User talk:Callanecc/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 28

Russia & Turkey Both in Europe but DOUBLE STANDARDS still persist

Dear Callanecc, Wikipedia is commiting Double Standards on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mobile_network_operators_of_Europe by refusing on returning a White European, Western, Secular Nation to it. Why is Greenland that’s a part of the North American continent, Iceland, Cyprus (The Turkish Cypriot North & Greek South), Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan & Russia that reaches as far East as China included in "The List Of Mobile Network Operators Of Europe" but not Turkey that is singled out & put next to Uganda in the African category? Instead of next to it’s Black Sea Neighbor Ukraine. For those who don't know, Turkey like Russia is Physically in Europe & completely Politically in the UN, NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, Council Of Europe, Associate Member of the EEC European Economic Community since 1963, Accessing Member of the EU recognized as European, OECD, the Western Europe Branch of the WEOG Western European & Other Groups, also in the OSCE Organisation for Security & Cooperation In Europe, EU Customs Union, UEFA Union Of European Football Associations, Eurovision Song Contest & European Travel Insurance Listings plus too many more to list here? As for the people, the White European Citizens of Turkey are made up of many various White Europeans. The descendants of the Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire, Ottoman Empire made up of Turks whose birthplace is the Belukha Mountains in Siberia, Present Day Russia, including Bosniaks, Albanians, Greeks, Armenians, Azeris, Georgians, Kazakhs, Circassians, Russians, Slavs & Turkified Anatolians. Christian Teachings state that the Turks are descendants of Japheth: The Father of the European Race via Gomer. The Germans are also descendants of Gomer. My friend the Author Stefan Ihrig’s Book: “Ataturk In The Nazi Imagination” even documents that the Nazi Party’s Office Of Racial Policy classed Turks, Hungarians, Finns, Estonians as Aryans and part of the White European Race in 1936 because all 4 have the same bloodline & linguistic origins. Rockwell the founder of the American Nazi Party also stated that Turks are part of the White European Race. There is a conspiracy that every time Turkey is added, Anti-Turkish hatemongering supporters of Brexit, Farage, Ukip & the UK’s Extremist Daily Express remove it? The Secular Democracy founded in 1923 is a European & Western Nation with a European Penal code founded by the Blond Haired & Blue Eyed WW1 Hero Ataturk that must be returned to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mobile_network_operators_of_Europe & left there permanently.

> 1. The United Nations Official Website Page Titled "The Economic Commission > For Europe" lists Turkey, Cyprus & Russia in Europe http://www.un.org/Depts > /Cartographic/map/profile/ece.pdf > > 2. The Official Website for NATO states in Article 10 states that > membership is open to any “European State in a position to further the > principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North > Atlantic area” http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_52044.htm > > 3. The Official Website for The Council Of Europe includes Turkey in Europe > http://www.coe.int/en/web/about-us/our-member-states > > 4. The Official Website for the EU European Union states that Membership > criteria – Who can join? The Treaty on the European Union states that any > European country may apply for membership & Turkey is already in accession > negotiations http://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/p > olicy/conditions-membership_en Please help successfully removing Turkey from the African category & Returned back to the Europe Category where it belongs next to the Ukraine not Uganda. Thank You Madisonrayne619@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madison2017 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Reg User:Rajesultanpur

Until you block User:Rajesultanpur as a sock puppet of User:Prashantpking I cant G5 the bunch of hoax articles created by him (at last count there are 8 of them). Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9X Odia. Xzinger (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Blocked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

This edit

[1]"He may also use these tools" is missing the end of sentence. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Headbomb: I've fixed it, saved midway through (without finishing). I think I've addressed all of the things you've raised. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Eight years of editing, today.

Hey, Callanecc. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 01:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Happy first edit day. You and Drmies. Defies coincidence... Mkdw ^talk 05:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Chris. Drmies our sock farm has been rumbled!! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• Wait. You only got 8 years??? Drmies (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

fixing SPI to include CU

I just submitted a SPI, but missed the CU checkbox, do you know what template I need to add into the page to drive the CU clerking process? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kingshowman ResultingConstant (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi ResultingConstant, below the month and year section header change {{SPI case status|}} to {{SPI case status|CUrequest}}. Then the clerks or a CU will take a look and decide whether CU would be appropriate. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Ann Louise Gittleman

Good morning,

I am BRAND NEW to Wiki as of last night. I only joined after finding a slanderous biography against a living person during unrelated research. I understand the old version has been repopulated, but I'm requesting that my un-horrid version be put in its place until the situation can be reviewed. I am shocked that the other one was allowed to remain in place for so long. Please let me know what I need to do to correct it... or at least remove the comments that are slanderous in nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Analyst737 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Analyst737, the best thing to do is start a section for discussion on the article's talk page. Have a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Resolving content disputes for some more information. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't find a way to simply "reply" to your prior reply -- but, I HAVE started the discussion. It appears the ugly stuff is still in place and, in the biographies discussion, others have brought this subject up to no avail. The content does NOT meet the biography standards, it's biased and paints a negative picture of the person. I don't know this person, but I know slander when I see it. What must be done to correct the issue? It's apparently been in dispute for quite some time. Wouldn't it be better to leave the non-slander in place while these discussions are underway? Please tell me how I can fix this today, because truthfully, I am trying to right a wrong and I'm not a Wiki regular. I'm literally only here after seeing this ONE thing. If there are other bios like this, it's only hurting these people AND Wikipedia's credibility. Analyst737 (talk) 11:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC) Analyst737 10/7/17

I've modified your post so you can see how to 'reply' (it takes some getting used to). I've posted on a noticeboard to get some attention. The best thing to do is create a new section on the article's talk page listing exactly what the issue is (including quotes from the article and sources which show it's incorrect) so that others can weigh in. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I have started discussions. I have looked at all the prior info. It appears this same issue has been in discussion for a while. I'm not the first person to bring this up. How long does fixing something usually take? Years? If so, I don't have time for that. lol. Is it possible to take out ONLY the slanderous statements while the subject is reviewed? It looks like the person who wrote this originally isn't currently contributing or has a new account. Can we not resolve this today?" All I can do is cite the biography policy, which I have. We can even leave everything the first person wrote and take out the slander if reverting to my bio isn't acceptable. I don't want to helicopter this for weeks on end. I would like to see the erroneous statements corrected today. I hope I'm not muddling the etiquette too badly. I'm trying. Analyst737 (talk) 12:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC) 7 October 2017

Can't find the section you added. Should be here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

How about now? I added it, again. haha Analyst737 (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Yep, now it's there. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets

when sockpuppet categories are created they have to be added to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets manually. Is it possible to automate that process? Rathfelder (talk) 08:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

You could probably ask for a bot to go around and create sockpuppet categories (with {{sockpuppet category}}) but I'm guessing that isn't an easy process. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to discuss the soon to built, Interaction Timeline

Hi Checkusers and Checkuser clerks,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input about building the Interaction Timeline feature.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you use similar tools such as the Editor Interaction Analyser and User compare report during sockpuppet investigations.

You can leave comments on the on wiki discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

User talk:EllenSheehy

I'm working through backlogged cases at CAT:UNB, and was working with the above blocked user. There were two concerns, WP:SOCK and WP:COI which were raised in the various discussions leading to the block, and it appears to me that the user has assuaged the concerns raised in both of those cases. I'm inclined to unblock unless you have any additional information which would change the calculus here. Any objections? --Jayron32 10:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jayron32: I've asked them a question as their explanation isn't consistent with the CU data, but I have a feeling about why that may be. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! We'll await their response. --Jayron32 23:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

IP range 49.

Hi Callanecc. Many thanks for dealing with this - much appreciated. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Permissions

I recently tried to create a new article via the wizard. As an autopatrolled user, I expected it to be placed in the main-space, however it automatically saved as a draft. So I thought something must have happened with my permission status, but a request at Requests for permissions/Confirmed shows that I am in fact still autoconfirmed. However, I have been able to verify that here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ListUsers?username=TheWarOfArt&group=autoconfirmed&limit=1. I'm not sure what's going on - any insights would be greatly appreciated. TheWarOfArt (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi TheWarOfArt, my guess would be that the Article Wizard puts all articles created through it into the draft namespace (there was a new version released recently). There's no reason you can't just move it into mainspace as soon as you've created it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I guess there has just been a change to the wizard since my last use. Thanks! TheWarOfArt (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Aww, crap!

