User talk:Callanecc/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

List of Military Occupations

I saw you protected the page, and I saw your edit summary, and I just want you to now that the edit was not done by me. Yossiea ^(talk) 05:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Out of interest why did you want to let me know, especially since you've only edited the talk page? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

1) Because I'm in middle of changing my username so I might be blocked, like now. and also, if you saw an IP editing I was worried that you, or someone else would then instantly TBAN me without asking me if it was me or someone else. Yossiea ^(talk) 05:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

So this IP is Yossiea? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that one was. But I changed my name and was locked out of my account. Yossiea ^(talk) 06:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, now I understand. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Good, and I would appreciate it if you would take a look at the talk page. I feel that I am being talked down to, not being given the benefit of AGF and I am told that my comment at the military project was no good, my postings are partisan, etc. I am trying hard to AGF and all that, and I am no trying to get into content and I am trying to match the list contents with what the lead says and I feel that what I am getting directed towards me is not fair. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 06:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Can you please take a look again. He is not AGF. He is violating WP:OWN, and he has reverted my edit even though I have included sources. Furthermore, he claims there was a consensus,yet there was no consensus. If you look at the archive, there were a few mentions of Tibet in the archive and no consensus has been reached and in fact the LAST entry ever was he himself asking to discuss inclusion of Tibet, so where is the consensus? Then, he seems to own the page, when others, not even me, had a problem with including Palestine as a state, not a territory, prior to their self declaring independence, etc. he has it seems a habit of seeming that it's his page and he has scared away many editors from that page who disagree with him, rav papa, fran9, best wishes and many others. and now because he reverted my edit, the article is again stuck the way he wanted it, even though there was no consensus and my edit had sources. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• As a general matter I find it distasteful when editors target a specific admin to solve their problems instead of taking the matter to ANI or another appropriate central location. But if this matter needs to escalate then it needs to escalate. AGF is not a suicide pact and there is no reason to AGF here. If you are wanting to handle this, I'm not sure that you are, would you like to have the discussion here?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you stalking me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Joseph (talk • contribs)

Commenting on a discussion you started about me is somehow stalking you?

Callanecc, I just came to mention that this has been moved over to ANI.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll leave it to be sorted out there. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

And nothing is happening. He is continuing to revert, not discussing, I'm not a wikilawyer, I'm asking to take a look at the talk page, look at all the editors he's chased away from editing. There's a reason there's a real anti-Israel bent on the articles, nobody wants to deal with the constant wikilawyering. If I now edit the page, he's going to report me and I'll be banned again, so I won't edit, and he wins again. If you look at the ANI, others have pointed out that he had no consensus on other items. In the most recent example, he reverted my disputed tag and he claimed it's for Egypt, yet on the talk page I put it in for EJ, Gaza, and the GH. He does not own the page and as an admin you should do something about it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I've fully protected the article for two weeks. Both of you need to stop editing the article and focus on the talk page (one thing at a time). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

What are we doing here? Hedging our bets? There's an ANI discussion, there's this here, there's the 3 other admins that have been contacted. Looks a whole lot like WP:FORUMSHOP.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

This is really old and this has to stop. You locked the page for two week? Great that should stop their activism. But this right here has to stop, The forum shopping and the canvassing. An ANI and (including you) 4 admins[1][2][3]. Two of these also stand as a canvass. There's trying to shop it to DRN[4] while there's an active RFC, which he failed to notify his chosen participants. There's the canvassing of editors, [5] this one a user that took part in a discussion over a year ago. This has lead to a merge proposal. There's is also the canvassing that took place before his ban as I noted at the ARE. I have not actively sought to get them banned, while I certainly have had the grounds. Instead I discussed their last ban with them. Explained the reasons I saw for it. Explained what they could do to get it overturned. I'm not out to get them as they suggest.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to try and do it without discretionary sanctions first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

As a personal request and if you have the time please review my contributions to this article when you have ample time. Review the complaints of Sir Joseph and take them into consideration when doing so. Regardless of the inappropriate forumshopping I am not above reproach. If my behavior there is of issue it would serve me no purpose or the community any purpose if it went unaddressed. This is perhaps an unusual request but Sir Josephs is either there was no canvassing or that it's justifiable. While it's not justifiable, it doesn't seem to me that they are willing to consider the disruption in their actions without my own being addressed. If they do not consider the disruption of their actions they will have no reason to take the appropriate action to address them. This may not present an issue now at this article but it could pose a problem at later articles in the future. Barring them from notifying others about discussions at this page only helps and reasonable avoids discretionary sanctions if they know their actions are inappropriate. And if you are in the US Happy Thanksgiving.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

User Page Note

I noticed that there was something posted on this user page that comes across as insulting. Magicperson6969 (talk) 05:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Magicperson, it appears Ryulong added that before they were banned. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... I had wondered why he was so mad anyway, which I never knew the reason of. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 02:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Add Template:Uw-sockblock to Template:Uw-block/doc/Block templates templates

I was trying to add Template:Uw-sockblock to Template:Uw-block/doc/Block templates, but it appears to not work. Can you please add in "uw-sockblock" to the "definite" section of the table, because I cannot seem to add the thing on correctly and the thing just does not work for me. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@Qwertyxp2000:  Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done. This is not the one I was talking about. What I was thinking was adding Template:Uw-sockblock to the "definite" section of the table. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 01:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Umm... I mean, I still cannot find the Uw-sockblock thing on the table. That is the trouble. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 01:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe try purging your cache, it's at the bottom of the definite column. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Advice needed

Some time ago, User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) added a list of notable deaths to Ottendorfer Public Library and Stuyvesant Polyclinic Hospital. When it was removed, he started an RfC on it [6]. When the results of the RfC didn't go his way, he created a fork Stuyvesant Polyclinic and added the death list to it. He left an article in his userspace, Lists of deaths at Stuyvesant Polyclinic Hospital, which Rich Farmbrough then moved to mainspace. Because it was a duplication, it was converted to a redirect to Stuyvesant Polyclinic#Notable deaths.

Because there was a standing consensus against having lists of deaths in hospital articles, RAN's lists were removed from several articles, including Stuyvesant Polyclinic. Since RAN edit warred to get these lists back in, I started another RfC askinging if there should be lists of deaths in hospital articles. That was a few days ago, and right now, the RfC is running 17:2 against having those lists. [7].

Today, despite the fact that 8 Arbitrators have expressed the opinion that turning a redirect into an article is a violation of RAN's topic ban on creating articles anywhere on Wikipedia [8], RAN turned the redirect at Lists of deaths at Stuyvesant Polyclinic Hospital back into a list article.

