User talk:Callanecc/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Double standard?

In response to this warning I need to let you know that an admin used the same word with me, not once, but twice (see the edit summary) here. Since an admin had used the phrase with me, I thought that meant it was ok for me to use it. Cla68 (talk) 06:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

One is an arbitration page when I saw it, one is three weeks ago in an edit summary so no it's not a double standard. Using the but they do it so it's okay excuse isn't going to get you anywhere. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't I know it Callanecc. I've been trying to improve this "project" since early 2006 and I'm aware by bitter experience that admins aren't as accountable for their actions as us article-writers. If I had copied all the bad behavior I've seen admins do over time, who were never warned or blocked, I would have been indeffed long ago. Cheers. Cla68 (talk) 08:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

As I'm sure you've noticed during up an individual example of behaviour three weeks after it happened isn't something which can lead anywhere. Unless there is a long term trend (in which case take it to AE or ArbCom for conduct unbecoming) three weeks is just too long to be able to do anything. Had I known about it at the time I likely (only likely as I didn't look into the background) would have done something. But yeah I agree that some of the behaviour I've seen from admins is well below what I would have expected. But I guess you can't say adminship is not a big deal and that they (we) are just normal editors and still hold them to a higher standard. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Please look

at this. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, you could probably have just deleted it per G3, but blanking words too. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Politkovskaya topic ban

I will not appeal the sanction, since I have grown tired of the subject. However, I would be very grateful if you could explain to me why I am the only one who is sanctioned. I am the first editor who deleted the mention of "Putin's birthday". I did so because I believed it to be a clear violation of BLP which, as such, could be deleted on sight by anyone. Lute88 undid my revision repeatedly with no explanation and did not discuss the matter with me on the talk page. Instead, his position was defended, very energetically, by My very best wishes. When, trying to explain my removal, I said that, in a court of law, the innuendo would be considered libel, he replied "Please see Wikipedia:No legal threats. One can be blocked for doing this." However, it should have been clear to anyone that I was not making any kind of threat, just stating the law. If you take a closer look, you will notice that I stopped removing the BLP violation the moment My very best wishes entered the discussion and I never edited the page since then. Finally, an admin, Drmies, agreed with me and removed the BLP violation. Only then did the disgruntled Lute88 enter the discussion, attacking me with "Why do I smell this? - http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/03/news/russia-troll-factory-putin/ --Lute88 (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)" When told by Drmies that it was not funny, he replied with " No fun intended. Againstdisinformation has been pushing the proRussian POV envelope here for some time. And there has been recent media coverage of some professional (and paid too) POV promoters on Wiki. Just being vigilant...--Lute88 (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)23:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)". I asked him to "take back immediately your slanderous accusations", which he refused to do. I note that you did not sanction him for it, while you sanction me for incivility and personal attacks for "apart from editors with a long history of anti-Russian POV-pushing". This sentence attacks no one in particular, since no one is named. You will note too that, after Lute88 insulted me, I stopped making posts on the talk page until a few hours ago. The increasingly aggressive tone used by Volunteer Marek and his obstinate edit warring decided me to support BMK, hence my edits. Now, I fail to see what you find more uncivil in my edits than the accusation of being a Putin's stooge, on the Kremlin's payroll. For the moment, forgive me for saying so, but it looks like double standards. Againstdisinformation (talk) 04:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot the quote I wanted you to see in order to form a judgement on the civil manner My very best wishes uses to address me: "Please stop being a ridiculous thoughtless jerk". I,for my part, never insulted anyone. Againstdisinformation (talk) 04:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

That wasn't MVBW, that was me. I'm just sick and tired of you calling me "anti-Russian". You are accusing me of bigotry, which is something I take very seriously and the accusation is nonsense. You have kept doing this DESPITE numerous requests to stop and despite several users telling you it's obnoxious. I'm not about to sit there and let you continue such odious behavior without calling you out on it. Volunteer Marek  05:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I made a mistake, this time it was you, but MVBW has called me all sorts of things on other pages, this explains the mistake, I think. if you find that attributing to someone an anti-Russian slant is odious, why did you start saying saying that I have a pro-Russian slant? I merely reciprocated, which I should not have, I admit, but in much milder terms. Againstdisinformation (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I have never "started saying that (you) have a pro-Russian slant". You are mistaken again. Volunteer Marek  06:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Whilst you are allowed to ask for clarification of a topic ban, asking why other users haven't been sanctioned in the same topic area is generally considered a violation of the ban.