Stemming from the vandalism warning template vandalism that managed to briefly occur, I went and bumped up the protection level of them to require template editor access. I just noticed that you bumped up the protection level on Template:Uw-vandalism1 to extended confirmed, and right before I made my change -- so... I inadvertently overrode what you did. I just wanted to let you know and apologize, and make sure that you're okay with that change and don't have objections to it... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, no worries at all. Much of a much-ness between them, TE is probably more correct. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Cool deal. Thanks - I really appreciate it :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Reply

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I stopped using my account a long time ago (with some rare exceptions). Frankly I got sick of the Wikibullying. And I observed that for whatever reason the bullies tend to look for logged in users as their prey (I guess that makes it easier).

I have since contributed in a Wikignome kind of capacity without logging in but have not gotten involved with article development.

-- MC 2600:100C:B02B:9BB5:FCAB:DDB9:7365:96B (talk) 13:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Shinano River

The article Shinano River you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Shinano River for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AmericanAir88 -- AmericanAir88 (talk) 02:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tenod888/Archive

Hi, Callanecc. Regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tenod888/Archive, would you be willing to semi-protect the Foreskin article. Another sock showed up, and it is likely that more will pop up as well. This other account is also suspicious. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I've protected the page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Callanecc. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 16:47, 25 October 2017 (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.

Sorry to send email, but it pertains to user/IP issues. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Mrwallace05 new sock

Mrwallace05 created a sock user Special:Contributions/DingoDongo. "if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck." 115.164.187.164 (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not so sure it is, could you please file an SPI with evidence. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Please fix this template

Template:Proxycheckstatus/doc display on WP:SPI Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for letting me know. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Callanecc:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – Linguist^unEins^uno 19:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Calvin Cheng

I noticed you reverted some edits and protected this page. I do not believe you are being completely objective. An account was created a few days a go just to revert well-sourced content. This content is not promotional in any form. It involves the addition of two things. One an IPO on the main stock exchange of a tech company the subject co-founded that happened in June 2017. JYTDOG made a mistake and admitted as much that he thought it was going to happen. Second, an important tech awards that the subject co-founded - this was attended by the country’s Minister of Education. JYTdog has not been objective as he was involved in writing this page a couple of years back. Please investigate. For example, it is clear the subject isn’t a fashion entrepreneur. 101.127.182.11 (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not the material in question should be in the article is largely irrelevant to the semi-protection. Wikipedia article are required to be neutral and written in a non-promotional manner. The material which Jytdog was reverting is written in a promotional manner, if that is fixed then a further discussion can be held on the article's talk page regarding whether the material should be added to the article. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

So isn't the responsible thing to do for senior editors to edit the content to make it acceptable since it is sourced, rather than to revert and edit?101.127.182.11 (talk) 06:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

It's up to the editors involved, that article/topic/content might not be something they're interested in. So, the thing do it to propose a non-promotional version on the talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

William Riker

Thank you for the range block :) - FlightTime (open channel) 15:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Avaya1

I've filed a report at ANI about Avaya1's disruptive editing. You may want to comment because you participated in a discussion about him at AE. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

64.237.32.0/19

Hi Callanecc! I hope you had a good Thanksgiving holiday. I'm messaging you to ask about this IP range you blocked - did you mean to block it indefinitely? Unless there's circumstances I'm not aware of, I don't believe that we're supposed to block IPs indefinitely. Just wanted to give you a heads up in case you weren't aware, and to ask about it if you were. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah, it's actually Ryulong's block from 2007, I just changed the block template in 2014. I've set an expiry date to the block. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Cool deal; thanks for doing that. I guess I could of... you know... looked at the full log instead of being an idiot and asking you about it... :-D. I started a discussion at WP:AN here, and we're going through the list to update these blocks and remove the ones that aren't needed. This is what led me to run into this block here. Thanks for getting back to me and for your help - it'll make this backlog that much shorter :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

OSM Aviation Company Page

Dear Callenecc,

I recently tried to update some information to our company page, but didn't really understand before later that I did something wrong. What happened was that the page got deleted and I was really hoping to get it back as it was before I did any changes to it.

Thank you for your help and sorry for the inconvinience.

Kind Regards, Benedikte Øygard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.214.79.182 (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Benedikte, the page was deleted for two reasons. The first was that it was written in a promotional tone and the second was that it was a copyright infringement of the company's website. Due to the open-source nature of Wikipedia, and that it can be used by anyone else, content placed on Wikipedia must be free for anyone to use. Additionally, it's important that you ensure that the company itself meets our notability requirements. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

TBAN

Well it was imposed 18 May 2014, which is a fair while ago. Would you consider lifting it? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Seems a long time ago to me. If there's no evidence of DS being recently disruptive in these areas that seems a reasonable request. -- Begoon 11:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• In the last three months, you've been blocked twice for edit warring. That doesn't indicate to me that you'll be able to contribute effectively in this topic area, especially since the issues raised in the two discussions which ensued following the blocks are similar to the original reason you were topic banned. I'd also note that it appears to me that your BASC unblock conditions are still current. I'd be hesitant to remove the TBAN while they are still in force. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Unblock conditions were for 12 months, it's been more than 12 months since BASC granted my appeal. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

And that last block was for 1 revert btw, not breaking 3RR. I have for the most part stuck to 1RR since Cyber unblocked me. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

And BASC said in the unblock not the TBAN was separate to the unblock and needs appealing in the normal manner "your topic ban mentioned in the first clause will not automatically expire, that will have to be appealed in the normal manner" or am I reading that wrong? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

In it's entirety, that point of the unblock conditions say: These sanctions will expire 12 months after your ban is lifted, or 12 months from most recent block, whichever is later, even if such block is not imposed under these sanctions. My interpretation of that quote it that you need 12 months of being unblocked for them to expire. You were unblocked in March 2015 and then reblocked in May 2015 until May 2017. It hasn't been 12 months since then (which would be May 2018), however that doesn't matter as the expiry clock reset on November 2017 when you were blocked again. So my interpretation is that the BASC unblock conditions now expire in November 2018 (assuming you aren't blocked until then).

You're welcome to seek clarification at WP:ARCA about it, but I'm pretty confident of my interpretation. If you want to appeal the unblock conditions you'd need to do that as an amendment request at WP:ARCA. However, I'd suggest to you that it would be very unlikely for the conditions to be removed given that you have a very recent block. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Sheesh, so one revert in 24hrs gets me blocked and now I'm unable to appeal a three year old sanction? Hardly seems right, thanks anyway Cal Darkness Shines (talk) 09:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome to appeal either of the two sanctions - mine at AE or the one from BASC at ARCA. However, given your recent blocks, I'm not willing to lift the topic ban. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Ellen van Neerven

Callanecc,

The segment I removed from the Ellen can Neerven Wikipedia page is vandalism, in-line with the previous edits from October. It also stands out for being one the most inconsistent and unprofessional pieces of text on Wikipedia.

I'm not sure what the play is here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamManiatis (talk • contribs) 14:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi WilliamManiatis, the best thing for you to do would be to start a discussion on the talk page about it. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Resolving content disputes for more information. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Callanecc a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Slightlymad 05:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Callanecc. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Suspected Littlemixfan! sockpuppet

I opened an SPI page where I pointed to new suspected user User:YOUTH. 183.171.181.3 (talk) 10:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Could you please include some examples of previous socks doing the same thing? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked sock Pageturner237 making the same reversions: 1, 2, has also made the same reversion as Musicalnote1 (3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) and Bball 123 (10, 11, 12). 183.171.181.3 (talk) 11:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

In my defense

Hi, I would first like to thank you for only giving me a three day block for my sock/meat puppeting as it could have been a lot worse. But I AM telling you the truth that I though by having people create accounts to help me out against my deletion that it wouldn't be against the rules as I though it wouldn't be canvasing since these people did not yet have accounts, and also though as long as these were real people who truly did object to my deletion then it would be okay. If I really knew that did know that it was against the rules I WOULDN'T have done it, and I have now read up on it and have learned that it is not allowed and won't repeat that mistake. People have told me by editors wanting to delete my well sourced and notable articles that they are bullying me which I agree with. I put a lot of effort into those articles and I see no need why they should have been deleted, but even though there some people causing trouble by doing this, Wikipedia and editors have often thanked for my contributions, so this proves that there are people who do appreciate the work I do! Davidgoodheart (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/734

Courtesy notice that I've disabled this because it's received no hits in 10 months. Hope this is OK! Please feel free to re-enable if disruption resumes. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Precious four years!

