Jump to content

User talk:Callanecc/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 25

Brain damage

I've explored the link between Finealt and Gabucho previously and thought it easiest to just keep them separate based on geolocation. What's easiest isn't always best though, so good luck!--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo, the main reason I wanted to look at it is because both appeared in my CU result and the IP hadn't been checked before. So I don't have to go searching through CU logs could you please send me an email with the two geolocations? Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
ygm! --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong file

You know that you had blocked Ryulong before, and he was also banned from Wikipedia? I have just created the Ryulong file here. I have added some brief information about his behaviour, but have not put into detail. I am sure you can add more. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) LTA is only for disruptive sock puppeteers who are indeffed. I would hope for a speedy delete as an attack page, just like Wikipedia:Long-term abuseKwamikagami was deleted. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Damaging attempted outing, personal attack

Dear Callanecc, My name is Grace Kosaka and I am an actor, writer and film producer. On Dec 29, 2014 a user by the name of Familyismostimportant, posted unreferenced information on my page. As an actor, I have previously been stalked and this public posting of sensitive/inaccurate information puts me at significant risk.
More recently, on March 28, 2015 an individual with the IP 174.117.108.144 attempted to out me with respect to my sexual preference - as an actor this is particularly damaging. This entry was tagged by wiki as 'possible BLP issue or vanadalism'.
I am kindly requesting your help with respect to your check user status to establish the identity of these two individuals as I may need to take legal action to stop further attacks.
Any help you could provide me would be greatly appreciated.
Lisamichelle2008 (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lisamichelle2008. I understand how you're feeling and have removed one of the edits from public view as it was a WP:BLP violation. I can't run a checkuser and tell you results due to the meta:Privacy Policy and I should probably mention that Wikipedia has a policy which states that legal threats aren't allowed so you might want to strike your comment above. Let me know if there is anything else I might be able to help with. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Darkness

I find 72 hours remarkably light, given the longterm pattern of disruption on that article. Would you mind re-opening the AE thread? I would like to ask for a more thorough review of the situation and possibly further sanctions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I've reopened it. It's three blocks to indef so the intervening block lengths can increase dramatically as needed.
My main concern in reporting was tendentious editing, the block is primarily for incivility so a further review can be used. --AmritasyaPutraT 09:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Really the only thing which can be done there is a removing the exemption to edit that article which was allowed by consensus (from memory only) so needs another consensus to overturn. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I have commented at the AE thread. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Andresbfarrera

Very similar editing with Andrewbf and abusing multiple accounts. Can you sock him/her? 115.164.88.57 (talk) 07:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

About that page protection

Hi Callanecc, thank you for the revdelete on the negative controversial content (and @Materialscientist: for the page protection). I apologize for my involvement, but in case of a potential edit warring towards me, I'm not intending to do so. DivineAlpha 05:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with your edits, they're were all squarely within in WP:3RRNO. Thank you for reverting! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay... can you check out Tim Ryan (politician) as well? There may be others. Not sure really where [that word] was said in media coverage or other places? DivineAlpha 05:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Semi'd and revdel'd. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Callanecc. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Talentbcian.
Message added 10:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Possible sleeper has appeared. Whpq (talk) 10:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-21

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

Recent changes

Changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since May 13. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from May 19. It will be on all Wikipedias from May 20 (calendar).
  • References are now always in the right order. Also, the reference list now only shows references used on the page. [1]
  • You can no longer create an account with a colon ':' in it. If you already have one, it still works. [2]
  • The toolbar in VisualEditor now looks different. It is easier to see the icons. [3]
  • You won't be able to use e-mail lists for a few hours on Tuesday. [4] [5]
  • UploadWizard now shows better matches when you add a category to your file. [6]
  • A test about VisualEditor will start on the English Wikipedia on Thursday. [7]

Meetings

  • You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on May 21 at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.
  • You can join a technical meeting in France this week.

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

15:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Srahmadi

@Callanecc: I am a editor from Iran and my favorite subject is Iranian modern history. Therefore, I work on Iranian book and sometimes Iran-Iraq war books. Also, I edited several articles in addition to Iranian book. These articles are Negotiations on Iran nuclear deal framework, Comprehensive agreement on the Iranian nuclear program, Casualties of the Iranian Revolution, Hussein Badreddin al-Houthi, Abdul-Malik al-Houthi , April 2015 Nepal earthquake, Ja'far Sobhani, Sayyed Ibn Tawus, and Yemeni Civil War (2015). I try to contribute in any article but my major contribution is about Iranian modern history especially Iran-Iraq war. A user (User:Anders Feder) reported my username in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. He said that I am Srahmadi sockpuppet. I have this account and don't know about Srahmadi. I think that Anders Feder follow me and his behavior hurts me. His faith dose not appear to be a good faith. I read the Defending yourself against claims section and understand that I can send my request for you. Please help me and say that what should I do? I don't have abuse behavior with my account and don't need another username.Papeli44 (talk) 10:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Papeli44, the best thing you to do is to explain why that evidence presented isn't correct. What I mean by that it, you need to show the person who is looking over the report why what has been presented doesn't actually show that you are a sock puppet. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

LouisAragon

LouisAragon (talk · contribs) is an extreme pro-Persian POV-pusher who has been blocked for socking/edit-warring. The Bacha Bazi article has to be written with WP:NPOV. All the sources confirm that bacha bazi is a "Persian" phrase and is mostly done in "northern Afghanistan". He doesn't seems to like that fact so he wants to twist the information around in order to mislead. I think he should be blocked, that's the only way people such as him will ever learn. I removed Pakistan because nobody in that country heard of Bacha bazi.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

First of all, I have never been blocked for "edit warring". Second, when you accuse people the second time in the same plea to a moderator, do it right, as I got blocked wrongly, and got unblocked due to that reason as I was unrelated to the person in question; [8].
On topic; I have asked User Krzyhorse more than once to bring his concerns to the talk page about that subject,[9]-[10] and even left him a message on his talk page,[11] but he simply ignored all of this. That is not really what we like to see here on Wikipedia from fellow contributors, especially if the person in question has a certain editorial concern. If that wasn't just the whole deal, Krzyhorse, while ignoring invitations to discuss it, has showed behaviour that violates WP:BATTLEGROUND, which makes it any consensus even more difficult, even if other people feel like he's wrong there.[12]
On top of that, editorially, Krzyhorse has falsified sources such as adding the names of other countries and simply putting it in front of already existing sources, acting as if it was already there, even though nothing in the article or sources attain to that any mention of those countries should stay. [13]-[14]
Yet interestingly though, he simply comes here on your talk page and asks me to get blocked.
If anything, mister here deserves a nice BOOMERANG here for ignoring multiple invitations to discuss the problem and mainly his concerns (and simply asks for people to get blocked), for having an unpleasant editorial behaviour, as well as falsifying sources.
- LouisAragon (talk) 00:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Apologies for the venue, but Krzyhorse22's statements are patently false, as any cursory analysis of the diffs and talk page of the Bacha bazi will show. Furthermore, the editor is needlessly antagonistic and seems to feel they are the final arbiter on all things having to do with the Middle East, as evidenced here. - CompliantDrone (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. It probably wouldn't hurt to engage with them on the talk page now that the article is full protected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm busy in real life so I don't get a chance to reply quickly. There's obviously nothing wrong with my edits. There are many who don't like me simply because they don't agree with my way of editing, which is to always edit with WP:NPOV. The sources (PBS and BBC) say: (1) Bacha bazi is a Persian phrase; (2) it is a custom mostly among certain Afghans (that of course includes Afghans in Iran and Afghans in Pakistan); and (3) it is reported mostly in "northern Afghanistan". I see no reason why the article shouldn't reflect on these established facts. I decided to improve it by making it tidy and inline with the sources but LouisAragon (a Persian nationalist) reverted all my edits. He didn't explain anything on the talk page. He likes for the article to say that it is done among Pashtuns in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is evident that he has a problem with certain ethnic groups. This is not only childish but frustrates contributors who are only here to improve the project. LouisAragon is not here to improve the project but only to propagate Persian culture, even by falsifying or removing certain information. LouisAragon has in fact been abusing multiple accounts (socking disruptively). If you want I can list the socks and the IPs he's been using to evade his block. He shouldn't even deny this. I requested he be blocked because he's not properly rehabilitated. That decision is in your hand.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Russians article protection question

Hi Callanecc! I just noticed that you put pending changes protection on the article Russians, but you set it to Pending changes level 2 protection rather than Pending changes level 1 protection, so I just wanted to check – did you mean to set that to PC level 2 (the use of which, I gather, is still controversial), or was that a mistake and you meant to set it to PC level 1? Thanks in advance! --IJBall (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi IJBall, fixed to PC1. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Pseudoscience log

What you meant from "especially [ ] & [ ]" at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log#Pseudoscience ? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Breaking the 1RR

Callanecc this editor LightandDark2000 has break the 1RR.diff,diff.Lindi29 (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Why did you remove my message?

