unprotect my UTP. Or if you must protect it, please do it for just an hour or so. Best,  —SMALLJIM  09:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the help; I very rarely get comments from new people on my talk page, so a day of semiprotection shouldn't be a problem. I wonder what I did to attract this guy's attention? Nyttend (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

My guess is that you had the tenacity to dare blocking on their socks. :P Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

If so, I did it by "accident"; as far as I can remember, I've never blocked a Grawp sock. Nyttend (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

That or protected a page Grawp had wanted to 'edit'. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

HRC move request result

I don't mean to pester, but I do find it highly irregular that the result of the HRC move request has not yet been revealed. It has been nearly a month since the request was closed. If it is reasonable, may I ask for an update on the progress of the closure? RGloucester — ☎ 18:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi RG. Two of us have pretty much made our minds up, we're just waiting on the third. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Much obliged for your reply. RGloucester — ☎ 18:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Up and ready!

Hi Callan! How are you? I'm back on Misplaced Pages after few months of absense and I'm ready for the ArbCom clerk training. Cheers, Jim Carter 07:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Well thanks Jim. I'll bring it up on clerks list and let you know when. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Best, Jim Carter 08:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jim Carter: Could you please send me an email (through Special:Emailuser) is fine so I can check that I've got your email address. Thanks. :) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done Jim Carter 08:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, just wanted to make sure I had the right address. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-23

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Problems

• Many wikis were slow for a few hours on Wednesday due to a code error. Sometimes the pages did not load at all and showed an error.
• Some tools in Labs were broken on Wednesday and Thursday.
• Edit tags added by the software were broken on all wikis from May 23 to May 28.

Changes this week

• The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since May 27. It will be on non-Misplaced Pages wikis from June 2. It will be on all Wikipedias from June 3 (calendar).
• You won't be able to use e-mail lists for a few hours on Tuesday.

Meetings

• You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on June 3 at 18:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

15:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:No original research

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:No original research. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request

Hello. Have you seem to forget something? --George Ho (talk) 00:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Kindly see this section above, Mr Ho. RGloucester — ☎ 00:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

MoAtoum and Mikon47

Hi. You blocked User:Mikon47 but posted the block notice at User talk:MoAtoum. I think you meant to post just a warning, as you had said at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/MoAtoum. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

War of Edits

You can stop a war of edits between those editors (LightandDark2000 and 햄방이). They also violated two rules 1RR and 3RR. Here: herehereherehereherehereherehere I tried to intervene but they ignored me.here But that would not be drawn into a war of edits, I stopped trying stop this war of edits. Maybe you as admin can stop these actions. Because they dont want stop and war of edits between these two editors still continues. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

GOCE June 2015 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors June 2015 News May drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 38 people who signed up, 29 copyedited at least one article, and we got within 50 articles of our all-time low in the backlog. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Coordinator elections: Nominations are open through June 15 for GOCE coordinators, with voting from June 16–30. Self-nominations are welcome and encouraged. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)