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda. Love the pun! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I like you for noticing ;) - Did you see that my voters' guide sortable collection of answers and Precious has a talk page this year? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

SPI

Hello Callanecc, would you please review this case? The WP:DUCK account is technically unrelated to master but as i mentioned there, there are evidences that the master abused proxies in the past. Also, Szombre (confirmed sock of Dra goon) is a Hungarian username and choosing Hungarian usernames is quite typical to the sockmaster. See CU blocked socks with Hungarian names[2][3][4][5]...A brand new account editing same articles with same POV, being fluent in the same languages and choosing similar usernames...It seems quite ducky to me. 185.43.229.30 (talk) 08:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I've blocked Dra goon due to the duck-like edits and use of a proxy. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for the feedback. Should your block be mentioned on the SPI? Because Szombre has not been tagged. Cheers, 185.43.229.128 (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Done both. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

219.76.15.*

Hi, Callanecc, I think that your long term 28 bit range block ([6]) might need a broader range (likely 24 bit). Cheers - DVdm (talk) 11:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I originally thought it would be, but looking at the contribs in the /24 they are all from within the /28 subrange. I probably could have done the whole /24 as there are no other edits from it, but might as well leave it open. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I hadn't looked at the timestamp of your rangeblock. I thought it was from some time ago. My mistake! - DVdm (talk) 11:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I just filed a request at WP:AN/I to have the /24 rangeblocked but then saw this request here. Some IPs that aren't included within your /28 rangeblock that were recently used by this LTA are:

• 219.76.15.15 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 219.76.15.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 219.76.15.12 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Thanks. 27.121.207.188 (talk) 13:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

IP 27, these were included. Note that the 28bit range goes from 219.76.15.1 to 219.76.15.15 (32-28=4, where the 4 bits cover 0..15). - DVdm (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I got confused there because those IPs don't list the rangeblock as it's current block. My mistake. 27.121.207.188 (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Similar confusion as mine, earlier today . - DVdm (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Here we go again:

• 219.76.13.210 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

They seem to sollicit an even larger range. - DVdm (talk) 14:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• And 219.76.18.78 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - more block evasion. - DVdm (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@DVdm: I've blocked the whole /16. Hopefully that'll stop it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

A serious grudge, this must be . Thx. - DVdm (talk) 08:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

T. Raja Singh Lodh

I am have made an edit there (very small edit) just to fix how it was looking, please take a look — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indipediaxxx (talk • contribs) 16:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi

Seeing that Kingsindian and myself understand Version 2 completely differently over at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, could you please tell us what your opinion is, about the situation on Mausoleum of Abu Huraira: did editor C break the rules' according to Version 2, or not? (I have no intention of reporting anyone, but I really need to know,....or I will be reported next, if I have gotten it wrong.) Thanks, Huldra (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Huldra, I'm going to need some more information. Who are editors A, B & C? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, as a said on WP:ARCA, we have:

• 16:01, 8 December 2017 editor A adds label
• 17:54, 8 December 2017 editor B removes label
• 17:59, 8 December 2017 editor C re add same label.

I want to make it clear that I have no intention of reporting anyone here: I just really need to know exactly what the rules are, as I know..from experience..that the threshold for reporting me is rather low. If I break a rule, then I can be pretty 100% certain that I will be reported. Also, to repeat: at the moment Kingsindian and I have completely opposite understanding of how the rules are to be interpreted under Version 2: Kingsindian thinks that "there was no violation of either version 1 or version 2 (because A and C are not the same person).". I think that C has broken the rules, according to Version 2. (But not according to Version 1). Which one of us is correct? Huldra (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

In that example, no one has broken the rules because A and C aren't the same person. Editor A would not have been able to add it back until at least 16:02, 8 December 2017 17:55, 9 December 2017 and editor B can't remove the tag again until at least 18:00, 9 December 2017. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I assume "until at least 16:02, 8 December 2017" was a typo for "until at least 16:02, 9 December 2017".

Then I had misunderstood your answer on ARCA at 22:33, 2 December 2017, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Huldra: I've fixed the time and date I had above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks...I think I understand what is meant by Version 2, now. However, it should give pause for thought, that both you and myself got it wrong the first time around...(after all, none of us are newbies). Which is why I am looking for a simpler solution...Huldra (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

In my defense

Hi, I would first like to thank you for only giving me a three day block for my sock/meat puppeting as it could have been a lot worse. But I AM telling you the truth that I though by having people create accounts to help me out against my deletion that it wouldn't be against the rules as I though it wouldn't be canvasing since these people did not yet have accounts, and also though as long as these were real people who truly did object to my deletion then it would be okay. If I really knew that did know that it was against the rules I WOULDN'T have done it, and I have now read up on it and have learned that it is not allowed and won't repeat that mistake. People have told me by editors wanting to delete my well sourced and notable articles that they are bullying me which I agree with. I put a lot of effort into those articles and I see no need why they should have been deleted, but even though there some people causing trouble by doing this, Wikipedia and editors have often thanked for my contributions, so this proves that there are people who do appreciate the work I do! Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit protection Dublin Airport

Hello there, is there a reason why Dublin Airport has been semi-proteced by you for more than 1.5 years? There are not really any trys to vandalize the page in recent months so the protection should be lifted. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.14.157 (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

It's pending changes protected due to persistent vandalism over a number of years. There were around 6 edits which needed to be reverted so, in my opinion, protection is still warranted. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

ACC Interface

Hi, I am identified on the access to non public info noticeboard and requested to access the ACC interface for helping out in the request an account process.However it's been 2 days since i requested it and still no reply.Since, your'e a tool admin you could help.Thanks a lot! Bingobro (Chat) 09:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

No surprise, very glad you're staying. Doug Weller talk 12:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I'm sorry I didn't get what your'e saying.

• Hi Bingbro, thanks for waiting. You just need to be patient, if you don't hear anything in the next week or so, there's an email address at WP:ACC/G which you can contact. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Әхмәт улы

Hello Callanecc. The account is sleeper sock of banned long-term abuser Tirgil34.

• Edits by the master[7]. Edits by the sock[8] (Both link the subject to Andronovo).
• Edits by the master[9].Edits by the sock[10] (Both use the same Petrov K.I. source to push same view)

Other similarities: Like the master[11][12][13], the sock also use unverifiable Russian sources[14][15][16] and like the master, chooses Cyrillic usernames[17][18][19]. Moreover, as an user clarified here[20] the account, suspiciously, tries to show a theory of origin as merely a theory of ethnonym and used the word "while" here[21], as if those two contradict each other-they are quite in the same direction with previous CU blocked socks' disruptive edits, please see the LTA page.

Also, a brand new account created 14 December-a day later sleeper sock "Әхмәт улы" became editing the targeted topics again- restored ip sock's edits here[22]. It is pretty suspicious and looks like an another WP:DUCK. 185.43.229.48 (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Could you please file an SPI here which includes this evidence. An administrator or SPI clerk will review the evidence you submit and decide what to do. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I have filed, but it seems that no one interested:) 185.43.229.111 (talk) 06:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Proxy-check

• 86.187.174.243 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Hello Callanecc. Could you please check this ip? I am planning to add the ip to a SPI case, if it is a confirmed proxy. Bests, 185.43.229.111 (talk) 06:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I haven't used checkuser, but no it doesn't look like an open proxy. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

"Over the coming days, you will receive a small number of emails..."