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)

My thoughts.

I am very sorry to see this. I am not surprised, but I am disappointed. I have thought for some time that you were working on a "fast track" to "govcom". The first block can be explained via the WP:AE crap .. but the second block is obviously a stalking "let's get him" block. In my humble opinion - I support those who actually create content. I understand that the "powers that be" need to maintain some sort of "WE IZ THE POWER" ... but I don't have to like it. Shame on you for for your behavior. Trying to silence a content editor is disruptive - and personally I think you should be blocked for your behavior. — Ched :  ?  04:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ched, really appreciate that thoroughly helpful, constructive comment which really needed to made. Though I would point to my most recent comment in the section above and use this as an example of that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-23

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

Problems

  • Many wikis were slow for a few hours on Wednesday due to a code error. Sometimes the pages did not load at all and showed an error. [15]
  • Some tools in Labs were broken on Wednesday and Thursday. [16]
  • Edit tags added by the software were broken on all wikis from May 23 to May 28. [17] [18]

Changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since May 27. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from June 2. It will be on all Wikipedias from June 3 (calendar).
  • You won't be able to use e-mail lists for a few hours on Tuesday. [19]

Meetings

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

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

15:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

HRC move request result

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

Hi RG. Two of us have pretty much made our minds up, we're just waiting on the third. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Much obliged for your reply. RGloucester — ☎ 18:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Up and ready!

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

Well thanks Jim. I'll bring it up on clerks list and let you know when. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok. Best, Jim Carter 08:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
@Jim Carter: Could you please send me an email (through Special:Emailuser) is fine so I can check that I've got your email address. Thanks. :) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 Done Jim Carter 08:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, just wanted to make sure I had the right address. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

PP

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

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

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

My guess is that you had the tenacity to dare blocking on their socks. :P Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
If so, I did it by "accident"; as far as I can remember, I've never blocked a Grawp sock. Nyttend (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
That or protected a page Grawp had wanted to 'edit'. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

MoAtoum and Mikon47

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

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

Nangparbat

I agree Darkness Shines is blocked, but we can't ignore his concern. Is there any chance that the sockmaster is still active in WP with new socks?--Cosmic  Emperor  07:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Probably is. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
seems like faizan is using IP socks here
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kashmir_conflict&action=history
--Cosmic  Emperor  07:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
No comment on the merits, but could you please file an WP:SPI so that there's a record of it. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

War of Edits

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

Sorry Hanibal missed this. It's probably easier and quicker to report it to WP:ANEW and ping me rather than leave a message here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request

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

Kindly see this section above, Mr Ho. RGloucester — ☎ 00:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks for the time and effort, and thanks for the very concise closing reasons. This couldn't have been easy with both HRC and HC being very common names. You're a better man than I Gunga Din. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Haha, thanks. Thanks to my fellow closers as well (Mdann52 & Euryalus). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to you and your fellow closers for the effort. Is there sufficient consensus to protect the page against future moves, given the intensity of feeling about the subject? For the record, I was one who opposed the move, but now that consensus has been measured, I'm more concerned about newbies or passersby who decide to move it back on individual initiative. There will be a large number of visitors to the page in the next 18 months, and I think this should be locked down until after the election, IMHO. Several editors in the discussion expressed similar concern. BusterD (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Buster. I can't speak for Mdann and Euryalus but I don't think there was enough discussion to support imposing a moratorium however it's current indefinitely move=sysop and I can't see a reason to remove that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I've made my concern official. Thanks again. BusterD (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Eric

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

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

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

  • I don't support the block. Sorry Callanecc. You have done many good things here, but this is not one of them. The only reason I'm not simply unblocking is that that will only stoke the fires of those who like to clamor about Eric's posse, and that will hurt him in the long run, and create yet more shit storms. I keep hoping that you will either change your mind or respond to the many dissenters. Drmies (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • To speak up for the people who do their best not to care about Eric: This block is totally warranted. Eric is purposely acting to get these blocks. The guy surely knows how to research and write, but when he wants to be, he can be incredibly nasty. He poisonous to himself at these times, frankly. We only have one life.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Milowent, I love you like a brother, and you're always welcome on my couch, but I call bullshit. Yeah, sure, violation. Listen, the guy links one little thing on his own talk page and the whole project is derailed? Why do people look at his talk page in the first place? I mean, who gives a fuck? They don't look at yours. No, that's not a hand being forced, it's someone looking for trouble and finding it. Admins aren't obliged to block every time someone wants them to--thankfully, since someone thinks I should be desysopped for not blocking when I can. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Drmies, reasonable geniuses can disagree here, to be sure. I have an 11-year old son who I butt heads with just like Eric does with 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)
  • 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)
Liz, I would like to know where you find the "spirit" of Eric's topic ban. Irony has been mentioned, did you notice? - Working on pieces about spirit, Luther, Bach and Pepping, and pictured, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Liz, see above. No admin is ever forced to do anything they don't want to. Look at me: I've been quite successful at not blocking a whole bunch of times. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to ignore questions about my admin actions when they are made reasonably and with civility and I don't see how blocking you (Andy) would be anywhere near justified or reasonable or anything else which would make it okay. I would have hoped our interactions up to now would have shown that. I definitely don't think it's supported by all other editors, there are very few things which are supported by all other editors, especially at AE and even more so for valuable, long term contributors.
Milowent's comment is of where I'm coming from. If you are intentionally violating the editing restrictions, which the one on the talk page definitely was, then that becomes disruptive by itself regardless of the location, especially (as many have pointed out) that Eric's talk page is one of the most watched pages on the project. Regarding why I say intentionally, obvious I can't read Eric's mind, but, he was blocked for breaching a TBAN (which in itself was extremely obvious given the comment, edit summary and page - I'm not allowed to comment here but I will anyway) so he finds something which has what he is topic banned from written on it and posts it in the only place he can.
Regarding whether to block or not to block. For the first one at AE (and for the record I agree that the second diff of adjusting the colon didn't really need to be reported) the comment, edit summary and location were (it seems to me) daring someone to block him. If we don't block we show that a different set of rules apply because he's a 'content creator' and so reinforce this to him and others (which doesn't prevent it happening again). If we do block we get days of drama about it. Regarding the second one on his talk page, I've addressed it above and in the sentence before this one. The really short answer is, if you want to be a part of a community then you have to follow the community's rules and expectations if you don't then you get (technically, as we've tried personally through the bans) prevented from breaking those rules and expectations.
Regarding block lengths. The last two blocks were for 2 days then 3 days, plus there was an IBAN as well. The enforcement provision in the case states that restrictions should be enforced with escalating blocks (eg because 3 days hadn't prevented it happening) so we're starting at more than 3 days. The provision also allows the first enforcement block to be one month so we're talking relatively long block lengths. Given that the edit was obviously covered by the ban (comment, edit summary and page) I think a week is reasonably lenient from what is normally handed out at AE. The second block is pretty much the same thing, block is escalated for a further violation (and since it was while blocked and a violation of two restrictions I think two weeks is pretty lenient for AE as well) and talk page access is removed to prevent a further comment.
I don't intend to change the block myself (and since it's AE others would need to "clear and substantial consensus") unless Eric discusses the issue with me as I believe that it is still the correct response to Eric's actions.
Moving forward, if Eric wishes to appeal I am perfectly willing to discuss it with him. There is also the option for anyone to take this to ArbCom as a case to review my (etc) actions (a case, as an appeal at AN/AE/ARCA can only be initiated by the blocked user).
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Callanecc. Do you think that the block will make any difference either to Eric or to the project? Do you think Eric was reported because EvergreenFir was offended or because she was thinking of the person rather than the content? Do you think that, when a comment has sat without admin attention or user comment on a highly-watched page for many hours, it is really justifiable or useful to apply the letter of the law? Were you informed of that comment, as the conspiracy theorists seem to think? Can you actually see the irony that was being referred to by Eric? Do you think it sensible for Arb Clerks even to get involved in AE blocks or discussions? Are you aware that first-mover advantage works in favour of the blocking admin in these circumstances? Is it sensible for someone who has recently imposed a block then to impose a further block? What would you have done if some other admin had responded to the "irony" post before you, saying "I've reviewed this: it might be considered a technical breach of their IBAN and TBAN but isn't worth bothering about"? - Sitush (talk) 06:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Hopefully, the point of blocks is to prevent the behaviour occurring, if Eric sees that the restrictions are being enforced hopefully he won't breach the restrictions.
It doesn't really matter why the vio was reported, or even that it was reported. What matters is that the restrictions on Eric were obviously breached. Regarding personal motives for reporting, you'd need to ask EvergreenFir, but as I said it doesn't really matter.
Yes, hence why I blocked. See my long comment above as well. Also, dismissing a blatant violation of two editing restrictions while you are already blocked for breaching one of them as just enforcing the letter of the law really isn't appropriate in my opinion.
I was just following some of the pings I'd received, started at the bottom and saw the comment. For the record I hadn't had any offwiki contact about it before either block. After the blocks one person who isn't an arb, a clerk or a functionary sent me an email to check in with me (how I was feeling after some of the comments which had been made), I don't think that they've commented on the blocks (though I haven't searched through their contribs, just haven't seen the username).
Why does it matter if I can see the irony? That doesn't and shouldn't affect whether editing restrictions are applied and enforced. Consider vandalism on the free speech article, preventing people from editing (or PC1) is very ironic but the name of the page being protected isn't and shouldn't be considered. Because someone says being blocked is ironic (I know I'm simplifying it) doesn't mean they shouldn't be blocked if there is misconduct which warrants it.
I don't see why not. The same could be seen for functionaries who (like clerks) are appointed at ArbCom's pleasure.
Yes, I mentioned something similar in my comment above.
In response to further misconduct during the block especially when it relates to the reason for the initial block. Having said that some examples of when it might (though not all the time) not be appropriate to modify a block would be when there's ongoing appeal, the misconduct directly related to the appeal or it was directed at the enforcing admin. It's also necessary to consider AE blocks are slightly different as well as there is a hesitancy to modify them at all without enforcing admin saying okay. In other situations it happens regularly, consider an account being blocked a week for socking, three days later the blocking admin notices another sock and reset/extends their original block.
If they were uninvolved, ask them about it on their talk page giving my opinion as the original enforcing admin on why I believe that further enforcement action is necessary (e.g. block isn't preventing the vios).
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Beeblebrox's essay "The Unblockables" describes this situation perfectly. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Thanks. And please feel free to get involved in some of the enforcement areas that take up my time (onwiki at the moment it's primarily WP:AE & WP:SPI). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Seems like you're implying a dichotomy exists re competing values/objectives (content creation vs policy enforcement). That dichotomy probably does really exist, and I think that might be a complicated topic. But consistent w/ Ritchie333 reminding you what is "heart & soul", here is excerpt from your successful RfA ended 3 Dec 2013:

