User talk:Callanecc/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

202.137.22.114

Why was not it indef blocked? It has been vandalising since 2010 and it's obvious they can't be trusted. Luxure (talk) 07:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

See WP:IPBLENGTH. As IPs are used by various users and can be reassigned to completely different people we almost never block them indefinitely. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks anyway. Luxure (talk) 08:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Banning Policy case

This should be ready to unhat. Let me know if there's anything more I need to do. Thank you for your patience. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 09:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Workshop Page

Can you please go and review the accusations Neotarf is making on this page, literally most of it is completely unrelated to this case and damn near all of it is without any diffs and is accusing people not even involved with this case of misconduct. I feel the need to defend myself but I also think it's something that is going to cloud the issue too. Can you please review and moderate, I'm going to log out a while because I really don't want to pop off but a lot of the shit they are posting is so misrepresented it's not funny. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you also close this down [[1]] there are no diffs, no one has linked to naked women, called anyone any names, etc. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I will need to be able to go through and explain the context of the recently added material. How long will I have to respond? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You'll need to ask that on the workshop talk page and ping the drafting arbitrators (listed in the header). They're in charge of the deadlines for the case. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Reopened SPI?

I noticed you reopened the PiCo SPI. Thanks for doing that, but I'm not sure if/how to proceed. I do think there is a good chance someone is socking right now on WP:DRN. "First century" is too vague.... (PiCo) -- I agree with PiCo - "first century" is far too vague. (StAnselm) However it's hard to show conclusive evidence for long-time contributors -- simply agreeing with each other on something oddly specific. Since the IP activity was stale, do I have a path forward here? Andrevan@ 20:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Having gone through the evidence I don't think that there is a strong case for abusive sockpuppetry and as there isn't a policy against editing while logged out I don't think there is a case for sanctions regarding that either (I can't see an attempt to "actively try to deceive other editors"). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging, warned for edit warring, using specious analysis to block rebuttal to imbalanced article POV

Hello. You warned this person for his/her behavior in the Dreamcast topic in February, and I feel this person, with the backing of two others, is blocking the addition of useful content in the Atari Jaguar page. Moreover, an editor in 2011 found fault with the same thing I have been trying to correct, as is indicated in Talk.

TheTimesAreAChanging created an entry in Talk called "Recent IP edit" just recently. The convolution of demands now includes that a directly relevant appraisal of the worst video game console controllers ever made specifically include the Atari Jaguar in order to be cited, even though, by not being included, it is clear that other designs were considered worse by the article's author, a fact that is directly relevant as a rebuttal to the complaint included in the Wikipedia Atari Jaguar article. Moreover, the article also supports the rebuttal that the phone keypad design feature was used on other prior systems, which casts doubt upon relying heavily upon the Jaguar controller's inclusion of that feature as evidence of it being "the worst ever".

Three editors seem intent on maintaining the current imbalance on the page, characterized by the inclusion of three separate criticisms of the controller (one of which is a photo of a controller with a critical caption). The IGN editor's analysis is simply faulty. There have been worse designs, such as the controller of the Mattel Intellivision and the controller of the Atari 5200, both of which are included in the critical article "The Worst Video Game Controllers Ever Designed" that I cited and which TheTimesAreAChanging and others are refusing to allow, after I removed three other sources that received other complaints.

The other article is by Ronald Diemicke and one of the three editors said the source, due to it being MobyGames can't be used. Despite that, the article does include the Jaguar controller (thus satisfying the three editors' -- in my view obstructionist -- objection to the Gerry article) and yet ranks three other controllers higher in the list of "worst ever" designs. His choice for the worst controller ever is a very logical one.

I fail to see why so much energy is being put into blocking even the smallest attempt to correct the imbalance in the Jaguar's controller criticism, but I suspect it is a similar case vis-a-vis the aforementioned Dreamcast edit war. Comments critical of the controller criticism imbalance from 2012 on the Talk page were on the flaming side. However, an editor named Andrew1718 removed the IGN editor's complaint about the controller in 2011, arguing that the analysis was not well-supported ("I removed the bunk about the Jaguar having the 'worst controller' ever". So, I am hardly the only person who has found fault with the exaggerated criticism of the controller. The inclusion of the flawed appraisal of the IGN editor with no counterpoint is bad enough, but then there are two more criticisms of the controller in the same Wikipedia article!

Thank you for reading this. I am sorry to both you with what should not be something that has taken so many hours of time already. I really would appreciate it if you could look into this, since it is a longstanding unresolved problem with a Wikipedia page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.12.52 (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you merge 2 SPI reports for me?

Okay starting here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mjnichols, then there seems to be one though that seems to be connected to that user though as he did the same pages Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HaroldSalasI/Archive. So yeah it just got confusing and I need someone to merge these, thanks! Wgolf (talk) 03:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done. @Wgolf: Could you please supply some diffs of similar behaviour between the accounts. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Callanecc. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 14:17, 30 September 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.

Yunshui ^雲_水 14:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey dude...

Thought you might want to take a look at this proposal on Malusia, given how much of a persistent nuisance he is. I'm not sure if it's absolutely necessary to just hand out bans for those who have only been a problem user for just a year or two, but I guess enough is enough for someone who has confused and deceived users for quite some time. Blake Gripling (talk) 03:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

DS question

I DS-BLP templated this user, but wanted to make sure this was correct. It doesn't look like the user actually edited the BLP subject articles or talk pages, but they did engage in an ANI discussion about the BLPs and they made a BLP-violating edit to another users talk page, which was revdeleted and user was blocked. Just making sure the template was the right thing to do in this case. Dreadstar ☥ 22:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds right to me. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Dreadstar ☥ 01:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Thedevilini

The user page contains clearly as "River Stumpf" that was familiar. Can you sockpuppet him/her? 183.171.168.48 (talk) 07:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

SPI for User:Showitwew

Any thoughts on adding Emikhan9999? Looks remarkably suspicious to me... Yunshui ^雲_水 08:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I've got to go, but I've left a comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Showitwew. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate SPIs

I redirected Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Khursheed Khan Pictures to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Showitwew then saw your note, and rollbacked my edit. /Khursheed_Khan_Pictures didn't have any valuable case information, and the same socks were reported at /SHowitwew. Why then would we need a merge? Do we typically always merge duplicate cases, as opposed to using redirects? Thanks — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

We normally don't I just didn't have time to look at what needed to happen so I used that word. Khursheed Khan Pictures is the older account so it needed to go there. It can be helpful to keep all of the evidence together, but generally when there is only user reporting we can just redirect, no harm in histmerging though (and good practice for trainee clerks). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Question about discretionary sanctions - BLP

Re: Gamergate controversy. Is it ok if I ask you to clarify how the article involves a BLP issue? I'm just trying to learn the ropes, and acquire a better understanding of policy. Thx. Atsme☯^Consult 14:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

If you have a look at the wording of the discretionary sanctions and WP:BLP both apply to edits and articles which have biographical content which is what Gamergate controversy is about at it's base level. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Atsme☯^Consult 14:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

John P. Galea

Thanks for that! Might want to put a page protection on that variation too. But yep thanks! Wgolf (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather just keep it watchlisted, they're going to keep coming back so this way I might catch an account. You might like to consider creating a long term abuse page which you can refer to if you need to request speedy deletion in the future. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Malusia

I think we might want to revdel the edits he made on the Syndicate page and several others to keep him from linking to those on other articles. I can provide you with diffs if you want to, too. This guy and his crazy antics is really getting in my nerves. Blake Gripling (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Diffs would be helpful, just make sure that one of the RevDel criteria apply. I've taken adding something to the edit filter which will hopefully slow them down. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I posted some on the LTA page for him, though there could be more to which I'll link to tomorrow as I'm on my tablet and it's getting late here on my end. Blake Gripling (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

DS BLP

Would you mind responding to this?. Thanks! Dreadstar ☥ 22:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

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

Blake Gripling (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

List of Piggy Tales episodes

Hi. Please restore List of Piggy Tales episodes. Yes, the article was started by a banned user, but I've improved it and added sources, so the original reason for delete is not valid any more. Thanks.--Carniolus (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello

The rotating-circle-within-rotating-circle view of Chakravyuha has been promoted without any military basis or even without consultation with any military officers.

Most of the historical battles, fought from the days of bows and arrows, are studied even today. Not only Napoleon but also right up to Romes war with Hannibal - the time when the weaponry was similar to that used in Mahabharata.

I request you to study these battles and battle formations.

