Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:56, 12 February 2014

Callanecc is busy and may not respond swiftly to queries.

User talk:Callanecc/Header

Brief theoretical Q

Hi, I'm just trying to understand something re process ... If editor 'A' reverts editor 'B', then editor 'B' opens a Talk thread and invites discussion, then editor 'A' elects never to discuss, then no other editors end up contributing to the opened thread, then editor 'B' goes forward and restores her change ... is editor 'A' justified to revert the change a second time? Thx! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It depends, generally not because editor 'A' hasn't contributed to the discussion so has given their tacit consent (as long as they knew a thread had been opened) however if it meets the standard exceptions to edit warring, or 3RR, then yes they would be justified in reverting again. If editor 'A' does revert again then rather than reverting back that's when you should try to get a third opinion or politely remind them about the talk page section. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarify! Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC) p.s. My stupid analysis: It seems the deck is stacked to tilt toward editor 'A' in that scenario, doesn't it? (I.e. editor 'B' eventually overcomes the obstacles, but that takes some doing, meanwhile editor 'A' has nothing she must do, controls the article text until editor 'B' finishes her journey of tasks, then in the end editor 'A' suffers no drawback . What if editor 'B' were given green light after the second revert, instead of obtaining a 3O, to revert w/o limit!? )

It'll also depend on whether editor 'A' is reverting something which is long standing or something which editor 'B' just put into the article. If it's long standing then editor 'B' would generally have the green light rather than needing to request a 3O. If it's something editor 'B' has recently added then the burden is on them to show it should be in the article. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I get you. (Thx!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC) p.s. Just so my understanding is complete, it seems 3RR "bright line" is a sham (i.e. not bright, not even dim) in the scenarios. (Right? Thanks.)

Don't get me wrong, what I've described are ways of avoiding reaching 3RR. As soon as there is a fourth revert (which also means that the above isn't being followed) there are generally always blocks to enforce order and prevent disruption. What I was describing is how to avoid even getting near 3RR. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I was meaning the one scenario, if editor 'B' was restoring long-standing material, opened Talk thread, got no participants, and had green light to restore w/o obtaining 3O. (I suggested she s/ have right to revert w/o limit at that point; what if editor 'A' continued to revert that restore?) Also, it seems limitless revert was permitted in scenario where editor 'B' continues to restore w/o 3O, when the material was not long-standing. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we're at a stage where it depends on the content and the article's history. 3RR is the bright line rule and WP:BRD which is close to what I was describing is a way to come to agreement. So it depends on who does the first revert. In the scenario at the top with the first revert being editor 'A' it is editor 'B' who has the burden. If on the other hand editor 'B' was reverting to a long standing version then it is editor 'A' who has the burden to explain why their new version is better. Allowing someone to revert without limit is problematic because the edit war won't stop, and one of Misplaced Pages's guiding principles is consensus and to have consensus there needs to be discussion not reverting. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand that 3RR is "bad" and BRD is "good", my Q was re when discussion doesn't occur (i.e. then what?). Just for my understanding (I'm continuing to feel there is something I'm missing), in the EWN item you recently handled there were serieses (is that the plural of "series"!?) of reverts, and wanted to get understanding how the reverts both sides way overpassed 3RR, but no bright line seemed to apply. (What am I missing?) Thx. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It depends on what the content is, generally the status quo will remain or someone will jump in and agree with one side. Would you be able to give a link to it please (I've forgotten which is was)? Series is a plural :P. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

This page might be of interest and answer your question as well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The EWN above this thread, which you ruled "stale". (Weren't both parties way past 3RR?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The TransporterMan essay is interesting, I've started to read it, but I'm immediately taken aback by his advice here, which seems unrealistic, lends tacit approval to edits one disagrees with, and lets bullies and Randies control articles:

If there's been an edit war, with or without three revert rule violations, stop editing that article for awhile. What's awhile? At least a week, longer is better, and a month is about right.

(A month! Wow. Tell all the bully Randies, they will love to hear that.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Most of them probably already knew that. The thing you have to remember is that the rules aren't in place to make this encyclopedia better, they're in place to keep its editors in check. Eric Corbett 10:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. And I can see too how some admins have pressed the pedal to the metal vis-a-vis how many reverts constitute an "edit war", since policy says can be less than 3, some admins claim right to block for edit-warring for less than that, even 1. (I'm beginning to believe what they really want is to reduce that further, i.e. to block for edit-warring after 0 reverts, based on their belief the editor was thinking about reverting . That sounds ridiculous but I think it is really what they want -- total fiat control.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Only stale because I'd rather not block someone for intense (as opposed to dragged out) when the editors have already stopped, as I said if I'd seen it earlier (or if there was a pattern on the article) I would have blocked or protected. Re TransporterMan's essay: true and I'd probably go with a few days or a week rather than a month depending on the content of the edits. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