Um, *snort* *snuffle* *snerk* small? I guess "enjoy the shitbucket, it's not quite as full as it used to be" wouldn't sound quite so inviting... ;) And while I'm here, congratulations, fellow incumbent! Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking more: yes, small, just wait and see what happens when we subscribe you to 7 mailing lists. You'll wish you'd never heard of email. Thanks! And same to you, fellow maniac who didn't jump when provided with a ladder. ;) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

You DO provide the hipwaders though for the shitbucket right? RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I may need the IP block exemption

Hi. I'm an old user in zh-wikipedia. I live in mainland, China. Since many websites are blocked, I usually use VPN during using Internet. The IP address is no blocked. When I want to contribute on en-wikipedia, I have to turn off the VPN and then re-turn on it after uploading. It's so time-consuming. So I want to get an IP block exemption to avoid such a problem. I may contribute to articles related to life science and I may apply for patroller in future if I can get the exemption.(*Now I'm already a patroller and roll-backer in zh-wikipedia.) Thanks a lot.--!Panzerkampfwagen! (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I've added the IP block exemption to your account. However, I'd suggest that you consider applying for it globally so that you can edit on all Wikimedia Foundation projects rather than needing to ask for it at each individual wiki. See meta:No open proxies for instructions on how to do that, let me know if you have any questions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• • Thank you very much. I already have a global exemption. But it seems that global exemption isn't work on every program like en-Wikipedia.--!Panzerkampfwagen! (talk) 14:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Global Collaboration products newsletter: 2017-12

Latest news from the Wikimedia Global Collaboration team, about Notifications, Structured discussions, Edit Review Improvements and Content translation. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you.

What's new?

• The last Global collaboration details report is now available (in English).

Edit Review Improvements [More information • Help pages]

• The filters are now deployed as a default feature on all wikis on RecentChanges and RecentChangesLinked pages.
• The filters are still available as a Beta feature on all wikis on Watchlists. Please try them!
• LiveUpdates have been deployed as a default feature for all wikis.
• On wikis using Extension:Translate, translated messages can now be filtered. System messages can be filtered as well, on all wikis. [23]
• "View new changes since $1" link is now more prominent, to invite users to use that native feature to update the list of results. [24]
• Pagination and time period selectors are now combined and located on the right on left-to-right wikis. [25]
• When a user wanted to click outside of the filter menu to close it, it was possible to click on "revert" link by accident. It is not possible anymore. [26]
• It is now possible to filter the following events using the Tags menu: Making a page a redirect, Changing redirect target, Changing an existing redirect into a non-redirect, Blanking of the page, Removing more than 90% of a page content, Rolling back an edit. [27]
• Some design improvements have been done to Related Changes page to integrate the new filters. [28]
• "Save current filter settings" menu and legend overlapped the results. This is now fixed. [29]
• Some small design improvements have been done. [30]

Content translation [More information • Help pages]

• Now Content Translation prevents source and target language to be set to same language. [31]
• The dialog for selecting article to translate is standardized. It introduces a new component that is used for the selected page on both the "New translation" dialog and the "Suggested pages" list. [32]
• More space is given to the language filter, to increase responsiveness and show more language names without truncation. [33]
• While searching for a new page to translate, duplicates are not shown anymore for user search input. [34]
• Various PHP warnings and JavaScript errors have been fixed. [35][36]

Structured discussions [More information • Help pages]

• It is now possible to use Special:Nuke on hidden Structured discussion topics. [37]
• The Reply button is not active anymore until something is typed. [38]

Miscellaneous

• For wikis that use ORES, preferences for ORES have been rationalized in Special:Preferences, on Recent Changes tab and Watchlist tab. [39]
• ORES will be deployed on Simple English Wikipedia. That wiki will be able to use the Prediction filters. [40]

Collaboration team's newsletter prepared by the Global Collaboration team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

14:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Elected

• Congratulations for being elected, and good listening when cases come, - always better when they don't have to come ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Congrats. Now back to work! -- Euryalus (talk) 12:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Well done Callanecc! 🎅Patient Crimbo🎅 ^{grotto presents} 14:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations again! Glad to continue cooperating with you! --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations! I look forward to working with you in future :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations again.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks everyone!! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

And olive branch & holiday wishes!

Callanecc, please accept these holiday wishes :) I've caused this year to end on a chord of disappointment for many, but I hope that despite my mistakes and the differences in opinion and perspectives, and regardless of what the outcome is or in what capacity I can still contribute in the coming year, we can continue working together directly or indirectly on this encyclopedic project, whose ideals are surely carried by both of our hearts. I'm hoping I have not fallen in your esteem to the level where "no hard feelings" can no longer ring true, because I highly respect you and your dedication to Wikipedia, and I sincerely wish you and your loved ones all the best for 2018. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC), humbled but optimistic about the upcoming year of renewal and growth!

User group for Military Historians

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2017 News

Guild of Copy Editors December 2017 News Hello copy editors! Welcome to the December 2017 GOCE newsletter, which contains nine months(!) of updates. The Guild has been busy and successful; your diligent efforts in 2017 has brought the backlog of articles requiring copy edit to below 1,000 articles for the first time. Thanks to all editors who have contributed their time and energy to help make this happen. >>> Sign up for the January Drive! <<< >>> Participate in the Coordinator Elections! <<< Our copy-editing drives (month-long backlog-reduction drives held in odd-numbered months) and blitzes (week-long themed editing in even-numbered months) have been very successful this year. March drive: We set out to remove April, May, and June 2016 from our backlog and all February 2017 Requests (a total of 304 articles). By the end of the month, all but 22 of these articles were cleared. Officially, of the 28 who signed up, 22 editors recorded 257 copy edits (439,952 words). (These numbers do not always make sense when you compare them to the overall reduction in the backlog, because not all editors record every copy edit on the drive page.) April blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 16 through 22 April; the theme was Requests. Of the 15 who signed up, 9 editors completed 43 articles (81,822 words). May drive: The goals were to remove July, August, and September 2016 from the backlog and to complete all March 2017 Requests (a total of 300 articles). By the end of the month, we had reduced our overall backlog to an all-time low of 1,388 articles. Of the 28 who signed up, 17 editors completed 187 articles (321,810 words). June blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 18 through 24 June; the theme was Requests. Of the 16 who signed up, 9 editors completed 28 copy edits (117,089 words). 2017 Coordinator elections: In June, coordinators for the second half of 2017 were elected. Jonesey95 moved back into the lead coordinator position, with Miniapolis stepping down to remain as coordinator; Tdslk and Corinne returned as coordinators, and Keira1996 rejoined after an extended absence. Thanks to all who participated! July drive: We set out to remove August, September, October, and November 2016 from the backlog and to complete all May and June 2017 Requests (a total of 242 articles). The drive was an enormous success, and the target was nearly achieved within three weeks, so that December 2016 was added to the "old articles" list used as a goal for the drive. By the end of the month, only three articles from 2016 remained, and for the second drive in a row, the backlog was reduced to a new all-time low, this time to 1,363 articles. Of the 33 who signed up, 21 editors completed 337 articles (556,482 words). August blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 20 through 26 August; the theme was biographical articles tagged for copy editing for more than six months (47 articles). Of the 13 who signed up, 11 editors completed 38 copy edits (42,589 words). September drive: The goals were to remove January, February, and March 2017 from the backlog and to complete all August 2017 Requests (a total of 338 articles). Of the 19 who signed up, 14 editors completed 121 copy edits (267,227 words). October blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 22 through 28 October; the theme was Requests. Of the 14 who signed up, 8 editors completed 20 articles (55,642 words). November drive: We set out again to remove January, February, and March 2017 from the backlog and to complete all October 2017 Requests (a total of 207 articles). By the end of the month, these goals were reached and the backlog shrank to its lowest total ever, 997 articles, the first time it had fallen under one thousand (click on the graph above to see this amazing feat in graphical form). It was also the first time that the oldest copy-edit tag was less than eight months old. Of the 25 who signed up, 16 editors completed 159 articles (285,929 words). 2018 Coordinator elections: Voting is open for the election of coordinators for the first half of 2018. Please visit the election page to vote between now and December 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Thanks for participating! Housekeeping note: We do not send a newsletter before (or after) every drive or blitz. To have a better chance of knowing when the next event will start, add the GOCE's message box to your watchlist. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Miniapolis, Corinne, Tdslk, and Keira1996. >>> Sign up for the January Drive! <<< >>> Participate in the Coordinator Elections! <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

January 2018 meetup

Hi, Noticed you said you would be in Sydney. I'm planning in a meeting in Sydney (though looking for an ideal venue), though day may change or if Canberra fails (if everyone is still away) it may just end up being Sydney. Bidgee (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Callanecc. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 10:36, 25 December 2017 (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.

