→You close Thargor Orlando AE request - DHeyward below it is the same thing.: replied on clerks noticeboard |
→Griffin warning: new section |
||
Line 100: | Line 100: | ||
The [[WP:Feedback request service|feedback request service]] is asking for participation in [[Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#rfc_B7E456C|this request for comment on '''Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations''']]. <!-- Template:FRS message --> <!-- FRS id 22986 --> [[User:Legobot|Legobot]] ([[User talk:Legobot|talk]]) 00:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC) |
The [[WP:Feedback request service|feedback request service]] is asking for participation in [[Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#rfc_B7E456C|this request for comment on '''Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations''']]. <!-- Template:FRS message --> <!-- FRS id 22986 --> [[User:Legobot|Legobot]] ([[User talk:Legobot|talk]]) 00:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC) |
||
== Griffin warning == |
|||
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.'''" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:G._Edward_Griffin&diff=next&oldid=650980623] 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 any of them in kind. In that same thread, {{u|Specifico}} accused me of tendentious editing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:G._Edward_Griffin&diff=next&oldid=650975645]. 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. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">[[User:Atsme|Atsme]]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>[[User talk:Atsme|<font color="green"><sup>Consult</sup></font>]] 03:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:44, 12 March 2015
Sanction review
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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" 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)
- Refactored. Thank you for informing. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Callan, I just wasted about 30 minutes trying unsuccessfully to get {{sock}}
to work the way I wanted it to. I want to specify a different master and use the spipage parameter to point to the Chan SPI. I've done this before, so I don't know why I was having such trouble. How should it be coded? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
{{sock|1=PolandMEC|2=cuconfirmed|spipage=Chan f.c.}}
should work, if the documentation is correct. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)- It doesn't seem to provide a link to the SPI, though... hmm. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Using
|evidence=[[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chan f.c.]]
instead of|spipage=Chan f.c.
does provide a link to the SPI, which is the intended result, but it's a bit of a hack and it is still worth looking into why|2=confirmed
(or|2=cuconfirmed
) doesn't allow a link to a SPI to be specified. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Using
- It doesn't seem to provide a link to the SPI, though... hmm. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
@Bbb23 and Salvidrim!: It seems to be working for me, see User:Callanecc/sandbox2. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I didn't save the version that wasn't working, so there's nothing to show you, but I coded it correctly, and it didn't work at the time. I can also see that the template hasn't changed, so the proper inference is that both Salvidrim! and I did something wrong. I can't explain it, but it no longer matters. If it ever happens again, I'll save it somehow.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, I can't work out what might have happened. I guess there might have been something being changed server-side which stopped something from working but who knows. Maybe it was something screwing with the preview, who knows. If it does happen again a screen shot of the code, what is produced and a note where the 'sockpuppet investigation' link goes should be all I'll need (hopefully). Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
DS alert error?
FYI report is here. I'll ping AGK too NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Gun Politics Task Force
In the interest of transparency, full disclosure, just wanting to "not screw up" in light of my previous Topic Ban, I wanted to let you know that a Firearms Project member (User:Rezin, the interim project coordinator while User:Mike Searson is Topic banned from gun politics) and I have been working on a WP:TASKFORCE idea in order to better organize and compartmentalize the broadly construed "gun politics" articles and distinguish them from the mainstay of the project which are predominantly and scholarly technical and/or historical in nature. It's been acknowledged that some firearm articles will continue to have a "political element" in them giving the high profile nature of its use (i.e. the rifle used in the Kennedy assassination, etc.), but there appears to be a desire to distinguish this category of articles from the original intention of the main project. A discussion has been started on the projects Talk page, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms#Proposal:_.22Gun_Politics_Task_Force.22. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Query to the Audit Subcommittee
Hello. As per Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Audit_Subcommittee#Procedure, I have twice emailed the audit subcommittee regarding a potential misuse of CheckUser tools. I have not received a response to either of those emails, so I am attempting to ask the relevant questions here without revealing private information.
Multiple editors (Manul, Astynax, and John Carter) are claiming that a member of this audit subcommittee has (off-wiki) provided them with evidence of sock puppetry by me. I deny that any such evidence could possibly exist (given that I have never engaged in puppetry of any kind, ever), but that is not why I am coming here.
I am coming here so that this subcommittee can determine if a member performed a CU, despite a recent SPI request being declined, and – if a check was run – what the reasoning was per Wikipedia:CheckUser#CheckUser_and_privacy_policy (“The onus is on an individual CheckUser to explain, if challenged, why a check was run.”). And finally, why CU results would possibly be given off-wiki to other editors to resolve.
I find it extremely unlikely that an audit committee member is in any way involved in providing personal or other non-public information to editors, or in discussing any off-wiki “evidence”, but the editors are claiming such.
My questions:
- Was a CU run against my account?
- If yes, by whom and at who’s request?
- What was the rationale for running the check (why was a check run)?
- Did a CU provide personal or other non-public data of any kind, including insinuation or anything that could be interpreted as linking my account to others, to other editors off-wiki?
I request an Audit Subcommittee investigation of this situation and the involved editors' claims.
Thank you, Tgeairn (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Two SPIs
Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beh-nam, you had made a nice investigation there before. Also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thigle, I could provide more behavioral match, but I also thought that it is already long. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm confused
As requested I added this to the report but found it was already open so didn't change the tag. Now back on hold. What else do you need? Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, meant to block it (which I've done now). When you add them could you please add them to the list of suspected socks as well as changing it to open and adding a bit of evidence. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 09:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
You close Thargor Orlando AE request - DHeyward below it is the same thing.
In fact, in "DHeyward," MarkBernstein complains about my comment that his "Thargor Orlando" AE request should be closed because he is topic banned. I said the same thing you said but face sanction for it. Not sure what sanction you are endorsing or why. This is the edit MArkBernstein brough to AE [7]. As you said, he shouldn't be there. --DHeyward (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Replied on clerks noticeboard given the majority of your comment is there. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Griffin warning
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." [8] 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 any of them in kind. In that same thread, Specifico accused me of tendentious editing [9]. 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)