Callanecc is busy and may not respond swiftly to queries.

User talk:Callanecc/Header

As the closing admin, I'd like you to review the topic ban placed on me with this being the appeal of ending it. As per the close, [1], I was not entirely wrong. The word "major" was added due to one of the sources I reviewed (and is also only being kept out due to lack of consensus, I think I had a right to share my deductions in forming that consensus) but most of issues were due to my opposing of blanking the term "victory" in which I was not wrong. As far as the other things such as casting aspirations go, it was recognized in the AE that all of them were not wrong rather I had recently faced enough to get to the conclusions of following based on the diffs I gave then... with that said and leaving the objections aside, my main point is that I have long ended engaging OZ and have not violated my ban. As such this is topic is closed and also [2] reviewed which most probably is going in the closer's way.. I don't mind what sources are used as far as consensus is followed. Furthermore, I've also been banned for a around a month, it can be reduced for being stale as all that contention is stale and the sanction is no more preventive - plus my behaviour in other topics hasn't shown any disruption. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

It was not just Battle of Chawinda, but many other articles. On Operation Dwarka he continued to edit war over results and never discussed them. On Inter-Services Intelligence activities in India he edit warred over making a conspiracy theory look clean. On Operation Chengiz Khan he restored the statements that were removed a year ago because they were unsourced since 2012, and his edit summary reads "Restored consensus version.. no intermediate useful edits"[3], misleading indeed because he had never discussed them. And a few others. Even if the topic ban is limited to Battle of Chawinda, I am certain that we will still have a number of unnecessary edit conflicts. Since the topic ban, TopGun has not made even 75 edits to main article space, I doubt that how he proved that he can edit without conflicting. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

I have never reverted more than 2 times unless it was a sock(usually Nangparbat). While TopGun usually reverts on the sight without even looking at the sources or the information. There are no instances where he would open a new thread on ATP and explain his edits or he would reply to any older thread that concerns the content. He usually sees what is actually favoring his opinion and that he would create unnecessary edit conflict. It is very hard to return to a stale version because TopGun normally never agrees with others. Not to forget that TopGun had violated his TBAN once[4] and even if he was not aware of it, still that edit misrepresented the source. These articles had no edit conflicts for more than a month between users, which is a good sign. Although there are some instances where some of the editors have socked,[5][6] its not that serious issue. I have never seen anyone actually alleging me of edit warring for ages. Considering that I have made over 170,000 edits, I have not been blocked even once. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

• Ok this is what I'll do:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Callanecc, please tell me why my comment was uncivil? Specifico stated (my bold): "P.S. Your mistaken that Forbes' bloggers are notable experts on the subjects of their writings. Talking about the NY Times doesn't make Forbes' bloggers RS. You may think I'm mistaken." [7] I responded to him in a polite fashion with a smiley repeating what he actually said - that wasn't done with the intent to be uncivil, it was done with the intent of being kind and polite. I am so disheartened that you would consider that uncivil to the point you would send me a warning. You know full well what I've endured, and never once responded to any of them in kind. In that same thread, SPECIFICO accused me of tendentious editing [8]. That was casting aspersions. I said nothing. I have never spoken out of turn, or said anything to anyone no matter how hard they baited and harassed, and you accuse me of incivility? Please explain why you accused me of such behavior. Atsme☯^Consult 03:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• PS - WP:BLOGS clearly states: Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, so he was mistaken, and my comment was in response to content unlike what you stated in the warning. Please retract the warning here [9]. Atsme☯^Consult 03:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looks like you're getting drug into this again Callanecc. Just letting you know there's been some additional snark at the articles deletion page [10] from Atsme in addition to the warning you gave about comments towards SPECIFICO. It reads like a strangely veiled insinuation at suggesting hounding behavior on an unrelated topic to the discussion even if it is just intended as snark. Disruptive to the conversation anyways. It looks like the incivility isn't really getting any better with the typical behavior that's been described before of lashing out at other editors that don't agree with Atsme. Either way, that's just a heads up for now. I might revisit the idea of starting a case at WP:AE with these problems starting up again (doesn't appear that huge of an undertaking since we're limited to 20 diffs), so I'm not asking for anything at this time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Callanec, in response to this [11] I'll point that I didn't provide diffs because I was directly addressing Atsme. They clearly don't like the warnings, but there's no need to provide diffs for Atsme specifically about things where reasonable attempts have been made to make them aware multiple times. Doing so here for them won't make any difference. For you or anyone else reading this though, I briefly summarized the the combination of battleground and IDHT behavior by ignoring other folks and trying to plow ahead combined with lashing out at another recent AE case. [12]. Part of that problem is ignoring other editors when challenged on content when Atsme doesn't agree with their viewpoints as what happened at the deletion proposal.[13] Others have recently warned Atsme about this plowing ahead behavior. [14][15][16] Ironically this response by Atsme [17], supports the idea of further IDHT behavior when taken in the context of other diffs I'm arranging for an WP:AE case. This isn't AE though, so I'll save laying out the case for there rather than continuing the conversation here since the array of diffs really are needed for other folks to follow if it's going to go further than this. I'll note that I'm not committed to pulling that trigger yet, so I'm planning to continue watching the article and see how things go before submitting anything. There's not really anywhere else for this conversation to go at this time though, so feel free to re-hat this if you want, and I'll provide the case at AE with more details if it looks like things aren't going to improve. If something isn't clear that caused you to hat this before, I'll gladly briefly clarify, but I feel like things should be decently covered. Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

