User talk:CalebHughes

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

CalebHughes (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

new username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

I don't understand why I'm blocked. I'm a new user. I haven't done anything wrong. Can you please unblock me?

Decline reason:

This account is not blocked. If you see some sort of block message, you'll have to tell us what the message says so we can investigate. Huon (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huon I need help. It blocking an IP address, but I have no idea what this is for. Can you help?

You'll need to tell us what that IP address is; you can use a website like http://www.WhatIsMyIP.org to find your IP address if necessary. If you don't want to publish it here, you can let us know privately via WP:UTRS. Huon (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huon Try 2600:1015:b10e:9908:c1d3:e31b:eb:40af and 2600:1015:b10e:9908:e9a9:defe:1564:b09c. Thanks.

Neither of those IPs are blocked, and they have in fact edited earlier today. What exactly does the block message you encounter say? Huon (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: UTEP–UTSA football rivalry (June 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Legacypac was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

No I will not approve a page on a rivalry, and this page is thinly sourced for any topic

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:UTEP–UTSA football rivalry and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:UTEP–UTSA football rivalry, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Legacypac (talk) 08:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CalebHughes! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Legacypac (talk) 08:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rivalry pages

@CalebHughes: Hi - a discussion here brought to my attention the amount of questionable rivalry articles you've created recently. Most notable to me was the Arkansas-Miss.St. article, which, as an Arkansas fan, I don't believe should be an article. I say this because Arkansas' annual game against Mississippi State is nothing more than an SEC West divisional game, no more of a rivalry than our annual games against Alabama. I will concede that the Arkansas-Mississippi State series has yielded some very close and highly entertaining games, as well as some high-stakes games in the past few years, but that alone does not make it a rivalry game. I would repeat some of the same things about your articles pertaining to the supposed rivalries between Alabama and Clemson, Georgia and Ole Miss, and Louisville and West Virginia, although I will concede that I am not as knowledgeable about the last one. If you'd like to chime in to the discussion at WikiProject College Football, I'll leave the link here, feel free to leave your two cents on the topic.

Discussion can be found at this link: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#New rivalry articles

Thanks, PCN 02 WPS 23:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Auburn–Ole Miss football rivalry) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Auburn–Ole Miss football rivalry, CalebHughes!

Wikipedia editor Etzedek24 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Looks good, just filled your links out for you.

To reply, leave a comment on Etzedek24's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 23:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Arkansas–Mississippi State football rivalry for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arkansas–Mississippi State football rivalry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arkansas–Mississippi State football rivalry until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Nomination of Georgia–Ole Miss football rivalry for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Georgia–Ole Miss football rivalry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia–Ole Miss football rivalry until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

GNG link

You have created eight articles with 81 edits. I suggest you review WP:GNG which describes notability policy for articles. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Signing Talk page comments

To sign your comments on Talk pages, you can add ~~~~ to the end of your comments. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFD

Please review WP:AFD if you believe an article needs to be deleted. None of the pages you've recently created seem to follow this formal process:

And again, please read WP:GNG as your comments on these pages implies you need to become more familiar with GNG which is the relevant policy for inclusion or deletion of an article. As you have fewer than 100 edits, I'd suggest you slow down and understand these core policies which likely will make you more satisfied with your contributions in the long run. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CalebHughes, please read the guidelines several people have mentioned to you on how to mark articles for deletion. If you can't follow the requests of others and Wikipedia's policy on how to mark them for deletion, then please stop marking them for deletion until you have learned the correct way. Corky 23:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And please remember that this is an encyclopedia, and it exists to document history. Nominating rivalry articles for deletion because there isn't one right now is contrary to the encyclopedia's purpose, and plenty of now-unlikely teams had historical rivalries that eventually died out. That doesn't negate their existence. Acroterion (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent AfDs

Hi Caleb,

Just wanted to leave you a quick message as a fellow editor regarding your numerous recent college football AfDs. While I, and other editors within the project, admire your initiative, I think you may have the wrong motive in all this. I suggest you read WP:POINT, specifically the first two bullet points:

If someone nominates one of your favorite articles for deletion...

do explain why the subject meets inclusion criteria, providing reliable sources to support your assertion.
do not nominate another similar article for deletion, giving the same rationale.

If you have nominated an article for deletion, and others favour keeping it...

do participate in the discussion, basing your argument on policies and guidelines.
do not create an article on what you consider to be a similarly unsuitable topic, with hopes that others will make the same arguments for deletion.

Several editors at the project talk page, myself included, are growing increasingly concerned that you are trying to retaliate against editors that nominated your articles for deletion. This is because the majority of your AfDs have been about very notable former rivalries in the south; we ask that if this is your motive, you stop creating these AfDs. If you have another reason for all of these nominations, I'd greatly appreciate a response. Thanks, PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS I have nominated these articles in good faith because there is reasonable suspicion to believe they either aren't rivalries or they aren't notable enough to be rivalries, as I stated on the Project College football Wikipedia page. There is no retaliation or ulterior motive. I am simply trying to better college football coverage on Wikipedia. CalebHughes (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CalebHughes: I appreciate your response both here and on the project talk page. I have read both and would like to thank you for clarifying your motive. As I mentioned in my previous message to you, I admire your initiative, but I feel that your enthusiasm towards the project could be put to a more constructive use. I don't mean to sound rude, all I'm trying to say is that a good faith, determined editor like you could be a big asset to the project, whether it be creating team season articles, improving existing articles, historical and current, etc. I apologize if my above message was of inappropriate tone, and I thank you again for your response. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sock