Also, if you are interested in factual assessment, please try making such formations with toy weapons. If you are further interested, please add a horse or two and see how impracticable it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.70.20.14 (talk) 16:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You need to go to the talk page and explain the change you want to make, making sure that you cite reliable sources which support the change you want to make. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protect

Hey, would you be able to semi-protect Ray Allen again? Since the last semi-protection expired, there have been no useful or constructive edits by IPs or new users. There is also a reported sports transaction involving him that has not been made official, and IPs and new users are constantly editing that i.e. further violations of BLP. DaHuzyBru (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Help - rules interpretation?

Hey there - a question for you pertaining to Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map: One user, 83.117.189.21, has made 11 unsourced edits this afternoon, seen here. I reverted the initial batch, and summarized "unsourced edit - please provide sources for this edit". The unsourced edits continue, and actually have increased in volume. If I revert again, I break 1RR, but the edits don't even have summaries, let alone sources. I don't know how to proceed. Obviously I don't want to break 1RR, but it's just irking me to sit back and watch a mess be made. Any feedback or assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Boredwhytekid: The 1RR (in this instance) doesn't apply to IPs, see WP:GS/SCW. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Karis_McLarty

Hello, please can you delete the comment of nha trang at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Karis_McLarty

the comment is offensive to me. he said karis is an energatic self promoter. that means karis wrote all the source and the wiki article? It is not true. Warn that user to be civil while commenting. The wiki article and the discussion can be seen by people from all over the world. It is harasment for us. Delete the whole article or such comments please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.47.231 (talk) 10:32, 8 October 2014‎ (UTC)

Your Instant Reversion of My Edits to "Portuguese Profanity"

Callanecc,

I am amazed at your almost instant rejection of the entire edit I made to the relevant section of the "Portuguese profanity" article, particularly because the only reason you give is "because it didn’t appear constructive to me". I would very much like you to let me know in what specific ways was my edit not "constructive".

As a native English speaker, and a professional English teacher, it was clear to me that some, at least, of the section was written by people whose English is not especially fluent, and I was editing the section to ensure that the expression was more fluent and accurate, as well as clearing up some imprecise information. My entire edit was constructive in purpose.

I look forward to your response.

211.31.213.200 (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

There are a few problems as far as I can see:

• We generally try and avoid subjective terms such as "slur" as it has multiple meanings, instead we use the words which you replaced
• We try and use internal links (for example with Casper the Friendly Ghost) so that people who aren't familiar with it can read about it
• The names of Countries are almost always capitalised (that is American people)
• Changing how "Chinese or Asian" were referred to changed the meaning (that is removing the word descent)
• No offense intended, but there are other areas of the expression used which don't make as much sense as what was there before (such as "a very curse word") and where you've changed a word to an incorrect spelling (eg associated to associeted).

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc,

I am absolutely bewildered by your comments above. All the weaknesses you list are those of the *original* version which I edited out! If you actually look at what I did, you will see that I removed most of the uses of the word "slur" (for the reason you mention, as well as unnecessary repetition) and replaced it with "insulting", "derogatory", "pejorative" and "offensive".

I also corrected the existing spelling in numerous places and certainly did not introduce any new misspellings. (It's possible I missed one or two.)

I was the one who included a number of internal links, including the one to Casper the Friendly Ghost, for the very reason you mention.

I am very annoyed by your apparent misreading of what I did, and I strongly request that your revert to my edit, which fixes the very problems you've identified in your dot points.

Tullyvallin (talk) 00:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I sincerely apologise I don't know what I was looking at. I've reverted my edit on the page. Again my apologies. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Theodore bikel

I strongly believe your block of Theodore bikel is mistaken. The POV tag has been discussed quite a bit on Twitter and other parts of social media. A Twitter user that tweeted several times about the POV tag edit-war as it was happening has the exact account name there as the Wikipedia account. Seems this person saw the edit war as it was happening and jumped into the dispute using the exact same account name. It may be the editor's real name as well, in which case a false accusation of sock-puppetry should be withdrawn promptly.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey, are you gonna look into that block?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Was on Special:Unblock/Theodorebikel when I got your message just then. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thank you.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

School asking students to add incorrect information

Susie0susie (talk · contribs) has said she has been asked to add incorrect information, as have another 100 students at her school. I'm guessing that CU's can't check to see if she is using a school account in order to identify and contact the school, but no harm in asking. Dougweller (talk) 09:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Possibly a justifiable reason to check, but personally I'd rather wait to see if there is another account or it was just an overstatement. Having said that I wouldn't mind if you wanted to make a quick CU request at WP:SPI for another opinion. In any case might be worth leaving a message on the user's talk page asking their teacher to contact us. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Quick CU request done, will add note to talk page. Dougweller (talk) 11:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI, trying to break the new DS alert coding

Hi, FYI please see some testing I did and if you agree there's an issue, to whom should we address the matter? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Restoring User:Exec8's image uploads?

On behalf of the Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines, may I request the restoration of User:Exec8's image uploads now that their account as been cleared of sockpuppet issues? I can do the restoration as an admin myself but I think it would be a bit conflict of interest as Exec8 and I have collaborated with each other in the wiki for years. --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll go ahead and notify the Tambayan. --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the aid dude, as always! I trust him too, so it's a shame he got caught up in a sockpuppetry case which he wouldn't honestly do. Blake Gripling (talk) 07:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah the evidence was there but on another look there are some aspects which didn't fit. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the change. Honestly, I haven't done any edits for a month now and just read these comments only today. --Exec8 (talk) 12:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Adnarkey case is missing the archive link

Hi Callanecc. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Adnarkey which you closed recently. It's missing the usual link to the case's archive. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it's there now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Iselilja (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Scholarlyarticles SPI case

[2] You what this without action? Think you missed a word. Also, I think this edit is a clear violation of WP:SCRUTINY given the RFC/U. As is, "A number of editors have raised the question as to which version of the these two versions are libelous" (i.e., her) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

My understanding of the RFC/U (please correct me if I'm wrong as it's not an area I'm familar with) is that it wasn't closed with a statement that Scholarlyarticles should avoid the article and was mainly about their actions overall. So they weren't under any restrictions or current discussion so they haven't violated the requirements of WP:Clean start. The only thing they haven't done is disclosed the previous account, which we can ask them to do with a talk page message. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:CLEANSTART says, "...new account must avoid editing patterns or behaviors that would allow other users to recognize and identify the account." But disclosing and editing with only one account is good enough however she won't really get the benefits of a clean start. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I've tagged both accounts as alternates of each other which is the practice once a clean start has been identified. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Language on the GG article

Just went through the talk page, ALL mentions of the word fuck are by Ryulong haha, oh there's one by TaraInDC telling someone to fuck off Loganmac (talk) 11:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

And I asked him to stop, what's your point? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

An issue at BLPN needs the attention of an admin

A BLPN was closed prior to 7 days of review, and the consensus so far was that it was a BLP violation. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Investigative_Project_on_Terrorism I notified the closer User_talk:Lithistman on his talk page. I'm not sure what else to do. This issue must be resolved - the controversy has gone on for nearly 7 months. Thank you. Atsme☯^Consult 19:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

DS alert

Could you please look at this edit? As I recall, the last time I alerted an editor to WP:ARBPIA, before I committed my edit, it allowed me to check if any alerts had previously been left. Here, that didn't happen. Also, when I looked at the edit filter log with this user name, I didn't see my alert added to the log. Could you explain what's going on and if I did something wrong? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I reverted my alert because Dougweller advised me he'd already had one. I should've seen it as it was very close to mine, but my technical questions still remain when you have a moment.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I had a similar problem when I left this one, it let me save on first try. I thought maybe it was because the user had several earlier DS warnings in different areas. Dreadstar ☥ 21:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussing the same issue with NewsAndEventsGuy here at the moment. Since AGK is away I'll bring it up on the clerks mailing list to check it'll do what I want it to do. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI for anyone, Callanec linked to a midpoint in my debug testing notes, which begin here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

More recently, I used the template again, and the familiar pink box came up as it used to do. FWIW, I was using the topic code blp. However, it reported that another user had alerted twice, but the two entries were identical (date and time), and the other user had alerted only once.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

What are the names of the users so I can have a look at the page histories? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Europefan / GLGerman

Hi Callanecc,

we have currently high acticity of this troll in German Wikipedia. I have checked the IP addresses that he used during the past six months and calculated these ranges:

• 92.72.100.0/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) – rarely
• 178.3.16.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) – frequently
• 178.11.184.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) – frequently
• 188.96.176.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) – frequently
• 188.96.228.0/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) – frequently

It looks like the provider (Vodafone) arbitrarily assigns addresses from these five ranges, so to mute this user, I think you need to block them all, or at least No 2 to 5. Currently only the second and third are blocked. No 4 and 5 have been blocked in the past. --PM3 (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info PM3, I'll keep it in mind. Europefan hasn't used any of those ranges (apart from the two which are currently blocked) for a couple months so I'm going to hold off on blocking them and wait to see what happens next. But thank you for calculating them! Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Look at this: [3] I am sure that this is an Eurofan block, but it's way too large. You may reduce it to the two ranges that I calculated, that will set free 27,648 unneccessarily blocked IPs. --PM3 (talk) 06:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Well that explains why there are no recent edits. I'll have a closer look and check with Salvio giuliano in case there is someone else he's targeting. Thanks again, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

