User talk:Callanecc/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Please comment on Talk:Scarlett Johansson

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Scarlett Johansson. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

IP sock to be blocked

Hello! Can you please block 82.29.25.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), blatant sock of already blocked (by you) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/92.238.171.3. Another blocked IP is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/195.89.201.254 86.127.23.100 (talk) 08:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

 Blocked Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

topic ban

sorry i thought that the ban was for 1 week only also i did not touched anything controversial over ram janma bhoomi issue,if i you think i have done a mistake revert it Rim sim (talk) 12:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

please tell me how to appeal against that ban, if i cant contribute to my country's issues then i'm vain here(in India).Rim sim (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The instructions are in the message I left you. Though given it was imposed by a consensus of admins only a week ago, I'd suggest it'd be better to show that you can edit constructively in other areas for at least 3-6 months before appealing it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

CSD

Hi Callanecc, would you mind finalising the CSD nom on Sylhet Government Pilot School and College please, the creator has now made two copies of the original article and this is the remaining copy. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Fauncet

There's a slight misunderstanding. the thread had run its course by the time I noted the connection. I feel that he will continue to edit without a clearly stated conflict of interest on a new account, which is definitely a violation. How should I raise this issue then?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest take it to AN referencing my comment about doing so to decide whether it's sanctionable and whether it is or not what to about that editor. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Accidental erasure

Accidentally erased your pp notice on Jonathan King article. Sorry!Glue 15:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellymental (talk • contribs)

WP:DUCK. See this. DeCausa (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Ark Sciences AFD

As you closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sibtain 007/Archive#10 April 2014 without confirming or denying whether this person is a sockpuppet, you may be interested in the deletion discussion of an article he created on April 6, 2014. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ark Sciences.

I was holding off on starting this AFD in case either the page became G5-eligible or if the PROD I put there on the 10th was allowed to expire (it was contested). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is a sock, my comment meant that as the account was blocked per behaviour and that the CU returned a possible result it meant that the block didn't need to be re-examined. I've closed the AFD and G5'd the article. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Please update the SPI and the editor's user page to indicate that he is a confirmed sock. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 06:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

It isn't a confirmed sock, only a suspected sock. You need a confirmed CU result or a likely result with strong behavioural evidence to label a sock as a confirmed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake, I assumed G5 only applied to pages created by people who were confirmed to be editing while blocked or banned. An editor who is only suspected of editing while being blocked or banned would by definition not have articles created by him G5'd. Perhaps my understanding of the de facto enforcement of G5 is wrong. If that is the case, then the wording of G5 needs to be tweaked so administrators clearly have the discretion to treat those suspected of editing while blocked or banned as if they actually were editing while blocked or banned for G5-deletion purposes. Would you support tweaking the wording to match actual practice, and if so, what wording would you recommend to best reflect actual practice? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Finnbay Issue

Hi Callanecc, you previously edited Finnbay and locked, It was good however I fear that "pro-Finnish nationals and anti-Russians" using the page to damage Finnbay by being subjective as opposed to providing the case from both sides. They are only including sources from the Finnish side and not even what Finnbay or others said about Finnbay or the topic. I attempted to change it to protect from "nationalists" but they reverted back and put a protection to a very primitive version, i hope you check out to make it a decent version to show both sides. What's wrong with the current version: 1. the argument started when Himanen called the story fictitious not fake site as they claim 2. they say the mfa and supo said "evidence of anything other than poor journalism" but its not true they never said that that's a commentary from a journalist not exact PR. See official mfa release www.finnbay.com/finnish-ministry-of-foreign-affairs-finnbay-purpose-is-not-to-systematically-spread-damaging-information-about-finland/ 3. they attack finnbay with "address", "using domain registration" issues but Finnbay in its letter explains that they were all done to protect themselves. Also previous editor said GE doesnt provide address on their website and they use proxy-like system so is it a crime or very important issue for wiki? Do we put such things everywhere on wiki? 4. Again they use the same Finnish media sources to say that ANSA denied existence of partnership which is not true. ANSA marketing said that they didnt say such thing but no pr can be released for anyone.

Here is my humble edit on the issue http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Finnbay&oldid=605244943 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.55.144.184 (talk) 09:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Just wanted to let you know that your work at WP:SPI is very much appreciated. It was a pleasure to see the list so well updated this morning, and it will make my job as a checkuser a lot easier. Risker (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with Risker - thanks for taking care of all those cases. With all the endorses, I think we'll be busy over the next couple of days! ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for your thanks :) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Please Unprotect Tyler Oakley

Due to the nature of his work and constant stream of new information being released on his youtube channel it makes it difficult to have an up to date page of it is protected from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickn3715 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't use YouTube a whole lot, so my advise would be not to unprotect.--Mishae (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

YouTube is generally not used on Wikipedia as a reliable source even if it is a primary source (see WP:BLPSELFPUB, WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:PRIMARY). Given the level of vandalism and defamatory information on the page it would be better if non-autoconfirmed users submitted edit requests. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

David Althoff

Hi, as I seen you are part of WikiProject Military history, I would like to know if the above person is notable. He have 3 distinguished flying crosses and a bunch of air medals.--Mishae (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure as I'm not very familiar with US military decorations, however WP:MILNG will provide some further information. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

PC-protected pages expiring this month

Extend PC time for Charles Rennie Mackintosh and peach? --George Ho (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jason Russell

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jason Russell. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

ANI

At the ANI here, reference is made to an AE request you commented at. If you have some time, I think your input would be worthwhile at the ANI in light of the initial comment you made at the AE request. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Allan du Toit

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Callanecc. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Blank passsword account.
Message added 13:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 13:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hillsborough Disaster page ...

Hi I was looking through the recent edits (pre-protected) on the page. The semi-protect will expire this month and, due to the history of vandalism on the page I'd like to request that it's semi-protection is made indefinite. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidsmeaton (talk • contribs) 18:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

@Davidsmeaton: It was the 25th anniversary around the time I protected it, so unless it continues after the protection expires it can wait and see if it happens again next year. Let me know if it keeps going into May.

why my article was deleted???

I dont see any reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Agabi (talk • contribs) 17:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@Mr.Agabi: The article was deleted by Orlady because the consensus of a deletion discussion was to delete the article. If you want to recreate it you'll need to discuss it with Orlady. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The user had already contacted me: User_talk:Orlady#ABMS_Open_University. --Orlady (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Page protection

Hey Callanecc. You recently protected Batman: Arkham Origins Blackgate, due to unsourced, disruptive editing. The protection has ended, and the same exact edits are occurring. May you please consider readding protection, possibly indefinite this time? The reason I ask for the indefinite is, these edits have been a constant problem on that page, and will not continue to stop. As I said in one of the revert edit summaries, I have looked up and down for reliable sources to cite that these actors voiced these characters, and they just do not exist. And the game cannot be used (which is commonly done), because the game's credits just lists the actors, not attributing them to any specific character. Thank you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP which has done it the last few times, I also suggest that you add a HTML comment which states why it can't be added. Let's see if we can avoid protecting the article long-term first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I thought the comments were there somewhere, but I was mixing up my pages. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Callanecc. The IP (User talk:58.172.21.104) has made their way over to Batman: Arkham Origins, producing the same edits (their contributions show they are pretty much just out to edit on these pages). That page does not have hidden notes directly next to the actors (which I will add now; there was one at the beginning of the section perviously), but I feel a longer block is needed for this IP. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I had to go to ANV, and the IP was blocked for 60 hours. Personally, I don't feel that is enough, but I will continue to monitor and let you know if the edits continue. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

@Callanecc:, I'm not sure if you saw the above request, but the IP was blocked again, and they have since been unblock and are still making these edits. Please consider an indefinite block for them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for one month, IPs are very rarely blocked indefinitely as the people they are assigned to generally changes. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I will keep you informed if the edits still continue after their month block. At that point, it would be without question that it is one person. Based on their contributions, they are only confined to these pages. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

problems at I am needing help at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ink_Master_(season_4)

Hello,

I notice that you had put the initial protection on the article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ink_Master_(season_4)

I am needing help with a situation where I have been doing a major copyedit at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ink_Master_(season_4) I have been putting up the GOCEinuse tag to prevent edit conflicts from other editors. Now today a user:User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz has called our GOCEinuse tag "a rag"

Perhaps glance over the page history and you will see what has happened. I put in a request at page protection, but I cannot think of anything else to do. I really don't want my major copyediting work of or the past day or so to be trashed. The article looks much better than when I started. Do you know an admin that I could ask for help? I don't remember for sure if you are one or not. Thanks. Please try to help me save the work that has been done on the article.

Could you increase the protection at the article to a higher level?