That answers. (Just to clarify, I don't necessarily believe in blocks and wasn't complaining about your not blocking someone. I just didn't see any recognition in your EWN handling that there was 99RR going on, and just wanted to confirm if I was hallucinating or not understanding something basic. Thx for your patience in this thread to explain.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

TreCoolGuy

Instead of responding to the complaints or comments left by me, you, or User: Favre1fan93, this was TreCoolGuy's reaction. I am not going to restore it per WP:BLANKING, but that does not make his case look any better at all. STATic message me! 21:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah he does that. I'm all for continuing this here or on my talk page if it is needed. Here's my edit from last night if not seen by all: - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 instances from the talk page history before he was blocked where he's been warned in some form or another related to edit warring, adding original content, removing sourced content, or the like, plus the "I'll change" speech" part 1 and two. As you'll see if you choose to look at all of those, I'm unfortunately the bearer of a good portion of these warning, and Static, you start coming in around #14 that I linked. So this most definitely is not a one time issue. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, if consensus will agree, I can take him under my wing, but he is too active of an editor, and I just had two sleepless nights already. I have a feeling that his fate will be discussed on ANI and will be long.--Mishae (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

If you'd like Mishae, by all means, but he hasn't show willingness to work with others to improve. It comes in spurts, and then he reverts back to his previous editing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

That'd be appreciated Mishae. The next step is a (lengthy) block or being dragged over the coals at ANI. So anything you could do would be appreciated. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I assume that people who have such a trend of editing usually have autism or the like. I will call in user @Koavf: over here for maybe some dual watching of his edits and talkpage. Maybe he can be of an assist, plus, he is known for having many editors under his wing which he mentored, including myself.--Mishae (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Helping I'd like to be of assistance but I'm not in a place where I can devote any time to mentoring someone else now. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, now today he returned to his normal editing habit, which means adding WP:OR and WP:GWAR, even after the countless warnings he has received (can be found in talk page history). See , , , and . These are also the same articles he was blocked for genre warring on before. Can we get a block now? He is obviously not here to contribute positively and abide by the rules explained to him over and over. STATic message me! 17:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

He has also added info once again without proving it. I'm with Static on this one; how many second chances does one get? After a while, competence is required. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Correct, competence is required, and this user clearly refuses to follow the rules no matter how many times they are made aware of them. Also if anyone wanted to know what "FL" meant in this edit summary, it means "fake laughing", does this really look like someone that is here to contribute? STATic message me! 19:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I think there are grounds for a WP:NOTHERE & WP:CIR block, but I'd rather a block for something like that came from the community rather than one (relatively new) admin, so if you could post it at ANI (and link to this discussion) that would be appreciated. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hold on! Maybe I am late, but can't he just do OR and then we will greet his OR edits with either references or {{OR}} template? Like, he only have couple of pages with which he obsessed with.--Mishae (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Well edits like this page creation and reasons for inclusion of his OR like this can't really be fixed with your solution Mishae. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

@Mishae: There is a difference between adding OR to a random page, and disruptively changing genres against consensus on the exact same pages were he was warned and blocked for doing the same thing before. This is also known as genre-warring and this user is a classic example. Changes them all the time, never discusses, edit wars continuing to add them. Also per WP:V, WP:OR is not acceptable, I would never let dubious unsourced content that is probable to be false sit in an encyclopedia with a tag that no one is going to solve, especially the user that added the content in the first place. STATic message me! 07:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, when it comes to unsourced material I am number one who adds sources.--Mishae (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

But his OR is literally his own opinions - nothing that can be sourced. It's not like he just adds proper info and forgets the source; the info is rumors, info from unreliable sources, or his own formulated opinions, based on these rumors, or very little reliable info released. (This is mainly coming from the film pages he edits on.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Got it. Then block is the only way out here.--Mishae (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing. I appreciate the idea of helping, but this case doesn't really apply to the type of help or mentorship he would receive. @STATicVapor: Do you want to start up an ANI discussion, as Callanecc suggested? I can assist you in finding diffs or examples if needed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Well, it might be best to just watch him, I gave him a final warning yesterday, so as soon as he adds unsourced content, WP:OR or anything, report him to WP:AIV, possibly pointing to this discussion and mentioning that all their warnings can be found in their talk page history. That is unless you want to make the ANI report, since that is about the only place that would result in a indef block. I would gladly weigh in, I just do not have the time to write up a report and you have more history with the user anyways. STATic message me! 18:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