TheTruth

TheTruth200 now has a sock. User:Thetruth300. Can you please indef them both as Vandalism only? VViking_TalkEdits 09:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Cathal Pendred

Hi Just wondering why you deleted the Wikipedia entry for Cathal Pendred? Cathal is a huge star in Ireland, a current UFC star on a 2-0 run and former Cage Warriors Welterweight champion and I feel With the growth of MMA in Ireland there is a considerable interest in this fighter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonard-88 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Leonard-88 and welcome to Wikipedia! The page was deleted as the result of a deletion discussion which you can view here if you'd like to re-create the article you need to start a discussion at deletion review. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration case request

Hello again! First, thank you for making sure that things "work" at ArbCom. Second, it looks like this edit by Lithistman, while well intentioned, moved the response to an incorrect location (DaveApter's, where it should have been moved to Zambelo's response section, I believe). I am reluctant to edit other's responses. As clerk, would you move it to the correct location? Thank you for looking, Tgeairn (talk) 02:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• My apologies for that. I noticed Zambelo's angry response to the topic ban improperly threaded, and tried to move it to his section. No clue how it ended up in DaveApter's section. Thanks for cleaning up the mess I helped make. LHM^{ask me a question} 02:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• I saw your note to Zambelo, and just to clarify, Zambelo added his reply to TParis's note on Zambelo's topic banning. In trying to fix this obvious mistake, I actually MOVED it to DaveApter's section by mistake, instead of into Zambelo's. I have no idea how I managed to screw it up that bad, but I did. Again, my apologies, and my brief stint as a self-appointed substitute clerk are over... LHM^{ask me a question} 03:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Lithistman. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Protection request

Can you please put registered users protection in place for Indian Super League and 2014 Indian Super League season pages? The league is new and the inaugural season has just started and as you can note from the history, there is a lot of vandalism (like adding spam links, removing sourced content) and the regular editors have a tough time while keep removing such content. And most of this vandalism comes from unregistered useres. Coderzombie (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't see enough on either of those pages to warrant semi at a quick look, but feel free to make a request at WP:RFPP. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Accounting

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 05:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy for it to run out, feel free to go to WP:RFPP though. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

OTRS user right

Hi, I just noticed you changed my user rights to "OTRS members". I'm curious about what effect this has. Is it just a designation similar to slapping a category tag on my user page, or is it actually a "right" in the sense of a switch that allows me to do something?

I could have added myself to that user right, but I didn't even realize it existed until I was notified that you flipped the switch. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The user group only has the read right so it doesn't allow you to do anything. At this stage, it exists only for Special:AbuseFilter/635 which logs OTRS templates placed by non-OTRS permission queue members. I've just been adding it to accounts which have been in listed in the log but which have access to the permissions queue. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah. I see. I didn't know that my placement of OTRS templates got logged. By adding me to the group, I am not logged and the log becomes more useful. That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. ~Amatulić (talk) 10:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Report

Hello sir, With all sense of humility as an editor who has learn from his past, I had finally decided to report 'Tiptoethrutheminefield based On a behavior I considered disruptive and the extent of damages he might caused to the project (wikipedia). I can no longer fold my arms to see a bad condition getting worst. Tiptoethrutheminefield joined wikipedia 6 month ago with 436 edit to unique pages (only created one poorly referenced page so far) but move around AfD, Talk pages and ANI to attack other editors, directing Non-sequitur comment to editors that vote against their wish at AfD and often follows them around wikipedia for the purpose of attack, even with no experience on how things work here on wikipedia. This one to Epeefleche. After I told him here, to refrain from directing non-sequitur comment to me, he apologized but repeated the same thing here again yesterday. Also am aware that he has just been banned from Armenia and Azerbaijan related article For disruptive behavior. I don't want any problems with him and I don't want to warn him. I just had a serious issue in a just concluded discussion at ANI and have learn from my mistakes, I don't want the same thing to repeat itself that's why I had come to report to you instead of reacting to his comments. Thank you sir. Wikicology (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Hi. I'm not familiar with Wikicology's above issue. But, since I was mentioned above, the outline of my recent problem with the editor he mentions has been as follows:

1. This began when I took a position contrary to that of the other editor at this AfD.
2. That was followed by the talkpage discussion relating to wp:v and wp:burden reflected here.
3. And by the editor restoring uncited material here.
4. And then by the editor following me to an article I had just edited, and reverting me, restoring uncited material (he later submitted a ref for 1 sentence, but restored 2 wholly uncited sentences without providing a ref) here.
5. The editor then wrote: "It seems as if I am going to have to watch all of your edits in the future".
6. He then followed me to an article I had just created, and deleted a cat I had just added to the article, under the incorrect assertion that the article did not relate to the cat.
7. He then wrote to me: "I said I will continue to take a look at those of your edits that consist of deletions of content."
8. An outside editor also raised to him the possibility that he was wikihounding me. Which he rejected.
9. The editor then followed me to another subject, an AfD that I had !voted at, to !vote against me.

These are just some of the instances of the many articles which he followed me to. Through all of this, I discussed wp:burden and wp:v with him multiple times, and both requested and warned him multiple times to stop hounding me, as is in part reflected in the discussion here under "wp:burden". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epeefleche (talk • contribs) 20:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikicology, could you please clarify what the problem is with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levon Harutyunyan? It's a revert restriction not a ban. I've left them a message about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monica Ogah.

Oh... It was a mixed up sir. It is not Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levon Harutyunyan but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basildon Town Centre, where they directed their comments to me. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levon Harutyunyan is one of the AfD discussion they followed me to. Wikicology (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Epeefleche, I understand that the appearance of someone who could be following you around is concerning, however if they are just going to added sources to previously unsourced content then I'd be inclined to let them, though if it is really bothering you I can try and have a word with them, though my options are limited. Especially since this edit seems to indicate that they now agree that removing unsourced content is the "right" thing to do. If they follow you around and revert without adding a source let me know and I'll take action then. Also if they continue following you to deletion (etc) discussion let me know and I'll have a word with them about it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it's beyond "appearance" of following; the track record coupled with the direct statements quoted above are something more substantial. And, as reflected above, it goes beyond adding unsourced content, but in fact includes: a) restoring unsourced content without any refs whatsoever (a direct violation of wp:burden, after that was quoted and pointed to); b) plentiful innappropriate personal attack edit summaries; and c) following me to an AfD to !vote against my !vote. This pattern has continued unabated, with him being warned by another editor for hounding, and yet indicating he remained unimpressed by the warning. What you point to was not part of his personal hounding of me -- it was a !vote against my !vote, in an AfD he had followed me to as part of his pattern of hounding, and his comment related to removal of information not by me but rather by another editor. What it does do is highlight the uniquely personal and hypocritical nature of his hounding--he accepts such deletions from others, but follows me around the project to revert my similar edits, at times without supplying refs to the restored content, and to !vote against me at an AfD he has only landed at because of his practice of stalking. I find this upsetting, and it has the effect of affecting my editing. Epeefleche (talk) 06:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you please grab me some diffs of personal attacks in edit summaries or reverting without adding a source in the last day or two? Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Here are some examples from this week.

1. Following me to article, and restoring material challenged and deleted per wp:v, without supplying any refs (which are required per wp:burden, on October 10. With an edit summary of "rv unconstructive edit".
2. Following me to article, and restoring material challenged and deleted per wp:v, without supplying any refs for last two sentences (which are required per wp:burden, on October 10.
3. Following me to article where I deleted per wp:v and July tag, and reverting, with edit summary of "reverting Epeefleche's typically unconstructive edit", on October 11.
4. Following me to article, and restoring material challenged and deleted per wp:v, without supplying any refs (which are required per wp:burden), on October 11.
5. Following me to article I just created, and deleting cat of article - improperly, on October 11.
6. Following me to an AfD to !vote opposite my earlier !vote, on October 14.

Looking through his edits of the past few days, it is notable what a high percentage of them are of articles to which he followed me, as anyone can plainly see.

