User talk:Callanecc/Header

I was saying "Thank you". ~~LDEJRuff~~ 20:00, 25 May, 2015 (UTC)

There was no need for me to hold onto it and leave it in my archive. We should never be happy about needing to ban an editor (especially a long term one). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, I mentioned something similar in my comment above.

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

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

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

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