So now, what happens? Do we need to go back to ArbCom and ask for another clarification: is it alright if RAN turns a redirect that used to be an article back into the same article, without a consensus to do so, and at a time when the sense of the community is running against having them at all? (He's also edit-warred to have those lists of deaths on the talk page of the articles they were deleted from, on the grounds that they're being discussed -- actually, it's the concept that's being discussed.

Does RAN keep to go right on pushing against the boundaries of his topic ban, trying new stuff to circumvent the clear sense of the last ArbCom clarification that he is not supposed to be creating new articles, he's supposed to be cleaning up his mess at CCI?

I think I'm going to give up on this guy, take everything relating to him off my watchlist and just let him do whatever he wants to do. He's worn me down. Apparently, no one except me is interesting in keeping him on the straight and narrow, and that's totally enervating, as he keeps getting pass after pass after pass. I'm all in.

Guess it wasn't so much a request for advice as a rant. Sorry about that, but I'm giving up. BMK (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Or does someone with the tenacity of Javert from Les Miserable, who sees it as their duty "keeping [me] on the straight and narrow", scrutinizing my every edit, looking for some edit that they can label as "pushing against the boundaries" that they can use as a gotcha! moment to whip up hysteria in an attempt to get me banned permanently from Wikipedia. When the speed limit is 55 and someone is driving 54, you don't decry that they are "pushing against the boundaries", you accept that they are driving within the speed limit. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

They also clarified that restoring an article which had been turned into a redirect was not a violation of the restriction which is what RAN did at Lists of deaths at Stuyvesant Polyclinic Hospital. BMK: while it is quite POINTy to create it as a standalone list I'd suggest it'd be easier to nominate it for deletion at AfD than to argue that point (contributor not content). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm doing nothing. RAN has what he wants. He'll soon have silently wikilawyered his way out of his sanctions entirely, simply by ignoring them with impunity, while admins look on and spout platitudes. Not my problem anyumore, just remember this if you're elected to ArbCom and you have to deal with him again, which seems likely. BMK (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

That may be the case, but the Committee has clarified what the restriction applies to and does not include restoring an article from a redirect. As I said there is definitely a POINT issue here but that argument will be much stronger to make if you have a closed AfD deciding to delete the list article as well as agreement not to add them to hospital articles. However, what I didn't notice was the article was originally created by RAN so I have deleted it per G5. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Trout with feet walking in the door

It was created by me but in my userspace when it was was !legal to do so. It was migrated to mainspace by another editor, so please restore it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

It looks like you moved it to mainspace. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) From your link, it doesn't look like that to me — Rich Farmbrough moved it, as BMK says above. Bishonen | talk 11:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC).

Thanks Bish, fairly sure I hear a trout coming in the door. I've restored the article and the RfD. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Trout walking in the door. darwin^fish 13:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC).

Searching ArbCom archives

Hi, Callan - in light of your experience archiving and organizing cases at ArbCom, can you advise me on the easiest and most effective way to find a specific FoF in a prior case? There was one I diffed in the past regarding aspersions but I can't seem to find it anymore. Thanks in advance....--Atsme^📞📧 22:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@Atsme: are you referring to the one at WP:aspersions?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank you SJP! Atsme^📞📧 04:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Block query

I just saw that you are candidate of Arbcom, so hopefully you have more time now. You had contacted Elockid and DoRD then like we discussed before[[9]? D4iNa4 (talk) 14:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@D4iNa4: I haven't discussed it with them, no, and there probably isn't a lot to be gained from doing so given it was a year and a half ago. It is normal for CheckUsers to block some accounts and not others (leaving it for the clerks to do) as it depends what they actually saw in their results. For example RealRx might have been on the same IP as Rafikhsk but your other two accounts may have been on the range which Elockid didn't check until later or didn't want to block. The policy on WP:PROXY#Checkuser also relates, as it adds to the evidence (that is, there is assumption of guilt as you were using open proxies). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

More reports at Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports

Please respond to Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports#2605:6000:6308:3000:A9CF:9897:2397:F601 and Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports#72.182.143.160, both related to Bedlam Series and caused by the same thing as my previous request for you. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Dealt with. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom

I saw you were nominated for Arbcom and just wanted to wish you luck. Even when I've disagreed with your decisions in the past, I could clearly see the reasoning behind them. WP could use more of that kind of incisive thinking. Hope to see you on the Committee soon! The Cap'n (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks :) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Ds/topics

Heya, Re: [10], I updated it because of the new 30-500 requirement (only available in PIA3), and PIA3 also has discretionary sanctions explicitly listed too along with the link to the original case. Admittedly, this is to help make this work well, but I guess it could be hacked around again if you still feel it imperative to only link to the original case. --slakr^\ talk / 23:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Slakr! If it were used to refer to this year's case then all Arab-Israeli discretionary sanctions alerts and sanctions will link to this case which doesn't actually authorise discretionary sanctions. Instead I think it'd be better to create a custom editnotice for Template:Editnotice IP 1RR given that the information supplied needs to be different (ie 500/30, discretionary sanctions for everyone else, free reverts for editors below 500/30 and 1RR for editors over 500/30). I'm happy to write it if you want. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

  No need; easily rectified. I just thought the most recent link would have been better as a whole, but I guess the convention is the opposite. :P Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 22:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Request move

Hello, I'm writing to you because I noticed you are the last admin to edit WP:AN and appear to be currently online. The reason for me writing is to ask you to perform a move that I proposed at Talk:Osaka Restoration Association (1st). Nobody has commented on it in 2 weeks and I think it is a non-controversial move to undo a previous move which was, in my opinion, reckless. The reason for me requesting this is that another editor has been changing the disambiguation links, and the longer it is left like this the more work there will be to restore everything back to order. I hope you can help. Thanks, AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much! AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Mrwallace05 socks

New socks NickiMinaj4life and 86.133.178.209 are obviously abusing accounts of Mrwallace05. 123.136.112.198 (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I've filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrwallace05. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

And I've blocked that IP based on the (obvious) behavioural connection. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Question from Gashar2201

My post was deleted due to inappropriate contents but why is the below page not deleted even after requested by many people?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhakt

The content in recent usage section is offensive to the big section of the society in my country and this article has been used to bully the people.

I request you to delete the content or else allow me to proceed me with my article.

Thanks, Gaurav Sharma — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gashar2201 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gashar2201, your edits to Khujliwal where deleted because they were on the whole, negative and unsourced which does not comply with our policy on biographies of living persons. Regarding Bhakt, it had been nominated for deletion which is a different process to the article you wrote. I have assessed the consensus on the nomination page and decided that there was agreement that it should be deleted so have done that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure that my suggestion that you run had very little to do with it...

...but the deal still stands, I pay only the wholesale price or retail less 25%, whichever is lowest, on every ArbCom case.