However, briefly Lute88 has not edited the article or talk page since the date of your quite from them above indicating that they've learnt from the mistake. You on the other hand were warned by Drmies at the time for making incivil and disruptive comments and have been blocked for similar things in the past indicating that you have not learnt from your mistake and advice from others.

This was one of three examples, and it demonstrates the trend of your comments and approach to dispute resolution which seems to involve "using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" WP:NPA. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I am very affected by all this. Not the topic ban, as I already told you, I have grown tired of it. What saddens me is that I can be perceived as being uncivil, disruptive, dismissive and using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means...This is not a flattering portrait and I don't recognize myself in it. It somehow implies some dishonesty on my part. In my long life, I have participated in many heated academic debates, but no one ever called my honesty into question. I started editing with the aim of improving Wikipedia as a free source of knowledge by helping to rid it of the inaccuracies with which it is cluttered. Hence my poorly (and naively) chosen username. I started with articles whose topic is related to Russia. Not because I have a stake in the subject but, rather, because this is the field where bias appeared to me to be the most blatant. By so doing, I have attracted the animosity of a group of persons, whom I shall not name. They have consistently reverted my edits, calling me a POV-pusher. However, it is hard for me to consider that they were all wrong, since they all led to heated discussions where I have finally been vindicated (as in the article I am not allowed to mention, in the alleged torture of Tymoshenko, the capture and death of Gaddafi etc...). I fully understand that Wikipedia needs strict rules, since anyone is free to edit it. However, I believe that a harsh interpretation when applying them to new editors, accompanied with leniency towards the experienced ones, can discourage good will and deter potentially valuable contributors. Sorry for being so loquacious. Againstdisinformation (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

reverting recent edtits

Concerns the "Shilha language" page. I am still working on that. Today (17 September 2015) I took out a longish piece of text from a section. I intend to re-use that text (my own, by the way) in another section which I'll add later. Your reversal obliterated a lot of other edits I made today, as well as improvements to layout. I think this interference was uncalled for! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahulandiy (talk • contribs) 13:53, 17 September 2015‎ (UTC)

I've undone my change so you can keep working. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Protection of Murder of Anni Dewani

Hello!

I just wanted to touch base with you over the recent decision to page protect the article in question. A few days ago I was a previously uninvolved editor who got informed via bots of an RfC and tried to bring a level head to the discussion on the talk page. The main issue in contention is the article's extensive focus on a living person already acquitted of the crime of murder. The recent edits that made it look like edit warring are an edit by User:Collect (with consensus from the BLP notice board) [1] to remove this material, its reversion by me [2], a reversion of MYSELF by me [3], and then a reversion of Collect's material by another user [4].

Let me begin by apologizing and stating I am an extremely novice editor and after reading the relevant passages of BLP and reviewing the article's talk page it became apparent to me that I was in the wrong and I self-reverted voluntarily and posted an apology on the noticeboard [5]. The original edit by Collect was then reverted by an editor who, having reviewed the page history and talk page, has continued to push for this material's inclusion. It was at this point you stepped in as it had appeared an edit war had occurred even though all that had REALLY occurred was my own incompetence. I wanted to write you here to personally apologize for my blunder and to convey my hope that my errors would not hinder the process of editing this article properly to get it into accordance with WP:BLP. I'm so sorry again, I have a lot still to learn about all this, and thanks for all that you do to keep Wikipedia running well! Cheers, Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 15:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a cogent statement - the editor did a self-revert, and thus neither act should count against him. And I fear that the "protect the wrong version" bit applies here - where an article is ostensibly about a murder, and 2/3 of the entire article is spent on pointing an accusatory finger at a person found not guilty in a court of law, the WEIGHT of the accusation about the living person is past undue, and the use of accusations in Wikipedia's voice, IMHO, is a specific violation of policy, and are required to be removed. Note that on BLP/N, the position that the material is a violation of BLP is well-supported. Collect (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Also note Robert McClenon's statement: " I do agree that any continuing to push the "murder-for-hire" theory (and it is a theory, not a proven fact, and any statement that it is a proven fact is, at best, willful ignorance rather than a lie) on the article page when the article comes off protection will be disruptive and tendentious. Disruptive and tendentious editing of articles that contain BLP content is subject to discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)" and is thus a statement which should be taken into consideration in any decision to "protect" an article which is violating policy as stated by another administrator. Collect (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Observations