Winged Blades^Godric 10:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello Callanecc, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018. Happy editing, —MBL Talk 11:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

WP:ARBIPA

Given that you are knowledgeable about all things procedure, I have a couple of questions for you. As you're possibly aware, I do a lot of work in areas related to south-Asian politics, many of which fall under ARBIPA. This area has consistently suffered from ridiculously levels of sockpuppetry, as well as clueless and disruptive newbie editing. So, I've come to the opinion that admins should be authorized to use lengthy EC protection in this area, when there is a reasonably likelihood that it is necessary; and without going through the lower levels of protection.

My questions are the following. Is this already possible under the current protection policy and the discretionary sanctions authorized for ARBIPA pages? If not, what is the appropriate venue for a discussion to get this authorized (or to establish consensus that the community does not want this)? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Vanamonde93, the protection policy requires that semi-protection won't be effective and that the use of EC protection is not preemptive. If both of these conditions are met then any admin can apply EC protection as a normal admin action (or as a discretionary sanction if required). Note, I don't read the protection policy as requiring semi protection to have been trialled, if socks which are already (auto)confirmed before they start editing an article then you can use EC protection without trialling semi protection first as it won't be effective. Having said all of that, giving semi-protection a go first (and you only need one sock edit to increase EC protection) is probably closer to what the community want to happen.

If you want it changed so that EC protection can be applied as a first response (whether or not there are (auto)confirmed socks editing the article), that would need a widely advertised community RfC or an ArbCom decision. I suspect that an ArbCom decision allowing this would be unlikely, as they/we would be unlikely to trump the community on this without evidence of severe disruption. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I see: thank you. To be absolutely clear, an admin could, under current policy, apply EC protection to pages that are seeing autoconfirmed socking, as a first response? That's good to know. With respect to the ARBCOM decision: yes, I understand that that might be unlikely. But, given the previous ruling on ARBIPA, and given that EC protection was not available at the time, how would EC protection figure in the options that admins have under ARBIPA? Vanamonde (talk) 08:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Yep, because semi protection wouldn't work in that circumstance (a bit of IAR to avoid the bureaucracy). However, that'd only apply if the account started editing the article when they were already autoconfirmed, not that they became autoconfirmed while they were editing. Given that there are considerably fewer issues in this topic area (IPA) than for what it was originally authorised it's unlikely ArbCom would authorise preemptive EC protection in this topic area. Having said that, EC protection isn't, currently, technically listed as a discretionary sanction which admins can impose, so it would need to be imposed as a normal admin action. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. If I were looking at asking the community about this, any possibly authorization would presumably be independent of ARBIPA, and would therefore not need to be limited to ARBIPA areas: right? What do you think would be an appropriate venue for this discussion? Vanamonde (talk) 10:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

It could be independent of ARBIPA or limited to it depending on the wording of what's proposed to the community. Not sure, maybe WP:VPP initially. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Frances Kaszubski

You deleted an article for this athlete. I am finding numerous National Championships she won, which should have been included in the article. Please restore to my sandbox so I can add sources and work up the article. Trackinfo (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done at User:Trackinfo/Frances Kaszubski. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations!

	You get the paperwork barnstar!
	For starting 2018 off right by doing all the transition-related paperwork. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Remove user permissions

Hi, I would like to have the permissions I have on my account (File Mover) removed and my account also be blocked. Currently it is difficult for me to edit on these sides, so I decided to leave this project. Thanks Leitoxx ^{Work • Talk • Mail} 15:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• Leitoxx (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

HI Leitoxx, I've removed your file mover right. I'm sorry to see you go, my suggestion is, that rather than requesting, a block you use this script: Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:ACC

@Callanecc: Nope, not heared anything from ACC FOR the past 2 weeks,kindlyhelp. Regards, Bingobro (Chat) 05:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I bumped the conversation a little. Just be patient. Might also help if you could detail what relevant experience you've had here. For example, what experience have you got that shows you understand how the username policy works? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I'm enrolled in WP:CVUA with User:Mz7 which gives basic understanding of the policy and also I have read and understood WP:UPOL ,I have also reported promotional and offensive usernames.Feel free to ask more questions. Bingobro (Chat) 09:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Can you give me some examples of usernames you've reported? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

question

Earlier this day I had updated and added more to the article on Edward Jenner later on to the day you had sent me a message stating I had not added a source to the information i had added can you please explain to me how can do so.A hyperlink? That is what i am about to try if this dose not work then please send me a way forward on how i can do so. king regards siddarth. 2A02:C7D:1ADA:6400:FD12:17A1:4508:1A3 (talk) 11:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi siddarth, the bets place to look is at WP:Referencing for beginners. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Hurricane Ophelia (2017)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hurricane_Ophelia_(2017)&diff=820098477&oldid=820079499
What do you think? Now no one else will accidentally bring back the edit war. I was thinking that a good compromise might be having both images, with the ability to switch between them, and the caption, "Hurricane Ophelia just before and just after peak intensity while it was just to the south of the Azores on 14 October 2017." What do you think? Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 01:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I've modified the html comment you added a little. It's not about approval from me it's about coming to a consensus (developed through discussion, or a lack of discussion). I haven't checked but Swivel Here's edit might push a consensus over the line. That's a topic for discussion on the talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Canberra meetup

Hi, not too sure you will be back but I've moved the time for the meetup in Canberra on the 20 January 2018 from 6pm to 7pm. Bidgee (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Your message to me

You sent me a message with a query why I was editing logged out. There was no link to the queried edit. My mail program is Google Mail on iOS. Here’s what I got:

It appears this in this edit [1] you logged out to add yourself to a list. Could you please comment on why you made this edit while logged out, as it appears to be an attempt to avoid scrutiny.

It seems uncourteous to me that you want me to add your talk page to my watchlist (and then delete it again) to get an answer.

deisenbe (talk) 03:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

Hello, I was going through recent changes and I saw this IP 201.209.12.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) make comments about Adamgerber80, making me think the IP is evading their block. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 08:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I've blocked that IP. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Some mentoring or oversight for new reviewers?

Hi Callanecc,

Have an issue about a recent review of Sentencia Arbitral de Guadalupe by a new reviewer I wanted to discuss with you, which might have implications for the instructions given to new reviewers in general.

I know we need lots of reviewers due to the backlog (got a reviewer invite myself, but am too busy just now), so I'm glad Spasage (talk · contribs) accepted, as I think they will be helpful in that regard. That said, there might be an issue concerning the use of certain cleanup tags related to the quality of English in the article, due to their non-native command of the language.

In the particular example I ran into, the {{copy edit}} tag they added to the article was not justified, imho (discussion), and this is largely due to the fact that they is not up to the task of assessing whether copy written by native speakers contains defects in grammar, style,... or spelling that might suggest the use of the {{copy edit}} tag. (For any of the other tags unrelated to English quality, no problem.) I tried to break this gently to them here.