You may wish to read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. It covers the topics of two using multiple accounts to edit, and also of editing while logged out of your account. Otherwise stable topics which interest you seem to be recently flooded by IP activity. This can lead to blocking. Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 00:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOGOUT is the relevant section on editing while logged out. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on UCF Knights football. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
There are two users who disagree with you. Per WP:BRD, you need to discuss it after UW Dawgs reverted you the first time. Corky 05:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CalebHughes. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 02:27, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CalebHughes (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to apologize for my misconduct as it relates to abusing multiple accounts. I have decided that I will approach editing with more civility and class. I believe my intentions to improve college football coverage on Wikipedia were good, however, the method by which I went by my intentions was bad. And, for that, I apologize. Sockpuppetry is wrong, unprofessional and makes Wikipedians look bad. I promise I will not engage in such behavior again. I know Wikipedia well and believe I have much to contribute, as evidenced by the several rivalry articles I created. There is still much work to be done, and I would like to play a part in it.

Decline reason:

See below. I think your only chance of being unblocked is via the WP:Standard Offer. That means wait at least six months from the date you last edited (through a sock account or logged out), with *no editing whatsoever, logged in or out*. Then make a new unblock request, and in that request one of the things you should do is disclose all the accounts you have created (whether you have used them for editing or not). And don't accuse other editors of "bias and personal hatred" when they simply point out prohibited actions that are very relevant to your unblock request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: Examining the sock accounts listed here, the most recent edit I can see is from 12 January 2019, just eight days ago. It seems strange that your contrition only stems from two days after the most recent account used in your extensive deception and continual socking was uncovered and blocked on 18 January, which I have to say does cast a bit of a doubt on its sincerity. Anyway, you need to stay away (with *no* edits at all, remember) until at least 12 July 2019 before being eligible for a WP:Standard Offer unblock request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Since implementation of this block four months ago, the editor has been continuously editing while logged out, engaged in multiple sessions of account creation, squirreling them away for later use, and then used those new accounts in a manner meant to evade detection. Some of these new accounts have gone through SPI, but not all of them. Before an admin comments further, suggest the admin solicit a comprehensive list of all new accounts created post-block by the editor. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not withstanding the obvious bias and personal hatred UW Dawgs has towards me, as I mentioned earlier, I take responsibility for all my actions, both pre-block and post-block. I promise I will not engage in such actions again. Please don't base your decision on one editor's biased opinion of me. I am deeply sorry for my wrongdoings and would like to continue editing in a constructive manner. CalebHughes (talk) 04:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If Caleb complies with all of Boing!'s suggestions, I would at that point consider supporting reinstatement. Caleb actually made some positive contributions as an editor and could, if sincerely contrite, become a valuable contributor. Alabama–Clemson football rivalry, which survived a recent AfD as "Keep", is an example of such a positive contribution. Cbl62 (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: I just blocked four more socks at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CalebHughes, three of which were created after the master's last and obviously preposterous unblock request. He didn't even wait for Boing! to decline the request.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointing. Cbl62 (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CalebHughes (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've waited additional time from the time table mentioned above. Any chance I can be unblocked?

Decline reason:

There's no chance this unban request will be granted, so I'm not going to copy this request over to WP:AN. You are welcome to make another request, but need to address the concerns that lead to your block. Yamla (talk) 13:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Under the standard offer, which is what I assume you are invoking, your appeal will be posted to the Administrator's noticeboard for discussion. Is the appeal above what you want us to copy across there? (Appeals which consist of little more than, "Time's up, unblock me now" tend to get shot down in flames and result in an effective community ban, which is why I suggest you may want to make a more extensive statement).
To reviewers: For what it's worth, CU shows no other activity on the IP used to make this appeal. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify Yunshui's points. You were so abusive as to be considered banned, not just blocked, under WP:3X. Therefore, no admin may just lift your ban, it can only be lifted by community consensus. I agree with Yunshui, there's no chance your ban will be lifted with the request you've made so far. WP:SO isn't a guarantee, you still need to address the behaviour that lead to your initial block and then your continued bad behaviour after that point. On the bright side, it looks like you have at least stayed away from Wikipedia for the past few months, so that will count in your favour. --Yamla (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator noteAnd I make three. Per above. You will need to list all other accounts you have used. You will need to more fully address the other behaviors-- what you did wrong, what you will do instead. You will need to give examples of the positive contributions you will make. You will need, IMO, to accept a WP:TBAN on AfD's. you will need to show understanding of the alternatives to edit warring and affirm that you will not edit war. That you will not sock goes without saying. I will not decline as it has been moments since the last admin comment was made. Perhaps you can amend your request to fully address the issues in a way that someone can carry it to WP:AN with some hope of success-- Deep fried okra 15:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot possibly name all the sock accounts. There are far too many. All that of which I have been accused I admit to. I admit also to edit warring and other disruptive behaviors, to which I apologize. I will not engage in such behaviors in the future, and one need only look at my useful contributions to see evidence that my editing can be constructive. If unblocked, I will make constructive edits, avoid socking and edit warring, and treat others with respect. CalebHughes (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Louisville–West Virginia football rivalry for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Louisville–West Virginia football rivalry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louisville–West Virginia football rivalry until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Cbl62 (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Arkansas–Texas Tech football rivalry for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arkansas–Texas Tech football rivalry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arkansas–Texas Tech football rivalry until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Let'srun (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]