I would like to summarize my experience with this article. I tried to resolve the issues via moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard. The primary actors here are a single-purpose account, Dewanifacts, and a POV-pusher, Lane99. In Wikipedia, we are normally wary of single-purpose accounts, but, in this case, the SPA is mostly right. His agenda is to push a POV that is consistent with the policy on biographies of living persons, while Lane99 has an agenda that is contrary to that policy. To summarize, Ms. Dewani was murdered in South Africa on her honeymoon with Mr. Dewani. The murder may have been a murder-for-hire designed to look like a random botched carjacking, or a random botched carjacking in which the villains confessed to murder-for-hire. The latter is the theory that is consistent with judicial proceedings so far. Three people were convicted of the murder, and one of them then died of cancer. Mr. Dewani, the only person who has been suggested as the arranger of the murder-for-hire, was extradited to South Africa and tried and acquitted because the case against him fell apart as being nothing but the testimony of criminals. Lane99's agenda is to push the finding of murder for hire, which was not explicitly set aside in Mr. Dewani's acquittal, but was essentially set aside because it was based on lies. The agenda of Dewanifacts is to set the record straight. Dewanifacts is an SPA, but being an SPA doesn't always mean being wrong. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

More specifically, protecting the article won't help, in my opinion, because Lane99 won't listen. My recommendation is that Lane99 be topic-banned from the article for several months to permit the article to be cleaned up. This can be done under ArbCom discretionary sanctions for BLPs. Lane99 has already been notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I will add that, just because Collect has been sanctioned for his BLP violations doesn't mean that he is always wrong on BLPs. In this case he is right. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

This entire topic sounds to be WAY above my experience level. But I'm thankful for all of the more experienced editors here helping out. Thanks so much User:Robert McClenon! Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 15:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Robert McClenon and Collect: It looks like Lane99 has stopped editing (hasn't done anything in the last two or so days) so I'd like to wait before taking any action against them (and the evidence isn't clear cut). Regarding the protection, my other option is to use discretionary sanctions to put a sanction like this on it no change (apart from uncontroversial minor edits) may be made to this article without having (and linking in the edit summary) to a consensus in support of the change which must have been proposed on the talk page for at least 24 hours. How does that sound? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of using discretionary sanctions to prohibit non-consensus edits. That does sound worth trying as an alternative to topic-bans. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

TRT World, an ad, not an article

Please, could you have a look at the article TRT World. In my opinion, it is a, not even thinly disguised, advertisement for a media outlet and not a serious article. I dare not take any action myself, lest I fall foul of some Turkish interest group. Please, keep me informed about the action you take. Againstdisinformation (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I've tagged it for speedy deletion so that another admin can have a look too. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Unblocked a range

Please see this. I apologize in advance if I stepped on your toes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Neil, we'll see how it goes unblocked, it's been a while so the abusive editing might have stopped. A note for the future, in situations like this the usual standard thing to do is to look into giving IP block exemption rather than unblocking the range (especially for rangeblocks, see Template:Rangeblock). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the info. The editor might have been mistaken as to what actually happened (see talk page) so I will put the rangeblock back if it turns out the VPN was on by accident. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks :) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