I think these edits, coupled with his admission that he is following me (though, with a bulk of his edits this week being ones where he followed me, it was clear in any event), and his admitted rejection of an uninvolved editor's warning (as well as my own), and the upset he is causing me, are not what our Project has in mind as acceptable editing. Epeefleche (talk) 07:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look more closely tomorrow. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it'll be next week. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

About Epeefleche: Tiptoethrutheminefield messaged me on my talkpage early on the 12th, expressing their concern about Epeefleche's deletionist way of going about unreferenced content. In a prolonged discussion, I explained to them that Epeefleche's actions were allowed per WP policy and that it would be best for them if they dropped the issue. I think that has happened in the meantime? I think this editor acted out of concern (a bit over the top perhaps) for WP, and is still finding out what is, and what isn't allowed here on Wikipedia. You can see the discussion here on my talk page where I pointed them to the relevant policy pages and meta-discussions on this topic. My remarks there about Epeefleche are just remarks about deletionists in general, reflecting in part on what I was told by TTTTMF. I don't know who Epeefleche is, what they do, and have never had any problems with them so it's not meant to be taken personally. Regards, - Takeaway (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/81.153.185.157

He/she defends admins for accusing on Talk:Diamonds (Rihanna song). It must be MariaJaydHicky’s IP. 115.164.53.12 (talk) 06:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Mail

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

OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

If someone doesn't beat me to it, I'll get to it next week. It doesn't look like there is a consensus to restore access, and if there is it is only very weak. But I'll have a proper read through later. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

SPI

Regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/E4024, how do you know they're using two different equipment? I think using a checkuser won't hurt. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I did a checkuser and that was the result. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Luke Shaw

Extend PC time or upgrade to semi? --George Ho (talk) 02:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Titanium Dragon violating BLP again

Is this what you hoped to see from Titanium Dragon when lifting their topic ban? Are unfounded intimations that Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu fabricated the death threats against them for attention considered acceptable on the encyclopedia? I have opened a WP:ANI thread on this issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

IP block exemption

Hi Callanecc, TheLateDentarthurdent has contacted me saying they're being affected by an IP range block and would like an exemption. I can vouch for the editor and the fact that this is the only IP they can use at their current location. Would you mind having a quick look? Thanks,--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey Callanecc, did you miss this question? I'd like to get them exempted soon if possible.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and exempted him; he's been waiting around long enough. Let me know if you have any other questions.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Cuchullain: I sent you an email. I softened the block so they should be able to edit through it without IPBE. If they still need it let me know and I'll check if there is another hardblock effecting them.

Oh, sorry, must have missed your email. Thanks for checking it out. I'll remove the IPBE and have him let me know if he still has a problem with it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Aaron Abera

Hi, After returning from the ban the user repeated the offence. Now what ? “WarKosign” 14:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Strange new user behavior

Hi C, an editor brought to my attention a user named Karlhard, who has only been editing for about 3 weeks, but who has processed a crapload of deletion nominations. The concerned editor suspects that they may be a sock, although I admit, I don't know who they might be a sock of. But I think we've all seen n00b users jump into advanced editing, and when we notice them, our sock detectors go off. If you could keep an eye on them, it would be appreciated. Thanx, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Question regarding warning

I was recently warned about DS. This is rather odd, the only change I made to the page is removing a extraneous quote mark. Yes I know Ds applies, but still rather odd to be warned after something like that. Is there some other reason you found what I did possibly in violation or felt the need to warn me? Or do you have it automated or something? --Obsidi (talk) 03:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-43

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. You can read translations.

Recent changes

• You can test a new system to see math using MathML. Go to your display options and choose "⧼mw math mathml⧽".
• You can add badges in Wikidata for quality articles and featured lists. [4] [5]

File information cleanup

• You can join a wiki project to help tools read file information. It will help people reuse files.
• See how to fix metadata. You can fix it by adding markers to templates and adding templates to files.
• You can see a list of files missing machine-readable information on your wiki.
• The files missing readable data are also in these categories: no license, no description, no author or no source. [6]

Problems

• Developers fixed a security problem. If you use Internet Explorer 6, you won't be able to log in any more. You should use a newer browser. [7]

Changes this week

• The new version of MediaWiki (1.25wmf4) has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since October 16. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from October 21, and on all Wikipedias from October 23 (calendar).
• 10% of logged-out readers are getting pages from servers that run the HHVM tool. HHVM should make pages load faster. You can also test it as a Beta Feature. [8]
• If you add the same parameter twice in a template, it now puts the page in a tracking category. [9] [10]

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

13:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Your postings on my page

I had already made it clear that I considered your last post on my talk page to be unhelpful. I had put your sources question down to lack of knowledge on your part (such as an inability to look at the actual sources, or a lack of understanding that looking at the actual sources should be a requirement in any AfD). However, in light of your latest posting I now wonder if the real intent of it, and the latest post, was harassment. If you had really wanted clarification about what I meant by "garbage source", why did you not ask on the actual AfD page? Your latest post is even more unreasonable [11] - you accuse me of reverting without providing a reliable source yet fail to provide a single diff showing I have done any such thing. What am I to make of that? Is it another display of ignorance (a lack of realization that diffs should be given when accusing an editor of something), or part of an ongoing harassment? Please, do not post any more of your "advice" or "questions" on my talk page, and stop making false accusations. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I owe you a partial apology. I have just noticed that while restoring one piece of deleted content (its edit summary "no wikipedia article" being incorrect) I had not noticed that Epeefleche's same edit had also deleted a second name on the list. So my restoration of the first name (which I then wikilinked to the article with sources) [12] inadvertently also restored the second deleted name. I will delete that name again for now, but will hope it is restored later with sources since it is factually correct [13]. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. As I said I've no issue at all with you restoring material with reliable sources but given that you are 'following' (the impression of that whether intentional or not) Epeefleche's reverts it's important to ensure that when you revert your providing the sources. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy

Hello sir, its my pleasure to inform you that I love to enroll at the above academy and to be a student under your tutelage. I will be glad if my admission is granted. Thanks. Wikicology (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Technophant

I appreciate limiting factors and will be happy to take my enquiry elsewhere. I was advised in an edit by RGloucester to contact you regarding breaches by User:Technophant as indicated at User_talk:Technophant#SCW.26ISIL_sanctions and taken up at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request for clarification on Syrian Civil War and ISIL sanctions - warning policy. Help or advice would be equally appreciated. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Confusion over Syrian Civil Wars sanctions alert

Could you please take a look at WP:AN#Request for clarification on Syrian Civil War and ISIL sanctions - warning policy. What seems to have happened here is that Template:SCW&ISIL sanctions and Template:SCW&ISIL enforcement have not been updated to make it possible for any editor, as opposed to only administrators, to add what is basically a sanction alert to another editor's talk page. I certainly thought that this had been done and I thought we'd sorted it out here.[14] I can't see any reason for this to be an Admin only notice with a different process from general sanctions. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 September 28

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 September 28. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-44

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

Problems

• There was an issue with files from Commons on October 21. You could only see those with names between 140 and 159 characters by visiting Commons itself. [15]
• There was a problem with cut and paste in VisualEditor in Firefox. It was fixed quickly. [16]
• There was a problem with editing math in VisualEditor. It was fixed quickly. [17]

Software changes this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will now come to Wikipedia sites every Wednesday, instead of every Thursday. [18]
• The new version of MediaWiki (1.25wmf5) has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since October 23. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from October 28, and on all Wikipedias from October 29 (calendar).
• VisualEditor now uses autovalues for templates if they are in TemplateData. [19] [20] [21]
• VisualEditor's menu items now show their shortcuts beside them. [22]
• VisualEditor now opens faster when you click "edit". [23]
• The rules for plurals in translations changed in some languages. Interface translations are currently not being updated from translatewiki.net; this process will start again on November 6. [24]

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

05:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 09:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-45

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

Recent software changes

• The "Special:Cite" page is now called "Special:CiteThisPage". That way, you know it's to cite the page, not to add a reference. [25]
• You can no longer use the insource: keyword for text searches. It caused issues with the new search tool. It will come back later. [26] [27]

Problems

• There was a bug in VisualEditor with Internet Explorer. It hid tools like the link editor when you opened them. The bug was fixed on Monday. [28]
• Issues with the new search tool caused geo data code to show up on pages on Monday and Friday. The mobile "nearby" tool was also broken. The problem is now fixed. [29] [30] [31]
• HHVM caused server issues on Thursday. They are now fixed.