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

(Could it be your "better angel" has evolved [or devolved] by your experiences in clerking & the other enforcement roles you pointed out!? Combined w/ the acquisition of admin power [to block]!? To the point where an editor like Richie333 sees a need to remind that you appear to have "left the building" and holed up in a different one across the parking lot!?) IHTS (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Not me suggesting the dichotomy. But regarding your other points, it's probably true however see my comment above. In any case I don't see how discussing me has much to do with this block. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
What "comment above"? I don't see how discussing me has much to do with this block. That's curious, as if separating or disassociating yourself from the block. (It's axiomatic that actions are a function of decisions to act, and decisions are a function of knowledge + values + attitudes + objectives etc., and those are functions of an individual. If the block exists in a vacuum or disjoint from you as you're seeming to suggest, then why do you suppose the many other admins who saw the same conditions as you didn't exercise any block, but you did?) IHTS (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
The one in reply to Richie. My point was that assigning the reason that Eric is blocked to the admin who did it, whether it be that they don't write heaps of articles or that someone told them to do it are ways of removing the responsibility for the action (Eric's TBAN & IBAN vios) to the enforcing admin rather than accepting that Eric was in the wrong and moving on. You can see that quite plainly on his talk page, it isn't that Eric is in the wrong, or the block wasn't the best opinion (although that is there), it's the personal motives of the admin who did it. That kind of approach really isn't useful or constructive, which is why we have WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF & (to an extent) WP:NPA. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
You talk with clouds of dust, Callanecc. (I had this same problem with you at Panda's arb case, where I could not for the life of me figure out how you were counting numbers of diffs provided by commentators, and after two attempts trying to get you to clarify, you gave confusing responses and were unable, forcing me to give up.) Multiple editors have been telling you that you have a bent toward viewing things in terms of strict enforcement and seeing in black & white. My suggesting that you take a look at that gets consistent IDHT and dismissive pat responses "not helpful" and "unconstructive". Wrapping in your fish paper "why we have WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF & (to an extent) WP:NPA" is more of the same (IDHT/dust cloud). (I have no idea what you are trying to say, unless it is the same argument you keep proffering: that any self-reflection before admin action is something to be avoided, since will somehow disable you from ever imposing a block in any circumstance. That's not what I've been suggesting. But you love dust clouds. And I don't like being frustrated after communicating as clearly as I possibly can, either re diff counting or this issue. So again, I GIVE UP.) IHTS (talk) 08:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
No I'm saying that blame or complete responsibility for the block is being assigned on the person who made it (for example, it's case govcom told him to, or it's cos he doesn't write articles) rather than the person who got blocked. And that isn't a constructive way forward. If the restrictions should apply to Eric or content writers in general then that's a policy discussion to start with the community. Admins need to act in the best interest of the project, my basis for the block (as I've explained above) was that editing in an area you are banned from and doing it again while you are blocked is disruptive. I've said before that I lean towards stricter enforcement especially on arbitration remedies (as opposed to applying a restriction initially) but I'd contend that most AE regulars do (I haven't done a statistical analysis or anything like that). I'm not sure where you're getting "self-reflection before admin action is something to be avoided" from, my point (as I said at the start of this edit as well) is that encouraging self reflection is one thing but what's happening is that the reason for the block is being assigned to the admin who made it rather than the person who was blocked (in other words, all my fault rather than Eric's three vios). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
While I admit the comparison is slightly over the top, I encourage you to read – and give a thought about – Stanford prison experiment. Here's a selected quote: Prisoner No. 416, a newly admitted stand-by prisoner, expressed concern over the treatment of the other prisoners. The guards responded with more abuse. When he refused to eat his sausages, saying he was on a hunger strike, guards confined him to "solitary confinement"[...] The results of the experiment have been argued to demonstrate the impressionability and obedience of people when provided with a legitimizing ideology and social and institutional support. The experiment has also been used to illustrate cognitive dissonance theory and the power of authority.
I believe our duty is to be ethical in the first place, and obey the rules only if we feel they are just. I think you failed to do that. No such user (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
@No such user: The comparison doesn't really work for the reason you stated plus for the first TBAN breach at least Eric wasn't pointing out that other users were being mistreated he was blatantly breaching his TBAN to say that he was breaching his TBAN (which is the more 'extreme' interpretation). Why do you think the "rules" (the topic and interaction ban?) were/are unjust? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't have much issues with the first block: Eric was clearly testing the limits, and he really didn't have any business to do on that page. I am deeply concerned about the second, and the unfair rules surrounding it: it's the "broadly construed" gotcha of the topic ban combined with the "first mover" advantage of the AE blocks that gives a free pass to the "just following the rules" trigger-happy admins. It took several years of grief, criticism and admonishment to get Sandstein off the AE: his blocks were always within the rulebook, always within the "admin discretion" range (and on the harsh side of it, of course), and every so often unilateral, unfair and driving valuable contributors off the wiki (ex: User:Sean.hoyland). We don't want a Sandstein II.
And I don't see anything wrong with the comparison: Eric expressed concern over the silencing, refused to eat his sausages, and was sent to a week of solitary confinement. No such user (talk) 07:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Do you think the edit which resulted in the block extension was a vio of the TBAN and/or IBAN? I'd have absolutely no issue with him expressing concerns with the block (as I said I said I'd be happy to discuss it with him, whether an appeal or not) the issue was that he did it by breaching two of his editing restrictions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Mu. Whatever it was a technical breach of, it was an act which did not harm Wikipedia or any of its users in any way, shape or form, and it was expressed on his own talk page. The only sensible course of action was to ignore it, just as everybody had done thus far. Just as we are supposed to IAR to perform an action which improves an encyclopedia, we are equally supposed to not perform an action which hurts it. Your block was hurtful not just for Eric but also for many people who came here to protest, and only serves to aggravate the (in my opinion quite real) rift between the "content builders" and the "govcom". No such user (talk) 10:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Callanecc, please steer clear of any further blocks on Eric Corbett, if/when he s/ return to editing. No matter what he writes, nor where. Please leave your concerns to another admin. (I'm only one editor and don't like speaking outside of my own experience. I've had two experiences with you, and one of them related to a technical blockable policy breach. What you chose reacted to, and what you *didn't*, teaches me that your self-view of objectivity and straightforard rules enforcement is mistaken. You make selections ending up favoring an editor or cause whether you're aware of doing so or not. You are not in a position to rate your own objectivity.) IHTS (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