Congratulations, try to pace yourself, or hope that everyone behaves well in the next couple of years. BMK (talk) 00:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I think I'll go for the second one. I have a counterproposal: you can take 25% of the load, and since I can see the private stuff I'll have to pick the stuff you get. :P Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations (and you've got email)

Welcome to the 2016 Arbitration Committee. A few moments ago, you should have received an email from me asking you such simple questions as what email address you want to use for committee business. Welcome! Courcelles (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, this doesn't make me happy one bit! We need you as an arbitration clerk, Callanecc, you've been invaluable. But on to bigger things! I hope you find the committee a worthwhile challenge! Congratulations on your win! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Congrats! :-) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Congratulations! Don't get too burned out. Mz7 (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all!! :) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

Congrats on your ArbCom victory! I wish you the best of luck. GABHello! 22:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks GAB, I imagine I'm going to need it. :) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Please revert

This edit [11]. Congratulations, and my your stop light ever remain green during your tenure. NE Ent 03:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Nice! Thank you. :) I've left Slakr a message, WP:RAAA and all that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The removal of a topic ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Re Steverci

Hello Callanecc,

I (as well as some others) who mainly edit history-related articles sincerely wondered why you removed Steverci's topic ban. I'm sorry, but he's simply not here to fruitfully work on this encyclopedia. I admire his strong nationalistic feelings and the urge to "Armenify" as well as trying to "Europeanize" the non-European nation of Armenia,([12]) but its very annoying for other editors, as well as therefore a pretty large obstruction to make valuable edits to the Armenian-topics due to his presence. Edits since the removal of his topic back that in my opinion, should not be allowed;

• Even though the added sources mention nothing about a suppossed Greek or Armenian "ethnicity".
• Removal of a distinguished and recognized academic related to the article in question, yet which he simply removes because he doesnt want the article to state that the for Armenians important king, was likely Zoroastrian
• Comment made on an Armenian topic infested with inflammatory loadings/personal-attacks, again, due to WP:JDL.

And more [13]-[14] (reverting to a revision with a more beneficial pov, which includes a Youtube link as reference) - Unreasoned change of category, even though the category he changed it to explicity states that one is only for nationals of the nation Armenia, which is obviously part of his pov pushing as well. Just to link a few.

Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 05:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

It does appear that Steverci's behaviour has not significantly improved which makes it look like there is still a need for a topic ban, which is really unfortunate. Before I do that however I'd like to give Steverci a chance to comment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I could post even more diffs, but I don't think that's needed. Yeah, giving him the space to reply would be good, indeed. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I support what Louis wrote. After the lifting of a topic ban, the involved editor should act like Caesar's wife, but unfortunately this was not the case. Alex2006 (talk) 10:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Furthermore, he continues to make content-related edits through numerous static IP's purely to avoid scrutiny (here most presumably one of them), so I wonder when he'll decide to answer here. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: If you've got evidence of recent socking and can prove that it is Steverci please let me know. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Callanec:, hey, here are some diffs. [15] - [16] - [17] - [18] (beautiful quacking), as well as a lot of edits on the same articles (almost every article the IP has edited, Steverci has done as well) [19] - [20] - [21] - [22] - [23] - [24], as well as an exactly similar pov here. [25] - [26] - [27]. Just to mention a few. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 07:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Callanecc, nice to see you again. Ever since you removed my ban I've been very careful not to make the same mistakes, I never revert an edit on an article more than once and if another editor continues edit warring I always bring it to a talk page. In all the edits Louis put forth, all of them aren't edits I made but edits I restored that were taken down without good reason. Louis has not presented any example of bad editing etiquette, just edits he doesn't like.

• (*cough*) except that you're still socking around with numerous known IP's (and thus violating your topic ban, amongst other reasons), have made numerous WP violations, numerous ad-hominem attacks, amongst others. All this while you got unblocked. - LouisAragon (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

This edit: It was actually Louis who removed it to begin with. I added the sources needed for Armenian ancestry, and the fact the Arshakunis had marriages with the Siunia dynasty and other Armenian noble families should make arguing against Armenian background pointless

• Nonsense. You added "Armenian" already months ago without a source right here even though the lede clearly states they were a branch of the Iranian Parthians. Then, months later, you added "Greek" and "Armenian" without a source [28], and then, when your unsourced addition got reverted, you re-added it with a source that does NOT back up your statements. Intermarriages don't change the origin of a dynasty. They were Parthian/Iranian in origin. According that bogus reasoning, namely, the Ottoman dynasty is a Circassian/Albanian/Greek dynasty, and not a Turkish one. Which would be blatant nonsense, just like your addition. - LouisAragon (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Well, yes, because that's what the template section is for. See House of Bourbon, House of Savoy, House of Romanov, etc.. Most of these articles don't have sources, because it's it's in the lead which falls under WP:WHENNOTCITE. Armenian background should be redundant since the Tiridates article mentioned he had Armenian ancestry and they married into other Armenian noble families. --Steverci (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

This edit: Rather then play Louis' edit warring games, I instead posted on his talk an elaborate explanation on why the single source he keeps posting is unreliable, given that the author makes several WP:Trivial mentions of WP:UNDUE claims in a topic she doesn't specialize in.

• Again, trying to distort reality. I wrote that edit summary and reverted your edit as you blatantly removed a historian who's specialisation very much covers the scope of the article in question. You were caught redhanded trying to remove the sources stating that he was Zoroastrian, as that conflicts with your ungrounded eurocentric pov regarding tons of Armenian topics (all archived). Interestingly, you did not remove the source given by F. Cumont (even though he was not a specialist in Armenian history either, per your own reasoning) - LouisAragon (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not distorting reality, you're ignoring it. Boyce has no background on Armenian history, evident by her work which contains several historical errors. Cumont has an archeology background in Pontus and Armenia. --Steverci (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

This edit: A strong case of POV pushing by Louis. Bagratid Armenia wasn't part of Georgia, Azerbaijan, Iranian Azerbaijan, or Anatolia.

• Bagratid Armenia held territories that nowadays is part of those 4 nations. They had an historical impact there, thus the categories were completely justified. No different than many of the other of the empire articles here. - LouisAragon (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Azerbaijan and Georgia didn't even exist yet! How can this be part of their history? Anatolia isn't part of the Armenian Highlands, "Eastern Anatolia" is a modern political term. Read the articles. And Iranian Azerbaijan never went above the Araks River and also had nothing to do with the kingdom. These are two cases of blatant POV pushing on your part. --Steverci (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

This edit: I was reverting another editor who changed Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia (de jure Azerbaijan), which is both POV and a red link. The youtube source was there to begin with, I didn't add it, as Louis claims.