Software changes this week

• The new version of MediaWiki (1.25wmf5) has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since October 29. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from November 4, and on all Wikipedias from November 5 (calendar).
• Some wikis have icons at the top of a page to show if it is protected or featured. Icons show up using CSS. You can now use the <indicator> tag in these templates instead to add the icons. [32] [33]
• VisualEditor now tells you if you're editing a re-used reference. This helps you avoid changing it if you just want to add a new one. [34]
• The icons in VisualEditor's template editor tool for adding more fields are back, along with other fixes. [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]
• After November 6, all wikis will have the tool to edit TemplateData. [40] [41] [42]

Future changes

• The new search tool will come to the last wikis in the coming weeks. This includes Wikipedia in French, Chinese, German and English. [43]

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

17:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force

Hey Callanecc, shouldn't Patrol forty's "evidence" (just a rant against Eric Corbett, resulting from too many sour grapes) be scrapped completely from the Evidence page? They were never in good standing, as far as I'm concerned; Courcelles can tell you more. Drmies (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-46

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

Recent software changes

• You may see a new tool on the mobile site of the English Wikipedia. It asks simple questions to make the article better. In the future, your answers will go to Wikidata. [44] [45]
• The MediaWiki API now shows information in a nice format. You can translate it in translatewiki.net. [46]

File information cleanup

• Reminder: You can help fix file information on your wiki. It will help robots understand the information. After that, it will be easier for you to search files and re-use them.
• You can join two IRC chats this week to learn more about the file cleanup project. One will be on Wednesday at 18:00 (UTC) and the other on Thursday at 04:00 (UTC). You can ask questions during the chat if you need help to fix files on your wiki.
• You can see a list of files to fix on the Labs tool. You can report bugs and ask questions on the talk page.

Problems

• Wikimedia Labs was broken for a few hours on Thursday. It was due to a hardware problem. [47]

Software changes this week

• The new version of MediaWiki (1.25wmf7) has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since November 5. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from November 11, and on all Wikipedias from November 12 (calendar).
• You can now use more editing tools for tables in VisualEditor. You can add rows and columns, merge cells, and edit table captions. [48] [49]
• The style and insert menus in the toolbar of VisualEditor now show fewer tools. This helps you see the most common tasks. You can see all items by clicking "More". [50]
• The way windows inside VisualEditor work has changed. VisualEditor should be faster and have fewer bugs. [51]

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

15:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

81.153.185.157's return as 81.148.240.215

81.153.185.157's (MariaJaydHicky) return as 81.148.240.215. He/she is continuing disruptive editing again. 183.171.181.49 (talk) 08:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Historicist SPI

Hi. I've been looking at the Historicist SPI, which seems to have been abandoned for several weeks. Since you appear to have been the last CU to touch this case, I was wondering if you have any more observations on it. Thanks for any comments. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@Richwales: ShulMaven is definitely suspicious but whether there is enough to block - I'm not sure (note that I haven't reviewed more recent contribs). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda

Hi Callanecc. I noticed that when you created Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda that you removed several involved parties from the case. This wouldn't be important were it not for the fact that it limits the amount of evidence that can be presented. Could you please add the involved parties (the users who made statements) to the active case main case page? Many thanks.- MrX 12:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see the note in the involved parties section of the main case page. The change does not affect statements which have already been made, and not every user who made a statement is a party to the case. Case parties are those users whose behaviour is intended to be examined as part of the case as well as the user who filed the case. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I was not aware of that. Thanks for the clarification.- MrX 12:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Can these pages be deleted?

Hi Callanecc, can I have this page and this page deleted do you think? Baaarny (talk) 20:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather not for a couple reasons - an admin decided that there was enough evidence to block and the only reason the block was overturned is because of a previous undisclosed account and if people want to look into the block they'll go to that page. The outcome will be clear after looking at your block log. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Sinhalese people

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 04:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

AC Noticeboard formatting mess

Hi. Could you take a look at the "Waldorf education" and "Banning Policy closed" sections of WP:AC/N? The quotebox from the "Waldorf education" section has been pushed down into the "Banning Policy closed" section — and if viewed using Firefox, the quoteboxes in the two sections are superimposed one on top of the other, making the text unreadable.

This happened right after the latest archival action by "Lowercase sigmabot III", and I reported it on Sigma's talk page (User talk:Σ/Archive/2014/November#Lowercase sigmabot III mangled a page, but the bot people are insisting it's not their fault or responsibility. Since you are one of the arb clerks (and the one who posted the "Waldorf education" notice), I thought I should bring it up with you and see if you have any ideas on how to fix the problem so that all the text on the noticeboard page can be read. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Since I just saw your note about having limited Internet access for the time being, I'll also bring this up at some other clerk's talk page. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Rich, I happened to see your note. Can you look again at WP:AC/N? I may have fixed it. I added two carriage returns and removed a "nowiki /nowiki" bracket. EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Ed. The problem appears to have been fixed now. Thanks. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

BCD

A new sock has appeared. Take a look?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Make that two.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

It keeps happening. Need a sleeper check as he used an account registered in August 2014.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Another August account.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Collapsed section display issues

On the Arbcom GGTF proposed decision Talk page: in mobile view, the sections after the section you collapsed are displaying as subsections instead of standing on their own. I suspect that the reason for the messed up display is that the section was closed with {{hab}} instead of {{cob}} but I'm not sure about that. I'm reluctant to change this on the page myself so I thought I'd bring it to your attention. Thanks. Ca2james (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed, thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Civility

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Civility. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

174.236.64.0/18

I had blocked this range as part of the Macy VG IP vandal, specifically as anon-only, and you reblocked earlier this week with {{checkuserblock-wide}} and also acc-create disabled. 174.236.97.16 has requested an unblock saying that they can't edit, "even when logged in", which shouldn't be the case; they would, however, be unable to create a new account with your new block parameters. For some reason, the system detects ME as the blocking admin instead of you, but I'd still like to defer to you in this case (if there is anything to even be done). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 10:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Salv, I disallowed account creation due to socking which was going on with an unrelated (to Macy VG, I'm fairly sure) sockmaster. Only reason I can think of that they wouldn't be able to edit even logged in on that range is an autoblock. In any case probably best to direct them to the instructions on the block template, which suggest using WP:ACC. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Their message seemed to imply that they already had an account, and were unable to edit while logged in. I've asked for more information on the block message they see. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The source for changes in Syria Civil War Map.

There are the sources- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Stop_to_deleted_towns_in_As-Suwayda_governorate. --Pototo1 (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

mail

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

Matiur Rahman (military pilot) and Francesca Capaldi

I tried WP:RPP, but the extension requests there were declined. What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

I opened a SPI per a previous question you asked regarding my idea that some of the invovled case parties were editing logged out. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lightbreather the IP was ok with the checkuser but Lightbreather after showing up has now decided to go silent again as well as the IP. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Confused how Evidence counting is done

Hi. I'm trying to figure out how diffs, links, and words are counted for the DangerousPanda Arbcom Evidence sections. I'm tring to use MrX evidence section to try and figure out the counting is done, but I'm confused, things don't add up for me. Can you explain how you're counting what? Thanks. (For diffs, I'm assuming you're counting arrowed icons that have numbers. For links, I'm assuming you count arrowed icons that have text.)

I have some specific Qs too:

• how are blue-highlighted texts that have no arrow icon counted? (i.e. as diffs? links? -- because they seem to be ignored or overlooked in the MrX evidence section, I think)
• are blue-linked usernames (by themselves as notifications) counted (as diff or link)?
• when counting words, is blue-linked username "Eric Corbett" counted as 2 words, and blue-linked username "BrownHairedGirl" counted as 1 word (or 3)?
• when counting words, how are dates counted (are they?) that have month, day, and year specified?

Again thanks. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Re diffs and links, any link (URL, Special:Diff, or {{Diff}}) are counted as a diff (basically search for "diff=") and a link is anything other than that (either a wikilink or URL doing the same job, such as a link to logs). So usernames are generally counted as a link, though if it is just an FYI ping and not evidence it might not be counted.

Yes, two separate words, though if it came down to it and the user were really close to the limit I'd probably just count a username once or not at all (and just as a link).

All three would be counted separately, I tried to remove the number of the day but I might have missed some.

Regarding diffs if there were words used as the linking text, I usually counted that as a word.

I also rounded down for most counts to allow for things I missed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not understanding this. (And I've tried hard, please believe. For example I've gone thru each and every one of the Evidence sections, and can find no consistency how you come up w/ diffs, links, and words totals. I end up having no idea how it's done.) Can I ask you, when you count diffs, links, and words ... are you doing the counting looking at the view page, or are you going into edit mode and looking at the HTML code when you count? (For example, take MrX. If I go into the HTML code and search on "diff=", I come up with 32, not your 20.) There are many other confusions too. It's very confusing; is how to count diffs, links, words documented anywhere? (Because without that, even in your descriptions, it seems rather arbitrary, and however an individual clerk interprets, which of course would be different per each clerk. For example you count linking-text as one word. But many people use a long sentence sometimes, as the linking text. I never would have guessed you'd count that as one word. In dates, "May 27, 2013", you say you count as 3? or 2 words? "BrownHairedGirl" = 1 or 3 words, or 0 if linked, depending? As you can see, there don't seem to be any fixed way to count this stuff. (No wonder I'm confused!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC) p.s. I'm about to chuck it, so if you don't reply, that's OK. My purpose here was not to give you a headache, but to understand. I'm concluding it is impossible to understand, because arbitrary methods are used, which aren't intuitive (such as counting linking text as one word). I really think the numbers you posted at the head of each Evidence section ... are basically wild approximations that no one can confirm. So what's their value?? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

That's cause I added the http links to the diff count rather than the link count which I've now fixed.