Thanks,

Carriearchdale (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I am an admin. You were both edit warring and incivil with each other, had I seen this when you were actively reverting each other would you both have been warned for edit warring and incivility, eg edit summaries in these edits HW and Cad. Template:GOCEinuse does not mean you have exclusive rights to edit the article, and all editing should be by consensus. Given the types of edits you were making (a lot and quickly) the tag doesn't really help much as it's role is to try and avoid edit conflicts (eg if you were copyediting the whole article at once or level 2 sections individually). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Precisely what is incivil about the edit summary of mine you cite? It is a plain, simple, accurate state if fact that is entirely consistent with applicable policy, guideline and practice? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Calling a template placed on the article a "rag" is incivil and a little battlegroundy as well, plus using competence as a reason to remove a category is another example. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

For God's sake. After more than five years, 60,000-odd edit, creating dozens of articles, and cleaning out thousands of BLP violations, it's outright insulting to get slammed for supposedly bad behaviour from an admin who won't extend the simplest and least amount of good faith over an obvious typo. I referred repeatedly to tags and tagging, but made a typo in one edit summary (which, of course, I can't fix). Your inference of bad faith from an obvious typo is outlandish, especially from an admin. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

i have been wrongly blocked from editing topics related to India,pak,afghan because of a request filed by a user named Darkness shines, this user is an extremely calculated guy who deleted every page that is pro-Hindu ,he just keeps a request for reliable sources and when we provide the sources he just removes them immediately and if one confronts him he just puts your name in this list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan, just take a look at the number of users he listed,he just wants to eliminate all users opposed to his views , i hope you understand this situation and lift the ban on me . Rim sim (talk) 05:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Rim sim: I am treating this as an appeal rather than a blatant violation of the topic ban. The appeal is declined as it doesn't address the reasons you were topic banned, only makes accusations about other users. They are notifications of the decision nothing else apart from that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

sorry i apologize for the inconvenience.Rim sim (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Appealing my topic ban

I appeal to please lift the topic ban on me related to India,pak,afghan as:

• It all started when i called a user named "Darkness shines" as an "extremist" as he was regularly removing references and getting articles on Hindu politics deleted, he got all the articles on Koenraad elst's books deleted (only one is surviving and he proposed merger to it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Saffron_Swastika).

• I understand that it was a terrible mistake to call a user as such but i have done so purely in the Heat of the moment as he was regularly removing references of articles that are about Hindu politics and getting them deleted (it's being done so now because India is all set to get a New Government on may 16th 2014 which is perceived as pro-Hindu [[1]] ).

• That user Darkness shines is from pakistan and they have problems with India/Hindus. (During 1971 war about 3 million bengalis were exterminated of them majority being Hindus, the Hindus were treated as Jews to Nazis, here's the wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide. In 1971 the number of Hindus & Christians in pakistan were about 20% of it's population ,today they are less then 2%. I hope you now understand the relationship between India and pak.)

• When i have called him as an extremist ,instead of imposing an Interaction ban with him he cleverly got me banned from all topics related to India,pak,afghan as he sensed i was an Indian and he got all articles on elst book's deleted. Any one who opposed him for this had meet an Arbitration enforcement (just like me).

• Also prior to interacting with him i have not edited any topic related to India, pak ,Afghan, i was only editing about Hinduism and while reading about elst books i have seen that they are being deleted one after another, so i have interacted with him. Thus this topic ban on me is not necessary as i haven't edited any articles prior to the ban on those topics leave alone distorting them.

• I have learnt my lesson to Never Ever ever call any one in wikipedia by derogatory terms, i have understood the implications (within 4 weeks of my entry got banned for 2 weeks), please give me one chance as i am a good contributor to wikipedia , whenever i edit a topic i add references to it and only try to enhance them more.

• I'm trying to enhance the articles on Hinduism here ,to edit Hinduism without referring to India would be akin to edit Judaism-christianity without referring to Jerusalem/Israel.

• I may not have conveyed it in the best of terms but i have tried my best, i hope you understand this situation and lift the ban on me. your's sincerely Rim sim (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Whilst the muslim extremist comment was the main reason you also showed in your edit even after the topic ban that you have a battleground approach to editing Wikipedia. I'd need to see at least a month of good, constructive editing in other areas before I would lift your topic ban. Though as it said in the message I left you about it, you can still appeal it to WP:AE. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, i just wanted to bear it out all so i have written like that, i'm sorry if it appeared as battleground approaching, i have done it (calling muslim extremist) in the heat of the moment and will never do it again. I will contribute in good, constructive editing in other areas now, I will be waiting for you to lift my topic ban. Rim sim (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Billy Collins

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 03:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Callanecc

Hello Callanecc, I want to make some changes to this userbox. Since it is in your userspace so I need your approval. Thank you. Jim Carter ^(talk) 14:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Go for! :) Callanecc (alt) (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Theprincessmom1

Just FYI, I changed the tag to show that the editor is a sock of Gogvc, not Accurateinfo973, as CU showed in the SPI. I've been struggling with Accurateinfo973's edit-warring and assumptions of bad faith (and Accurateinfo973 is currently blocked for edit-warring) but I thought it was unfair to link the two as CU cleared Accurateinfo973. I understand mislabeling sock tags, I've done it more than once myself. Just letting you know, thank you for helping with the SPI case. -- Atama頭 15:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

ARBCC notice request

Hi Callanecc!

I am picking on you for this request since you are the admin who formally notified me, in a friendly FYI sort of way, about ARBCC. Would you please do the same for Prokaryotes (talk · contribs)? As we have discussed before, there isn't any backstory necessary before these notices can be formally sent to someone. However, I'll provide some backstory anyway.

The request is that you give the climate change version of Template:Ds/alert (or other if I specified the wrong one), and then log the giving of the notice here

• Without going into unnecessary detail about the content disputes on various climate articles, I was eventually inspired to give him an informal notice of ARBCC here

• For my trouble, Prokaryotes (talk · contribs) attacked my content challenges as "disruptive" in this thread at ANI

• The ANI was closed with a sweep of the "DS applies" wand.

• I asked the closing admin to give formal DS notice of ARBCC to the ed so that we could in fact follow the closing instructions, and he refused. Thread is here

• When you take time to contest an edit, the ed beats you up for reverting before talking as though BRD were actually B-D-D, and when you do post detailed response on talk you get things like this.

I'd rather not pull the DS lever, but the good folks at ANI apparently want me to abandon all other hope of reform. Can you help us out with the formal notice please? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to correct the record: I am not an admin. BMK (talk) 18:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Callanecc NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Iraq

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto IV and Fars News Agency

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think either of them need it, we can wait and see what happens. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Advice?

Hi Callanecc, I'm not quite sure what to do in this situation, so I thought I'd ask you, since you participated in the SPI. Tristan.andrade.136 was originally indeffed for WP:COMPETENCE issues. He's created a few accounts to continue editing, but lately has taken to using IPs. He has openly used IPs to edit his own talk page in the past, so it's obvious where the user is located. My dilemma is this: The user is not allowed to edit, but they continue to do so via IPs, which I recognize by location, and by the articles the user is editing. It doesn't seem to make sense to add the IPs to the SPI if the CheckUsers won't connect IPs to accounts, so I'm not sure how to handle this. Should I just revert and leave it at that, or is there another recommended route to have the IPs dealth with? ANI? Thanks, sorry to bug ya. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Still report them to SPI just don't request CheckUser. The patrolling admin can look into it. Some admins will deal with it at AIV if there is current abuse but make sure you still report to SPI and link to it in the AIV report. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate the help. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Uploading Issues

Hello. I am trying to upload a new version of a file here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Battle_of_Aleppo_map.svg. But every time I try, I get the message "The XML in the uploaded file could not be parsed." What can I do so I do not get this message anymore and can upload a new version of the file. Thank You. Dr Marmilade (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Commons isn't my area of expertise, but Commons:Upload help is probably the best place to ask. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I will go there then, Thank you. Dr Marmilade (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Banned Friend

You recently banned my friend, User:The Erudite Philosopher, because of socketpuppeting. Can I ask what exactly he did wrong? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ofek Gila (talk • contribs) 02:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ofek Gila, The Erudite Philosopher was blocked (not banned) because they have used a number of account against policy. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Erudite Philosopher includes the evidence I used to come to that conclusion. Please also sure you review this policy as it may relate to your current situation. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

2 May 2014 Odessa clashes

I've noticed that you placed move protection on this article. There isn't a move dispute, however. All of that business was resolved. The problem is a content dispute, and full protection seems much more useful at present until it is resolved. RGloucester — ☎ 05:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much. RGloucester — ☎ 05:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was just about to comment at RFPP, I've protected it for one week and I'll keep an eye on the talk page in case sanctions against users are needed based on their talk page edits. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Uw-sanctions

In this edit, when you replaced the instances of {{tl|Ds/sanction}} with {{tl|Ds/alert}}, you also changed the usage of the template in the section for community sanctions, where it had been pressed into service, most recently by Bishonen. Was this intentional? I would change it back, but I see the Ds/sanction template has now been made a redirect. This should probably be posted elsewhere, for more eyes on the community (non-arbcom) sanctions issue, but I am unsure of where to post it. —Neotarf (talk) 10:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It was because Ds/sanction has a deprecated template on it which isn't what was intended. You could bring it up on WT:General sanctions or WP:AN perhaps. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I have started a move request at Template talk:Ds. —Neotarf (talk) 11:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Whitechristian2013/Archive

I should know the answer to this, but I'm not sure. Here is an obvious sock - virtually identical name and edits as the last couple of socks. What's the best way for me to proceed? SPI seems jammed so I want to see if I can do something simpler. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You can block and tag the account as an obvious DUCK then when you file the SPI do everything as normal expect note in the admincomment field that you blocked and tagged it. That way it'll be marked as closed and ready for archiving. Callanecc (alt) (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That's exactly what I wanted to do, deal with it in a way that didn't involved a lot of work from others. Dougweller (talk) 12:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Thenub314

was also in that AN/EW contretemps, and seemed to also be eminently warnable -- the decision had just come out, and those three seem to be using a bungee cord on the articles related to the Gun Control case. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