True. I'll watch and see what happens. If he continues to add unsourced genres on music pages (I don't follow that aspect of his editing), let me know, and I'll try to start it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason to wait.--Mishae (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I will start an ANI discussion later (getting ready for the Super Bowl), so something will be up after the game and I return home. I will try to be as thorough as I can, and will link back to this discussion, and post in WP:FILM, WP:COMICS, and WP:MUSIC as those are project that cover the pages he edits, and I know there are editors there who will have their opinions as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to drop me a note regarding ANI. If I would have been an admin I would have suggested topic ban. Speaking of Super Bowl XLVIII, he edit it as well, though with references. :)--Mishae (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Favre1fan93 make sure you don't canvass. Mishae you don't need to be an admin to propose a topic ban on ANI. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc, is it canvassing if I approach those three projects in a neutral tone? Is that still being selective? And I don't know if this will be up tonight. Within the week. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

With a sanctions discussion I wouldn't mention it on WikiProject talk pages, the ANI regs know what they are looking for. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for the tip. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Well since you commenting here not on the bottom, then my comment that I put couple sections down was ignored: Either way, user talk:189.61.0.190 have been actively editing Israeli Air Force doing 25 reference details edits per page. I think the time came for an indefinite block of that IP address! Your thoughts?--Mishae (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Sting is going to WWE (2014-present)

Well, bitch I apologize I guess I was just mad. Ill try to keep my cool, but Sting(wrestler) really has signed with WWE. Why else would I edit his page? I mean c'mon are you serious? Could you put the edits back.

I'm happy to make the edit, but to do so we need at least one reliable source so that the content is verifiable. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Sudeep_Thepade

Sudeep Thepade is an important name in image processing research. you can just google it if you don't know and don't have knowledge. It's not an advertising, I am a student of him. People like you don't have any knowledge but pretend to know everything. Do you ever seen any importance of research in engineering? Sudeep's gesture recognition work is being used in TV industry by a leading company.

If you act like this,[REDACTED] will always be a dump people's reference and will never become encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.241.69.194 (talk) 05:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

RFP requests

Hello, I know you're busy, but when you have a moment, could you please look at the RFPs again, especially Kim Källström, which is beginning to get out of hand. Thanks! JMHamo (talk) 12:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

 Semi-protected Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:Protection templates

I'm unsure why you reverted that. The existing table is very unclear. Right now it implies that {{pp-template}} should be used on semi or fully protected pages, which is not the case. Please restore my version with the extra column and let's work together to debug the inaccuracies. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that {{pp-template}} is the only protection template which can be used on template protected pages, and it can be used on semi and fully protected pages. So having template protection between full and semi will mean that {{pp-template}} is the only one which runs all the way across and the others are duplicated for full and semi. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually give me a minute and I'll try something. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Technical 13 Is there a way to have the border on all of the rows & columns without needed to use it for each box? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I've made a version which includes template protection at User talk:Callanecc/Protection templates. It shows what I mean with including template protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Why is {{pp-template}} used on fully and semi protected pages? That seems wrong, that implies that a  Template editor is needed to edit the page when in fact it may be only a semi and any autoconfirmed can do it. I would think that misleading. Technical 13 (talk) 13:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

{{pp-template}} is designed so that it will display the correct message and icon. Reason is that it needs to work on because templates are semi, templateeditor and full protected. It's called pp-template because that's the message it shows is primarily for high risk templates (and now modules as well). So pp-template doesn't mean templateeditor protection it means that the protection (whether it be semi, templateeditor or full) is applied to a high risk template/module. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Then it seems inconsistent with pp-full (full protection), pp-semi (semi-protection), and pp-move (move protection) which are all named based on the protection level. Idea... Can we move pp-template to pp-highrisk (or pp-hrtemp or something similar) and create individual pp-(full|te|semi)-temp that call the corresponding version of the template so that any non-admin looking at it know what exactly it does and it is consistent with the current naming convention? Technical 13 (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• I guess it's possible, but I don't really see the point since the only use of templateeditor protection would be for highrisk pages, so {{pp-template}} would redirect to {{pp-highrisk}}. The whole point of my edits to those three template were so that you didn't need to pick the right template you could just pick your reason (that is {{pp-blp}} rather than {{pp-semi-blp}} and Template:Pp-full-blp) so I would be against making it more complicated by adding new templates which can only be used with one type of protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• For {{pp-blp}} that is fine because there is no "blp protection" that it could be confused with, on the other hand, there is "template protection" so that one could be confusing. There is should be at least one template for each protection type (edit, move), level (full, template, semi), and reason ("highrisk", "blp", "sock"). I'm still in need of my morning coffee and have some errands to run, I'll work on building the net of templates in my userspace and get back to you with what I see as unconfusing and productive and we can talk about if it will work from the standpoint of the admins.  :) Technical 13 (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Page Protection Request

Could you please semi-protect the WKSI-FM page, please? User:Fluffernutter had previously protected it back on December 5, 2013 for one month due to a content dispute (apparently an admin wants it his way and no one elses, regardless of sources). The user has again reverted sourced material for original research and unsourced content. If you could please, re-semi-protect the page and this time for two months.