• It doesn't matter whether you added it or not. You reverted it back to a revision where the YouTube link was added. It should be anyone's duty as an editor who's "here" to properly contribute to this place to remove it. If you had no socking/pov-pushing/topic ban/etc record, people wouldn't question your acts that easily. - LouisAragon (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• I reverted the article back to its state prior to the problematic edits, which is what editors are supposed to do (Wikipedia:Consensus). The YouTube source had been there for over a year and a half, are you going to report everyone who has edited it since? --Steverci (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Evidence regarding LouisAragon, copied below for ease of reading. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The user in need of a topic ban is not I, but Louis. Personal attacks: calls me "Incompetent pov pushers" and deletes discussion I made I stated very clear why I removed your comment on my talk page. See once again -> the massive amounts of ad hominem attacks/threats by Steverci towards me - LouisAragon (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Because you couldn't refute my evidence, as you couldn't for the Yervandunis. --Steverci (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC) calls me "fanboy" calls me POV pusher Lel. I think anyone with a sane mind would be able to call you a pov-pusher, through the way you have presented yourself here on the Wikipedia community. Your socking/topic ban/etc history. The fact that you're socking again through (IP) socks makes us better not say excessive words. (WP:NOTHERE) - LouisAragon (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Calling someone a POV-pusher is a blatant personal attack WP:POVPUSH, and Callaneccc agrees. Check your sanity standards. --Steverci (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC) calls me incompetent See WP:INCOMPETENCE. Nothing "personal attack" about it. A person who keeps socking and making disruptive edits (esp on the long term) is incompetent to the community here. - LouisAragon (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Did you notice the part where the guideline says, "It does not mean we should label people as incompetent. For example, we do not say "You are incompetent because you don't know anything about the subject of this article."? --Steverci (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC) calls me "incompetent people" calls another user ignorant What does that have to do with you? Trying to collect everything from every corner of the street doesn't refute anything here, nor does it help your case in any single way. As Callanec requested me to refute your links in order to end this nonsene; yes, I indeed added that the user in question is ignorant, for he ignored three[29][30][31] attempts of mine to have the dispute solved (which he never replied to, yet continued edit warring) as well as the fact that he did not reply to the section I made on the talk page of the article in question, which he nota bene even asked me to make himself (!) Yet he continued warring and reverting. That, is ignorance at the least. I could have easily reported him to ANI, but I decided not to. Another blatant fail to prove anything. - LouisAragon (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Battleground mentality: Falsely accused me and three others of being sockpuppets You have a well known history of socking. And you're still socking, as established. Totally legit and fully grounded for anyone to file a SPI regarding you. - LouisAragon (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC) I don't have a socking history, I misunderstood alternate accounts when I was still new here. You on the other hand have been blocked for socking three times. --Steverci (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC) "Sometimes it's quite difficult to see, but I'm sure there's something going on again by some Armenian users" Not even gonna comment anything on this. - LouisAragon (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Because you're caught red-handed? --Steverci (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC) Pushing Armenians as non-Europeans: [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] (removed source) Armenians are non-European. They never were European, and they never will be. Culturally, geographically, as well as historically. (See also Callanec; Alex's comments below as he commented thoroughly on this typical Steverci pov-pushing point). Funny you try to point it out here as if I'm Asianizing the so-called European nation of Armenia. Like as I'm pushing that Morocco is not North African. - LouisAragon (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC) More blatant POV pushing on your part. Armenians are linguistically, culturally, politically, and historically European, and geographical has always been POV, some say Poland isn't European, but the vast majority say Armenia is European. How can the Indo-European homeland not be European? Saying Armenia isn't European is like saying Spain isn't because it's a stone throw away from North Africa. --Steverci (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC) Pushing Armenian paganism as Zoroastrianism: [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] That's fully sourced content by a well-established scholar who can be used as an authority on the subject. - LouisAragon (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC) I wrote a long explanation otherwise you never responded to. --Steverci (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC) Pushing Armenian national kings as Iranian: [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] Them being "national Armenian kings" (see, he just can't leave the extreme ethno-nationalist point of view which got him topic-banned already) does not change their origin. If Callanec wants, we can add some 12 additional top sources here that prove that they, the Arsacids of Armenia, were of Iranian origin, not Armenian. Them being/becoming eventually an Armenian dynasty and part of the heritage of the Armenians (like Urartu), does not change their origin from being non-Armenian. - LouisAragon (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC) They are kings of the nation of Armenia, the category is for national Iranians. This is just further proof of you trying to Iranianize Armenian pages. And the Kingdom of Van was a 100% Armenian state. --Steverci (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC) Edit warring: Mkhitar Heratsi: ([52], [53]) I reverted a sock IP of yours (Callanec knows its your sock IP). The same sock IP we extensively discussed here. - LouisAragon (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Armenian Americans: ([54], [55]) Original research: [56] Nothing WP:OR about it. What a joke. Iran and Armenia share thousands of years of intertwined history and aspects of culture. The symbols are similar looking to a large extent. I can mentions tons of articles here that have "See also" that aren't directly related, but have noteworthy similarities in context in a way. (see, again confirming that extreme ethno-nationalistic pov that he has not changed ever since his topic ban) - LouisAragon (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC) not sure whether they are related in a historical point of view Is original research in its most simple form. --Steverci (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC) [57] Tries twice to categorize an Armenian state as being part of Armenia as being Turkey, Iran, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, which it wasn't part of, the latter two not even existing at the time: ([58], [59]) In too many edits to list, Louis was forced links to the Russo-Persian Wars in a large amount of articles without regard to ruining the quality of the article, such as the tautology here. Making changes to push his POV is a common trait of LouisAragon edits such as on the History of Armenia article. Although his edits had detiriorated the quality of the article, instead of undoing them even once I took it to the talk page first thing, and in response Louis just deleted it and said I'm not welcome here. Truth is I would love to be Louis' friend and contribute together with him, but the only kind of "contributions" he wants to make are those that enforce his own POV, and he has responded hostile toward me every time I tried to discuss disputes civilly. I don't believe he has any malicious intents, but fact is he has no real intentions improving Armenian articles, and almost every one he has edited has been in worse shape because of it. Since Wikipedia:Blocking policy is first and foremost to prevent disruption on Wikipedia, not a punishment, it's in the website's interest to give a sanction to LouisAragon. --Steverci (talk) 08:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC) "As the heat draws near", as they say. I'm not even gonna summarily point out any diff here accompanied by Steverci's endearing attempt to twist reality, and then I'm not even mentioning the fact that its Callanec's talk page in a section regarding Steverci's editorial behaviour (WP:NOTTHEM) I can mention numerous people that would advocate the return of a topic ban as well. See just above the comment by Alex2006, who has even a longer history of interaction with the user in question here than me. - LouisAragon (talk) 08:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC) That is a guide for appealing blocks in a specific section of Wikipedia, not for how to edit on a talk page. Callanecc asked to hear my side and I said it. As with editing articles, Louis once again chooses to ignore discussion and make snide remarks instead. --Steverci (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Callanecc, I wondered how long it would be before Steverci's editing would cross the line again, see Armenian language talk page. I wanted answers as to the actions of IP73.51.204.149(already mentioned above and who never responded on the talk page), Steverci comes galloping in to defend the clearly tendentious editing of IP73.51.204.149 [60] on the article's talk page. On the Armenian language talk page Steverci even resorts to Wikipedia:OR in an effort to keep Mongolian and Arabic out of the article. Yet the Iranica sources brought by Steverci make NO mention of the Armenian language, thus this is Wikipedia:OR. Then Steverci removes references and referenced information that he clearly does not like.[61][62] Steverci's actions were done in spite of the fact that I and user:EtienneDolet had chosen to restore the information removed by the IP.[63][64]
• Judging from the similarities in IP73.51.204.149 and Steverci's editing, it is clear that an Admin needs to investigate this and assess whether Steverci is logging out to push his POV. Such actions would be in violation of Wikipedia:AA2, the sanction under which Steverci was topic banned, under the section Sockpuppet abuse. It appears that Steverci has been blocked for sockpuppetry once before, therefore this is not a new thing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Apparently removing false and unsourced POV claims pushed by Kansas is tendentious editing? He never even responded to my point that loan words aren't part of a language. I would like to point out Kansas has also made personal attacks before as well. It's clear from the talk page interaction between the two that there is a strong WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Kansas isn't a concerned editor, he's here to defend his buddy. --Steverci (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Callanec, I am coming here again upon request of @LouisAragon:. I have to say that I am not an expert of Armenian topics, but I had to do with Armenian articles a couple of times, when Armenian nationalists tried to push their POV about the geographical location of their country, something that for an European belongs to basic culture. That's why I found highly problematic the insertion of this document (on Louis talk page) by Steverci, with the comment that this is a proof that "Armenia is in Europe". I read this interesting political document, and I can say that what it affirms (2.1, p. 4) is quite different from Steverci POV:

Those who say no (i.e., deny that Armenia is European) can only say that its geographical location is in what is often denominated in Europe as "smaller Asia"

So in this document is clearly stated that geographically Armenia IS in Asia. Afterwards, are listed the reasons that make of Armenia an European country, DESPITE its geographical location: an European country, NOT a country geographically in Europe. When the document states that "Armenia according to most of geographers is an European country" (btw, an apodictical sentence, where it is not specified who these geographers are) this means that other geographical aspects of the question (economical, sociological, etc.: maybe all, except the physical geographic one) allow these geographers to define the country as European.

Now, the geographical location of this country has been debated on the article talk page a lot of times (too many times, I think), and the consensus is crystal clear:

• The overwhelming majority of the geographical RS put Armenia in Asia;
• This comes from the fact that these sources set the main watershed of the Caucasus as part of the Europe - Asia boundary;
• In order to change this definition, or to introduce a new alternative definition with the due weight, we need strong RS dealing with physical geography, which define an alternative boundary for Europe and Asia, so that Armenia falls geographically in Europe;

I think that someone who has been topic banned about this subject and then has been allowed to edit again should have understood well what I wrote above, and should refrain to push ad infinitum his POV using sources which a) are political b) pursue a political aim and c) affirm the contrary of what he states. This has been clearly not the case with Steverci, who apparently does not consider that the analysis of his sources takes away a lot of our time, which could be much better used in the project. That's why I think that an indefinite topic ban at least regarding this aspect of the Armenian topic can be appropriate. Bye Alex2006 (talk) 07:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Steverci's 110% clear-cut socking through that IP both before as well as after the lifting of the topic ban. Apart from the already abundant and compelling evidence posted by me and Kansas Bear above, here some more regarding the obvious usage of those IP's to avoid scrutiny;

1) Reinstatement of the exact same edits in rapid succession in order to push his pov and to edit war [65]-[66]

2) "The History of Armenia template was spammed full of non-Armenian topics by your pov pushing." (From the same ad hominem infested reply) He stated this all of a sudden without any remark or whatsoever about this priorly on his Steverci account, nor did we have any conversation about this priorly.

Steverci's sock IP, the same 73.51.204.149 IP as linked above numerous times by me and Kansas Bear, removed various much related states from the exact same Armenia template Steverci was talking about in the diff above. He deleted them from the template with his exact same 73.51.204.149 IP, using an edit summary non-Armenian states while removing them. Notice only 7 people or whatsoever have edited this template in the last year.

Also lastly, Callanec, I have plenty of more diffs laying here from another IP which he uses (geolocates to the same place, makes the exact same edits, same target articles). Let me know if you want that mailed, in any case. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 08:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Given the responses Steverci make to the diffs you presented I'm not convinced that a topic ban is needed here (the logged out editing can be dealt with with a different sanction) as the responses address the concerns I had. Do you have further evidence of misconduct. Once I work out what to do with regarding Steverci, I'll take a look at the evidence they've presented about others. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

As requested if I'd have some spare time, I left a reply on virtually everyone "diff" Steverci posted so that this can be ended fast. @Callanecc: I will mail you (probably later today) the rest of the IP socks. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Re LouisAragon

The user in need of a topic ban is not I, but Louis.

Personal attacks:

calls me "Incompetent pov pushers" and deletes discussion I made

• I stated very clear why I removed your comment on my talk page. See once again -> the massive amounts of ad hominem attacks/threats by Steverci towards me - LouisAragon (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Because you couldn't refute my evidence, as you couldn't for the Yervandunis. --Steverci (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

calls me "fanboy"

calls me POV pusher

• Lel. I think anyone with a sane mind would be able to call you a pov-pusher, through the way you have presented yourself here on the Wikipedia community. Your socking/topic ban/etc history. The fact that you're socking again through (IP) socks makes us better not say excessive words. (WP:NOTHERE) - LouisAragon (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Calling someone a POV-pusher is a blatant personal attack WP:POVPUSH, and Callaneccc agrees. Check your sanity standards. --Steverci (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

calls me incompetent

• See WP:INCOMPETENCE. Nothing "personal attack" about it. A person who keeps socking and making disruptive edits (esp on the long term) is incompetent to the community here. - LouisAragon (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Did you notice the part where the guideline says, "It does not mean we should label people as incompetent. For example, we do not say "You are incompetent because you don't know anything about the subject of this article."? --Steverci (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

calls me "incompetent people"

calls another user ignorant

• What does that have to do with you? Trying to collect everything from every corner of the street doesn't refute anything here, nor does it help your case in any single way. As Callanec requested me to refute your links in order to end this nonsene; yes, I indeed added that the user in question is ignorant, for he ignored three[67][68][69] attempts of mine to have the dispute solved (which he never replied to, yet continued edit warring) as well as the fact that he did not reply to the section I made on the talk page of the article in question, which he nota bene even asked me to make himself (!) Yet he continued warring and reverting. That, is ignorance at the least. I could have easily reported him to ANI, but I decided not to. Another blatant fail to prove anything. - LouisAragon (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Battleground mentality:

Falsely accused me and three others of being sockpuppets

• You have a well known history of socking. And you're still socking, as established. Totally legit and fully grounded for anyone to file a SPI regarding you. - LouisAragon (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• I don't have a socking history, I misunderstood alternate accounts when I was still new here. You on the other hand have been blocked for socking three times. --Steverci (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

"Sometimes it's quite difficult to see, but I'm sure there's something going on again by some Armenian users"

• Not even gonna comment anything on this. - LouisAragon (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Because you're caught red-handed? --Steverci (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Pushing Armenians as non-Europeans:

[70]

[71]

[72]

[73]

[74]

[75]

[76]

[77] (removed source)

• Armenians are non-European. They never were European, and they never will be. Culturally, geographically, as well as historically. (See also Callanec; Alex's comments below as he commented thoroughly on this typical Steverci pov-pushing point). Funny you try to point it out here as if I'm Asianizing the so-called European nation of Armenia. Like as I'm pushing that Morocco is not North African. - LouisAragon (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• More blatant POV pushing on your part. Armenians are linguistically, culturally, politically, and historically European, and geographical has always been POV, some say Poland isn't European, but the vast majority say Armenia is European. How can the Indo-European homeland not be European? Saying Armenia isn't European is like saying Spain isn't because it's a stone throw away from North Africa. --Steverci (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Pushing Armenian paganism as Zoroastrianism:

[78]

[79]

[80]

[81]

[82]

[83]

• That's fully sourced content by a well-established scholar who can be used as an authority on the subject. - LouisAragon (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• I wrote a long explanation otherwise you never responded to. --Steverci (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Pushing Armenian national kings as Iranian:

[84]

[85]

[86]

[87]

[88]

[89]

• Them being "national Armenian kings" (see, he just can't leave the extreme ethno-nationalist point of view which got him topic-banned already) does not change their origin. If Callanec wants, we can add some 12 additional top sources here that prove that they, the Arsacids of Armenia, were of Iranian origin, not Armenian. Them being/becoming eventually an Armenian dynasty and part of the heritage of the Armenians (like Urartu), does not change their origin from being non-Armenian. - LouisAragon (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• They are kings of the nation of Armenia, the category is for national Iranians. This is just further proof of you trying to Iranianize Armenian pages. And the Kingdom of Van was a 100% Armenian state. --Steverci (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring:

Mkhitar Heratsi: ([90], [91])

• I reverted a sock IP of yours (Callanec knows its your sock IP). The same sock IP we extensively discussed here. - LouisAragon (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Armenian Americans: ([92], [93])

Original research:

[94]

• Nothing WP:OR about it. What a joke. Iran and Armenia share thousands of years of intertwined history and aspects of culture. The symbols are similar looking to a large extent. I can mentions tons of articles here that have "See also" that aren't directly related, but have noteworthy similarities in context in a way. (see, again confirming that extreme ethno-nationalistic pov that he has not changed ever since his topic ban) - LouisAragon (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• not sure whether they are related in a historical point of view Is original research in its most simple form. --Steverci (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

[95]

Tries twice to categorize an Armenian state as being part of Armenia as being Turkey, Iran, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, which it wasn't part of, the latter two not even existing at the time: ([96], [97])

In too many edits to list, Louis was forced links to the Russo-Persian Wars in a large amount of articles without regard to ruining the quality of the article, such as the tautology here. Making changes to push his POV is a common trait of LouisAragon edits such as on the History of Armenia article. Although his edits had detiriorated the quality of the article, instead of undoing them even once I took it to the talk page first thing, and in response Louis just deleted it and said I'm not welcome here.

Truth is I would love to be Louis' friend and contribute together with him, but the only kind of "contributions" he wants to make are those that enforce his own POV, and he has responded hostile toward me every time I tried to discuss disputes civilly. I don't believe he has any malicious intents, but fact is he has no real intentions improving Armenian articles, and almost every one he has edited has been in worse shape because of it. Since Wikipedia:Blocking policy is first and foremost to prevent disruption on Wikipedia, not a punishment, it's in the website's interest to give a sanction to LouisAragon. --Steverci (talk) 08:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

"As the heat draws near", as they say. I'm not even gonna summarily point out any diff here accompanied by Steverci's endearing attempt to twist reality, and then I'm not even mentioning the fact that its Callanec's talk page in a section regarding Steverci's editorial behaviour (WP:NOTTHEM) I can mention numerous people that would advocate the return of a topic ban as well. See just above the comment by Alex2006, who has even a longer history of interaction with the user in question here than me. - LouisAragon (talk) 08:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

That is a guide for appealing blocks in a specific section of Wikipedia, not for how to edit on a talk page. Callanecc asked to hear my side and I said it. As with editing articles, Louis once again chooses to ignore discussion and make snide remarks instead. --Steverci (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revert vandalism

This edit [98] the language is Dardic language ([www.omniglot.com/writing/khowar.htm]) and the language have connection with only kalasha language[99].

If you try to edit the page you'll be shown how to make an edit request so that someone else can check for you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Explanation

I don't understand why was i banned from the "Syrian civil war map":page. Your reason is because I allegedly broke the 1 revert per day rule, but i didn't. Yes, here i did revert 1 edit because it was against the rules, but not here. As you can see on the second link, i removed a section because i forgot to do that in my previous edit, i posted a source but forgot to change 1 thing also, then corrected myself in the next edit and i wrote in the desctiption that the source is the same. I think you maybe misunderstood the second link, it maybe looks like i reverted again something, but it's probably a bug, because why would i do the same thing in 2 minutes, nobody reverted my first revert, so i can't revert it again, if you understand me ... DuckZz (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

It was this revert I was referring to [100] and [101] (which was reverted in between those two edits here). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism by user

user Sana ullah faiz is doing vandalism on Punjabi people history after giving her, last edit warning of her talk page i am tired to revert his edit kindly block him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajjid Nawaz (talk • contribs) 13:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring for 24 hours. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Callenecc, are you saying that both of these editors are socks of Najaf ali bhayo? Kind of strange! - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I was pretty surprised when I saw both usernames, but when looking at the results and behaviour it's a definite match. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Good Article Nominations

Callanecc, I noticed that you attempted to nominate Dave Sharma a little while ago by adding an entry to the WP:GAN page. That page's contents is controlled by bot, so it came by on its thrice-hourly run and removed your entry.