And Lightbreather has now formally notified me of the sanctions! LOL -- I fear I find it a blatantly ludicrous attempt to "get even" since I am not an active editor much in that area at all -- certainly not anywhere near the activity of the three boxers by more than an order of magnitude. [2] Are there any rules about this sort of "notice" being given for no apparently rational reason? [3] (You closed your own RfC. And then made a "bold edit" which per BRD is absolutely revertible, which means the ball is in your court on the talk page, not here. Unless you have strong reason to post here, don't was my post) shows me asking him not to post without strong reason on my user talk page after he appeared to act in a harassing manner. I regret that I find this sanction notice not to have been placed in actual good faith. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

[4] andhe seems a teeny bit persistent. Collect (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Collect, I would appreciate it, if you are going to speak ill of me, that you notify ME and provide diffs so that I can defend myself. Also, here, as at Newyorkbrad's talk page, you've opined about my intentions, about which you know nothing. Keep it on content, please. Lightbreather (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

What I know is that I ain't active' at "Gun Control" and you saw fit to notify me about "Gun Control". Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so this is supposed to be about me. Consider me warned. End of story. For what it is worth the statement "I am not an active editor much in that area at all -- not anywhere near the activity of the three boxers" is simply false, whether you realize it or not, your activity has exceeded my own. A quick/paste/search finds about 20 mentions of the word "gun" in my last 500 edits, and about 70 in yours. Perhaps you've stuck to talk/arbcomm drama, but don't try to caste yourself has less involved then me. Thenub314 (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

New Mass message Request

Hi there. I made a new request here. Mind reviewing it at this time? Thanks. Akifumii^Talk 03:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Akifumiil, thank you for trying to get this WikiProject going again. Until you get some more experience I'd rather you made requests on the talk page following the format on WP:MMS each time you'd like to send a message out so we know that you know what you're doing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks for the reply. I'd like to ask, if I gain more experience overtime can this permission still be granted to me? Would creating a notification template demonstrate what I want to do and make it more clear? Thanks. Akifumii^Talk 04:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

With quite a bit more experience and if you can demonstrate a need for it. You probably won't need to use it enough to warrant giving you the user right as opposed to just making a request for a message to be sent out. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

In this case, Akifumii I'd be happy to send out any mailings you may have, on your behalf. Jim Carter ^(talk) 13:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks guys for your support. I would be happy to contact you guys if I need a mass message sent for now. Thanks again. Akifumii^Talk 13:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

ds warning

Your attempt to warn Mallexikon failed - [5] details the filter log - the first attempt to warn someone comes up with an "are you sure?" screen. You need to hit save page twice. Hope that helps! Hipocrite (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

CVUA Instructor Request

Hi Callanecc! I'm -24. I would like to participate in the CVU through the academy and I was wondering if you could be my trainer. I know that it may look like I'm new and inexperienced but I have had experience with Wikipedia before. Nice meeting you! Cheers! -24^Talk 00:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Also I forgot to mention, I'm on UTC -7:00 (MST). -24^Talk 01:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi -24, I'm really busy at the moment so I probably won't be able to do a very good job of instructing. If you've had a previous account you should be editing with that account (see WP:SOCK unless WP:RTV applies in which case you shouldn't be advertising). If you still want to proceed can I suggest that you ask another instructor then if you have no luck there come back and let me know and I'll try and make some time. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

No worries. I'll find someone else. I actually didn't have an account before, just a heavily used IP account. -24^Talk 13:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The Who

Hi. You recently semi protected this article due to a claim of "Persistent vandalism". I've been watching the article since I took it to good article status last year, and while the IP edits such as this one falsify a source, I am happy to accept they simply have a different opinion from what the source says, and are stating it as such. Therefore the edits, though problematic, look like good faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia. A quick google search for "dynamics misery" reveals it was a single released in 1963, so it fits perfectly well into the timeframe set in the narrative. I also notice no attempt has been made to communicate with the IP via their talk page, but editors have edit-warred on it instead, which isn't particularly encouraging. Would you consider lifting the protection? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

As well as the most recent IP edits I was also looking at the history of them and using that as a context. Given given your request I've unprotected it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I support the IP edits. I left a comment on User talk:Radiopathy. I'm confident things will end up with Wikipedia getting the correct information. Willondon (talk) 02:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

My Revisions

Hi there.

I have recently been undoing vandalism like edits using Lupins Vandal tool. I have also been patrolling new pages and adding tags to the articles that need them. I wanted to ask about my performance here. Is everything I am doing good? What can I do to improve my work? Is the way I patrol/edit things the way it is supposed to be? I just want some feedback if you can help. Thanks. Akifumii^Talk 03:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

SPI close request

Hi Callanecc. I'm here because you are a clerk for SPI. Could you please mark Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Triforcepwr as "close" so it can be archived? Upon reflection, I realize the SPI filing was rather unnecessary, and the sockpuppet has already been blocked. No further action is required. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Another hopefully simple sock question

If you look at Nordic race (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) you can see that a new editor, Maeveh, opened a new account as Maeveg and made a similar edit. I'm guessing that was related to a couple of mild warnings I gave them about maintenance templates, layout and edit summaries. I don't want to put this editor off or create a lot of drama, but I think I need to do something, any suggestions as to what would be appropriate? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Probably best to indef the sock and leave a message/warning ({{uw-sockwarn}} is the template version). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought that would be ok but wanted to check. Dougweller (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

disruptive editing??

Re this I have to wonder why you single me out, given what's been going on at WP:NCL. I'm not the one being "disruptive" there, I'm the one pointing out the disruptive attempts to block needed changes to that guideline; and now being targeted by that editor for yet more official harassment. The last ANIs against me were caused, if that's the word, by my (successful) attempts to refute disruptive behaviour by that same editor in countless RMs. Please watch where you're pointing the finger. I tire of being scapegoated in response to the high success rate of the RMs contested by that editor, and have been careful to only point out illogics and various manglings of what other people have said.Skookum1 (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

He may have just not gotten the right diff for this, but it's typical in many ways of the more subtle of his various misrepresentations: "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 188"m that diff being the very same one as given in the line before as No. 187. He made no attempt at all to "resolve dispute on article talk page". Generally his mispresentations and distortions and confabulations of what he claims others have said or called for are much more blatant; here it's just a technical point of "error"....like the claim that I had committed 3RR, which as you can see from that talkpage, is simply not the case. I get accused of "walls of text" as if being detailed in response to something overly simplistic or misleading were a crime, but what you will see there and at the WP:NCET talkpage are "walls of illogic"....he behaved similarly in the recent round of RMs, where he "spammed" the same post across dozens of discussions, and was similarly counter-logical in last year's RMs over St'at'imc/Ktunaxa/Secwepemc/Nlaka'pamux/Tsilhqot'in where it was also observed that he was baiting me, as well as fielding endless red herring arguments and counter-logical "ideas"....I'll save my breath; it's a long history of this kind of thing, and has wasted whole months of my time, and Wikipedia's.Skookum1 (talk) 09:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

You were alerted, which as the message I left you stated states that it doesn't apply misconduct on your part. I also stated at ANEW that as Kwamikagami has already been alerted you can file a request at WP:AE if you believe they have repeatedly not adhered to Wikipedia's standards of behaviour. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

the makings of a set of such diffs, a small part of them anyway, I added to the discussion re similar behaviour in the past, including in how NCL was changed and how NCP was lobbied, and what was said in edit comments. But given that I was put to an ANI for an interjection of much the same kind as I am replying to here, it's even more "odd" that what I am responding to completely misrepresents what I said (makes it up, actually), says I'm not talking about what everyone else is talking about when I clearly am, and also that a CANVASS has been made in very non-neutral terms, at WikiProject Languages. I realize it's not quite the same interjection as both my comments were signed and they were of different vintages (the upper one being newer than what follows, which I annotated to clarify that I am replying to Cuchullain, not Kwami, and to give context to the first phrases of that reply. Much about what is going is irregular; I see it as a filibuster; same as what was done to forestall changes at WP:NCET and also in the course of many RMs.....time, time, time, and yet I'm the one who's "not talking what anybody else is talking about" and have been roasted over the fire for speaking my mind and pointing to facts and guidelines....and having someone say to my face I've said things I didn't say; and I'm not the only one who's gotten that.Skookum1 (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

another violation-by-fabrication of something he claims I've said, which I haven't.Skookum1 (talk) 07:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

As I said before, if you believe there are grounds please make a request for sanctions at WP:AE so that it may be more thoroughly reviewed by other administrators. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi protection of Brunei

Hi Callanecc, the Brunei article has become a target for vandalism recently, but given the similarity between the edits I think it's fairly likely they originate from the same person. Protecting the article indefinitely might be excessive, especially as similar restrictions are often forgotten and end up staying in place for years. Won't it be enough to protect it for a few months? Thanks--eh bien mon prince (talk) 09:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a long term history of vandalism and disruptive edits to the article which make me believe that indefinite protection is necessary. I agree that sometimes indefinite semi protections can be forgotten, however that generally happens on lower profile pages (such as bands or musicians which are in the public spotlight and then slowly drift out but remain indef'd). If you look at the traffic stats for that article you can see that it receives a high number of views each day so it is high profile. So I believe the indef semi is warranted and that the vandalism (etc) isn't likely to slow down. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Especially for your work at WP:RFPP. You have made several wise decisions recently. Bearian (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

A question about Arbitration Requests Enforcement

Everyone is allowed to comment there? OccultZone (Talk) 16:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes everyone can make a statement. Obviously as long as it contributes to the discussion such as adding evidence or policy/guideline which applies. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification request(Gun control :Gaijin42)

An arbitration amendment request(Gun control :Gaijin42), which either involved you, or in which you commented, has been archived, because the request was declined.