I counted words from the view page (minus "[edit]" and any diffs which were just auto numbered).

Not really just through discussions we've had on the clerks mailing list, but that doesn't really matter that much as the enforcement of evidence lengths are primarily at the discretion of the drafting arbs and case clerks. And the lengths only really matter when the user is over the count and in those cases if it's close we generally round down (which is what I did for Memills), assuming all their evidence is relevant, to make sure we didn't miscount or count something twice. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

GGTF - General sanctions

Hello! This edit to the General sanctions page appears to have included text from the copied applicable area ("Pages related to Austrian school of economics and the Ludwig von Mises Institute"). I do not think that was your intention, but I hesitate to correct anything related to that case. Please double-check. Cheers! Tgeairn (talk) 09:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Tgeairn, I've fixed it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom?

Someone is saying this was not imposed by arbcom. If that's so, then it must have originated from ANI. Should I go there and ask for an alteration to the IBAN? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom generally won't get involved unless the community hasn't been able to solve the issue, so going back to ANI is the best case to go if you believe that the community is still able to handle the issue. If you'd like to go down the ArbCom route, you'd probably need to file a case (at WP:A/R/C) with evidence of the violations and the community being unable to respond and deal with them and hence the issue be more broadly, but to stay neutral I need to mention that if you go down the ArbCom route the behaviour of all parties (including yourself) will be looked at in detail. If you decide to go to the community can you make a note of that (and hence saying that you withdrawing the request) in your section on WP:ARCA. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Trying to find the specifics, I ran across the fact that I can't appeal it until the anniversary of it, which is at least a month away, so I'm closing it (for now) - to be recalibrated at ANI after the year is up. I'm sorry to have wasted your time with this. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Sock templates

Please see discussion on my talkpage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Aspromonte goat

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Aspromonte goat. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Revoked sanctions

It seems that many sanctions were recently revoked by the Arbitration Committee, but that the page Wikipedia:General sanctions was not updated to reflect this. As you are a clerk for the Committee, I figured I should alert you to this incongruence. RGloucester — ☎ 00:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)RGloucester -- the page isn't in arbcom space, why don't you just fix it? NE Ent 00:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The chart is complicated, and I'm bad with charts. I don't want to mess anything up. RGloucester — ☎ 01:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I think I've done the ones you were thinking of, let me know if not. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. RGloucester — ☎ 17:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Malbin210 SPI

Hi Callanecc. Since your recent CU I have added two more in the same section, so perhaps you can do another check without opening a brand new SPI. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is a extensive explanation the reasons of edition on Syrian War Map.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Green_Circles_in_Al-Jebbah_and_Ras_al-Maraa_should_be_removed_if_you_no_have_sources.

The editor no provide evidences that's why I remove that. --Pototo1 (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Bridgeburning

The user was the similar contribution pattern with his previous blocked users River Stumpf and Gifchief. Can you sockpuppet him? 115.164.208.58 (talk) 11:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Peace and Greetings.

Yup! 12 Reverts in less than 24 hours. No discussion. I have a hunch 2 or 3 of them get paid by the State Bar to run public relations for the Bar on Wikipedia. They shredded the article just as thought they would. I'm not going to make any reverts. I am not going to make any edits. I am not even going to read that 'article' (advertising brochure) for the State Bar.

Hope you are having a good day. Peace & Love.

Here are examples of the total defacing of the article.

(cur | prev)04:46, 30 November 2014‎ Srich32977 (talk | contribs)‎ . .

(cur | prev) 04:45, 30 November 2014‎ Srich32977 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (41,603 bytes) (-43)‎ . .

(cur | prev) 01:59, 30 November 2014‎ Srich32977 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (41,646 bytes) (-97)‎ . .

(cur | prev) 01:42, 30 November 2014‎ Srich32977 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (41,743 bytes) (+990)‎ . .

(cur | prev) 17:49, 29 November 2014‎ Srich32977 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (40,753 bytes) (-258)‎ . .

(cur | prev) 17:29, 29 November 2014‎ Srich32977 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (41,011 bytes) (-2,305)‎ . . (→‎remove material

(cur | prev) 16:58, 29 November 2014‎ Srich32977 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,316 bytes) (-1,643)‎ . . (→‎Criticisms of California Bar:

(cur | prev) 15:43, 28 November 2014‎ Srich32977 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (44,959 bytes) (-850)‎ . . (→‎Criticisms of California Bar: remove material -

(cur | prev) 15:41, 28 November 2014‎ Srich32977 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (45,809 bytes) (-1,015)‎ . . (→‎Criticisms of California Bar: remove material

(cur | prev) 15:39, 28 November 2014‎ Srich32977 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (46,824 bytes) (-713)‎ . . (→‎Criticisms of California Bar: remove material

(cur | prev) 15:37, 28 November 2014‎ Srich32977 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (47,537 bytes) (-1,020)‎ . . (→‎Criticisms of California Bar: remove material

(cur | prev) 15:35, 28 November 2014‎ Srich32977 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (48,557 bytes) (-1,329)‎ . . (→‎Criticisms of California Bar: Remove material lacking

These are back-to-back reverts. Look at the article history for the rest. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_Bar_of_California&action=history

If you want to revert it back, protect the article, and press the issue of a discussion. This is the date to revert it back to. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_Bar_of_California&oldid=635744334

Apart from that, good luck. This is total waste of my time, but I wish you well. It's somebody else's problem now.

2.177.11.225 (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

For someone who thinks this is a "total waste of time", you and the many IP addresses you use have been wasting a lot of people's time. @Callanecc, if a range block would be feasible, I'd be happy to share with you the background of this disruptive individual.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

My comment is rhetorical, it means you don't really need to respond: But why don't some of the characters here ever talk about the articles? Isn't that what should matter? But of course you should add in that I don't floss before bedtime and had a crush on Fidel Castro's mustache. I don't even know who you are, to be perfectly honest and don't care. I just care about the article. I care that someone is reverting the article 12 times in one day - it's been going on for 4 months. Look at mainstream news sources: Wikipedia is being treated as a laughing stock because of some of these same types of issues. ( http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia ) Just focus on the articles and have a good day. 2.177.11.225 (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I so enjoy seeing Conservapedia mentioned in the same light as bias. Last I checked, the example of bias in Conservapedia is every page there. Ravensfire (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@ Callanecc: Thanks for your attention. 3RR.

2 September 2014‎ ‪Callanecc. (Protected State Bar of California: Edit warring) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_Bar_of_California&oldid=623837528

19:48, 1 September 2014‎ ‪SantiLak (talk | contribs)‎ . . (38,529 bytes) ‪(-4,579)‬‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit )

20:12, 31 August 2014‎ ‪SantiLak (talk | contribs)‎ . . (38,529 bytes) ‪(-4,579)‬‎ . . (Reverted )

10:08, 31 August 2014‎ ‪SantiLak (talk | contribs)‎ . . (38,529 bytes) ‪(-2,366)‬‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit )

09:05, 31 August 2014‎ ‪SantiLak (talk | contribs)‎ . . (38,529 bytes) ‪(-2,366)‬‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit)

2.177.163.10 (talk) 12:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

There are obviously paid editors on wikipedia but do you have any evidence that any of us, all experienced editors including a few admins, at all are paid editors or is it just slander. The only reason i ever reverted your edits in late august was that i saw them on a recent changes feed, some of the other editors got involved when you posted on their talk pages asking them to help you because at one time or another, they had an issue with an editor that opposed your edits. - SantiLak (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

In response to the removal of that paid editors article and the addition of the revision history: We were both massively edit warring and violated 3RR, but after that I did stop edit warring and violating 3RR but that IP didn't, they continued now instead of trying to cooperatively edit. - SantiLak (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23: Possibly depending on the history, send me what you've got and I can have a closer look. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take care of it tomorrow. Too late tonight.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I've never made one edit on the Jordan Belfort article, but you can see Ravensfire reverting the edits of others and edit warring: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jordan_Belfort&action=history

19:33, 11 November 2014‎ ‪Ravensfire (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,924 bytes) ‪(-552)‬‎ . .

16:12, 17 November 2014‎ ‪Ravensfire (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,961 bytes) ‪(-223)‬‎ . .