The way you nominate an article for GA is explained at WP:GANI, the instructions page for the GA process. You'll want to read it, especially Step 2 in the Nominations section, but what you basically need to do is substitute the GAN template, including the appropriate subtopic parameter, at the top of the article's talk page. Best of luck, and congratulations on your recent election to ArbCom! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah ok, thanks BlueMoonset! And I thought ArbCom pages were difficult to navigate/understand. :P Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Now I see the big editnotice at the top. :( Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

User Tr19ss

Hi,

Could You please try to talk to Tr19ss (talk · contribs). I warned him 3 times to use edit summaries when changing Syria map, but he completely ignores everything. Just look at his edits. Absolutely no edit summaries. --Hogg 22 (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I left them a message. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Arab-Israeli article prohibition

Hi,

Hope all's well. Recently, I noticed that Supertom123456 was making a series of changes to Yom Kippur War, which obviously is covered by the latest Arb case. The editor in question has 21 edits total, and here are the ones to Yom Kippur War: [102][103][104][105][106]. I reverted and warned them. I then informed them of the latest Arb ruling that would prohibit them from editing the page. A few minutes later, they edit the page again. I'd appreciate your advice on how I should proceed. Thanks, GAB^Hello! 20:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I've added that article to the edit filter so Supertom123456 won't be able to edit it anymore. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Hoping that the arb prohibition will help things. GAB^Hello! 17:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Special:DIff/695139391

You beat me by about ten seconds... ;) L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: Notification

Thank you for the notification on my talk page. I just viewed the proposal.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 05:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Mawlid

Thanks for giving attention to Mawlid. I and other editors are working on dispute resolution here. Thanks again. Septate (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Callanecc please have a look at article Mawlid. Despite disapproval by majority of the editors here & here after a lengthy consensus, User:FreeatlastChitchat went ahead to make his/her desired changes. Being a mobile editor, I am unable to revert the overwhelming amount of info he/she added or removed. That's why I am asking you for intervention. Please restore the article back to its original version. Your help will be much appreciated. Thanks. Septate (talk) 05:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Firstly the actual discussion is at at another talkpage section. Secondly The only "concern" of septate and the IP hopper is that "you don't like mawlid that is why you are deleting this material". I listed my concerns and asked them to give their opinion, instead of any discussion about the concerns they started to throw a fit about "Why do you delete something I like". another user HyperGaruda was kind enough to engage in discussion and I accepted his opinion. An anon IP 109.147.78.219 gave a reliable source during the discussion and I used that too. seeing that septate is more concerned about throwing a fit and does not want to discuss anything I went ahead with my changes. Feel free to review the discussion, my concerns and the editing I did and if you revert my editing do please give a reason for doing so. WP:IDONTLIKEIT seems to be septates problem top be frank. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Leave it to admin to decide who is right and who is wrong. I and other editors have been overwhelmed by your offensive language. A reliable source was also provided by Mingling2 for Origin of Mawlid in the days of Rashidun Caliphs but you removed it because it didn't suit your interests. You also removed alot of images from their respective sections because they looked 'mob' to you. By the way original discussion and consensus is here. Don't try to divert attention from actual topic. Thanks.Septate (talk) 06:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Commented on the article talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations!

I know you'll do your best. I have faith that you'll make a much-needed difference but I also hope I won't have to find out from first-hand experience. HAPPY HOLIDAYS Atsme^📞📧 05:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations! I'm confident you'll do a fine job as arbitrator. → Call me Hahc21 13:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Congratulations. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations! You helped me with an IP trolling problem earlier this year, and I think your promotion is well deserved. ~ P-123 (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Congrats. :) --Tito Dutta (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• Congratulations and thanks for stepping up to make this a better project for all. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all, hopefully I live up to the expectation! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Congrats. I voted for you. Now remember, I have immunity to everything and am completely above policy. Any arbitration case regarding me or about me must always end in my favor. ;-)—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 04:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
• Congratulations also -- samtar ^whisper 14:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
• Congrats! --Rschen7754 19:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
• Congrats... All the best to you on this new adventure in ArbCom. Tiggerjay (talk) 02:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Sock, again?

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ArthurRead1234/Archive MartinSFSA (talk) 12:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@MartinSFSA: could you please add some evidence showing the link at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ArthurRead1234. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Done, and done. MartinSFSA (talk) 13:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look tomorrow. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Selection in Arbitration Committee

Hello Callanecc, congratulations on your appointment to the WP:AC. I am sure that you will serve the committee to the best of your abilities. Keep up the good work. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive IP making false and nasty personal attacks

Hi, previously you blocked User:174.109.148.22 for edit warring on the article Americans for Legal Immigration. The IP also has a self declared WP:COI with respect to the organization. Now they have began making false and vile accusations and personal attacks agains me. I'm not going to repeat them but here is the link: [107]. Needless to say this is utterly false from beginning to end. It's clearly meant as a means of intimidation, constitutes WP:HARASSMENT and clearly shows that the editor is WP:NOTHERE. Volunteer Marek  00:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocked and revision deleted. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

User talk:N0n3up

Congratulations by the way :-) The above named user is just back from your recent block and moved directly into a similar set of edit about the British Empire as a major power on another article (fair enough) but added in a minor personal attacks. I gave him/her a mild warning and the response was to go within minutes to my most recent revert of a POV change to a Troubles article and revert that. I suspect the behaviour pattens that got the last block have really not changes. However I suspect I am a red rag to a bull here and should probably have just ignored him/her. But if you could have a look and give him/her some advice it might prevent trouble downstream. Or if you think I should just leave it feel free to ignore. Not sure if I should have reverted their reversion so advise on that appreciated if you think I shouldn't have .... ----Snowded ^TALK 18:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Snowded Lovely how you twist the story and didn't mention your misconducts. Reverting ahead instead of talking with constantly changable excuses, Getting involved in something for the sake of simply crossing over an unliked editor instead of concentrating on the facts as you did by intervening in my discussion in here, Reverting someone's edits simply because you got into an argument with them like you did here and here after on British Empire is a form of harassment. Your threat here and lecturing about "commenting on editors" when you yourself do exactly the same is far worse which I have no problem on pointing out. And my edit revert that here was because of Irish tactics used by the IRA and has nothing to do with you. I don't mind finding a mentor, the problem is your stalking edits as done here, here and here. (N0n3up (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC))

@Snowded: Thanks for letting me know and see the messages I left you. I suggest you try to avoid reverting and commenting on N0n3up for a little bit, you need a break and N0n3up has plenty of eyes on them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

OK I'll leave him/her to others (although in both cases they were pages on which I am an active editor) and other messages noted and actioned, I should have waited ....----Snowded ^TALK 04:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't like to see any editor getting booted off Wikipedia, unless they've been vandalizing, threatening or socking. I'm requesting that if N0n3up is walking on the edge? let that edge be a 1RR instead of 0RR. GoodDay (talk) 02:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Neither do I, but in hindsight I agree with Floq, the problem seems to be that N0n3up doesn't understand what they're doing wrong so hopefully giving them a crystal, clear dazzling line will make them get used to talking not reverting. It may be that after the month we go back to 1RR, but hopefully that won't be necessary. There really is only so much rope, and I had filled in the block form for an indef before I changed my mind. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 00:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

You might want to...