I love you so much. Bets18 (talk) 09:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Admin attention and suggestion Required

User:D4iNa4 is recently returned from an SPI block and started edit warring and removal of contents about Pakistan victory 1 and a Picture 2 from [Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts] with a really blatent reasons, for which he was warned for Edit Warring by a user on his talk page 3,since then he started warring logged out 4 and oversighted the details.Now can you Please tell what can i do about this Duck. HIAS (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-39

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

Recent changes

• There is now an experimental Wikimedia maps service. You can give feedback here. [6][7]
• Last week a few issues with UploadWizard were fixed. Before this was done, UploadWizard would stop you from uploading your files if something went wrong. [8][9][10][11]
• More Wikipedias can now use information from any Wikidata item in any Wikipedia article. Previously they could only use the Wikidata item that matched the subject of the article. [12]
• The VisualEditor welcome dialogue has been changed. The intention is to make it more helpful for new users. [13]

Problems

• Wikimedia Labs' HTTPS certificate expired for most of Tuesday 15 September. To reach Wikimedia Labs and Tool Labs securely you had to ignore your browser's security error message. There was no risk to data security during this time. [14]
• Last week the notification system was split into two parts. This was temporarily undone because of a bug and performance concerns. It will return to two parts this week. [15][16]
• UploadWizard couldn't upload files larger than 5 MB when using chunked uploads. This has now been fixed. [17]

Changes this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from September 22. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from September 23. It will be on all Wikipedias from September 24 (calendar).
• The page move tool has been switched over to the new standard look for forms. [18]
• You can now choose whether to extend a link or not when editing one in VisualEditor. This means it is easier to choose how much of what you type before and after the link is part of it. [19]
• Wikibooks can now use data from Wikidata. [20]

Meetings

• You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on 22 September at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
• You can join a meeting with the Wikidata team. It will be on September 23 at 17:00 (UTC). See how to join.
• You can register to the Wikimedia Developer Summit 2016 in San Francisco 4–6 January 2016. Gadget, template, bot, and tool developers are welcome as well. Call for participation and travel sponsorship requests are open until 2 October.

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

18:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Gob Lofa again, again

This editor is becoming very difficult to deal with. The latest is a clear failure to follow the 1rr rule but we also have misleading edit summaries. His initial change was reverted (by Mabuska as would be expected). I made a couple of modifications to make it more neutral. Gob Lofa then reverted to his original edit again. A simple trawl around his talk page comments indicate an editor with interaction problems. For example here. I've been through a whole bunch of articles he has edited and he makes many minor changes, then sneaks in the odd removal of 'terrorism' or similar in the hope no one notices it. Having checked the edits he makes there are some improvements but not many. I can formally report this if you prefer, but as you had already taken action I thought I would raise it here first. ----Snowded ^TALK 16:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The 1RR rule doesn't apply there (it's only 1 revert per 24 hours). This edit summary is difficult to argue with since it was unsourced. Whilst that talk page discussion isn't ideal I don't think there's an obvious conduct issue there to point to. I'm not going to have time over the next few days to look into it so AE is probably the best bet if you want to. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah well multiple slow edit wars and the need to monitor multiple articles :-( OK point taken will start to assemble evidence ----Snowded ^TALK 23:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Is being accused of being pro-IRA acceptable?----Snowded ^TALK 15:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC) acceptable?

Similarly I was accused of being a BritNat edit warrior. Of greater concern is Gob Lofa's double breach of 1RR in the space of 24 hours, reported this time within a day of it happening, and still nothing done. That is a worrying precedent for the future. Mabuska ^(talk) 09:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Snowded and Mabuska: If there's an ongoing pattern of disruptive conduct in the topic area, I suggest you add it to the current AE report. Admins at AE have the latitude to consider these factors and impose broader sanctions. I'm not promising anything; just recommending that you make your entire case in one place. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Navbox

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Navbox. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

"Cleaning up"

That's new. Statement headers have been flowering (or non-"clean") undisturbed for years — sometimes they're a repository of humour (not this time, admittedly). And mine was a comment or request, not a "statement". What's the purpose of regimenting these headers? To make arbitration sound even more formal and legalistic, and make the untidy people who comment at least look like they're standing at attention and looking straight ahead? There's enough of that and to spare already, in my opinion. Bishonen | talk 04:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC).