But that's a fairly minor issue, and in any case, has already been amicably resolved in the discussion. My main concern is not this edit, but rather the implications for the the reviewer instructions in general. Imho, it might be worth watching over any new reviewer for a little bit as they get going, especially if English is not their native language. If you are involved with that guideline, could you perhaps add a note there, after looking over this situation? If not, could you advise me who might be interested in this topic? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

My special interest is in seeing that Spanish words or names are correctly cited (in accordance with WP’s rules, as well as those of Spanish). This is often a question of use of capitals — Spanish's rules are different — and of accents; occasionally questions about modern vs. archaic spellings comes up. Anyhow, I’m offering myself as a resource for anything involving miscomunication with a person whose native language is Spanish, or translation questions. deisenbe (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Coopers Creek, Victoria

On 25 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Coopers Creek, Victoria, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the first discovery of copper in the state of Victoria, Australia, was made at Coopers Creek in the 1860s? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Coopers Creek, Victoria. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Coopers Creek, Victoria), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Page protection evasion

Hi, I believe a persistent IP editor has bypassed your page protection at F.C. United of Manchester with this edit. Cheers, Del_♉sion23 (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@Delusion23: I've changed it to full protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:AC/N entry for Rationalobserver needs a discussion link

Hello Callanecc. I believe your recent post at the noticeboard should have a 'Discuss this' link pointing to the related discussion. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thanks Ed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Dangling thread from the Rationalobserver block appeal

Callanecc, I hope you don't mind me asking you this as I think I may be asking you to explain a group decision. That said, you were the one that posted the community consultation notification so I thought I'd start here. The origin and rationale of imposing mutual interaction bans as part of RO's conditions for return was rendered moot by the overwhelmingly negative response to their return under any conditions. I believe that was a mistake, since a number of experienced editors, as well as myself, expressed strong reservations to such IBAN's. I think it would be beneficial to the community if there was some public explanation of how ArbCom came to suggest those conditions and what discussion there was about potentially sanctioning non-parties to an appeal. As it stands now, this looks somewhat arbitrary and it is unresolved whether the committee might consider such conditions again in the future. I am fairly certain, though, that these concerns were discussed prior to your announcement before they were superseded by a quickly-moving discussion. I, for one, would like some clarity about this point and I believe others would, as well. Thank you for your time and for volunteering in a role that catches far more complaints than congratulations. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Eggishorn, there has for a long time (I remember discussions about it before I was an admin) been a belief that mutual IBANs aren't effective. This is because they place one editor in a position of power over another when there is already some sort of underlying conflict. One-way IBANs effectively place the one editor in the awkward position of needing to decide every time whether they should mention or allude to an editor who can't respond or defend themselves in any way. It would, for example, be acceptable (according to the ban) for one editor to post on the talk page of an editor who is banned from interacting with them, or to respond to an editor in a discussion who cannot respond back. To try and avoid this situation, for a number of years, the "no fault" IBAN has been used to prohibit both parties from interacting with each other, one 'for cause' and the other due to 'no fault' of their own. The Ottava Rima unban conditions are a recent example. In this instance, I contacted Godot about the IBAN and they were okay with it, but missed that we hadn't explicitly asked Montanabw about a mutual IBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Callanecc:, thank you for the explanation. I've been gone a few days (personal post-Super Bowl boycott of the Internet) so I have missed some stuff. Did this get subsequently communicated to everyone concerned? Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:02, 7 February 2018 (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) 04:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --B dash (talk) 03:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

User:AlviZaman30

Hello. I think you have an admirer. They’ve copied your userpage, replete with verification links about you. Green Giant (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:D4iNa4#Discussion

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:D4iNa4#Discussion. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

ACC CU Backlog

Hello, ACC has a CU backlog of 101 requests as of 08:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC), any help is appreciated! Thanks ~riley (talk) 08:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @~riley, There'sNoTime, and BU Rob13: I just dealt with 33 of them because of 1 bad block and another block that only required CUs to check the UA quickly. These two ranges ate up that large of a batch. That said, there are several smaller groups of 4-5 requests each for blocked ranges that are causing the backlog to be so high. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm very busy over the next two days, but I'll try to get to the backlog after that. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Caillou Pettis Article Creation

Greetings. I was wondering if you would be able to create an article on the English Wikipedia for actor, writer, director, and film critic Caillou Pettis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caillou_Pettis). Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimplyBatman22 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

that IP

Just changed proxies [41].Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Already done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for deletion

Please delete page User talk:Yisrael Kristal for block evasion and attacks. Also, it was created before and got deleted for block evasion. Please see [42] (deletion log) for proof. 171.50.188.250 (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree to this point, please delete page User talk:Yisrael Kristal for harassment. 122.162.92.82 (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:CSD, you're reason for requesting deletion needs to align with one or more of the criteria on that page. If you believe it does, please let me know which criteria and why. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Please delete User talk:Yisrael Kristal, the other criteria is 'G4'. 182.64.240.246 (talk) 10:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Unless you can link to the discussion, that doesn't apply. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion is at User talk:Widr. please quickly delete User talk:Yisrael Kristal. 171.48.50.78 (talk) 10:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, it is an attack page so it should be deleted. 122.162.230.87 (talk) 11:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

No it's not. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It attacks JamesBWatson so please delete. 122.162.148.213 (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, it tells lies about me, but it's scarcely serious enough to be worth bothering about. The page might have been deleted as vandalism, but it's in the past now. Better to just forget about it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Other criteria is G6 to delete User talk:Yisrael Kristal. 122.162.148.213 (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

No covered by any of G6. It's time to move on, I'm not going to delete as it doesn't fit within a speedy deletion criteria. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

We will discuss further after 6 months about this deletion. 122.162.148.213 (talk) 10:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/652

Courtesy notice that I've disabled Special:AbuseFilter/652 due to inactivity. Hope this is okay! Of course feel free to re-enable if you think disruption has resumed. I'm trying to disable old, stale and rarely hit filters, and do some other cleanup, because we're regularly exceeding the condition limit. Kind regards — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

2018 Pakistan Super League

Hi admin! Wanted to ask for some help. Please check out edit history of this page, where an IP user is continuously making some edits, and getting reverts by other users. What can be done to that IP range (39.57.…)? I think this is the first edit by the IP user. Please comment, Thanks! M. Billoo 17:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

User talk:2600:100D:B10D:FC7C:815A:DECE:D236:6B4B

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 07:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images

I don't have an account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.114.181.169 (talk) 09:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Stepping into the middle of an edit war to support one particular side after the three main parties have been warned (and one sanctioned) suggests otherwise, or at least a connection to one or more of the involved editors. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Reblock needed

Immediately after release from your block, this is continuing. Toddst1 (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

That was six days ago? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Facepalm - I apparently needed more coffee. Toddst1 (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:SPI

Could you please take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations#Mobabansos_and_Grace_Saunders? Thanks, Sro23 (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

phone block

I tried to log in using my phone yesterday and was notified you had edit blocked me for talk abuse. I think a mistake has been made because of a security issue involving multiple attempts to change my password when I was out of town a couple weeks ago. I have been involved in no disputes--and most certainly no talk abuse--and request the block be removed. It's a mistake. Please help! Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if you fixed this or exactly what happened, but it's fixed now! If it was you, thank you thank you thank you!! Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: It looks like one of the many IP ranges your phone uses is blocked due to abuse from someone else. It's probably just easiest, if it happens again, to turn off your cellular data then turn it back on. That should work. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

i would like to celebrate you for blocking someone that vandalised my talk page AND User page. Thank you: and you're welcome! Bondboy9756 (talk) 08:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

UHHMMH

I noticed that you blocked 2405:204:122F:A0B4:318C:E073:D9F3:80DA indefinitely, but according to this, they shouldn't be blocked indefinitely as they tend to change... --97.95.160.67 (talk) 03:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for the heads up. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Virtosuart

The editor is uploading a LARGE amount of what appears to be paintings of an art gallery onto Wikipedia. While still in sandbox mode, it would appear the editor is using Wiki as a free web hosting service?--Cahk (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Cahk: Probably worth just leaving them a message about it initially, they're new enough that they might just not know what they're supposed to do. Are you happy to do that? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Already done. Will see what happens next.--Cahk (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Conditional unblock

What are your thoughts as to updating WP:CONDUNBLOCK to have it as either logged in the unblock summary or at WP:ER. I think the issue here is that outside of the community based ER and the AELOG, most admins have no clue where to log other sanctions. Just looking at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Final_warnings_/_Unblock_conditions, I'm highly confident that there are more than just that number of unblock conditions outstanding now that admins can and will enforce. I'm one of the people more familiar with the back end paperwork crap here and even I didn't know that existed until you pointed it out. Basically, the whole conversation about voluntary sanctions has me thinking of updating WP:ER and related pages to match how we actually practice. Pinging you on it since you pointed that section out to me. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

This is the original discussion about including the central logging page in the policy. I think the block log is a must (even if just a permalink to the unblock conditions on the user's talk page), but I'm less fussed on WP:ER being a requirement. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for replying late, just saw this. I agree re: block log. I see Bishonen suggested that it be mandatory to log at the restrictions page. Pinging her before I start a talk page discussion there to try to remove it for her thoughts. Bish, like I said above, I'm better at the paperwork stuff than most admins, but I had no clue about this until Callanecc pointed it out at the current RfC about logged voluntary restrictions, and I suspect most other admins don't either (given, I'm fairly new, so take it for what it is worth.) TonyBallioni (talk) 03:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I suggested some kind of popup for the admin about logging at ER, because, as you say, we can't find it. (I only knew about that ER section because I had ferreted around forever trying to find somewhere to log Ratel's conditions.) That hasn't happened, has it? I now think it would be enough, and easy to find, if it's logged in the block log, including a link to the full-form restrictions on the user's page if needed. It would leave no need for logging at ER (which nobody can find), nor for an unremovable notice on the user's page (which would be horrible). If a user is being a problem, admins will look at their block log, won't they? And if they're not being a problem, then, what the hell, it doesn't matter about some old conditions, for my money. Bishonen | talk 08:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC).