14:35, 18 November 2014‎ ‪Ravensfire (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,961 bytes) ‪(-218)‬‎ . . (Undid revision 634345214

18:42, 19 November 2014‎ ‪Ravensfire (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,961 bytes) ‪(-218)‬‎ . . (Undid revision 634413401

Fantastic communication style with others: (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ravensfire)

“Oh bullshit. Ravensfire (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC).”

“You think I fucking care about your opinion ...? Ravensfire (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)”

“There are a few other editors that will revert and report when he hits a particular article. Ravensfire (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)”

And now they are buddies?

“[@Ravensfire,] Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)"

On the State Bar Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_Bar_of_California&limit=250&action=history

17:15, 1 December 2014‎ ‪Ravensfire (talk | contribs)‎ . . (41,581 bytes) ‪(-26)‬‎ . .

21:23, 27 November 2014‎ ‪Ravensfire (talk | contribs)‎ . . (38,731 bytes) ‪(-10,764)‬‎ . . (Undid revision 635680792

17:31, 27 November 2014‎ ‪Ravensfire (talk | contribs)‎ . . (38,591 bytes) ‪(-9,370)‬‎ . . (Undid revision 635668391

19:51, 16 September 2014‎ ‪Ravensfire (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,108 bytes) ‪(0)‬‎ .

As I said before, it's good to spot these situations up front. As for the joy of being a Wikipedia editor ... count me out. I'm an educated grown-up, with small children and life responsibilities. Whomever wants to fix Wikipedia will need to get a handle on this type of behavior, including what you see above: e.g., 12 Reverts in about 24 hours by Srich32977 and Ravenfire's fantastic communication style.

You know what's even more puzzling? That on his User page, Srich32977 states that he is co-owner in a night-time law school in California that depends upon being certified by the State Bar. So I guess it makes sense for him to revert that article 12 times a day: ("About S. Rich: Hello, and welcome to my user page! First off, I'm S. Rich and I have an interest in a privately owned California law school.") Yup, that's the smell of neutrality in the air.

Have a great day. 2.177.11.158 (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Question

Is this not a violation of this (see also, [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60])? Please advise. Thanks. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

This one is the closest one to violating the TBAN, however when they wrote the remedy the Arbitration Committee was quite specific and the edits aren't a violation of that. If you disagree feel free to report to WP:AE. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

small clarification about 1RR !

If i twice revert editings which made without identifying the source it is will be violation the 1RR rules or not? Here are the editings that have been made without specifying the source:herehere I've already revert one from this editings. And provide the source confirming my actions.here So now I want to ask I can revert and second here not breaking the 1RR. Just this editor Tgoll774often violates the rules to edit. When he edits without identifying the source.

• [61]
• [62]
• [63]
• [64]
• [65]
• [66]
• [67]
• [68]
• [69]

All his editings is violation of the rules of edit and facts systematic vandalism. So maybe there is a way to influence it. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

DangerousPanda case clerking

Hello, it seems User:NE Ent has put one of his comments on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Workshop in a section reserved for comments by Arbitrators. However, NE Ent is not yet an arbitrator as far as I know. Please could you move his comment? I thought it best not to refactor his comments myself, given the dire warnings and such at the top. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Oops. Think I've fixed it. NE Ent 19:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Yep, looks good. Thanks. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Precious again

living people
Thank you for quality articles on people, active in diplomacy (Dave Sharma) and international education (Alec Lazenby), for welcoming new users and articles, for teaching new vandal patrollers, for performing also minor admin tasks, for picking up ideas, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 685th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize. - I asked the candidates for arbitration about an edit you may remember: pleasing answers culminate in "no foul, play on", the nicer wording for AGF ;) (discussed a year ago) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that when I saw perusing the questions page, and glad I didn't need to answer a question about it. Though I think the change from my initial position to my final position is what's needed an admin active in ArbCom enforcement (or ArbCom). Thanks :) (I guess it's probably about time I start writing again). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

ACC interface URL

Please give me ACC interface URL. accounts.wmflabs.org/acc is not working. --Tito☸Dutta 10:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Titodutta: accounts.wmflabs.org/acc.php. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda comments

Sorry, I got a little off track here [70] and would prefer to remove the comments, if possible. As others have replied, didn't want to that on my own, don't know what the protocol is. NE Ent 11:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@NE Ent: I've collapsed that thread which is probably better than removing it so that there is still a record of it. We generally don't remove discussions unless they are really bad.

On a related topic, are you interested in joining the clerk team? You spend a reasonable amount of time around ArbCom so (I think) you've ended up with a pretty good idea of how the big things work. Plus you've got all the attributes we generally look for, calm, civil, patient, speak your own mind, willing to get stuff done, sense of humour. I haven't discussed it with anyone, but you I think you'd make a really good candidate if you're interested. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've long said that NE Ent's clerking is the only reason AN\I remains viable, so I'm definitely in favor of this! :D ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

That you for the hat and the compliments. Right now, I'm just focused (mostly) on the case. NE Ent 01:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Once the case has finished I hope you'll consider it! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

typo?

I believe the message should read " maximum of 2000 words and 200 diffs for non-parties " ?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I forgot to fix that, done the hard way. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Critiques, Criticisms, and Reporting about a Public Entity

What do you think about the fact that criticisms of British political institutions and political scandals have an independent Wikipedia page, and Wikipedia Admins previously included criticisms of the California State Bar on a case-by-case basis (see Keller below), but the main article on the California State Bar has now been wiped clean of even the slightest critiques (from mainstream news sources, the US Supreme Court, Legal Journals, and Law Professors)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_scandals_in_the_United_Kingdom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keller_v._State_Bar_of_California

"Big changes are needed in California's State Bar - Sacramento Bee, Dec. 9, 2014."

"California State Bar in Turmoil After Shake-up - Wall Street Journal Dec. 9, 2014."

"State Bar's Executive Director Admits Public Corruption by the Bar, Los Angeles Times, Dec. 8, 2014."

"Last spring a group of law professors sent the court a letter commenting on the [Bar's] proposed [ethics] rules. The 15-page letter, which was signed by dozens of professors who teach legal ethics and professional responsibility in California, argued that overall the proposed rules were too lawyer-protectionist. Bloomberg. http://www.bna.com/california-justices-tell-n17179895795/

I value your input. 2.177.3.1 (talk) 10:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE coordinator elections

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Candidate nominations for Guild coordinators to serve from January 1 to June 30, 2015, are currently underway. The nomination period will close at 23:59 on December 15 (UTC), after which voting will commence until 23:59 on December 31, 2014. Self-nominations are welcomed. Please consider getting involved; it's your Guild and it won't coordinate itself, so if you'd like to help coordinate Guild activities we'd love to hear from you. Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, and Miniapolis. Message sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Soft Star Shoes

Hello, Callanecc. I am trying to figure out why you deleted this draft article that I have been working on. Its creator doesn't appear to be blocked or banned. Some edits were made by such a user, but they were reverted. What's the problem? —Anne Delong (talk) 13:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Anne, I was intending to block the creator but decided not to after I had a look at some more. I should have looked more closely at the page history, sorry about that. I've restored the page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Megara

I requested PC extension at RFPP, but it was declined. Will you do it instead? --George Ho (talk) 01:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Might as well wait and see what happens. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Armuchee High School

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Not a chance, it hasn't been edited for six months. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Mike Stud

What about this one? --George Ho (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Done for another 6 months. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Blastikus

Hi, I added the 9 Dec 2013 case to the archive, which was presumably missed. Also, Pottinger's cats still needs to be affirmed and tagged. Manul 14:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! See the comment by the admin who closed that report. I've got no reason to override that conclusion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

That's an old report. Pottinger's cats also appears in the the new report, but it seems to have been overlooked. Manul 00:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Allow CS alerts to be handled with same edit filter as Arbcom's?