In case you are wondering why I am asking you, you made the latest admin edit on AIV and Fluffernutter is offline. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

 Semi'd for one month and remember you can always put your request at WP:RFPP. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank ya kindly. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Chinese giant salamander

Users Wcslibrary1 and Wcslibrary2 are obviously the same person. Considering another vandal there is the IP-address assigned to Wellington Christian School, I'd say it's safe to say they're the same. When combined, they are well-past their 4th warning by now. Any chance they could be blocked now per WP:DUCK, or should I start an SPI no matter how obvious?

On a different note, I saw you doing some RevDel earlier. Would you please take a look at Keith Davis (USC and Giants football player)'s history to see if certain revisions that have been reverted are bad enough to need to be hidden? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done as vandalism accounts.

 Done and blocked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your, as always, speedy response. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

I don't do much SPI work these days, just whack 'em with the banhammer and move on :-) Guy (Help!) 14:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

No worries :). For the future there is a box at the top (which is hidden) which you can use to submit a correctly formatted and located case. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Israeli Air Force

Well, user user talk:189.61.0.190 have not learned a single thing from his block and even didn't showed up at ANI. His IP is still active. So, long story short, I notified him regarding maybe merging his 15 edits per page into one, that way there wont be a whole bunch of Wikipedians following his edits. That was the main reason why I warranted a block, its not only because it was disruptive but it also was 10 to 15 useless edits per page. I hope by tomorrow I will get a reply, if not, I will propose 48 hour block. One thing is good though from those blocks is that user User talk:200.219.132.104 have stopped editing (for now). To be even more fair, I left user 189.61.0.190 a note regarding Sandbox and Help me templates which he can (and should use) if he wants to help this project in a positive way. P.S. Regarding TreCoolGuy, I notified a Russian Wikipedian who have a degree in psychology, so maybe he can shed the light on productivity of this user. Another thing, can you do a revert of 25 edits that user 189.61.0.190 did to the above article? Many thanks.--Mishae (talk) 04:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

cye

RFC/U Etiquette

Hey,

I am contacting you because you recently imposed a 5 day block on user:jakandsig for his edit warring and personal attacks. This user has been disrupting several articles for about a month now, and this was his second block in just a few weeks. Before the block, I had been laying the groundwork to file an RFC/U against him and am still interested in doing so. I think all the minimum requirements have been met at this point -- including multiple attempts by editors to reason with him on talk pages -- and I have the support of four other editors heavily involved in editing video game articles. I have never done this before, so what I wanted to ask you is what the etiquette would be on this since he is currently blocked. Should I wait to file until the block is lifted, or does that matter? Indrian (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is any official etiquette re waiting for a block to expire, but if it were me I probably would so that they are available to respond rather than stuck behind the block. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that makes sense. Thanks for the input. Indrian (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Protection?

How can they stil edit this article, since you added protection? Hafspajen (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I used pending changes protection which allows non-autoconfirmed users to edit, but their changes aren't visible to the general public until they are reviewed by a reviewer. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks. Hafspajen (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. 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) 00:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

User:2602:304:cecf:62e0::/64

Can you please reblock this IP Range for a longer time? He's returned under the IP Address of 2602:304:cecf:62e0:d77:67ff:31ea:d0e0, and he is continuing to vandalize articles without any regard to Misplaced Pages's editing policy or the warnings that I had given him. Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The range the IP is from is a /24 which is just too big to block. But I have semi-protected the page for a week. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The speedy/prod thing

Okay the page you changed the tag for let me explain, the guy made the same page earlier that was deleted already with a similar name but one letter was missing. So there you go!