A permanent link or diff in the block log linking to the full text version of the unblock conditions sounds good to me. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Tap Tap Glee

Hi Callanecc. You deleted this article back in October 2017 because someone prodded it for notability reasons. Can you tell if this latest version is just a recreation of the deleted version or is a new attempt at creating the article with different content? I see you're busy, but there's no great rush on this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I've restored the previous version so you can have a look. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Callanecc. The current version does seem to be more concise and less filled with cruft than the one you deleted. Moreover, another editor seems to have looked at it and tagged with {{Notability}} instead of nominating it for deletion. Does this recreation count as a deprod? Can someone prod this latest version or should it go to AfD? Not asking because I want to do so myself; just curious as to whether a {{Old prod full}} should be added to the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a bit of a grey area, but I'd say that it should go to AfD rather than PROD. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you think a {{Old prod full}} should be added to the talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Up to you, doesn't really matter too much either way. I think a bot does it though. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

OK. Thanks again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Just in case you missed their pinging of you, another editor has started an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tap Tap Glee. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Nitpicking wording

Is "in accordance with community sanctions" on Template:ArbCom abortion GSTP still correct? Arbcom took over those 1RR restrictions according to Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Arbitration_Committee_sanctions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: I've changed the transclusions to {{Ds/talk notice}} and nominated it for deletion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:22, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Restrictions

I will appear the restrictions tomorrow evening. I assume that they don't automatically time out and I will need to use WP:ARCA. With the page creation I should be able to agree with Nilfanion what types of pages to create and with the moves, I think I have established at Commons that I understand how that works, such as discussing potentially controversial moves. I might be away a few days after but I hope that that shouldn't prevent the appeal, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Now opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Tony Jenkins

TonyJenkins has poped up again after being blocked for disruptive editing now he has added sockpupet I can’t gowned report it since something is acting haywire since you blocked him last time I am leaving g you a message he Last edited Chris Sabin under the new name TonyJenkins123 TheKinkdomMan talk 06:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Tonyjenkins450

You blocked Tonyjenkins450 (talk · contribs) a few weeks ago for disruptive edits. He evaded that block and is continuing the same behavior as Tonyjenkins123 (talk · contribs).LM2000 (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Need a checkuser for possible sockpuppet vandal

I need a checkuser on a user I highly suspect is using at least 2 different IDs for sockpuppetting. The IDs in question are Mpaniello and HaeB. This person has been investigated at least 2 different times in the past under SockPuppet investigation for Thmc1, and once as ScottieBerg. The IP location is most likely from a small rural 15 mile triangular area in New Jersey centered around Bergen County. He keeps doing the same edits to downplay San Francisco's Chinatown in order to promote New York Chinatown using fake or unsubstantiated sources and data. Whatever reliable sources I give in response, which includes charts and statistics are either deleted and/or responded with accusations of original research. He doesn't give any proof backing his arguments. He's also done this to other articles related to other cities- advantage going to NYC, of course. For example, in the past he might've changed articles so that the largest stock market in the world in terms of volume(London) becomes second largest after New York. He's also pissed a lot of people off on the Toronto article in the past. If he's moved since then, the locations of both should still be the same. for some reason, he's so focused on the New York vs. SF/LA/London, etc. edits under the guise of good faith. This is not editing in good faith, but deception through misinformation. Please check the location of this user to see if they're the same, and take any actions necessary to stop the vandalism. CarlKChin (talk)

Before I look at this in detail could you please confirm for me which account is yours? (By email if you prefer). Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I usually edit under the IP 204.102.74.7. I have another account here which I forgot the password for. It's been a WHILE since I logged on using an ID. This one was created so that I guess I could send & receive messages to you. The suspect in question is banned sockpuppet Thmc1(and probably ScottieBerg). Them and now most likey HaeB/Mpaniello's + relevant sockpuppets IP is located in a small triangular area of Fair Lawn/Westwood/Hackensack in northeast New Jersey about 5 sq. miles in size. When all of these vandal edits are coming from a very tiny area of an already small state like NJ, you have to be very suspicious.CarlKChin (talk)

I would also like to point out some of this user's editing patterns. He'll have a whole bunch of IDs set up, being careful never to use the same ones on more than 1 article. When one gets undone, the other jumps in to revert and defend. On the "Chinatown, San Francisco" talk page I gave adequately credible links to sources pointing out San Francisco and New York Chinatown's population. As is characteristic of Thmc1(HaeB/Mpaniello) in his response edit he omitted a character from the SF url(which happens to be very long & full of characters) so that you couldn't connect to that site. Then he dismissed the NY source as "original research" even though it was using data pulled from the U.S. 2010 Census. He then proceeded to reinstate the figures of SF Chinatown with a smaller population count, less zip codes & smaller geographical area of Chinatown...using info from HIS OWN original research. I mean, if you're going to fake it at least make it look real by creating your own source website or something. CarlKChin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@CarlKChin: Have the other 3 posting of this issue [43], [44], [45] given you an answer yet ? Multiple posting of the same issue over many users is disruptive. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I've already removed my requests from the other 2 talk pages. Thanks for your assistance. CarlKChin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

9 years of editing

Hey, Callanecc. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Kpgjhpjm 01:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey, Callanecc. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Wiki-Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Kpgjhpjm 01:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding blocking my User page

Hello! My name is Rishu Shukla. I am editing Wikipedia for more than 1 year. Now I have moved to China for pursuing my higher education and as you know Google is banned in China. So, I am unable to work on Wikipedia from few days, but when today I opened my Account page then it showed me the message that I cannot edit it because it has been blocked by you till 7 October, 2018. I know there might be some reason for that. So, can you please put some light on those reasons and please remove this blocking for my future operations on Wikipedia.

Thanking you for your consideration. Rishu Shukla (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rishu Shukla, could you please email me the notice you get telling you that you're blocked so that I can take a closer look. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

For your backlog-busting SPI work! GABgab 14:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Helpful

Hi C, re: this guy, I see some block/unblock activity on his talk page. One thing of note is that he recreated an article that had been AFDed. Part of the rationale for deletion was that the article had been created by a member of a sock farm. So if we're getting warning signs about this user, my educated guess is that they're up to something. For example, here he edits a draft article that was created by a sock of Shiwam Kumar Sriwastaw. How does this guy know about this draft article? Anyway, something's super-fishy. @TonyBallioni: Do you have any input here? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

That’s always one of the SPIs where I have to refresh my memory on it every time I look, so I won’t be much help here without diffs comparing to old socks. One of the difficulties of South Asian SPIs is that often even the good faith users initially look like socks behaviorally so they can be very difficult judgement calls. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

It's one of those things that I think we're just going to need to wait and see. If they do more sock-like things it'll be clearer and we can reblock then. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Hassan Guy

Since you were the last checkuser to run a check on Hassan Guy when his socks in 2017 were not stale[46] and you have checked this SPI most (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hassan Guy), I would ask you if CU logs or any technical details of CU from October 2017 are any more relevant for deciding on new socks? Or that the new socks should be blocked purely on behavioral evidence? Lorstaking (talk) 03:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Lorstaking: For the most recent SPI, Bbb23 tried this in a CheckUser note at User talk:Usman47. More generally, decisions will primarily need to be made based on behaviour as the CU data we still have access to is old and limited. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