If that's the way you want WP:INVOLVED to work then that's up to you but currently that's not how the policy rates objectivity. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
This isn't about WP:INVOLVED. (It's about WP:CLUE and/or WP:IDHT and/or WP:CIR - your level of nuance & discretion when exercising admin power & prerogative. There's just too much at stake here; and time is short.) IHTS (talk) 06:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
IHTS, honestly I think you need to consider whether the same can be said for you. If Eric violates his editing restrictions again and I see it I'll take action as appropriate, and whether that be ignoring it, reminding, warning/blocking depends on what the violation of the restriction is. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
We're talking about more potential damage thru your weilding of admin power. (Doesn't apply to me since I have no comparable power.) You s/ stay away from Eric issues Callanecc, whether you see them or you don't. Are you trying to prove something via your defensiveness? (Clue: WP isn't about you and your freedom to weild admin power.) IHTS (talk) 07:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Nor is it about you and your ability to declare what will and won't happen. And my point was that perhaps the three pages you mentioned relate to your pursuit of this as well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
At no point did I "declare what will and won't happen". (Why make stuff up, Callanecc?) As mentioned I had first-hand experience concerning your vio enforcement proclivity and falling short re objectivity and WP:CLUE. (If you wanna take that feedback and IDHT it w/ childish "Says you! Ditto to you!", that's your prerogative, but I for one don't think it looks good [but, ask someone you trust].) We're off the point now: Please leave to another if/when EC returns. IHTS (talk) 09:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
"please steer clear of any further blocks on Eric Corbett", "You s/ stay away from Eric issues Callanecc" & "Please leave to another if/when EC returns" just from this conversation thread. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Exactly right. And none of those "declare what will and won't happen". (How's your English competence, Callanecc?!) IHTS (talk) 11:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
The second of which declares that I shall not be involved with Eric issues. And with that personal comment I'm done with this conversation topic with you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
"You should stay away from [...]" is clearly my recommendation of what you should not do. To quote that back at me as "declaring that you shall not" ordering you, or "declaring what will or won't happen", is what? Shoving words down my throat? Intentional misinterpretation? Lack of competence w/ English? IHTS (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Renew PC

Tim Burton

Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 09:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll let it expire, but I've watchlisted. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Mike Stud

Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 10:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll let it expire. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

List of people with bipolar disorder

Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 02:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll let it expire. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

86.165.14.37

86.165.14.37 (talk · contribs) isn't Theduinoelegy, it's an IP sock of Billy from Bath (talk · contribs) , whose original account in his real name was blocked for disruption four years ago. They have recently returned and have resumed what they call "their battle," using numerous BT IPs to mess around with my past actions and to harass David J Johnson (talk · contribs). The last part of their first edit to Theduinoelegy makes that clear [20]. RBI. Acroterion (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've adjusted the block. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!

The Mediator Barnstar
For your participation in the 2015 Hillary Clinton move request. Took a little while for a decision, but I appreciate that you provided a clear and concise interpretation of the consensus. Couldn't have been a decision that was overly easy to make. Kudos. NickCT (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks NickCT. It's been surprisingly calm after the closure too. :) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Sons of Liberty

A new editor called "Trollpolice" has taken over from what "Deleteroftrolls" and the three IPv6s were doing yesterday, blanking big blocks of this talk page. "Trollpolice" can be blocked for blatant edit-warring, but if you were to run a CU and connect that account to "Deleteroftrolls", then that latter account could be blocked as well. (None of these accounts are me, of course.) I don't particularly care if the thread on the talk page involving myself (the last one) is blanked or archived or left as it is, but there's no reason the page should be disrupted the way it is at the moment. Thanks, BMK (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. They've both been blocked so we'll see what happens next. Let me know if there's another account. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

B.A.P (South Korean band)

Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 04:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

DS was right all this time

He is indeed asock of that SM. Is there any way DS can be unblocked.--Cosmic  Emperor  03:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Out of interest what got you interested this this? As the block is arbitration enforcement it can only be changed by the admin who imposed it or if Darkness Shines appeals it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Jaredgk2008

I've gone through the edits by the latest batch of socks at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jaredgk2008 and reverted a lot of vandalism, and I have a couple of suggestions. It looks like they've added Jay Mariotti to Lee Corso and Woody Paige as a vandalism target with a number of the sock accounts attacking it in the past month, so would it make sense to semi-protect that too to at least keep non-confirmed accounts out? Also, a lot of the vandalism I found (as with previous socks) was adding nonsense about Lee Corso to unrelated articles, so might it make sense to add an edit filter to prevent that? I can't see there being many genuine additions of "Lee Corso" to other articles, and false positives would surely be pretty rare. Mr Potto (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Done all. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks. Mr Potto (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

ARBEE addition?

Hi Callanecc, another editor and I have been in disagreement about the Blue Army (Poland). I had assumed that the article is under the WP:ARBEE 1RR sanctions, but I see it isn't. Am I allowed to add it to the list? Also, how to I notify another editor about ARBEE sanctions - can I place the 'Ds/alert|e-e' template on their talk page? best, -Darouet (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Umm, no, you're not "allowed to add it to the list". That'd have to be done by an administrator and for a good reason. There's no reason to have this particular article under 1RR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Your DS sanction at Kombucha

Your DS sanction against me was unwarranted, Callan, and reminiscent of the bias you have consistently shown toward me since your first unwarranted ARB warning at Griffin for a rogue emoji I had no control over. I am asking you to remove the sanctions and recuse yourself from any interaction with me in the future. You clearly did not properly investigate the behavior of Yobol, an editor who was not involved in any of the Kombucha TP discussions, and who actually was the one edit warring in this case, but it appears your bias against me caused you to automatically act against me without question.

I copied the following from Yobo's contributions which includes mention of the sanction reminder and polite warning I posted to his TP. You sanctioned the wrong editor, Callan.