T13's response [18] He thinks it was caused when I reduced the size of the window. Callan, there is ample evidence that proves the emojis were added inadvertently to the section title. I removed the rogue emojis as soon as I discovered what happened. Under the circumstances, I think it would be appropriate for you revoke the ARB warning, especially in light of the fact you initiated it because of the emojis. In comparison, your responses to those editors who have repeatedly cast aspersions against me even after being warned resulted in you hiding, hatting or archiving them which demonstrates favoritism, and a possible breach of Proportionality. [19] I will wait for your response before I file an appeal. Atsme☯^Consult 18:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Atsme

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

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

  As for the aspersions, you hid one here [20] and then he repeated the TE allegation again under Griffin warning with no diff provided. Just another unwarranted allegation. When I disagree, I'm considered the tendentious editor, but let's not forget, my concerns over noncompliance with NPOV were correct, and I believe the concerns I have now are also correct. Why am I considered a TE? In addition to his groundless allegation of editors leaving, he went on with the following comparison very persistent editors who outlast the larger community and stall or subvert progress on the article. I find that extremely offensive. Again, no diffs. Then he says, Atsme's already been warned. I have no idea what the next step should be. What exactly does that imply? That I'm guilty of something that requires a "next step" before I've even had an opportunity to defend myself in this one. Add to that, the following [March 8 2015. I will upload the edit screens so you can see how that accident occurred. Atsme☯^Consult 03:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

SPECIFICO

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

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

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

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

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

Roxy the dog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ubikwit has such a clear topic ban. [21]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the AfD discussion [23] and Talk pages [24][25][26] he placed the same off-topic text. I've hatted it as NOTFORUM (not getting the template right), and been reverted here and here, and accused of violating Talk for the hattinghere. I reverted the revert once on one page with the edit summary please read the policies WP:TALK#OBJECTIVE, WP:NOTFORUM, and was reverted again before being accused of violating Talk. I've left it alone after that, but edits like this continue [27].

I'm not the only one that has raised an issue with Collect regarding his comments/edits on those pages [28] or related BLP/N threads.

I'm refraining from even the semblance of edit warring on the Cambone and Zakheim pages, but there is another peer-reviewed source to add. [29]

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

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

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

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

I also note that hatting any discussion in which one is a participant is likely to be objected to by others, so I do not know precisely the relevance of that cavil. If Callanecc wishes to see my position on following non-negotiable policies, I think the deletion discussion is a good place to look ... [30] and [31] are fair representations of my absolutely horrid position. As are my posts on User talk:Jimbo Wales. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Xenophrenic, your comments above are violations of WP:INCIVILITY [32] and here [33] per racial, ethnic, and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities. I placed a warning on your TP, and notifying Callanecc before this discussion elevates as a result of your unwarranted remarks. This article is under BLP DS, and also under PP. You have been reminded. Atsme☯^Consult 05:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

It probably is better that he brought this situation here because I find his actions appalling. Per the diffs he provided above, I was discussing article content and sources when I said, The sources cited are books written by proponents of Islam who are expressing a particular viewpoint. He then responded with an unambiguous assertion that I was being critical of Islam which is grossly untrue and uncivil, and deserving of DS. His actual statement, Because what you typed sounds like a criticism of Islam, the religion and its proponents. I was kind enough to issue a warning, and I pinged you which may explain why he brought it here. It is a gross incivility to imply that I am being critical of Islam and I want it nipped in the bud before it elevates which is why I pinged you from the Emerson TP. You might also want to review some of the ongoing work in my Sandbox and what I've already contributed. Following are a few examples without going into detail: [34], [35] Furthermore, Xenophrenic has been extraordinarily argumentative at the BLPN that we thought had been resolved as evidenced by Serialjoepsycho here: [36]. Atsme☯^Consult 16:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Please advise what I need to do.

Kindest regards,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I ask that you review the following comments which are quite typical of the behavior for which I've requested your attention. These comments are typical of the pattern that has developed on Griffin TP almost every single time I post something, or when I attempt to edit the article which is almost always reverted. It is clearly harassment and serves no helpful purpose in developing consensus. The post that resulted in the current PAs comprises links and excerpts to various WP policies and guidelines, [37], which I included in an attempt to help clarify some of the questions posed by a new collaborator, [38]. My keyboard was still warm when the following two comments were posted in response to my post rather than in response to the new collaborator's post:

• [39] <--The remark that "This post is pretty silly", is a PA and unwarranted.
• [40] <-- The comment, "it's disruptive to repeat this view, which is incorrect and which has previously been rejected here." is also a PA, no diffs were provided and it was unwarranted. Reciting policy on an article TP is not disruptive, it is not repeating a view, it is not incorrect, and if policy was previously rejected, I didn't know about it, and we should probably advise the Foundation so the policies can be rewritten.

If the purpose of DS is to encourage discussion and develop a consensus, then the above two PAs (what appears to be harassment) from the same few editors needs your attention. I am posting it here now because I've let such behavior slide in the past, and look where it got me. One last mention with regards to behavior issues from the same editors. The following appears to be WP:Canvassing. I certainly didn't receive any notice that the 1RR was lifted at Griffin, and neither did any of the other involved editors to my knowledge.

• March 10, 2015 - notification 1RR restriction has ended at Griffin
• March 11, 2015 - notification of 1RR restriction has ended at Griffin
• February 17, 2015 - pinged another editor in an effort to bypass the 1RR you imposed. I added it because it demonstrates tag-teaming as does the above, but you have already made note of such behavior in the recent past.
• [March 11, 2015] SPECIFICO made the following statement: While many established editors can be uncivil or even post personal attacks and accusations under the protection of various WP alliances and social connections, you have no such history or support here.

I find that last diff very disconcerting. Atsme☯^Consult 21:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]