"decisions will primarily need to be made based on behaviour". Thank you and this is what I mainly wanted to hear about. Last time I had requested CU on a stale account however DeltaQuad said "CU log, which is absolutely unreliable and a practice I rarely do".[47] In any case, ping Ad Orientem since he dealt with this sock farm most. Lorstaking (talk) 11:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy ping Lorstaking- I don't think there is enough evidence for a WP:DUCK block. Hassan Guy was persistently disruptive and POV pushing in their editing. I am not seeing that here. If it is them, and I think it is at least possible, their editing behavior has improved. Absent something more conclusive I am not prepared to block on behavioral evidence at this time. If this is HG my best advice is to wait for them to engage in a pattern of disruptive editing. For now there is insufficient evidence to proceed further and I consider the case closed until/unless better evidence is produced or they start behaving in a blatantly disruptive matter. I am sorry if that's not very satisfying but I don't block people on maybes or probablys. And yes, sometimes the guilty get away with it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Just updating here that Ad Orientem has blocked the user now following the recent discussion on talk page of the concerning user. Thanks both. Lorstaking (talk) 05:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protect for Camila (album)

Can you semi-protect the page to persistent block evasion by MariaJaydHicky/Littlemixfan!? 183.171.113.225 (talk) 11:03, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Which accounts are the socks? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

See what I posted on Wikimedia talk page. 183.171.113.96 (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Cambodian New Year

Hi Callanecc, you extended-protected Cambodian New Year due to sockpuppetry. Would it be ok for me (or you) to drop the protection to semi-protection (or just remove it) - there's a really long editprotected request on the talk page by a fairly new editor. The edit seems kosher but they can't make it due to the protection. It's due to expire in two days anyway. Cheers, Fish+Karate 13:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you. Fish+Karate 07:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template/Evidence

Noting that you made this 25 February 2018 change to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template/Evidence, and this case-specific bold correction. Interesting that it took nearly nine months for anyone to notice. Just wanted to make sure that was your intent, and let you fix the template if so. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it's already been fixed by L235. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

My upcoming appeal

At the end of next month, I will be able to appeal again. I have expanded User:Crouch, Swale/South Huish and also created User:Crouch, Swale/Risga as well as making other expansions to existing articles. I have also started/contributed in many RM discussions, including many non-geographical ones with little conflict. Do you have any comments/questions or recommendations with these as I strongly oppose keeping the creation/moving restrictions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Protocol

Hi Callanecc. You recently blocked a user that I reported at WP:AN3. What's the protocol if their problematic edits resume? Do I file another report there? I also have mild suspicions of socking, so maybe SPI is the better option? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

If you have evidence of socking file a case at SPI certainly. If they continue edit warring after the block expires report them to AN3 again noting the previous block and that they're doing the same thing as before. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Requesting deletion of old userpage

Hi, about a year ago I had those sockpuppet Wikipedia accounts created by editors to help me out with editing and side with me on certain issues. Please believe me when I am telling you the truth when I tell you that I had not read the rules on sockpuppeting/meatpuppeting, but now I have and understand that it is against the rules. Now that I have been good at following the rules and will NEVER sock again as I have learned my lesson, I would like to delete this userpage User:Steamroll464 user and talk pages as I would like to put this all behind me now as I feel ashamed of what I have done. Can you please give me permission to do this? Davidgoodheart (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi, Davidgoodheart, I think you previously had a similar discussion with DeltaQuad so I'm pinging her here (I hope Callanecc doesn't mind). Speaking as a global renamer, we can't delete accounts and we normally don't vanish socks. We can block the accounts though. You really should let us know all the accounts you have created. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Hi, it was a hishap of words, as I did not mean accounts I meant user and talk pages. Please re-send message to DeltaQuad saying I meant userpages, and you can tell her that I need to get permission for her to delete those userpages which she blocked as the talkpages have been deleted. Thanks for responding to me. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to delete the user pages and talk pages, but I have blanked them so that the templates don't display. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks you Callanecc. Davidgoodheart (talk) 08:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Callanecc, since TonyBallioni has asked me to list all the accounts which I had made here are the two remaining ones User:Retiredwrestler (talk page has been deleted) and the other being User:Psyloarchy (which still has a talk page). Can we get these user pages blanked as well? Does DeltaQuad need to do it or can you? I know that DeltaQuad is not feeling well right now, so I don't know how quickly she can respond. Once again I would like to say thank you for blanking those pages. Davidgoodheart (talk) 07:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Meister and Margarita

I wanted to tell the user something (about Ignaz Kirchner on the Main page), and not only find the page protected, but also most of it not accessible because of a formatting error ("strike" not ended). Could you please fix that probably unintended error? And do you think the protection is still needed? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Done and removed (by modifying the block). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Arbcom

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#2017 ArbCom and the GdB unban. Fram (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for this. Lifting, probably literally, a finger to tap that undo and reinstate the template. Add: yes I figure you weren't referring to my edit summary attacking the committee and clerks. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Through The Archway

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 10:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-51

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 7 January 2019.

Recent changes

• Some templates that show notices about the content of the page will now be shown on the mobile website. In many cases they were hidden before. [48][49]
• Admins can no longer unblock themselves, except for self-blocks. A blocked admin can block the user who blocked them but no one else. This is so no one can block all admins on a wiki without being stopped. [50]
• The ParserMigration extension has been removed. It compared the result of two versions of the MediaWiki wikitext parsing pipeline. It was used when we moved to the Remex parsing library instead of Tidy.

Problems

• <ref> tags can use parameters such as "name" or "group". For example <ref name="adams" group="books">. If a <ref> tag has more than two parameters all parameters are ignored. You don't get a warning that they don't work. This will soon be fixed. [51]

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 18 December. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 19 December. It will be on all wikis from 20 December (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 19 December at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• The Wikimedia Foundation Android app team are working on making it easier to edit on mobile phones. You can read more about these plans. If you have an Android phone and speak at least two languages you can help testing in English. Tell Dchen (WMF) you want to be part of the testing by writing on her talk page or email her.
• tiles.wmflabs.org and wma.wmflabs.org will stop working. They have no maintainers and run an old operating system. Tools which use it could stop working. This includes the mapnik gadget, hill shading, and hike and bike layers. New maintainers could help out and keep it going. [52]

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

20:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Telephone number

Hi Callanecc! It's been awhile since I've said hello to you! I hope you're doing well and that you're having a fun and stress-free holiday season so far. I just wanted to let you know that I went through the edit history of the Telephone number article, and after having to redact and suppress a bunch of edits that added what appeared to be personal or non-public telephone numbers and other information - I felt that changing the protection level and duration that you set on it about five days ago to indefinite semi-protection was a necessary action to protect the article's content and work, as well as the privacy of our editors and contributors. If you have any questions or objections, please let me know and I'll be happy to discuss them with you and work something out. :-) Again, I hope you have a great holiday season and New Year and I hope to talk to you again soon! :-D Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for letting me know. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

	Happy Holidays! May your winter holidays be filled with joy, laughter and good health. Wishing you all the best in 2019 and beyond.

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2018

• From the editors: Where to draw the line in reporting?

• Op-ed: Wikipedia not trumped by Trump appointee

• Special report: The Signpost got 380,000+ views in 2018, sounds reasonable enough, right?

• News and notes: Some wishes do come true

• In the media: Political hijinks

• Discussion report: A new record low for RfA

• WikiProject report: Articlegenesis

• Arbitration report: Year ends with one active case

• Traffic report: Queen dethroned by U.S. presidents

• Gallery: Sun and Moon, water and stone

• Blog: News from the WMF

• Humour: I believe in Bigfoot

• Essay: Requests for medication

• From the archives: Compromised admin accounts – again

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

why is the updated career of Jill Kelley being vandelized and removed when it is properly cited Clintoneducation (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Please explain why Jill Kelley isn't being updated with her recent career thats been even published in numerous journals and newspapers. the removal and lock is vandelism -not properly cited edits. please remove the locks since it follows all the necessary documented facts publicly published in major news outlets sin the last 2 yearsClintoneducation (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)