  • 20:16, June 20, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+345)‎ . . User talk:Yobol ‎ (→‎Please stop reverting GF edits at Kombucha: r)
  • 20:07, June 20, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+272)‎ . . Kombucha ‎ (per wp:BRD get consensus when your edits are challenged)
  • 19:53, June 20, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+272)‎ . . Kombucha ‎ (undue weight and promotional tone)
  • 19:44, June 20, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+272)‎ . . Kombucha ‎ (Undue weight bordering on promotional)

You know full well that the onus of proof is on the editor who wanted to restore the material I corrected and challenged as noncompliant with policy. The onus was on Yobol, not me. I cited 3 quality Reviews that surpassed the quality of the old 2003 review that used to cite the noncompliant material. He was edit warring each time he restored noncompiant material. I will not provide the actual diffs here because when I've demonstrated similar behavior by other uncivil, POV pushing editors in the past, including the railroading attempts against me, the harassment, the incivility, the tag-teaming and other disruptive behavior, you hatted my requests for help, and kept pointing me to ARBCOM. Perhaps the time has come for ARBCOM to investigate this whole mess in one felled swoop. If they decide that I truly am the one who deserves sanctions for trying to be compliant with NPOV, then so be it but it's all going to come out in the wash, dating back to Griffin with some of the same editors and the treatment and ill-will that I've experienced since. Atsme📞📧 13:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

There's one thing that you're still not seeming to get, even if you believe you are right you cannot edit war. You've done that twice on this article and therefore got prevented from doing it again. An article ban is a very lenient sanction in that all it does it stop you edit warring and forces you to the talk page. I'm not saying that this is correct in this instance, but the other thing which tag-team edit warring (as you see it) could be is other editor's enforcing a consensus. The onus is on the person making the change (hence BRD) to show that the change should be made. As you've been told before that you need to get consensus before making large or contentious changes to articles, or if you have been reverted (especially more than one) barring things like WP:3RRNO you need to get consensus. Continuing to edit war on various articles to have your changes stay on the article is disruptive, as you have been told as well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
You keep telling me that I have to follow certain protocols, that I'm the one who is edit warring, and that I don't get it. Callan, even when I am following protocols and community consensus agrees with me, you still take actions against me. You have once again turned a blind eye in support of the same group of very vocal and aggressive tag team members from Proj Med. I have been at the TP discussing the issues and so have a lot of other editors who have been in agreement on the most important issues of improperly sourced claims of death and toxicity, some of whom are bewildered by your actions. Perhaps if you had taken the time to review the discussions on the TP, you would have seen that I was and have been properly engaged in a collaborative effort trying to stop those you support from edit warring and noncompliance. Yet you accused me of edit warring and then without any discussion, immediately imposed DS against me, totally ignoring the ongoing discussions and input about the issues from Petrarchan47 June 10, 2015 and Ownership issues, Gandydancer [21], AlbinoFerret points to the disruption, TylerDurden8823 June 9, 2015 causality, Ozzie10aaaa June 8, 2015 agreement with Petrarchan47, me June 10, 2015 GF collaboration, a passer by June 11 2015 and even an admin Jimfbleak responded to Alex, [22] and [23] I was trying hard to avoid pointing fingers, but since you ask here are a couple of examples where you have used Twinkle, an anti-vandalism tool, to revert what appear to be GF edits with summaries that do not identify the nature of the vandalism Not an improvement Rv. whitewashing deletions & insertion of comparatively weakly-sourced material. Your edit for these summaries suggest that you are reverting on opinion rather than vandalism. Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used. The same user was reverted in each case. I can't see how his/her edits were vandalism, and it seems to be that discussion would be better than unilateral bashing with Twinkle. I have no personal interest in this article, and I know that positions can become entrenched. I would just like to see unnecessarily confrontational actions avoided with an aim to reach some consensus.
Callan, several of us tried to get the edit warriors to stop reverting, and then you suddenly appear with your sights on me instead of the edit warriors - no prior discussion, and obviously no review of the circumstances - not at all unlike the unwarranted ARB warning you issued against me over an inadvertent emoji. Consensus supported my position as demonstrated above, yet you banned me not the edit warriors. Where did you come up the idea that I was making "large or contentious changes"? Is that what they told you?

June 8 (diffs with edit summaries - read them because it exposes the provocateurs and edit warriors in full tag team accord....)

June 9

June 15

June 16

June 20

I am not going to say I'm sorry for the long post because I truly believe you need to read it and get a handle on this situation. I am weary of being accused without due process while the warriors get off unscathed. FYI, if I am forced to appeal at AE, I will include the above but will add diffs of your actions against me to support my claims of bias. I'm asking you to remove the ban because you have the wrong editor in your sights, and I shouldn't have to suffer the black mark on my edit history as a result. Atsme📞📧 15:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Callanecc is this another one of my posts that you have decided to ignore or are you considering my request? Please respond. Atsme📞📧 22:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

  • This is deplorable behavior. I am sitting back honoring the DS you imposed on me while the editors you support are continuing their antics to pull the wool over your eyes. See the following edit history at Kombucha:
  • (cur | prev) 18:37, June 24, 2015‎ AlbinoFerret (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,825 bytes) (+77)‎ . . (→‎Side effects: add risk to HIV positive people) (rollback: 2 edits | undo | thank)
  • (cur | prev) 18:34, June 24, 2015‎ AlbinoFerret (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,748 bytes) (+30)‎ . . (Undid revision 668534224 by Alexbrn (talk) also remove source since the one added also backs up the claims) (undo | thank)
  • (cur | prev) 18:31, June 24, 2015‎ Alexbrn (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,718 bytes) (-47)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 668530235 by Doc James (talk): WP:V problems; MSKCC source does not support this edit. (TW)) (undo | thank)
  • (cur | prev) 18:25, June 24, 2015‎ AlbinoFerret (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,765 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (→‎Health effects: fix citation) (undo | thank)
  • (cur | prev) 18:24, June 24, 2015‎ AlbinoFerret (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,766 bytes) (+48)‎ . . (→‎Health effects: reedit claim and add source that back it up) (undo | thank)

Callanecc, since you have not responded to my requests, I filed an appeal. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Atsme Atsme📞📧 19:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

Hey, do you think that any of the accounts that have edited Sandeep Anand are sockpuppets of User:TekkenJinKazama? I only ask since the article is associated with one of his sockpuppets in the past and there have been some recent accounts that have tried to create the page. I'm not seeing any overwhelmingly large signs that they're possible sockpuppets which is why I haven't brought this to SPI. For the most part these accounts have been largely satisfied to try to re-create Anand's article, so they have no edits elsewhere. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

TJK's current account, Derevation (talk · contribs) has been rather quiet for a while and even when active stayed mostly productive. They edited fairly recently so CU data would be available if needed for comparison. I'll hope they aren't using multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny, but wouldn't be completely surprised. Ravensfire (talk) 05:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Adminship

No issues, you say? Just ask my therapist and he'll tell you otherwise. And if you don't believe him, ask his therapist.

Seriously - thanks for your support at my RfA. I shall strive to be worthy of the honor in all my dealings, and hope I shall prove to have warranted your trust. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail =

Hello, Callanecc. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Liz Read! Talk! 01:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Advise, please

I see that you've put the Asdisis SPI case into the open state. I've requested initially a CU on the accounts and the IP. It was rejected without any explanation, with a threat posted on my talk page. Would be it appropriate request again a CU for this SPI? Thank you.--72.66.12.17 (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

CheckUsers will very rarely publicly check a link between an account and an IP address due to the privacy policy. The reason you were "threatened" is because you reverted a CheckUser decision (a real world analogy would be a judge dismissing a case you brought then you immediately refile it and say that judge was biased), had you politely asked for an explanation I'm sure Bbb23 would have explained it to you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, in a real world any man has right to disagree with the judge, especially when the judge acts authoritatively, without elaborating his/her decision. I did not revert his decision, I've challenged it. Anyway, thank you.--72.66.12.17 (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Right to disagree yes, but not to ignore and revert which you did do. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-29

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

Recent changes

Problems

  • There was a problem with editing on Thursday. Some tools like bots and VisualEditor were broken on all wikis for 10 minutes. [29]
  • There was a problem with images on Thursday. They were broken on all wikis for 15 minutes. [30]

Changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from July 14. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from July 15. It will be on all Wikipedias from July 16 (calendar).