..explain things to SageRad that being topic banned from a topic means you stop talking about the topic. I have attempted to explain this to them but it is falling on deaf ears, and I have no wish to drag them to AE when a word from someone in authority might actually hand them a cluepon. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it's already been done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

1RR for "The Troubles"?

Remember that you told Snowded to revert himself here? He did after you told him, but now he reverted again back to his own version before passing 24 hours after his previous edit. Just letting you know.. (N0n3up (talk) 06:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC))

Hi N0n3up reverting your own edits is an exception to the rule. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I know, but in this case it was the same as him doing the revert against what he was supposed to do in Here, but he reverted back to the version you told him to not revert to again back to his own version the same as never doing the revert you told him to do on himself. Unless you're okay with this. (N0n3up (talk) 11:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC))

It's not best practice and Snowded should have tried to discuss (WP:BRD) before reverting and should have waited until after the 24 hours; but it's not worth a block. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree, although a warning just to remind him since he always seems to abide by his own edits no matter what. (N0n3up (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC))

Snowded's a serial 1RR violator who's received several warnings about his habit from myself and others. Gob Lofa (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

one example of a wider issue, which includes long term attempts to remove 'terrorism' from articles such as this and more importantly this. I could list more. User:AusLondonder and others have had similar issues. I'm putting a case together but as Gob Lofa has chosen to bring it here I've shared a few links. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

That's a pretty transparent attempt at muddying the waters. Stop breaching 1RR. Gob Lofa (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Just a comment. I took the troubles to check the edits for all three, [108][109][110] and in all, (the first two, excluding the last one which I think is a tittle reiterative), Gob Lofa actually narrows down the themes of the perpetrators of the crimes carried out during those events in the article. Not to mention the first one, making it clear that it was Irish actions, not British. There isn't really anything wrong with those edits as far as I'm concerned. Yet Snowded seems to revert him constantly at much of his edits he does as he did to mines after a conflict, such an action, not to mention the edits made here in Industrial Revolution and Lend-Lease, two articles Snowded rarely ever edits but reverted right after I had a dispute with him. (N0n3up (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC))

N0n3up, you under a serious threat of an indefinite block for edit-warring. You have at least one administrator watching your contributions to see if you are being a productive editor. It would be wise for you to focus less on personalities here and other editor's habits and work on improving articles. You say you want to rebuild trust but spending time criticizing other editors will not help with this effort. One way that short-term editors become long-time contributors is not dwelling on editors they have had a conflict with and moving past old disputes. There comes a point where it doesn't matter who did what first, if you are seen as being disruptive to the project, then you will be unwelcome to edit here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Liz Thanks for letting me know, and know your words of wisdom are kept in mind. Yes, I might have had a history of "dwelling on editors they have had a conflict with and moving past old disputes," in the past except in this case, where I actually agree on the arrangement of the article made by Gob Lofa, my comments on Snowded are related to the article in which I am concerned about due to the links between Snowded's and Gob Lofa's edits, and the consensus made by Gob Lofa and Me where Snowded keeps repeating the same arguments. Thats all I have to say. Thanks again for your concern. (N0n3up (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC))

@Gob Lofa, Snowded, and N0n3up: Next time you see a 1RR vio report it to WP:ANEW otherwise I think we're done here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Featured article

How do you nominate one? and in doing so does it mean the articles that go through the process get elevated to a status, or am I wrong? Just curious. (N0n3up (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC))

The featured article candidature process is a long and in-depth process with a consensus of editors agreeing that an article meets the featured article criteria and that it should be promoted. If there is a consensus then the article is promoted. Template:FAC-instructions outlines the process. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks :) (N0n3up (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC))

Curious

Hey, what's up. Just wondering what was up with this edit? Peace, delldot ∇. 06:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi delldot What do you mean? I thought G6 applied to disambig pages where there is a primary topic and only one other page? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. I had read that to mean there should only be one page at all. G6 says: "a disambiguation page that only links to one extant article and whose title includes '(disambiguation)'". Which Isaac is the primary in this case? Thanks, I've been gone for a long time, taking my time to re-familiarize myself with everything. delldot ∇. 06:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The one without the disambiguation on the end Isaac Parker is the primary topic and Isaac Parker (congressman is a secondary topic. However if you look at the deletion template it says disambiguates one topic (the one with the bit in brackets). But in any case they don't really do any harm so it's probably better to leave them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's ambiguous. I guess I could figure it out but now I don't have the energy for it! delldot ∇. 05:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks :) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Rule 1RR

I don't know whether this is the right place to ask about the rule, however I don't understand what its purpose is and why it exists? As long as an editor isn't vandalising an article then surely reverting edits is fine? Especially if the article has been subject to vandalism or unreliably sourced edits, in which it requires multiple reverts so that the article is made valid again?Prohibited Area (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Prohibited Area, 1RR exists to stop people from edit warring which is especially important when the topic is controversial. The idea is that rather than reverting back and forth editors will talk about the issue instead. There is an exception for "clear vandalism" and some other things, though poorly sourced material isn't one of them, as there are different interpretations regarding what is and is not a reliable source. A series of reverts all by the same editor with no edits by others during the series only counts once, have a look at the pink box at WP:3RR (except it's one not three). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-52

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

Tech News

• Because of the holidays, the next issue of Tech News will be sent out on 11 January 2016.
• The writers of the technical newsletter are asking for your opinion. Did you get the information you wanted this year? Did we miss important technical news in 2015? What kind of information was too late? Please tell us! You can write in your language. Thank you!

Recent changes

• CompletionSuggester is a new suggestions algorithm for Search. It is available as a Beta feature since 17 December. (more information)
• The Multimedia team is running an A/B test for the cross-wiki upload tool. They are testing four different interfaces. The test is running from 16-23 December. (more information)

Changes this week

• There is no deployment of MediaWiki scheduled until 12 January 2016 (calendar).

Meetings

• Should administrators and other users with advanced tools need stronger passwords? You can discuss about it in a Request for Comments.
• No meeting with the VisualEditor team on 22 and 29 December, and 5 January.

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

18:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request archived

Hello. This is a message to inform you that a clarification request that you were involved in, pertaining to the Privatemusings arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t), has been archived with no action. You can now find it here. For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)