The original discussion can be found here. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 23:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Move

Hi. Can you move N. Chandrababu Naidu to Nara Chandrababu Naidu per WP:COMMONNAME? Thanks,ƬheStrikeΣagle ^sorties 08:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Fine you seem to be quite busy....will get it done in some other way :) ƬheStrikeΣagle ^sorties 11:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted this move. His common name does not include the expanded "Nara". See his own Twitter, for example.—indopug (talk) 04:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

ARBCC notice request

Hi Callanecc!

I am (still) picking on you for this request since you are the admin who formally notified me, in a friendly FYI sort of way, about ARBCC. Would you please do the same for John2510 (talk · contribs)? As we have discussed before, there isn't any backstory necessary before these notices can be formally sent to someone. But I'll provide a summation from my point of view anyway.

In the thread Talk:Global_warming#Continuing?, there seems to be a steadfast refusal on John's part to discuss RS content, but abundant implied and explicit references to other eds' POVs, and vague references to climate folks being "religious nuts". We have exchanged user talk comments (his page and my page) but that appears to be unproductive. I considered spending more time in user talk elaborating details, but John's response in the voice of the third person rather dashed my optimism. Thanks for reading. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Callanec's been helpful to me so I've save him the job by doing this myself using the new template. Dougweller (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Bless you, my son. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

PS But waaaaiiiittt a second.... I've lost track with the ARB/DS review process and have two questions

• 1 Has the "new template" been officially activated? (I did test-administer it to myself, and of course Doug just used it so it works, but my question is about the status of our procedures and processes.)

• 2 Are we still logging notifications at the appropriate ruling page, in this case at Wikipedia:ARBCC#Notifications ? During the DS review I have participated in, there has been discussion of dispensing with that in favor of turning on some sort of new feature in the logs via tagging... (I don't have the vocab in my brain anymore so please read that for gist instead of precise summation of the proposal.)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy Yes and no, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions and the template itself at Template:Ds/alert - which I presume you've seen, and the current Singpost Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single. Dougweller (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Doug. My question was answered by the signpost link. Although I supported the proposal during DS review, I quit paying attention and was unaware that the arbs had taken a vote, much less that it passed with 100%. That's great. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Please block User:Nerd in Texas

Heads up!

User:Nerd in Texas please block per WP:NOTHERE. After reviewing his history almost every edit is nonconstructive. Hosts hoax articles in his userspace. Seems like the editor is unhappy that his articles were deleted and is now trying to remove legitimate articles by improper tagging. Looks like WP:DUCK to me. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually he moved the hoax article Gravioli into the mainspace. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's good, Bishonen took care of it :) Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Kombucha

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 04:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Clarify TBAN

This Arbcom enforcement action is a bit vague. How long is the TBAN? (Forever? Forever and a Day? Or something less?) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Notification of a June AfC BackLog Drive

Hello Callanecc:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

The AfC helper script can assist you in tallying your edits automatically. To view a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. Sent on behalf of (t) Josve05a (c) by {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} using the MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Archiving locked page

Callanecc, you should revert the archive you did here. If you look at the history, I locked the page based on the edit war going on. That lock would of course apply to administrators as well short of exceptional circumstances. If you look at the effect of your archive, you'll see that what's there now makes no sense. I could revert you myself, but I'd rather you self-reverted. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc, I went ahead and reverted. I'm logging off soon, and it didn't look to me like you've been on-wiki for many hours. I didn't want to leave it in the state it was in, so ... Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

No worries, I missed that until after I'd archived it then completely forgot to revert it. I've restored it to the main case page so that the report isn't lost in page histories. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on User talk:CorporateM/Extant Organizations

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on User talk:CorporateM/Extant Organizations. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I am helpless

please go through the details here [6]

Inspite of all my efforts darkness shines is getting sympathy and support. Please go through the first paragraph and last paragraph in details. i don't know where did i go wrong that administrator eatsshootsandleaves is rejecting my reference removal proof.--112.79.36.29 (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding a sanction you imposed

Hello, would you please review my statement here to determine if the sanction you imposed has been transgressed?

This is an odd situation of a user who calls his imagined enemies "scoundrels" and "pisspoor bastards" in an off-wiki declaration of war, uses a sockpuppet to harass editors and inflame battleground sentiments, brings two arbitration requests and an ANI against those he perceives to be his opponents, and targets me especially with continual evidence-free attacks, all while espousing high-minded ideals on-wiki.

At the very least I would like these attacks to stop. As you know, this is a solid case of sockpuppeting (and there is even further off-site evidence confirming it), and there is no basis for Askahrc's claim of misconduct on my part for filing that SPI or any other SPI. Nonetheless we hear through Tumbleman's proxy Askahrc that Tumbleman denies the socking, and Askahrc does not understand that Tumbleman is not telling him the truth.

Had the Chopra representative not pinged me, I would not have even found Askahrc's attack on the Chopra page. There may be others, but the link to my statement should point to enough (the last arbitration request, his user page, and elsewhere). Please tell me if you need more. vzaak 08:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I looked at that request and some edits around the same time and I think it's still borderline and won't likely result in a sanctions so it's still a matter of waiting until there is more serious misconduct. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Since the off-site "pisspoor bastards" post, the attacks have been ongoing and completely without substance. I don't understand why my attempts at AE to stop this bullying have been ignored. He doesn't heed warnings from me, that's for sure. What can I do to stop this? vzaak 06:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you show me some of the onwiki attacks (or if he's linked to off wiki attacks) you're referring to (or email them if you think that would be appropriate) and from there with those in mind I'll have a further look through his contribs and go from there. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is a sample,

• Askahrc falsely claims that I called him a "liar".[7]

• "You're one thorough sneak, Vzaak."[8]

• "User:Vzaak appears to be disgruntled".[9] (No, I wasn't.)

• "Vzaak is trying to get me blocked".[10] (No, I have never said that.)

• "failed attempts since then by Vzaak to get me blocked".[11] (Again, no.)

• Askahrc has proxied blocked user Tumbleman's aspersions against me.[12][13][14][15]

• Askahrc suggests the first SPI was somehow equivocal, and falsely claims an admin told me to "stop".[16]

• Askahrc again suggests the first SPI was equivocal.[17]

• Askahrc suggests that I engaged in misconduct by filing SPIs.[18] (No admin has ever suggested this.)

• The bizarre arbitration request in which Askahrc says I harassed him because I caught him harassing users with a sockpuppet. The request is filled with falsehoods, for instance: I have never said there are "enemies", or that "anyone who has a different POV on the Sheldrake page should be blocked", or that Askahrc "needs" to be blocked, or made "barrages of blocking attempts", or violated WP:CIVIL.[19]

There is an ongoing effort, initiated from off-wiki, to discredit both me and the SPIs. None of it has any merit, or even makes much sense. The strategy, however, is exceedingly effective: create a barrage of baseless accusations. If I respond to every one, it's a WP:WALLOFTEXT that gets ignored. If I respond to a small sample, the sample gets rebutted with another barrage. Repeat. You're probably put off by the length of this comment, while there is so much more that could be listed.

Here is an example of how the process works. In the tabled AE I said: So many of Askahrc's points are not true...For instance it's not true that "the edit in question has been one of the most frequently changed on the page by nearly a dozen editors". Askahrc's response was to say "this paragraph in the lead I was referring to has been edited countless times" and to give examples like this. That is just fraud: I was talking about a particular quote -- what does a trivial punctuation edit have to do with anything? He lists other edits that didn't touch the quote in question -- again, no relevance. It reminds me Askahrc's "word for word duplicate" defense in his first SPI, which Atama called out.[20]

The lack of admin response appears to have emboldened Askahrc. A similar pattern is seen in his attack on Hipocrite: "you've been arguing pretty vehemently that I should not be allowed on WP at all".[21] That's just not true. Atama stepped in to get the statement retracted.

All that I ask is the same courtesy. Askahrc will no doubt continue the off-wiki bullying campaign (his recent off-wiki post calls me and others "dicks"), but the on-wiki bullying must stop. That means removing aspersions and balmy polemics on his talk page, and especially no more proxying aspersions from his off-wiki partner, an indef blocked user who admins called a troll. Is that too much to ask? vzaak 03:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:SPI

I was looking at some SPI cases, having just filed one and I'm puzzled by the outcomes. In this case, Ruhn950 had multiple accounts and received a one week block. I saw other editors who were found to have sock accounts who received similar blocks (1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month). But then there are many cases like Difulton where an editor receives an immediate indefinite block. When I've seen editors with these indefinite blocks for socking requesting to be unblocked, they are usually told to take the standard offer--no socking for 6-12 months and then try again. Also, editors receiving WP:DUCK blocks also usually receive indefinite blocks.