Meetings

  • You can join a technical meeting at Wikimania in Mexico City this week. [31]

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

15:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Adminship for Wesley Mouse

Before you go ahead with the request for adminship for User:Wesley Mouse, you should read through the mess he made here. It's far worse than a simple 3RR shows.-91.10.49.211 (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi 91.10.49.211, I'm not sure who you are, but I'd appreciate if it you logged in or pointed to your involvement when critising others. I didn't, and didn't intend to request adminship, it was just a suggestion on something to look towards. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm the IP mainly involved with Wes back in May. I'm not anyone else. My concern is simply that Wikipedia does not need another admin with a hair-trigger.
Well, you suggested adminship and said you would be "happy to help", so maybe I misunderstand your position. In any case, please read through the talk page before you support him, that's all I'm asking.
Have fun editing!-91.10.49.211 (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the defence, Callanecc. I am somewhat disheartened that the IP has "stalked" my talk page in order to have even discovered the fact you has suggested the possibility of adminship in the distant future. It is evident the IP is the same hopper who took part in the discussion at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest, which was a debate that went on for years. And as can be seen at the discussion, something which was later resolved and the map adjusted accordingly. I fail to see why the past is being dragged up, when it was resolved albeit over a period of years. I would kindly ask the IP to stop with the distressing harassment towards myself, especially with the traumatic events that I have had to go through in real-life lately. The death of my birth-mother in March, the upheaval of being forced out of the home I have lived in all of my 35-years of life, and now learning to "go it alone" finding a new place to live, because close family don't give two-hoots about the grief that I have not even had chance to process. But to come here, to another admin's talk page and bad-mouth me is uncalled for. Wes Mouse ✒ 13:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
You have my sympathy for your loss and your struggles, but you should have taken a time-out here on Wikipedia.
Your behaviour back in May was distressing and disruptive, and so far I still can't see any sign of remorse. The way you behaved you should be prevented from becoming admin, that is all there is to it.
I don't stalk you, I went to the article to look something up and had a "what's Wesley up to" moment. Don't make more out of it as it is.
I'm done now, no need for a response.-91.10.49.211 (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
To have a "what's Wesley up to" moment and then following it up, is technically stalking a user with whom you had a disagreement with. If someone caused you so much "distress" as you claim, then why go tracking their movements to see if they have been up to anything else? That in itself is just as disruptive, to track someone down in order to attack and harm them further. At least that is how it comes across. The fact that I have had a lot of time to reflect on the past, and shown remorse in other areas, such as resolving conflicts between editors at both Talk:Nat Gertler and Talk:Gajendra Chauhan, in an uninvolved manner - both of which I was given praise and thanks for. Then I think it is time that the one minor slip-up due to RL events, can easily be forgiven. One only needs to look at the block log, to see that I was blocked in 2011, only for it to be lifted as an erroneous block; and again in 2012. The one in May 2015, is as I said, due to the fact I was struggling to cope with real-life grief, and have since learnt that I should have taken a breather at the time. Wes Mouse ✒ 14:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey

Can you explain to me what you are talking about? Tell it to me like I'm 5 years old, please. Thanks--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 06:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Mike_Searson The Ibans that LB was involved in are now under arbcom jurisdiction, and if the iban exceptions (WP:BANEX) are abused by LB, it rates a higher sanction. For your purposes, the only difference is that if you wanted to appeal to remove the iban, you would have to do so to ArbCom instead of at AN, and that if you violate it, it would be an issue for WP:AE. The second part (banex changes) doesn't apply to you, but it would probably be frowned upon heavily if you treat that like a loophole.Gaijin42 (talk) 14:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
What he said. (Thanks Gaijin42). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

AE formatting question

Callenec, it's my understanding that I am allowed 500 words to defend against a claim at AE, and am also allowed an additional 500 words for a boomerang request against the filing party. Is that correct, and if so, what is the standard AE format for packaging the boomerang request? Should it be a subsection under my "statement" in reply to the request against me, or should it be packaged as a stand-alone AE filing, or something else? Thanks in advance for guidance. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi NewsAndEventsGuy. You're only allowed the 500 words, which you can use to defend yourself and anything else you want (including boomerang). I'd suggest that if the boomerang is mainly based on evidence outside this filing (as it should be) then it would be better to file a new AE report about that editor specifically. So it's clear what everyone is talking about and that there are issues outside of just their filing against you. Use some of your 500 words to explain the reason you're filing the report now so it doesn't get misconstrued as a revenge filing. Does that answer your question(s)? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Re:Discretionary sanctions notification - India, Pakistan, and Afganistan

Hello, Callanecc. You have new messages at VibrantBabhan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

10:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VibrantBabhan (talk • contribs)

notification

what was the notification for,for reminder,i have changed my name from Alhanuty to AlAboud83,plus the edit i made was a new edit after going on 8 day hiatus.Alhanuty (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I regularly scan through contribs on the map and if I see new accounts which haven't been notified I do so. I didn't catch that it was a rename (which are hidden quite effectively really) so apologies for the second notification. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

The Cleanup Barnstar
Much obliged for your work fixing up Yakub Memon this afternoon. Yunshui 雲水 14:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Yunshui. It's looking better but still isn't great. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, me too wanted to thank you, I was requested semi-protection because of serious vandalism on that article. But that man Yakub is going to die within 10 days, its something to cheer for him that admins are seriously involved on his Wikipedia page. --Human3015 knock knock • 15:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Need extension of protection at Rajiv Malhotra

Need extension of protection at Rajiv MalhotraVictoriaGraysonTalk 23:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I think protection should be extended. --Presearch (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson and Presearch: What do you think would be the result if I let the protection expire? Would it lead to edit warring which would be more effectively dealt with by bans and/or blocks? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

EE discretionary sanctions notice

Any reason why you're leaving this notice on my talk page now? And doesn't that template alert you that you're giving the notice to someone who's already aware of them? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Marek, see #ARBEE addition for Blue Army (Poland). Rather than determine and assign blame at this point I alerted the most recent editors of the page. The 'awareness' expires after 12 months and you were last made aware of the EE sanctions in May 2014 (which had expired). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah, ok. As an aside, I thought it was sort of obvious that the article falls under EE discretionary sanctions but I understand the need for transparency. Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah the talk page template could probably have been added by anyone but sometimes that's taken the wrong way so 'uninvolved admins to the rescue'. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

ARBEE addition for Blue Army (Poland)

Hi Callanecc, I don't know if you missed my post earlier, but I'd asked here if you might be able to add Blue Army (Poland) to the list of ARBEE sanctioned articles. If you saw my earlier request and don't believe this article should fall under ARBEE editing procedures, I guess I'd just want to know why.

Haller's Army committed well known atrocities against Jews and Ukrainians at the end of World War I. Because of this, its activities and history are highly politicized, either by Jews and Ukrainians from the perspective of righteous victims, or by Polish nationalists from the perspective of justified force against fifth columns.

My efforts to improve the article by removing the unsourced Jewish Bolshevism myth, expanding on sources we already use, or bringing content in line with sources have been met with a wall of reverts and no further talk page discussion.