Wgolf (talk) 06:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Just saw that then, the last page was deleted per WP:A7, however this isn't about a person so that criteria doesn't apply to this page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Total Recall (1990 film)

Can you extend PC time? There have been reverts lately. --George Ho (talk) 07:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Gun control#Authoritarianism and gun control RFC

Hi Callanecc. Thank you for your devoted, careful work closing discussions at WP:ANRFC. As an ANRFC closer and an arbitration clerk, would you take a look at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control#Procedural note regarding a procedurally closed RfC? I'm unsure if a close would "disrupt the arbitration case" (as noted by Nyttend), but would you ask the arbitrators if they are okay with an admin assessing the consensus at Talk:Gun control#Authoritarianism and gun control RFC? (I had made an ANRFC request for closure here.)

The Arbitration Committee doesn't rule on content, so I think a close would be helpful in determining the scope of the gun control article. If you or the arbitrators agree a close would be helpful, would you leave a note on User talk:Nyttend explaining that it is okay for him (or another editor) to close the discussion? If you agree that a close would disrupt the arbitration case, then I withdraw my request my closure. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I've asked the drafting arbs to take a look, thanks for the message. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Jewish exodus

Hi Callanecc, per our previous conversation on the Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries article following the AE, I followed your advice, and well... the system appears to have been "gamed". Instead of the original two editors answering / explaining their reversions, a third editor has turned up to revert again without making any comment on the substance of the edit. Brewcrewer has a long history of this behaviour - like Plotspoiler - acting as an "enforcer" for other people's discussions. In fact this is not the first time I have seen them behave the same way on a single article together - reverting without commenting on the topic. I will avoid speculation. However, this continued behaviour is contrary to accepted editing practice and is impeding progress on the article and is stopping any chance of achieving consensus through discussion. Any help here would be greatly appreciated. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Whilst I appreciate your position I think Brewcrewer's suggestion is quite a good one. Go through all of your suggestions piece by piece. It looks like the others, particularly Greyshark09 are willing to listen and work with you to help make changes. At the moment there is a consensus (of three) against making one large scale edit however, as I said, it looks like they are willing to discuss it piece by piece with you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Callanecc, I see that you are assuming good faith with respect to Brewcrewer. Years of experience with him have taught me otherwise. However, I will continue to follow your suggestions but I really need some advice assuming nothing happens.

Imagine for a while that Brewcrewer is playing games here and has no intention to comment. I don't see anywhere in policy or guidelines that an editor is allowed to act as an "enforcer" on behalf of other editors.

Do you really believe there is a consensus of 3 against 1 on the page? How can reverts without explanation count towards consensus? Oncenawhile (talk) 08:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Main reason is that I see what they mean, try posting what you want changed in smaller bits so that they have a chance to talk about it. If after you've discussed it (on the article's talk page) for a while and nothing happens then come back and let me know.

It's pretty easy to argue that he agrees with those users.

In a sense yes, there are three other editors who don't agree with your change. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

But posting in smaller bits is exactly what i did (see the summary history i posted at the AE). I opened many piecemeal talk threads which remain unanswered. I have already done what I am being told to do.

Brewcrewer's post was misrepresentative. His advice might as well have been "Once, I suggest you make your edits in the English language going forward". That would have been equally good advice but equally misrepresentative.

So I really need help to break through. Greyshark has zero incentive to respond now.

Oncenawhile (talk) 09:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Go level 2 section by level 2 section and solve one at a time. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Solution and consensus requires someone to respond to my comments. I cannot solve the points alone.

This whole thing is about incentivising editors to discuss the content. I am discussing and the other editors are edit-warring.

How can I move forward? Oncenawhile (talk) 10:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Brewcrewer are you willing to work with Oncenawhile on the content? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this a personal attack that is appropriate to delete?

Hey, we've never interacted but I saw that you closed a number of my speedy delete noms so I figured you're as good an admin to ask about this as any. I had the misfortune to wade into what appear to be a couple of very heated AFD nominations here and here, and one of the editors involved in creating the subject articles has accused me of sockpuppetry. After the first incident I asked him to stop or report. Then he did it again on the second nomination. I deleted the second accusation per WP:NPA but he has restored it. Was I out of line in deleting that accusation? I also left a level 2 NPA warning on his talk page (since I had previously asked him to stop on the nomination page and he did it again, so I figured level 2 was appropriate). Anyhow, since I'm obviously involved in this I'm not sure how to respond and whether the personal attacks should be left up or deleted. Plus I'm the only person who's commented on his talk page so a referral to RFC wouldn't seem to be in order. I'm not asking you to intervene, but if you could provide me any advice on what the appropriate next steps are here I'd be very appreciative. Thanks! Wieno (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