What would you think of letting community discretionary sanctions be notifiable with Edit filter 602, just like Arbcom's? This would make it easier for admins to manage the alerts, and reduce the size of the CS log files. We would not use Template:Ds/alert for this, it would be a newly-written template that would also invoke Template:Z33. If anyone thinks this is a good idea, it would need Arbcom's permission. An alternative would be to use a different Z-number but copy Arbcom's code. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

We could, I think it'd be better to use a different filter so that there aren't jurisdictional issues. The major problem I can think of (and what has prevented me from doing this in the past) is that there isn't one system and one group of people who initiate and manage community sanctions (like the Committee and clerks) so it would be difficult to ensure that community sanctions notification templates (of which there is usually one for every community sanction) all to fulfill the criteria all the time. Added to that there isn't one version of community sanctions so the requirements for notifications differ (which is why User:Callanecc/Community article probation is on my list of things to work on). I think before introducing an edit filter to log the notification templates we need to come up with and implement (on previous versions as well) a standardised system. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

It says in WP:GS/SCW that those sanctions are intended to 'mirror ARBPIA'. Perhaps somebody could create a new definition called 'usual discretionary sanctions' and then have new sanction regimes explicitly call it out. Someone will hopefully think of a better name. Calling it 'standard discretionary sanctions' would make it sound too much like Arbcom's version. EdJohnston (talk) 05:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

That's why I went with community article probation, I was trying to avoid using the term "discretionary sanction" and "general sanctions" is too broad. My first though was "community probation" but that sounds like the community is on probation. What about something simple like "community sanctions"? My plan was to use User:Callanecc/Community article probation and take it to the community as the standardised version for the community to apply discretionary sanctions. What do you and Bbb23 think? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that page looks good but 'community discretionary sanctions' would in my opinion be a better name. It could be CDS for short. Article probation is something Arbcom used to employ in the bad old days and that term is burned in my brain with a negative meaning. We actually have Wikipedia:General sanctions#Article probation and Category:Community probation where we continue to use probation in the original sense. EdJohnston (talk) 06:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. So I guess plan of attack would be to move Wikipedia:Community discretionary sanctions to Wikipedia:Community discretionary sanctions (failed proposal) and User:Callanecc/Community article probation to Wikipedia:Community discretionary sanctions, make any changes we need to make (I just had a quick look and saw a couple things which could be changed) then start an RFC? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

If I may say so, I strongly support the drive for standardisation in this regard, and the use of the name "community discretionary sanctions". However, I think that your proposal is more complicated than it needs to be. We already have an existing discretionary sanctions infrastructure for ArbCom sanctions, and I think that community discretionary sanctions should "mirror" those, as with SCW&ISIL sanctions. There is no reason to create a labyrinthine bureaucracy of different kinds of sanctions with different rules. Community discretionary sanctions should use a standardised notification. I do not see why a template should not be required, as that helps eliminate potential misuse and opportunities for Wikilwayering. To be honest, I'm not convinced that they should different from WP:AC/DS at all, other than the appeals process. RGloucester — ☎ 06:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like you are actually agreeing with the above plan. It is inconvenient that notices and logging are different for Arbcom and community sanctions. If a community DS alert would use Template:Z33 we would have the identical logging system as the Arbcom DS. EdJohnston (talk) 06:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The wording regarding a different template is a hang over from the previous system of discretionary sanctions (when I began working on the one in my userspace), one of the things I was thinking of when I mentioned some changes which need to be made. Having said that we do need to use slightly different wording from ArbCom (for one the community can't threaten to desysop people). I agree that it would be good to keep as close as we can, however the operation of discretionary sanctions isn't possible to replicate - assuming that there will always be someone with the technical skill and will to keep a community version of Template:Ds/table up to date isn't really forward thinking enough (considering how long it can take WP:GS and WP:EDR to be updated). Given that if those pages aren't updated there is the potential for the whole system to fall apart. Since we can't do that, the next best bet is to have a notification tailored to each topic area covered by community discretionary sanctions which include a piece of code which triggers the edit filter.

Likewise we can't use the same templates and logs (though we can replicate them, which we nearly have) as we run into a jurisdictional nightmare with different procedures applying in different circumstances, for example we can't call our notification an alert as Template:Alert is taken so we might run into issues there. But as I said, apart from the notifications and appeals process (plus likely some other minor stuff), we can pretty much duplicate the current ArbCom process (with a different edit filter). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the same templates and logs cannot be used. However, I believe that they should provide the same information and be formatted the same, other than that they make clear that they are for CDS. I think that having separate templates for each topic area is fine, as long as the templates are standardised. It works now. I'm not sure how you feel about WP:GS/GG/E (and prior incarnations), but I think that maybe some explicit provision should be made for enforcement pages. Either one central page for all CDS, or individual ones based on need for each area. Whilst it has been contentious, I think WP:GS/GG/E has been productive. It is a way to get around the endless threaded back-and-forth at AN/I, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 07:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

We should still be able to use Edit filter 602, since all the Z-number templates do so. It is subject to discussion whether Z33 is the best number or a different one should be chosen. For the list of all the Z-number templates see Template:Z33#List of assigned z number templates. WP:GS/GG/E does seem to be a good idea. We could expand that idea with a single enforcement page that covers all community sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 07:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed re Z template (though we'd need to make sure that there couldn't be a crossover in the filter, I was referring to Template:Ds/* templates. One single enforcement page (in addition to AN) with similar formatting to WP:AE or WP:GS/GG/E sounds like the best idea to me. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sort of following the discussion here and will continue to do so. My technical expertise (templates and filters, etc.) is limited. My biggest interest is the language we end up using in any new implementation.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I've made a few more changes to the page in my userspace (now at User:Callanecc/Community discretionary sanctions), please (all) free to take a look and fix (etc) things. There are a few sections where I'm not sure of things (where there are #####). I've included a centralised enforcement page, if the community shouts it down then it's pretty simple to edit out. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that the sanctions should only be established at WP:AN. AN/I isn't really appropriate, as it is meant for specific incidents, rather than this type of long-term proposal. VP seems like an odd place to request this kind of action. Obviously, though, we don't want a straitjacket. I'd recommend something like "may be authorised by a consensus of uninvolved editors, usually at the administrators' noticeboard". That allows for organic proposals that spring up in other places, but gives preference to the one noticeboard that really should be dealing with this stuff. RGloucester — ☎ 01:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the following sentence is a bit odd "Any editor whose edits do not meet these requirements may wish to restrict their editing to other topics in order to avoid the possibility of sanctions". This sounds as if it is encouraging editors to edit poorly in areas not covered by sanctions. I don't think we should be encouraging editors to makes messes in other parts of the encylopaedia. Perhaps something more like "If an editor does not think he or she can meet the heightened standards required to edit in an area of conflict, the editor should avoid such areas". RGloucester — ☎ 03:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

What about "any editor who does not wish to be subject to these requirements may wish ... of sanctions". As they aren't heightened standards, they are just more easily enforceable. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That's the thing, though. If you say "any editor who does not wish to be subject to these requirements", that implies that the editor can ignore policy outside the area of conflict. We're always "subject" to policy and community norms, more or less. You're right that they are not "heightened standards", though. How about "If an editor does not wish that his or her edits be subjected to heightened scrutiny, the editor should avoid prescribed areas of conflict". RGloucester — ☎ 05:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

What about just replacing "requirements" with "procedures", otherwise your last sentence sounds fine. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It depends on one's perspective, but my understanding is that people should be behaving the same way in areas of conflict as they would in other articles. Good practice is good practice, whether in an area of conflict or on a stub that no one watches. The only difference is that in areas of conflict, their edits are subject to greater scrutiny, so as to avoid endless disruption. That's to say, is there any time when an editor should not be complying with the mentioned requirements or procedures? I don't think so. RGloucester — ☎ 05:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

In an area for which CDS have not been authorised they won't be complying with the procedures as the procedures don't apply, so it's immaterial whether they wish (or anyone else) wishes that they comply or not. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm referring to the sentence in the "guidance for editors" section, right below five bullet points. All of those bullet points apply across the project, I'm fairly certain. I'm not sure "procedure" particularly makes sense there either .RGloucester — ☎ 06:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Or we just remove the sentence altogether. No matter how it's worded it's not going to make complete sense and it's pretty obvious (to me at least) that to avoid it you don't edit in the area. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. RGloucester — ☎ 06:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Andrewwikiedit SPI

Thanks for your quick action on this. Another editor expressed some concern on my talk page that the SPI was going to take too long. Hopefully this will help to restore some faith in the system. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately only when you request CheckUser, a CU decides to check and the check is 'easy'. In circumstances other than that it can take quite a while. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Please explain the sanction notice

I received a notice on my TP, and don't understand why you included it considering I asked you the very question about sanctions on your TP. I don't feel the sanction is deserved as I have tried in GF to correct a BLP violation at G. Edward Griffin. Please explain your reason for the warning. Atsme☯^Consult 11:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The last sentence of the alert reads "This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date", it isn't a sanction, just a notice. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Ohhh...you scared me for a minute. Thank you. However I do find the whole sanction issue rather confusing and somewhat ineffective. Question: when an editor tries to eliminate a blatant BLP violation but it is consistently reverted, and a 3RR is threatened or reported, why is it so often both editors end up being blocked as the remedy? I find it very confusing considering policy dictates. What are the options to avoid wars and disruptive editing? 12:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Urgent RevDelete

Hello Callanecc,

Please delete these revisions at Terrorism in Australia made by an anon. user:

[71] [72] [73] [74]

Please note that the situation is highly volatile and NSW Police (while having no jurisdiction here) have requested that this information be removed (see here: Sydney Morning Herald Statement (Live Blog), particularly the 6.32pm statement)

Goodnight from Australia,

Luxure Σ 13:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The content of those edits were reported on ABC news. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)