I think that the sanctions really do improve the editing environment for these kinds of articles by forcing people to talk page discussion. Let me know what you think. -Darouet (talk) 10:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Darouet, sorry I missed your message before. I agree that the content would be covered by discretionary sanctions so I've added the talk page notice. I've also posted a notice on your talk page and the others who have recently edited the page so everyone is on the same playing field. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Callanecc, I appreciate that. -Darouet (talk) 23:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
The article obviously falls under EE discretionary sanctions. Not sure what the point of this request is. At the same time, I do wish to note that Darouet's self-description of their edits at the article are rather self-serving and... inaccurate, to say the least.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I am glad that you've completely changed your mind since your last commentary here. If it was obvious to you the article fell under EE you shouldn't have reverted me three times in the space of two hours [32], [33], [34]. -Darouet (talk) 06:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Darouet, I'm sorry but you're confused. An article being under EE discretionary sanctions is not equivalent to an article being under 1RR restriction. What Callanecc did here is just add the EE ds notification to the article. The article is still NOT under 1RR restriction and there really is no reason for it to be. I have not changed my mind about anything you've just continued to be confused (even after the difference was explained to you).
And again, just like you misrepresent the nature of the dispute in your comment below (what the hell does any of this to do with "Jewish Bolshevism" or other such nonsense?) you're misrepresenting what happened here. There was a rough consensus version - and that consensus took a good bit of work to arrive at. Then you came in and started making unexplained and ... sloppy (in terms of sources) edits without having actually having read previous discussion. So yes, I reverted you, but at that point it was up to you to go to the talk page. You didn't. You kept reinserting - i.e. edit warring - your changes. After you realized that you weren't going to get your way by ye good ol' edit warring, that's when you started going on about discretionary sanctions, as if all of sudden, after three reverts of your own, you discovered the benevolent magic of 1RR (which does not apply to this article)... of course for others, not for you personally.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Let's just calm down a bit, Marek I've hidden some of your comment because it was incivil. A discussion about the edits in question (not the people making them) is best placed at the article's talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
That's fine, and you're right, that the discussion of content belongs on the article's talk page. But just to be clear, my phrasing "and other such nonsense" - which is part of my comment you removed - did not refer to Darouet, but simply to the fact that the whole idea of "Jewish Bolshevism" is a conspiracy theory - i.e. nonsense. The thing is, that that is not what the dispute is about. Am I being clear on this or is there some confusion?Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Marek, I only reverted you once, here, because you added unsourced text to the lead, alleging that Haller's Army killed some Jews because many Jews were communists anyway. I referenced the Jewish Bolshevism conspiracy theory popular in Poland and Eastern Europe because that's the perspective your text is adding to the lead, without references. If I'm wrong about 1RR, I still maintain you should abide by that rule on articles related to Eastern Europe. -Darouet (talk) 07:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Also Marek, that wasn't "consensus text" - I contested it months ago because it was offensive and unsourced, but gave up trying to remove it because you and User:COD T 3, who has since been indeff'd, insisted on keeping it without ever providing a source. -Darouet (talk) 07:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
What???? I'm sorry but that's just plain false. "I only reverted you once" No!. You reverted me here here and here. That's in addition to your original revert made on the article here. Look, there's basic, simple, elementary arithmetic at work here. If I revert you x number of times, that means, that unless there's someone else editing article - and there isn't here - you've reverted me x number of times. Given that you were messing with a version which was arrived by at consensus, that makes it x+1 for you.
Let's keep going. "you added unsourced text to the lead, alleging that Haller's Army killed some Jews because many Jews were communists anyway" - I did no such thing! I restored text which had sources behind it. Your characterization of my edit is extremely offensive, insulting and, well, full of shit. I'm sorry but when somebody resorts to this kind of dishonesty in regard to my person, niceties go out the window.
"I referenced the Jewish Bolshevism conspiracy theory popular in Poland..." - and this kind of statement basically shows that you're editing from a very biased point of view. "Jewish Bolshevism" conspiracy theory popular in Poland???? What. The. Fuck. Are. You. Talking. About? The "Jewish Bolshevism" theory is popular among certain crazy people... in any kind of country. You've just managed to engage in ethnic insults and gross stereotyping. Before you go around accusing others of bigotry, you might want to check your own.
Your comments have turned quite offensive, which, frankly, I'm both surprised and appalled at. I was taking the "let's calm down" suggestion seriously, but I'm not going to "calm down" when another user starts making ethnically based racist attacks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Look Marek, I didn't mean to strike a nerve there, and I apologize if I offended you. Of the edits you list, a simple perusal of the brief history shows that only the first edit you list is a revert; the next two are de novo edits. Also, re: "Jewish Bolshevism in Poland," it's mentioned, twice, in the lead of our article on Jewish Bolshevism, and we're discussing a page about pogroms in Poland, so I didn't think it was controversial. If you really find the view offensive, I'd just ask that you not add unsourced lead text to the article Blue Army (Poland) maintaining that Jews were killed in part due to Communist allegiances. -Darouet (talk) 07:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

AE formatting question (again)

Callanecc, re WP:AE#NewsAndEventsGuy, NewsAndEventsGuy has retired in lieu of reply -- but two editors objected to my behaviour in other respects, and to the behaviour of Pete Tillman although he wasn't participating in this affair relating to NewsAndEventsGuy. What's appropriate now: Discuss the original filing as if it still matters? Discuss the new objections as if they're the true subject now? Require a new filing from the objectors? Peter Gulutzan (talk)

I commented in the admins' section. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
As I have previously commented, Peter, sanctions are only for prevention. Given my departure (other than monitoring for comments of this sort), what can possibly be prevented by continuing to talk about me? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Callanecc, thanks, and I'll wait till the administrators conclude. NewsAndEventsGuy, I was merely asking what's appropriate. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

AE formatting question (third)

Callanecc, re WP:AE#Peter_Gulutzan: am I right in believing that I cannot go over 500 words in total, including updates and replies to new posts? If so, may I have permission to go over? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Probably better to ask there so one of the admins looking over the report sees it and can reply. I don't have time right now to go through and work out whether I should give the exemption or not. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-af1

Template:Uw-af1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Eyesnore 03:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Possible socks

Hi,

Hope all is well. I recently saw that several users are recreating the user page of blocked sock KeyofNeptune. These users are: 2601:6c5:202:40:9157:e06b:af8:ddc6, IanTerryLV, and Ghardaian. Seems very suspicious. Is an SPI warranted? GAB (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Update: 71.51.174.255 is also editing the page. GAB (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The accounts are  Confirmed, blocked and tagged (so no need for an SPI). no No comment with respect to IP address(es). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Great. Thanks for dealing with this. GAB (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Promotion?

I couldn't figure out why you were listed as an arbitrator on the KWW and The Rambling Man case until I found this edit. Looks like there were some strange edits this morning! Liz Read! Talk! 18:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Which means that that's been there for a while. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mat (Russian profanity)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mat (Russian profanity). Legobot (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

note:

I noticed recently that you mentioned me in a positive way (agreed with me). I also recall that I got pretty snotty with you a while back because I very much disagreed with you on something (although I don't recall the specifics). That does make you the bigger person, and I felt I should admit that. I apologize for being so abrasive in our previous encounter, although I do not recant my position. I just wanted to make note that I was aware, and impressed. Cheers, — Ched :  ?  20:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Being involved in AE and as a CU you sort of get used to just letting comments slide on past and move on (to be honest I'd forgotten that you were involved). IMHO, the project only works when people are willing to disagree with each other on something, but perfectly willing to agree on something else. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beggin'for - clarification por favor

Hi C, just checkin' about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beggin'for, you said that three were all linked--did you mean all four? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:BLP removal

Hi, Callanecc. :) I was just reviewing Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Templates and went out of curiosity to review {{BLP removal}}, which according to the policy "can be used on a talk page of an article (or a user) to explain why material has been removed under this policy, and under what conditions the material may be replaced." I don't think I've ever seen it before (although for all I know I used it years ago) and wondered what it said. I was a bit surprised to see it had been redirected some time ago to {{Uw-biog2}} and was really no longer fit for recommended purpose. Now I'm curious about the reason for the repurposing of the template. :) And also wondering if the guidance in policy recommending the use of the template on article talk pages in a manner that clearly doesn't fit its repurposing be removed? I'm guessing it hasn't caused much concern, but {{Uw-biog2}} really doesn't belong on article talk pages and doesn't at all explain under what conditions the material may be replaced. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Moonriddengirl, I suspect I redirected it when I was enacting ArbCom's discretionary sanctions remedy. I've undone my redirect, though I'm not so sure on the purpose of the template. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Callanecc. :) I'm not sure if it's ever been used. Maybe it has; maybe it hasn't. I'm not sure that it matters if you undo it. :) I just figure either it needs to work on talk pages or we need to remove the advice from BLP, and I'm comfortable going either way. Perhaps it was intended for situations where multiple people might put the same controversial information into an article or where people might miss the material and want to read an explanation of why. I've always written that out myself. Like I said, so far as I recall, I don't know if I ever realized that template existed before I stopped to refresh myself on BLP. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
No worries Moodriddengirl, probably better to have it in a version which could be used on talk pages per the instructions. I think it'd probably be better if we remove that paragraph from WP:BLP, as I can't see a situation where either the uw-biog warning series or a 'handwritten' note wouldn't cover the situation better. What do you think? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

AE thread closure

This is the IP user who commented in the AE report about WeijiBaikeBianji that you recently closed. Could you please reconsider that decision? The last admin to express an opinion about the substance of the report, Edjohnston, suggested the report should be closed with a warning to the user being reported, and no admins opposed that outcome. The reason the article has not been edited recently is because the RFC on it was reopened, but if the eventual conclusion of the RFC is to include the disputed paragraph, there is a danger of additional edit warring if the editors removing the paragraph don't accept that result (which is likely, based on the pattern on that article thus far). 43.228.157.59 (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi 43.228.157.59, thanks for the message. If WeijiBaikeBianji makes an edit blatantly against consensus (e.g. the opposite to what the RfC concludes with) let me know and I'll deal with it, even if you were to take it to AE I suspect there would be robust action even without the warning. EdJohnston's warning is regarding removing (etc) the paragraph during the RfC, which I would see as edit warring and block/page ban anyway. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer. One other question: is there no alternative to semi-protecting the talk page? I understand you took that action to stop Mikemikev's sock puppetry, but it also prevents me from commenting, and after the admins at AE realized I'm not a sock they did not regard my own involvement there as disruptive. (I'm the one who originally challenged the paragraph's removal, and who initiated the RFC.) 43.228.157.40 (talk) 06:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Not really no, especially since you're using webhosts which are likely targets for a sock to use so get blocked fairly regularly. The only option really is to create an account and edit that way, as (you can see from the talk page history) the socks are pretty constant. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thanks for helping me stop the vandals. I couldn't of done it without you. Ashboxboy (talk) 12:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Is this a breach of 1RR?