In some requests we've enforced it and some we haven't, generally reactionary removal to disputes or requests to remove them, around the start of this month we decided to start enforcing the 'statement by username' all the time for a few reasons.

The main purpose is because statements/comments made at the request stage are now copied over onto the evidence page so those extra bits would be removed at that stage (which is already fiddly and time consuming). It can also make doing the many notifications needed more cumbersome and fiddly as a username becomes User talk:uninvolved Callanecc rather than User talk:Callanecc.

There have also been disagreements over whether including extra bits in the section header calls unnecessary extra attention to specific people's comments. Related to this the clerks have been criticised for being too reactionary and not taking action to prevent issues from occurring, this is a relatively simple way to prevent these types of issues from occurring.

Hope that explains it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, if I recall the discussion, there had been general confusion over time over which statements in a case request came from "involved" parties and which came from "uninvolved" parties. Rather than have debates over which editors are involved or how much participation/interaction is necessary for an editor to be considered involved, the suggestion was just to remove all self-declarations and just simplify things to "Statement by Username". It is the statement that is important along with its attribution to a specific editor rather than having the header be a comment on the case request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Fairly urgent..

Can you hop into #wikipedia-en-accounts for a minute please? Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

random ip stalker

Looks like we're making friends....[21]. Let me know if you have any questions or advice. Thanks. Darknipples (talk) 03:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The funny thing is, I didn't even make the block they're complaining about. Have you got any guesses who it might be? Best advice is just to revert and ignore. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, besides the obvious "disciple of Corbett" T-shirt, not a clue. Darknipples (talk) 06:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

appeal clerking

btw, just want to formally say I have no objection to you clerking my appeal. You are mentioned a handful of times in my appeal with related interactions (the civility warning, and spi clerk denial) , but i think it would be somewhat tough to find an arb/clerk I haven't dealt with significantly. I don't foresee any issues being raised by anyone in this regard, but if they are, here's my signoff. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

AE

Hi Callan, if you have a spare half an hour or so to read through the thread, the AE report on VictorD7 could really do with another pair of uninvolved eyes. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look today. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Question

When you issued this topic ban, did you mean that the user still can edit other pages about the same, as he just did here? Please note that he mentioned you in the edit summary of the diff, but I do not have an idea what he was talking about ... My very best wishes (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

No I didn't, I've clarified that on their talk page as I can see where the confusion may have come from since they're a new user. Thanks for letting me know, if they continue making disruptive edits like that an indef TBAN (or block) is very likely. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

TBAN vio
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Callanecc. "Whining about how you WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT is not sufficient to either change the article to your POV or to disrupt it with spurious tags. Volunteer Marek" this is almost the same language I used against VM and for which you issued a topic ban against me. Now the excerpt I provided is from the talk page of the article Human rights in Ukraine and is addressed to both me and another user. I remember that when I told him "stop whining" he responded that I was looking for a block. In fact I got a topic ban, which I accept fully, dura lex sed lex. However, to be accepted and efficient, rules must be seen to be fairly and equally applied to all. Therefore, I ask you, is he allowed to use against me the same language for which I was banned? Againstdisinformation (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC) Will you please stop running around to various administrator's talk pages in your futile attempts to block-shop for me? Or at the very least if you're going to talk about me behind my back, please have the courtesy to let me know. My comment above was just a frustrated response to some editors, refusing to listen, repeatedly sticking fingers in their ears and repeating the same thing ad nauseum and otherwise wasting everyone's time by trying to mentally wear out those whom they perceive as their "enemies". There's only so much discussion you can have with someone before you realize that they have no interest in acting in good faith. Your TBAN was because of comments you made which were just gratuitous insults and you falsely accused others of bigotry. The fact that you've been stalking me, going so far as trying to muscle into an ongoing mediation I'm involved in, which doesn't involve you, makes this especially creepy. You really really really need to drop the stick and walk away. Oh, and please tell me. Is there a single article - or maybe even an edit you've made - on Wikipedia which you contributed to in some significant manner which hasn't been controversial and hasn't immediately caused a whole bunch of trouble? If you want to get taken seriously as a contributor, I suggest you calm down, go edit something non-controversial and build your reputation that way. Then people will see you're serious editor. Right now your edit history just screams "disruptive trouble maker who just tries to get into fights!" (and that may be putting it nicely). Volunteer Marek  00:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC) And how many articles have you started edit wars on now? As a fraction of articles you've actually edited? You yourself admit that you're "involved in too many disagreements" now. Volunteer Marek  00:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems that disruptive edits by this user continue. That one is especially troubling. I do not know why he mentioned me because he refers to a comment made by another user. This is another personal attack today. Some other recent comments by him: [22], [23], [24], [25]. My very best wishes (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks My very best wishes (MVBW?), I was actually about to block before I saw Guy's warning. Let's see if that helps, could you please let me know if they keep up with the personal attacks and incivility in the coming days. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Range block