So, there is a great disparity between a one week block and, effectively, a 6-12 month block and I don't see that much different in the cases, there are two or three sock accounts, not a sockfarm. When considering how to react to a SPI that finds confirmed or likely socking, what factors influence the length of time of a block? I'm not arguing for leniency or harshness, I'm just trying to understand how SPI works. Thanks for any assistance you can offer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@Liz:, I don't think that there was anything wrong in that SPI. It was pretty obvious that one user(markdrows) had socked even after knowing about socking, so they have been indeffed. Rukn950 wasn't so aware about sock puppet guidelines. Other users didn't socked, meat puppetery is just an allegation, it is just many of the supporters of Mufaddal Saifuddin hails from a specific town. I am trying to say that it was pretty good decision. OccultZone (Talk) 19:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I just read over the SPI of the cases, OccultZone, I don't know all of the details behind them or the editors. And I'm not criticizing the admins...I couldn't even tell you which admin administered which block! I'm just trying to understand the parameters that lead to one editor receiving a one week block while most editors (especially in WP:DUCK blocks) receive indefinite blocks. I'm asking several checkusers because they are the most familiar with sockpuppet cases and have the most experience. From what I've seen, it is often a different admin who comes along, determines the extent of the block and carries it out. I meant to ask this in as neutral a way as possible, I'm sorry if this didn't come across that way. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. OccultZone (Talk) 23:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It does have a lot to do with the admin issuing the block. Primarily the factors which would be considered are:

• Number of sockpuppets
• Age and experience of the master (i.e. should they have known it was wrong)
• Which part(s) of WP:ILLEGIT where broken, some dot points will generally receive more leniency
  • What were the socks being used to do (generally if it was only one or two and they were edit warring on a single page the master block won't be indef)
• History of the master account - are they editing constructively or not, so would the project be better without them completely

Those are the main things which go into a decision, but it really just depends on the admin who reviewed it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

About Your Training program At WP:CVUA

Hello. I was wondering If you could take me in as a Trainee At WP:CVUA. Thanks! Dudel250 (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dudel250, I've been quite bust for a while and will continue to be for at least a month or two so it would probably be best to ask one of the other trainers. If you can't find someone please feel free to let me know and I'll see what I can work out. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I would but you seem to be the only person in my time zone Dudel250 Chat PROD Log CSD Logs 01:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The time zone doesn't really matter that much as you'd need to be on Wikipedia at the same time as me for it to make a difference. Also regarding your signature, there isn't really a reason to include a link to your PROD or CSD logs but rather link to them on your user page so that they don't add unnessary text to the page and make it easier to read. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Good point. The Signature Is mostly because Some of the things i do needs other people to find pages that ive tagged. Mostly When i'm Doing New Page Patrol Related work. I'm Mostly Expermenting With What Works Right Now Dudel250 Chat PROD Log CSD Logs 03:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: Further evidence

I think it's time to put this one to bed, it can be reopened if further evidence comes to light.

Regarding your closing comments on May 7,[22] I think we have some new evidence.

• In 2009, ChildofMidnight removed a redirect and restored a POV fork of the climate change topic called climate variability.[23] He proceeded to "work" on it from June 28-29, 2009.[24] I use the term "work" in quotes because it looks like he forked the material over from other articles like the parent topic. The POV fork was properly restored to the appropriate redirect on January 1, 2010. [25]
• ChildofMidnight was blocked by arbcom on March 9, 2010,[26] and abandoned his account ten days later.[27]
• Just five days ago, on May 15, 2014, Candleabracadabra restored this obscure article.[28] He then proceeded to "work" on it from May 15-19, restoring the bulk of material added by ChildofMidnight.[29]
• On the same day, Candleabracadabra restored an alternate redirect, Climatic variability, and reverted to ChildofMidnight's version.[30]
• The two primary editors of both redirects are ChildofMidnight and Candleabracadabra, with edits separated four years apart.
• On May 17, he created the article climatological normal, a new stub article that links to climate variability.

Perhaps kelapstick would like to weigh in with an opinion here. Again, I bring this up because this occurred after the last SPI was closed. Viriditas (talk) 03:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI, for reference, full talk page histories have been strangely moved to User talk:Candleabracadabra/archive and User:Candleabracadabra/archive2, in case you wanted to review them. Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Callanecc and Viriditas, and thank you both for your efforts. I, and maybe others, should have some more to say, perhaps later today ('tis only 5:20 am yet). Thank you for the excellent research Viriditas.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Notification

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChildofMidnight. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-af-contact

Template:Uw-af-contact has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Mz7 (talk) 03:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Procedural question

You logged DS's topic ban here. I don't have a problem with that, but can't it also be logged at WP:Editing restrictions? I suppose it's not exactly imposed by the community, nor by the Committee, but, otherwise, one would have to look at all the arbitration pages to find out if a particular editor was t-banned. What do you think?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

AE actions have never been logged at WP:Editing restrictions except with the BLP special enforcement special case. I guess the main reasons would be so that the page isn't massive and that it would increase the workload of he sanctioning admin in that they need to log it at another place. It would probably need a community discussion or ArbCom asking for it because it would need the page to be changed and also change what is required of enforcing admins. I can definitely see the benefits of having a section there for AE sanctions but it does create extra work. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree it would be extra work for the administrator imposing the ban, but it would be minimal compared to the work of an administrator trying to find out if an editor is t-banned through the AE process. A community discussion sounds unappealing to me. How would I go about getting ArbCom to "ask" for it?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Probably just a post at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests asking for their opinions would probably be best. Though they may ask for a discussion at WT:Editing restrictions before deciding. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and initiated.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• I also have a query regarding the Enforcement log of ARBIP case. You have placed warning to FPaS in the section "Log of blocks and bans" which I don't think qualifies as a block or ban. So shouldn't it be in the "Notifications" section? Because I remember once moving such an entry there. -- SMS ^Talk 13:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The "Log of blocks and bans" has become synonymous to "Individual sanctions" (which it is called on all new cases, but due to incoming links is harder to change on well known cases). As the warning was issued as a sanction for behaviour it goes into that section, especially since the notifications section will become completely redundant in less than a year as the effect of the old notifications runs out one year after the new DS procedures. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Accepted

Thank you.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

CVUA?

I know you said on the list that you weren't taking applicants, but I've been looking for a trainer for a while now, and none have responded "yes" by now. I was wondering, if I exhaust the list of trainers active in the last week, will you take me for CVUA? Thanks! --Lixxx235 (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you help me with this -- an article has been merged when deletion review result was 'keep' and discussion of merger was on.

Hi User:Callanecc, and User:Superm401, the result of discussion for deletion of Ayodhya and After: Issues Before Hindu Society was keep. The merger was against consensus in the middle of a discussion and it was carried out in gross negligence of merge guidelines -- I can't even find the talk page of the merged article. I have brought it up on the relevant talk page. It must be reverted, how can I do that? Can you guide me to the relevant guidelines? Jyoti (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted the merge and updated the talk page and the merge discussion section. Thank you. Jyoti (talk) 10:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

@Jyoti.mickey: If there is consensus against the merge, it wouldn't be merged. But if there is consensus supporting the merge, then it cannot be avoided. OccultZone (Talk) 03:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is And this is EXACTLY why this was a horrible idea.... Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I was already going to send you a score of diffs from today, but....