And I just now notice that the thread right above this one is a discussion between you and the user at issue. Well that may be for the best, as you're familiar with his/her editing history and he/she seems to trust you, so I can't be accused of selectively picking an admin to ask about this who might have a bias against him/her. If you feel uncomfortable wading into this, though, then I completely understand that as well. Wieno (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Well it would probably be best to ignore it as it suggests at WP:NPA. But if you can't or don't want to do that then it would be best to ask Oncenawhile to strike it. Personal attacks are only removed in some cases, and the person they are against really shouldn't do it except in very severe cases. But see what Oncenawhile has to say. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, it was quite frustrating in the heat of the moment, but I'll just ignore it. Wieno (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Aaron Schock

Is there a consensus to either add or omit such detail? If not, I can re-add the RFC tag. --George Ho (talk) 01:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I've closed the RFC. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Omar Abubakar

There is not a single published source on the internet for this person.Hoops gza (talk) 04:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't qualify the article for WP:CSD#G1, if it were in mainspace then it would qualify under WP:CSD#A7 but as it isn't I don't have a reason to speedy delete it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Barun De

Hi, ordinarily I'd understand a decline on the basis of "not enough recent disruption" but the situation at Barun De has been going on for months. Examples of off-article discussion include this, this, this, this and this. There's a lot more out there but tracking the IPs is a nightmare. The IP and his registered accounts are the only person other than myself and admins who have edited the article in all that time ... and all we have been doing is trying to fix the problems that person introduces. Can you reconsider, please? It's ridiculous (the disruption, that is). - Sitush (talk) 12:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd be willing to pending changes protect it for a few months? It's probably worth submitting an SPI. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

No worries, thanks. JamesBWatson (talk · contribs) appears to have stepped in with a short semi. The SPI would be unlikely to achieve much, imo: the anon has already admitted on numerous occasions that they are Bikramjit De, a son of the article subject. CU will not link to usernames and the edits are plain disruptive regardless of origin. They'll be back next month! - Sitush (talk) 14:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

If you can present diffs which link accounts we can ask CU to confirm and do a sleeper check. We can also ask them to look into doing an IP block. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Declined AIV report

Hello, Callanecc. I thought I would let you know that I disagree with you in this edit. I read the comment about blanking the talk page as meaning "there have been earlier messages that you should take note of when assessing this report that are no longer visible, as the talk page has been blanked, rather than as meaning that blanking the talk page was the vandalism being reported. However, whether that was the correct interpretation or not, did you look at the edit that was linked in the AIV report? I really don't see how it could possibly be seen as anything other than vandalism. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for double checking the report. I missed the rest of that edit (the refactoring). I've also revoked talk page access due to them abusing the talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Dear Callanecc,

Thank you for your message. May you please elaborate your warning? As far as I can tell, and I think my edits show, I have upheld the rules of WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and used the talk page. In addition, if I find another editor's actions to be disruptive and/or professional, where may I raise the issue? --Precision123 (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, please do not take my message as hostile in any way. I completely understand that you are doing your job as an administrator and I appreciate your advice. I have done my best to be a good editor and I know there are ways to improve with experience. Thank you again for your professionalism. I look forward to cooperating more with you and other editors. Best, --Precision123 (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

You can take that to ANI.--Mishae (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The reason I gave you that message is because you broke the 1 revert rule on SodaStream. The message was so that you know that there special conditions on those articles. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc, I honestly feel like I am being bullied by some editors here. I hope you realize that all I did was make a one-sentence improvement, which I think you will see made the sentence more verifiable per the source and attempted to eliminate the WP:editorializing problems. Please advise. --Precision123 (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

That's definitely not our intention. The Arbitration Committee has found that topics on this issue are contentious so they've decided to restrict all editors to one revert per day. The two things you need to do differently are to make the first edit then if it's reverted follow the process at WP:BRD and start a discussion on the article's talk page and don't revert the page again. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection request

Could you please semi-protect Under My Skin (Avril Lavigne album) page again for at least two months? User:Yunshui had previously protected it back on January for one month. 183.171.177.207 (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather wait until it expires and see if it's actually needed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Get ready at 10:09 (Misplaced Pages time).183.171.177.165 (talk) 08:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jesse Peyronel

Created by sock puppet of Fairy Spit. Could you look at it per WP:G5? Thank you much :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G5 is speedy deletion criteria meaning that it doesn't need to go through AFD. But I'd like to see at least the beginnings of a discussion as to whether we should keep it or not given the sourcing. Happy to be convinced to speedy delete it though (or feel free to tag it with {{db-g5}} and get a second opinion). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Jewish exodus...