Hi. Does this count as a breach or partial breach of 1RR or the tit-for-tat principle of the Troubles restriction: [35] and [36].

I had been typing this response to Gob Lofa when they did the partial revert. Mabuska (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm also interested in hearing the answer to Mabuska's question. [37], [38], and [39] are just three articles I've been editing for a long time and Mabuska has begun to edit this week. There are many more examples of this sudden change in Mabuska's watchlist. Gob Lofa (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I have many pages on my watchlist (NI/Troubles related) I have never edited where your name has popped up, however it is common practice to track the edits of editors where there are genuine concerns and the second paragraph of this spells that out clearly. Though sometimes even if there is not an issue with a tracked editors edit, there may still be issues at the article that can be acted upon, such as was the case at Taig. However none of these violate the Troubles restrictions and don't pass as reasons for your recent actions in regards to 1RR and editing another editors comments. Mabuska (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes it was a 1RR vio, from both of you. Also have a look at the warning on your talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit war: Alebtong District

Hello Callanec, The suckpuppet User:103.56.218.198 has opened an edit war at the Alebtong District article, deleting referenced material, introducing dead links, basically removing anything other than what he thinks should be there; all this while I was actively editing the same. I have abandoned editing that article and have sought your help. See also what he is doing to Andrew Gutti. Two of this user's domains are currently blocked, User:103.56.218.191 and User:103.56.218.197 are currently blocked. Thank you. Fsmatovu (talk) 06:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Fsmatovu, I'm looking into it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi again, if its not too much to ask, could you semi-protect Uganda Oil Refinery for a period of time? This time the attacks came from User:103.56.218.194 and User:103.56.218.191, although not in the past two weeks. Thank you. Fsmatovu (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
The last edit to that page was nearly three weeks ago so I really don't see a need to protect it, if they start up again let me know and I'll do it then.
Regarding Alebtong District the range has quite a number of users so it's possible that Ponyo and Reaper's block and the IP you're dealing with are not all the same person. Regarding their edits to Andrew Gutti while the edit summary doesn't explain it very well the material they are removing (e.g. exact dates) is unreferenced so can be removed. Regarding their edit to Alebtong District, I might be looking at the wrong user talk page but have you tried to explain to them why we leave dead links in articles? I have however blocked the range per our policy on open proxies and web hosts. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your help.Fsmatovu (talk) 11:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Callanecc, Unfortunately he is back, operating on these frequencies; same modus operandi: User:75.34.102.237, User:75.34.84.221 and User:192.121.113.22. Sorry. Thanks. Fsmatovu (talk) 05:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Block of User:Mabuska

Can I ask you to reconsider this block on Mabuska. I have given my reasons there. Scolaire (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

GOCE August 2015 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors August 2015 Newsletter

July drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 24 people who signed up, 17 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

August blitz: The one-week April blitz, targeting biographical articles that have been tagged for copy editing for over a year, will run from August 16–22. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the article list on the blitz page. Sign up here!

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, KieranTribe, Miniapolis, and Pax85.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
sent by Jonesey95 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-34

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

Recent changes

  • Many Wikipedias can now use information from any Wikidata item in any Wikipedia article. Before they could only use the Wikidata item that matched the subject of the article. [40] [41] [42]
  • Some auto-saving problems and other issues in the Content Translation tool are now fixed. Please report to the Content Translation feedback page if you still have problems. [43]

Problems

  • Older gadgets that are not using ResourceLoader are not loading anymore. They need to be updated. [44] [45]
  • On August 12 the machine translation servers and the Content Translation tool didn't work. This was fixed on the same day. [46]

Changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from August 18. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from August 19. It will be on all Wikipedias from August 20 (calendar).
  • You can soon watch when something is added to or removed from a category. [47]

Meetings

  • You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on August 18 at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.

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

16:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-35

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

Recent changes

  • Disambiguation pages are now excluded from the random page function. [48]

Problems

  • There was a problem with CAPTCHAs in VisualEditor. This has now been fixed. [49]

Changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from August 25. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from August 26. It will be on all Wikipedias from August 27 (calendar).

Meetings

  • You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on August 25 at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.

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

13:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Image use policy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Image use policy. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Notification

I'm afraid things seem to be heading the wrong way again and I have been forced to raise Gob Lofa's behaviour again, and as the blocking admin who was looking into an IBAN and TBAN for one or both of us, your input would be appreciated. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Gob_Lofa. Mabuska (talk) 13:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-36

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

Recent changes

  • VisualEditor will now automatically create a link when you type in or paste an ISBN, PMID, or RFC. [50][51]
  • The link editor in VisualEditor is now a bit wider. It's now the same width as the automatic citation tool. [52]
  • VisualEditor gadget authors can no longer use the backwards-compatibility module ext.visualEditor.viewPageTarget.init. Use ext.visualEditor.desktopArticleTarget.init instead. [53]
  • Gadget writers can now use mediawiki.ForeignApi to communicate between different Wikimedia wikis. [54]

Changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from September 1. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from September 2. It will be on all Wikipedias from September 3 (calendar).

Meetings

  • You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on September 1 at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

  • The Wikidata API will be updated with breaking changes. This will probably happen on September 9. [55]

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

21:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Another sock to put in the drawer.

Looks like we have another Caradoc29105 sock: FreshPerspectivea. Same sort of page style as seen at KeyofNeptune's page. GABHello! 19:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

After reading these remedies I got an impression that logging of warnings in this area should be done by uninvolved admins. It tells: "Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion..." ... "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor shall be given a warning...". However, it seems that a heavily involved user stated giving indiscriminate warnings and loggins to a number of others, including even people who are only peripherally involved (I did not edit these pages for more than a week and made very few edits before). Is he doing right thing? My very best wishes (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Gob Lofa again

I'm not 100% sure exactly how to interpret the 1RR rule on Troubles articles, but here we have Gob Lofa not accepting a revert to the previous stable version. It is very clearly a Troubles related article. He has been carrying out sensible edits for a bit, but now it appears he needs monitoring again as controversial edits are being mixed with sensible ones ----Snowded TALK 20:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Christianity and Sexuality

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 2 (Roscelese restricted) of the Christianity and Sexuality case is modified to read the following: Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to the following restrictions. Other than in cases of indisputable vandalism or BLP violations, they are indefinitely prohibited from:

  • making more than one revert per page per day, and are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page;
  • making rollback-type reverts that fail to provide an explanation for the revert;
  • Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely prohibited from engaging in conduct which, in the opinion of any uninvolved administrator, casts aspersions, or personalises disputes.

These restrictions may be appealed to the committee twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter. Should Roscelese breach any of these restrictions, she may be blocked for per the standard Enforcement provision below.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Christianity and Sexuality

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm back

Hi everyone, I'm back now. If you left me a message and you still want an answer could you please repost it? Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

98.113.103.90

I rev/del'd one of the IP's edits. I don't know if you want to suppress it.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, suppressed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Youtube Page

That's fine and all but couldn't you have fixed the vandalism on the page before protecting it? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, reverted. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Myspace

Would you mind deleting and adding similar creation protection to Template:MySpace? That is almost certainly where they'll head next. It's template protected, so I haven't been able to actually nominate it for deletion, but it's eligible under WP:G8. Thanks for helping out! ~ RobTalk 06:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks, just trying to help. :) --110.20.234.69 (talk) 09:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

NOTSEEALSO

Hi there, I removed Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill, 2009 from the 'See also' section since WP:NOTSEEALSO says: "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." I see that it's a different event, but the event is included in the navbox. Schwede66 10:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Righto, no worries. I've removed the section. :) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!

I appreciate your quick response to my oversight request. Have a great day! YoPienso (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Callanecc/Archive_19&oldid=1251434996"