See my reply below

might as well just show you this and the section following. Idiocy, ignorance or arrogance, call it what you will; his reverse-reality claims in edit comments are increasingly obnoxious; I already showed you some on the NCL page..... there are hundreds; his campaign of counter-reality is beyond description, I'm busy teaching and will return later.Skookum1 (talk) 04:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC) For the current edit war he's waging, which of course he accuses me of being at fault for, see my usercontributions and the "hist" on items linked there.Skookum1 (talk) 04:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC) I had ignored the last harassment-ANI launched by Maunus, who had himself NPA'd me viciously, as well as made up stuff for the ANI, not just distortions; someone happened to send me the link privately so I [User_talk:Skookum1#Post-archival_replies made some comments after it was archived without knowing]; my comments that were "not made" are worth reading, please, as they address and highlight the campaign of false claims and blind hostility and complete misrepresentations and fabrications that are becoming too common in ANIs; some measure of "truthiness" and a way to enforce it is sorely needed; ANI is a bearpit; Kwami has for a long time, since the Talk:St'at'imc#Requested move sought to blame me for this and that and wants me blocked/banned to get me out of his way, and postures in the ANI about not being hostile to me when that's demonstrably not the case; a grudge match perhaps, but it's created a situation where some people think I'm the bad guy; the spurious complaints by Maunus and Uyvsdi in Maunus' ANI are off-the-wall and unsubstantiated fabrications and distortions; calling Requested Moves "undiscussed moves" and complaining about disruption to Maunus' watchlist are stock-in-trade for the failure of logic and reality at ANI...here is a link to the comments I made after the ANI was archives and they're worth a read. If I'm dragged there again, by Kwami or anyone else ("the community tires of you" etc...from people I've never heard of before) is just more harassment; Wiki-bureaucracy seems more concerned with stability, even protecting errors, than it does with applying actual policy; and with making personal assassination a tool to continue that practice; if any of the people criticizing me were to stop doing so and start digging into title histories and actually reading the whole of the policies/guidelines they misquote/misuse things might be a bit different; instead, simplistic one-liners are fielded, false accusations are the mainstay, and personal attack is what is used to go after legitimate criticism as if it were NPA instead of points about logic, policy, actions etc. The reverts of the Bantu/Bantu people category are particularly inane; but then is so much else. The same people who rant and rail and threaten me with censure do not themselves try to fix the many category and name problems that are out there, and are more concerned with wars-of-personality than fixing the problems they are either complacent towards or complicit in, or which are just mechanical, but portrayed as "edit wars".....by in this case the very person who's conducting the edit wars. NCL needs to go to RfC to get resolved; the alternative is to send PRIMARYTOPIC, TITLE and more to RfC to get them to conform to what Kwami wants. Is that "the way Wikipedia works"?Skookum1 (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC) mis-citing guidelines and policies by him has been going on for a lot longer than his re-authorship of NCL to suit himself; here, before that guideline was hijacked by his agenda, he claims MOS supports adding "people" to titles, which it expressly does not. In cases like this one, he cites "per TWODABS" even though TWODABS itself says ""If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed"......calling white black was his game at the NCL talkpage, and in scores of RMs, and at the stalemate at WP:NCET where he also derailed and stonewalled the discussion he demanded in lieu of all the RMs he lost but still won't acknowledge consensus from. People rail at me for how many bytes my post are, but how many bytes does [[Yabbaddabbadoo people|Yabbaddabbadoo]] use up when it's repeated across all the places it might occur, multiplied by "five thousand" articles? The lack of proportion by those making such complaints relative to the violations of policy they wind up is breathtaking; that they burn up kilobytes of space arguing about how to punish me for alleged wrongdoing is far larger than my own longish statements in my defense. Maybe my considerable writing energies are really better-spent in real-world writing where I'm not hamstrung by Wikipedians' insecurities and penchant for personal criticism instead of addressing issues.....maybe so, lord knows I don't get paid for all my time here, and walking the beach to the gym yesterday I was painfully aware of how much time remaining in my life might be taken up arguing the obvious with people without logical faculties, knowledge of the subject matter, and an inability to read more than a few sentences at a time (which explains why their simplistic quotes of guidelines/policies miss what else those policies and guidelines say). If that's perceived as NPA, I've been called a lot worse around here and nobody says boo about it. That people can become admins and wield power over regular contributors without having logical abilities or the broad knowledge to decide on what is right and wrong on topic/title issues and instead focus on personal accusations instead of debating actual issues, content and cites is not just a "Kwami thing", it's widespread; cf the exchanges between me and EnricNaval on Talk:Poland-Lithuania#Requested move re Wikipedians "enforcing" their own tastes about such things in spite of sources and regular English usage; same with t he "people" dabs.....not incidental that the hyphen-dash thing is another area where Kwami conducted discussion-blockades and wasted a lot of time demanding proof for what was obvious to anyone who knew the titles already (Talk:Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District#Requested move, where he closed an RM he took part in saying "not my preference" in the close, begrudgingly...... how much or everybody else's time is such an obfuscator/obstructionist going to consume before he's reined in? Sure, I go on in defense of myself, or about detailing why a simplistic or "pat" statement is flawed, but I don't field illogics, false claims, and misrepresent what others say as a matter of regular practice which is his m.o. Is it worth my time to compile five hundred to a thousand diffs of his misconduct for an AE? I don't know; I'd rather not, it's just more unpaid time trying to deal with a fool that other people take at face value as if he's credible even when he's decidedly NOT. That being said, I'm going to have lunch, walk the beach to the gym, and go have a swim at my favourite beach here; and think about ways to put my knowledge to earning income, instead of combatting pointless and endless name-games and ..... yada yada yada etc. I guess other people who are constantly online in Wikipedia, like Kwami, have endless funds to support themselves; I don't, so more and more the waste of time here is aggravating.....and makes me hungry in more ways than one. Writing for my own sake instead of hobbled by wiki-language and the fussy interference of know-nothings and the arrogance of a few is probably where I'm headed; I'm considered a good writer by other people than Wikipedians, who claim I'm "incoherent" and unintelligible because of "walls of text".... The post-literate nature of such logics should be of concern to teh top brass of Wikimedia, it doesn't bode well for the future of the encyclopedia or its considerable influence on the public mind....Skookum1 (talk) 06:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC) One more message re ongoing foolishness; the falsity and misrepresentations continue; see [[31]].Skookum1 (talk) 06:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

As I've said a few times before if you believe there is misconduct it should either go to ANI or to AE. From what I've seen it looks like you have enough to make a case, as long as you don't make it too long which the above definitely is. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration template edits

Hi. I'm not sure edits such as this are accurate. It seems pretty bizarre that ArbCom could retroactively create policy like this. The case is from 2010 and that enforcement provision wasn't born until 2012. Of course it's inapplicable. That whole series of edits of yours looks pretty ill-considered. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

He's right. That template should only be applied to cases where the previous standard enforcement clause was applied. It does not belong on the linked case. Risker (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The application of this standard clause may appear odd in MZM's case. He was not subject to any restrictions per the outcome of his case. The Enforcement section was blank. So, while Arbcom could certainly update any appeal provisions on old cases, there was (in effect) nothing to update there. Nonetheless if you read the motion at this page, part 8, it looks as though Arbcom wanted *all* old cases updated with this language. They might not have noticed that there were some cases where the change seemed irrelevant, but the simplest interpretation is that they wanted all old cases updated. EdJohnston (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

There's no applicable section in this case, because there was no enforcement section on it. Risker (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

As a general note, I'd strongly caution against updating old cases. Some of the cases from your recent edits are nearly ten years old. I think you risk poking some very old and grumpy bears and/or reviving some very old and grumpy ghosts of cases past. (Are there any other silly analogies I can use here to underscore my point? ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• I've inquired at WT:ACN if this was truly the intention of the committee. To me, the amendment reads that the new standard enforcement clause should update the ones that were in existence prior to that date, not that they should be applied to every case the committee has ever heard. Risker (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

INSEAD

I have witnessed the activities on INSEAD and several IP addresses originating from Saudi Arabia and a mail server, as indicated by another person have intentionally removed pertinent information on INSEAD such as campus locations, endowment, rankings and others that are based on facts and thus cannot be disputed. We should restore them.

Comparing the page before and now, I see that the statement of INSEAD being widely considered as one of the best business schools, along with the three citations below is missing. This statement exists in many top business schools' descriptions on wikipedia as seen on The Kellogg School of Management and The Wharton School of Business pages to name a few. The URLs below certainly describe INSEAD as one of the elite business schools in terms of rankings, faculty and leaders of tomorrow. Therefore, the statement is supported and qualified.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/c23fee2c-7f60-11e3-b6a7-00144feabdc0.html?segid=0100320#axzz2qwel0E6h http://www.thinkers50.com/wp-content/uploads/T50-2013Shortlists-PRESS-RELEASE-5-2.pdf http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-12-03/hbs-stanford-insead-and-london-business-school-have-most-wanted-mbas

Also, looking at the rankings, I see a discrepancy. The particular rankings information from the Economist is excluded in other top business schools' rankings information. My guess is that the Economist's rankings are highly disputed and thus excluded in Wikipedia descriptions of top business schools. Please refer again to pages that pertain to the rankings of The Kellogg School of Management, The Wharton School of Business etc. 23:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by האורים והתומים (talk • contribs)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Well done on Lipscomb page Thewho515 (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

User Lw1982 seems to be an SPA and has reverted page 6 times now. If IP is the same that makes 7 or 8- already been warned for edit warring (cites Daily Mail) Thewho515 (talk) 09:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar. I left the IP unblocked partly to see if it is Lw1982 and so is autoblocked. I've alerted Lw1982 to discretionary sanctions so if they continue I'll topic ban them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I have question. What if there is an editor, who has edited only 1 specific page for last 3 years, and takes it personally if any edits have been made against his will. What can be done about that? OccultZone (Talk) 10:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

(watching) That is called ownership and not wanted. In theory. However, it happens all the time, see for example recent history and discussion of Chopin, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

So I guess it might be easy to convince anyone that the editor is carrying out disruptive editing or they have battleground mentality. Even if 3rr rule hasn't been broken or any other rule. OccultZone (Talk) 12:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