Sorry to keep bothering you with this. Please could you take a look at the latest reversion-without-explanation at the page? I don't want to revert the revert as I suspect it will only make things worse. But Brewcrewer's actions, despite his glib response to your question above, have so far shown no sign of collaborative or constructive behaviour to justify his revert warring. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the full protection might sort that out. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Poor Man's Talk Back

I have replied to you comments on the following SPI: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zimmermanh1997. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Bold redirects

I have actually been discussing it. See Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Television#International children's networks for the discussion. Finealt (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It's good that you started a discussion, but the one user who responded said that they agreed in principle but had another question before you did it. It's also generally a good idea to be active on Misplaced Pages for at least a while after you make very bold edits in case someone wants to discuss them with you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Katrina Villegas

Understood on the de facto ban revert. Well, I assume that he/she's already banned as per Misplaced Pages talk:New pages patrol#Andrea Villegas, although I do get your drift. It's just that I do have a hunch that this problem user would continue on his trolling habit for weeks or even years. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Community discussion on banning users has to take place at WP:AN (or WP:ANI). Having handled number of the SPIs I agree, but a ban discussion needs to take place at AN, though the only difference it makes in cases like this is if the user cares that they've been banned and stops. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep, true. I've been thinking about letting it pass for a few months to see if the user's behaviour improves at least somewhat, but from what it seems he/she isn't giving a damn or two about what we say about his/her hoaxing activity, so would it hurt if I start a consensus? Blake Gripling (talk) 06:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Finealt

I'm not sure you are watching the page, so I thought I'd let you know in case you wish to comment.

• User talk:Finealt#Redirecting instead of merging

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

hi

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.183.223.169 (talk) 06:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy). 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) 00:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

possible sock of user you blocked.

Hi, Callanecc.

Could you take a look at the contributions of User:86.52.12.101 who geolocates to the same place as User:78.156.109.166 whom you've just blocked for six months, and who have both Ip 86 IP 78 by mere coincidence, pinged User:Great Time on his talk page? Great Time himself is a problem as well, if you look at his talk page and the ref desk discussions and his "contributions" there.

Thanks μηδείς (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

PS, funny the Pakistani IP above's single edit has been to ping you with a "hi" as well. μηδείς (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

While you're at it, you may want to see User:Pubserv. Aside from a strikingly similar interest in earthquakes, angels, Zyprexa and winking, he flat out said he's the same person. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:44, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

If it looks like it couldn't be clearer, it could. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:19, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked 86... for a week for block evasion and Pubserv for disruptively editing while logged out. I'm not convinced that Great Time is a sock (could quite possibly be a friend) but well see what happens now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Great. Just a question, though. Given 86 is a sock of an account that's been blocked for 6 months, and had his talk page privileges revoked, shouldn't he be blocked longer than a week? Thanks for the help. μηδείς (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Because different people can be assigned an IP address to use shorter blocks are generally used. For example vandal only registered accounts are blocked indefinitely however vandal only IP addresses are almost never blocked indefinitely because they may eventually be reassigned. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense, but you may also want to look at this edit, which was made by User:Pubserv but given a signature forged to IP 78: Earthquake anniversary.--78.156.109.166 (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC). I think an SPI is warranted. let me know if you need a formal complaint elsewhere to act if you can't do so based on this evidence of forgery. Again, thanks. I wouldn't have the patience or stomach for this if I were you. μηδείς (talk) 04:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see you already gave him the full monty instead of just a week. My bad, truly sorry. Again, my thanks. μηδείς (talk) 04:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem at all that's what a user talk page is for. You might find this script useful - each time a blocked user's userpage or talk page is linked it puts a line through it if they are blocked and if you hover over it gives details. You can still file an SPI (and include Great Time). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I installed the script. μηδείς (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Mail Call

- Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi!

Are you ready to semi-protect Under My Skin (Avril Lavigne album) for two months? 183.171.177.64 (talk) 06:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

No need just yet as pages aren't protected pre-emptively, the protection has just ended so let's see what happens. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

One reason why I put it as a speedy instead of a prod was

Someone made the page a few days earlier and I put it as a prod yet it got deleted as a speedy (odd I know) Wgolf (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

No idea what's happening with that, unless it was written differently and looked like it was covered by the A7 criteria. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Nikki Haley

Greetings. For what it's worth, my interactions with 108.28.104.22 began when he/she engaged me in a dispute at "Fort Lee Lane Closure Scandal". He/she then followed me to Nikki Haley and Justin Amash and reverted recent edits of mine there as well. I've noticed that other recent edits by him/her (, , ) have not been particularly constructive. At this point, I'm not sure whether he/she is editing in good faith, or with the intention of being disruptive.CFredkin (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I had a look through their contribs. If they come back and do the same thing tomorrow then I might get a little more involved, but hopefully they continue (or start) to discuss. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Milky Way

There have been reverts; extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 06:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

PC is indefinite and I've semi-protected it for a month. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

More PC-protected pages?