You can easily convince me that "disruptive" can mean something positive ;) (look for the word on my talk) - I don't know the specific case, - could you talk to the editor in question? explain the concept? - Chopin: several people tried, including me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc has protected a page called Suzannah Lipscomb, you may want to check the talk page, as well as a listed issue on WP:COIN. I was thinking if Callanecc could help, because nothing is really objected on the noticeboard by the handlers, but still, the user has been heavily alleged for WP:COI, because they are ultimately an WP:SPA for 3 years or more. OccultZone (Talk) 13:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I have serious concerns about edits on the Lipscomb page. After todays reverts to Callanecc I think that WP:SPA is what this is all about. Source Library of Congress uses on two names in header. Discretionary sanctions seem to ignored to the point of extended edit warring. Rule broken twice by two editors. I agree with OccultZone that editor(s) are editor is carrying out disruptive editing. Page was up for deletion (no idea why) and by overwhelming consensus a Keep. I have not been able to look at anything else because of the daily revision to this page. I look back at talk history and this seems to have personal tone. Something needs to be done. This is an ad nauseam edit war. Thewho515 (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@Thewho515: That's the problem. Afd for proving notability was something new to me. I don't really want him to be blocked, but currently there is no hope that he's going to learn. OccultZone (Talk) 05:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, an putting up Afd was extreme to say the least. I saw the subject on my Television present a programme just tonight! The keep consensus was overwhelming as I'm sure you saw. ownership of the article is not wanted. I think would prefer a WP:SPA with WP:COI instead of an WP:SPA with no conflicts editing the page if every edit was unwarranted and unwanted and in some cases edit warring with facts. That would lead me to believe that there is an agenda. I certainly would hope there is not. Let's see what Callanecc has to say about the discretionary sanctions obviously ignored by the WP:SPA. If you look at what Mdann had to say on talk page, it looks to me like WP:DRN is coming. It is a violation of the Biographies of Living perrsons policy. In addition, it is against policy written in WP:OTRS. Finally, the editing while logged out violates WP:SOCK. I can see no other course but will wait for a consensus Thewho515 (talk) 06:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked Lw1982 for the reasons I stated on their talk page and alerted them to the discretionary sanctions. If they continue to edit against policies/guidelines then I'll impose further sanctions, but we need to wait and see what happens before I can do that. The best thing everyone can do is continue to discuss the article on the talk page and gather consensus and to try and include Lw1982 in discussions on the talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes we saw that, most of the time(on this section) we were talking about MdeBohun. OccultZone (Talk) 06:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

MdeBohun has been gracious and taken a step back whereas Lw1982 has been ignoring the talk page and reverting anyone and everyone's revisions. If you look at Lw1982 they are a WP:SPA but the purpose is in doubt as they clearly ignored a protected page Suzannah Lipscomb, despite warnings & discretionary sanctions. There is something to what (User:Gerda Arendt) has to say. Thanks again. Callanecc I think everyone should use talk page for discussion and that would certainly put an end to warring. Thanks also for the use of your talk Callanecc I now withdraw to talk page Suzannah Lipscomb cheers Thewho515 (talk) 07:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc Trying to reach consensus on Suzannah Lipscomb if you want to weigh in. Users still editing while logged out; Doing so violates WP:SOCK. Possible violations of the Biographies of Living perrsons policy too. Thewho515 (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@Thewho515: As far as I know Callanecc, if it is going to be protected then it will be protected from all users except those who are administrators. We had similar or maybe worse incidents on the page, Mufaddal Saifuddin. After the protection, multiple users were convicted of sock puppetry. OccultZone (Talk) 03:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

User:OccultZone Then I must avoid the Mufaddal Saifuddin page. After the conviction for WP:SOCK were they hanged or given electrocution? :) Seriously though I cant imagine how someone logged out reverted a protected page? or why? Thewho515 (talk) 04:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

@Thewho515: Creating new accounts and supporting own opinion on talk pages, noticeboards. That's how it went. Some editor had recruited people from real life. Check [32] [33]. Both parties involved in socking. OccultZone (Talk) 04:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting! Thewho515 (talk) 04:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

SPI report you closed

Callanecc, you closed a SPI on TheRedPenOfDooom (talk · contribs) on May 22nd, noting the obvious attempt at the username impersonation. I'm confident this is actually another sock of TekkenJinKazama (talk · contribs). If you look through Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TekkenJinKazama/Archive, you can see that the IP's are in TJK's usual range and TJK has closely copied a user name before (search for Ravensfire1 and ChanderForYouu). G S Palmer made the connection in a discussion on his talk page. Ravensfire (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Accurateinfo973

Callanecc, I changed the tags of the puppets to confirmed and archived it. I was "trained" that any CU finding other than unrelated, unlikely, or inconclusive should be tagged as confirmed. I don't think there's any policy on this, so it may vary from CU to CU. I personally would prefer consistency in this area, but I don't know if that's possible. Ponyo: thoughts?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I really don't know, that's why I almost always leave the tagging to the clerks ;). Reading through the options at Template:Sockpuppet I personally would lean towards using {{sockpuppet|username|blocked}} if the block is based mainly on behavioural evidence (as is often the case with anything less than a "likely" or "confirmed" finding). I would use the {{sockpuppet|username|confirmed}} tag for any blocks based primarily on strong CU evidence (i.e. "likely" or "confirmed" findings). At the end of the day if a sock account is tagged, I think as long as there is a link to the SPI that allows whomever is interested to review the evidence presented themselves, then the actual tag used is not so important. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Poor hapless clerks, so little guidance, so much inconsistency. I tend to agree with your last sentence, Ponyo. I'm just hopelessly addicted to accurate documentation, even when it probably doesn't matter. It's obsessive. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear, then you'd probably be horrified by the number of tags that likely don't even name the correct master. But that's a whole other can of worms, so please feel free to pretend I didn't mention it!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Also pay no attention to all the cases listed under the wrong masters. ;) ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

We might as well hold a conference. The first item on the agenda - tagging is a mess and no one can master its depths - has passed. Second item: does Wikipedia imitate life, or does life imitate Wikipedia? All impersonation votes count double. Sock puppet votes count triple. Sock master votes count quadruple. Consensus is irrelevant; only counts matter. Canvassing is not only permitted but encouraged.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, I think you just described a Checkuser's Eighth Circle of Hell.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

While you're both here, do either of you use the "Contribs-confirmed sock" option (which uses Template:Blockedsock) or "Checked sock" option (which uses Template:Checkedsock)? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Bowe Bergdahl

I just requested semi protection on this article, but got notified that you had previously declined a request. Could you take a look at the more recent editing history and see if you think it may now be appropriate? While there is some well sourced critical commentary of both Bergdahl and Obama in the article (added by me actually) there is a lot of drive by addition of unsourced BLP violations that are not following policy, stating as a fact that he went AWOL etc. as well as various pure vandalism edits [34] [35] [36]. Thanks for taking a look. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

AIV removal without resolution

Hi Callanecc, I filed a report at AIV a couple of days ago on a problematic editor (that probably goes without saying) and in this edit you removed the reports with the explanation "Rm these three, they've been here for a while and no one has taken any action so far". My question might sound smart-alecky, but it's not intended to be: I don't understand why the complaint couldn't have been acted upon by you (you've helped me numerous times in the past and I'm grateful for that) instead of just removing them. It places an extra burden on the volunteers who, like me, don't have the mop, but who endeavor to suppress vandalism. Today the guy started vandalizing again, and I thought, "hmm, wuzn't he supposed to be blocked?" Then I had to dig through the AIV edit history to figure out why he wasn't blocked, and then refile the complaint, which involves more typing and copy-pasting of diffs, which is somewhat time-consuming. Anyhow, not trying to sound bitchy, I suspect there's a more specific reason why this kind of thing is done. Here are his latest edits in case you're around, but I'll file at AIV again though just to be safe. [37], [38], and [39]. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Policy

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Policy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee motion

An arbitration amendment request in which you may be involved resulted in a motion by the Arbitration Committee

Motion

For the Arbitration Committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)"

Topic ban question

You can still discuss with the editor about the subject from which they have been topic banned? I wanted to tell you that I had got autopatrolled. Thanks a lot for the advises you had given me about the page moves, I had to avoid them. I like your signature, may I have it? OccultZone (Talk) 17:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: No you can't a topic ban extends too all pages so they aren't allowed to discuss what they've banned from anywhere on Wikipedia. Well done regarding getting autopatrolled. Of course you can :) Callanecc (alt) (talk) 03:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Rim Sim

Appealing user

Rim sim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Rim sim (talk) 06:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Topic banned from everything related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed, anywhere on Wikipedia per this AE request.

Administrator imposing the sanction

Callanecc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Statement by Rim Sim

I appeal to please lift the topic ban on me related to India,Pakistan,Afghanistan as:

• It all started when i called a user named "Darkness shines" as an "extremist" as he was regularly removing references and getting articles on Hindu politics deleted, he got all the articles on Koenraad elst's books deleted (only one is surviving and he proposed merger to it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Saffron_Swastika).

• I understand that it was a terrible mistake to call a user as such but i have done so purely in the Heat of the moment as he was regularly removing references of articles that are about Hindu politics and getting them deleted.

• When i have called him as an extremist ,instead of imposing an Interaction ban with him he cleverly got me banned from all topics related to India,pak,afghan as he sensed i was an Indian and he got all articles on elst book's deleted.

• That user Darkness shines has also recently got banned by you for 2 months from editing anything on Wikipedia.[40] .

• Also prior to interacting with him i have not edited any topic related to India,pak,Afghan, i was only editing about Hinduism and while reading about elst books i have seen that they are being deleted one after another, so i have interacted with him. I haven't edited any articles prior to the ban on those topics.

• I have learnt my lesson to Never Ever ever call any one in wikipedia by derogatory terms, i have understood the implications, please give me one chance as i am a good contributor to wikipedia , whenever i edit a topic i add references to it and only try to enhance them more.

• I'm trying to enhance the articles on Hinduism here,to edit Hinduism without referring to India would be akin to edit Judaism-christianity without referring to Jerusalem/Israel.

• since you have asked me to refrain from editing topics related to my ban and edit other topics for 1 month ,i have edited other topics which are not related to my ban for a month. I wish you lift the ban now.

• I hereby assure that i will never indulge in name calling any one, i'm a better person then what that transaction might have conveyed about me, kindly lift the ban on me.

• I may not have conveyed it in the best of terms but i have tried my best, i hope you understand this situation and lift the ban on me. your's sincerely Rim sim (talk) 06:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion among other editors about the appeal by Rim Sim

In my view, the battleground mentality is clearly visible. OccultZone (Talk) 14:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the user is trying to get better, he probably copied and pasted the last unban request here. I think rim_sim should contribute a little more on non-indian/pakistan/afghanistan pages. Like 200+ more? Then it will be all good. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Rim Sim

I'll have a look at this later on when I have some time. However note, that you are bound by the topic ban until you are notified on your talk page that it has been lifted or changed in another way. Callanecc (alt) (talk) 03:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@Rim sim: You are getting there, however I'd like to see more edits to a wider range of pages especially talk page discussions (which will come in time and more edits). Until then it's also worth noting that edits like this which remove arbitration enforcement templates which aren't explained can be seen as very disruptive. It's good practice to include an edit summary with every edit and while you don't have to I'd ask that you consider doing that whenever you can. Per the discretionary sanctions appeal procedures you can also appeal to WP:AE or WP:AN or to ArbCom. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nangparbat ‎

Callanecc, you should check the reports submitted on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nangparbat. There is no doubt in my opinion that the person is socking big time. Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Rape in Jammu and Kashmir, a page that was apparently created by the sock puppets is being dominated by this IP with unhelpful rant. Along with its talk page, I think that article should be protected, you may want to check the history.[41] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aalaan

Hi, I've filed another case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aalaan. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Vin09

Hi. I am pretty concerned about this user being granted rollback. I don't see any understanding of vandalism in this user even after discussing. Please see [42], [43] and [44]. Maybe we could wait till the user shows a clear understanding. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 17:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Removing the userright requires evidence of abuse generally after they've been warned. So let's see what happens now. If they continue I'll give them a more formal warning that continued misuse will result in removal of the userright. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Another abuse. This is despite explaining to them earlier when to use and when not to. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 13:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

First warning was given last week.[45]. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 13:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

mint press news

you topic banned me for 3 months from Mint Press News - and recently a single purpose account has scrubbed out mention of the editor specifically saying she wanted to 'correct' American views on Syria and Iran - (MInt press news is just a front for the iran regime views imo and is rabidly pro-Assad regime --

and then the SPA editor added this ' A media adviser for Mint Press is Kate Madonna-Hindes Hindes’ is the business strategist and media relations adviser for MintPress. Hindes is an industry leader, national author and keynote speaker on emotional integrity and authenticity in today’s online media. With 15+ years of combined experience for news media, state government and Fortune 500 businesses. Notably, she sits on the coaching panel for Keith Ferrazzi’s Relationship Academy, alongside Chris Brogan and Tony Hsieh. Hindes is also the founder of beenthererockedthat.org, an HPV education network. Hindes was Recruited by the White House- Public Affairs Office Of Volunteerism for the Director of New Media position and helped augment the current administration’s position on Social Media within Volunteerism and Engagement while assisting with a proposal, allowing the department’s website to become HTML 5 ready, according to Girls Meet Geek.' - is that kind of encyclopedic content? 'emotional integrity and authenticity' ! ffs - and is 'girlmeetsgeek' an RS - the reason I got banned was because I objected to these SPAs using their edits to censor mint press news history of promoting pro-Putin pro-Assad pro-Iran theocracy views and replacing with anodyne waffle and self promotion. I think if you ban editors you have a kind of duty to keep an eye on articles - otherwise the SPAs ad propaganda pushers will find it way too easy to control articles they want to whitewash and deceive people about political and 'theological' loyalties .Sayerslle (talk) 13:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

another editor removed the waffle and self promotion but the Syria and Iran mention has still been excised - it was the editors own words being taken out for no reason imo ( no proper reason I mean, I can see why for a censoring type reason)- maybe the spa pov edits was a sockpuppeteer - but no admin has answered the request yet for that to be looked at - do you keep an eye on articles where you've got involved? Sayerslle (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The reason I ignored it is because (1) I forgot about after I saw the email and (2) it is extremely close to violating your TBAN as it doesn't meet the conditions in WP:BANEX. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

jargon. what is close to violating my Tban? asking if you keep an eye on articles ? - and didn't answer my question if you keep an eye on articles where you've banned other editors, so the article doesn't get skewed and whitewashed by SPAs. which is what will happen if no one keeps an eye on it. and the editor who added the pov stuff and waffle - anther editor has asked if that is checked for being a sockpuppet - will that be looked at? why are some checked quickly and others ignored ? I don't understand[46]Sayerslle (talk) 05:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Padmalakshmisx

Hi there. From what I see in the SPI case, Bioasia2013 is also a sock, but they remain unblocked. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 10:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom Clerk Trainee

Hello, I am Mmddyy28 and I am interested in becoming a ArbCom Clerk Trainee. I have been on Wikipedia for a little while and am currently active in working on an adoption course set to be completed the week of July 20. I am interested in becoming a trainee because the tasks they do and the process of training interests me. Would you consider me? --Mmddyy28 (Contact Me Here) 19:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mmddyy28, thank you for your interest in joining the clerk team. Being an arbitration clerk requires a great deal of experience as we work in one of Wikipedia's most controversial and heated areas. Unfortunately you don't have the level of experience needed, however I'd encourage you to continue on Wikipedia and consider reapplying in 6-12 months when you have at least 1000-2000 more edits and have established yourself as a trusted member of the community. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Russavia

[47] Are you not going to nuke those socks contributions? See,s to me that if the edits are left to stand then we just encourage him. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The only created pages I can find are Bell HTL-1 which is a redirect and Talk:Druk Air/Rewrite which is at MFD so it wouldn't be appropriate to speedy. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you.

ARR on talk pages

Resolved

I just added one.[48] I hope nothing is wrong, I have a doubt if only admin can ARBcom admin can add. But if the move was improper, you can re add yourself. Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Your edit to India-Pakistan-Afghanistan sanctions seems to be related to Israel-Palestine. Or maybe I am mistaking. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Roll back revoke

On two pages I have used rollback for revert, only in a hurry to revert certain edit. At present, I'm not fully fit for using rollback unless I get familiarize with it. So, as if now please remove my rollback rights, I will contribute to wiki like I did before. Thank you.--Vin09 (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Benjamin Wey

Yes, it was intentional! (Though thanks for the heads-up as I often make mistakes.) If you check out the subject of the article, you'll see he's a highly controversial figure. Several of the people who've been editing it - assuming they are not all the same individual - clearly have a conflict of interest - and one of them actually left a threatening comment on DGG's user page. So I don't want to lift the protection until such time as we can be sure they are not coming back. Deb (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Deb. My opinion is that semi protecting an article (especially a new one) as the first protection is a bit heavy handed as there is no way to know whether the users will return in a week or will give up. The other issue with indef protections is that they are often forgotten about (based on my experience at RFPP) and end up being permanent. The issue I see with is how will you know if they are going to come back if the page remains protected, hence it doesn't expire so we never know if they return. Indefinite semi protection (per WP:PP) should only be used for heavy and persistent problems. Would you consider setting an expiry date in a couple months or a year to see if they return? Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I could do that, but then I will have to watch the page to find out (although I'm doing that anyway). I just think, bearing in mind the history of this topic, that there is a lot of potential for the article to return to its bad original form at some stage, even if it's a couple of years in the future, as this subject is going to be around for a long time. The protection I've put on it only prevents users who aren't autoconfirmed from editing it and that means the huge majority of bona fide users won't have any problem doing so. Only those with an ulterior motive for changing the wording will have a problem. Do you agree with that assessment of the situation? Maybe I'm missing something. Deb (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, however one of the 5 pillars is that anyone can edit so articles should be available to be edited at all times except where we need to protect them (first para in WP:PP). So in your example the page should be protected now and in a couple years in the future, not the time in between. The other thing is that IPs are bona fide users too and there are many reasons some don't create accounts so they shouldn't unnecessarily be prevented from editing. Also there is always the option of semi for a short period of time and pending changes as a more long term option. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, you've convinced me. I've now put it in pending changes mode, which means I need you to approve my latest amendment to the article! :-) Deb (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, actually, maybe I don't. See the latest developments on the article's talk page. Deb (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Only non-autoconfirmed accounts and IPs need their edits to be reviewed everyone else's edits are automatically accepted unless there are unaccepted edits still waiting. The IP hasn't moved to the article yet so it still might work, plus one IP or only a few can still be dealt with by rejecting edits. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Abbott / Andreas

At last someone with the permissions has done something! Good!! Thanks!!!
(I find it frustrating how difficult it is to get any action from an admin in a reasonable timeframe. The fact that you've executed the actions appropriate to the situation has given me a nice warm feeling of confidence that the system can, and occasionally does, work.)
Sincere thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for those comments, very much appreciated. I'm glad my actions are appreciated. Kind regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Not wanting to labor the point, but: "Credit where credit is due". Pdfpdf (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)