What about Kane (wrestler)? --George Ho (talk) 07:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

And O. J. Simpson murder case? --George Ho (talk) 07:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Neither has had any edits for at least a couple of days so we'll see what happens. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Bull-Doser

Thanks for looking into this issue.

I just wanted to specify that Bull-Doser is de facto banned, but not formally banned. There's been a controversy at the time of his block in 2012 because the blocking administrator had taken upon himself to de jure ban Bull-Doser without consulting the community. This had led some subsequent administrators over the months to think that BD has been formally banned. But in reality, he is only de facto banned.

Now if Bull-Doser continues to evade his block instead of following the WP:BASC procedure, he may eventually get formally banned as well. But until then, I would just put the {{blocked user}} tag instead of the {{banned user}} tag (unless the latter tag can also be used for defacto banned users).

Regards. Farine (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Done, and I've fixed the link as well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

To clarify the reason I used the banned user template is because of the block reason linked which linked to a decision to ban, but it looks like that was later changed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Page protection

Thank you for correcting my entry about page protection. I've resubmitted the request for Dynamics NAV Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_page_protection --JSebastian83 (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

A sock puppet?

Hi there, apparently I was flagged as a sock puppet. Please can you investigate and look me up anywhere including tens of mentions of me attending conferences and being a real person? I'm not sure why someone tried to edit my account page, and I did notice my coworkers indeed using the same IP. That's Elizabeth Grey and Josh. As to my account page I did copy some of the template from another user and I'm happy to update, I thought I was following a standard. Happy to arrange a call or Skype or to write a letter to prove I am indeed a real person... Thank you for your consideration, Krystian — Preceding unsigned comment added by KrystianSzastok (talk • contribs) 03:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

List of Yu-Gi-Oh! episodes

Could you please semi-protect this page for 6 months, or rangeblock the IP? He's back again, and I don't think he's going to go away anytime soon, especially after analyzing his history of editing. He tends to return over periods of up to a month of inactivity. Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

 Semi-protected Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

notification

Please see the evidence at hand. It is not the first time that QuackGuru has been banned from the Chiropractic page. In fact he has been banned multiple times and for lengths as long as 1 year. DJFryzy (talk) 10:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I saw that, and if you wish to file an enforcement request regarding that please see the instructions at the top of this page. The reason for the warning was you labeling of QuackGuru's edit(s) as vandalism when it wasn't. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

About bioresonance page protection

The current page about bioresonance is not neutral and and giving the readers a negative impression. I tried to add Medical Research from Medical Journals which are according to page not exists, but very resistantly the page editors are tying to maintain the only negative ideas. I suggest to suspend this page (cause it is giving wrong information to people) until our discussions are solved.

My last comment on discussion page is,

As a Specialist Family Medicine Doctor with about 20 years of experience, I am still having difficulties why you are resistant to publish the positive medical research which is on PUBMed? It is our (Medically Educated people`s) most respected database, not every publication is listed there, it has it`s rules). But giving a wrong impression to the people Bioresonance is pseudoscience (very big word, how you will prove it? And as normally you are unable to prove it why this text does not still have any positive finding about Bioresonance, but even some TV gossips?), it has no scientific research ?(but there is scientific research and why not to also put the results of these? Are you medical biophysics authors to judge these studies and to decide to put only the negative results... why?)

Even about tobacco cessation there are very good studies with positive results. Will you let me to inform people about these scientific studies or will you only talk about BBC show gossips (very encyclopedic isn`t it)?

Every method can be used with bad intentions on the hands of dishonest people, (is it normal to emphasize that much in an encyclopedia instead of being neutral), like mammographies, antidepressants (antidepressants has an effect similar to placebo levels by the way), cholesterol lowering drugs (our centuries most shameful medical error)), but the main idea of current text is not neutral giving out an very negative impression instead of being neutral and letting readers of[REDACTED] to see both sides of the issue and decide themselves, why?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigma9035 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@Enigma9035: Misplaced Pages works by consensus, you need to get other editors to agree with you not edit war over it. The big box on Talk:Bioresonance therapy will give you some pointers on what the policies relating to topics such as these you would be well advised to read and understand those before continuing. I would also suggest that you propose the edits you wish to make section by section rather than all at once as it will be easier for other editors to contribute to the consensus building. Please note that the Arbitration Committee has authorised administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on editors who fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process, these sanctions can include blocks from editing or bans from certain topic areas. This notice has been recorded at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)