Hi Callanecc. There's a discussion at WP:AN regarding a rangeblock you performed. You may be interested in commenting. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Blocking of T Mobil IP's for a long time (several months)?????? Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Mind if I add other subpages? Different subpages of my user space have been vandalized on multiple occasions - I'd rather not go chasing down which one got vandalized every time, especially when WP doesn't seem to explicitly notify me when subpages of my user space or talk space have been modified. Seems to be an issue with this SPI case. Ping on reply. --JustBerry (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Probably just easier to list them here (using {{pagelinks}}) and I'll do them in a batch. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) : Comment: Actually, it seems logical to add the SPI bit to my message, as you're a CU. Is there an IP-checking procedure if a plethora of IPs have been found, which appear to be related to one another, to find related accounts or sleepers in an SPI case? Also, to clarify, I'm not saying the SPI case I filed is representative of such a situation, rather posing a hypothetical issue. --JustBerry (talk) 03:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but we usually will only do sleeper checks if there is a history (or other reason to suspect) that the sockpuppeteer will have created additional accounts. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'll keep an eye for that - I'll continue to post suspected IPs at SPI with supporting diffs. Also, I've provided the page links for my sub pages below. As mentioned, these pages may not have a vandalism page history per say, but different sub pages on my user space have been vandalized a few times now. --JustBerry (talk) 13:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Providing Page Links Per Request

User:JustBerry/Barnstars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:JustBerry/BetaWikipediaAdministrator (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:JustBerry/Block Log (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:JustBerry/EFM (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:JustBerry/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:JustBerry/MTD (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

--JustBerry (talk) 13:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/RMS52

Take a look at this from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/RMS52. User's usage of "Anonymous" and other similar phrases seems to be a clear indication of continued socking. However, the other IPs the user provides may just be a distraction. Please investigate. --JustBerry (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The IP has already been blocked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

closure request

Per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Please_don.27t_close_too_early it may be ready to close. NE Ent 21:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've emailed the other closers. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Please see

nyttend's ANI post about a range block at the Wikiconference NE Ent 23:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the FYI. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Violation of unblock request

Smoore95GAGA has violated their agreement to not violate the three-revert rule at Revival and Purpose. I would warn them about it but, I'd be accused of personally attacking them once more, so I'm bringing it directly to you, who served their last block. They've reverted at that page times within the past 24-hours. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 00:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree that 3RR has been breached at either article and I'm not worries about any edit warring on the part of Smoore95GAGA at Revival. Can I ask, how did you come across these edits? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Because I have a history of editing both articles, and therefore have access to the page's edit history. As well as them being on my Watchlist. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 01:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks. I'll keep monitoring the articles in case an edit war breaks out. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You're very welcome; just trying to lookout for potential problematic behavior, that's all! (: Not trying to cause any kind of conflict, etc. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 01:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

(I hadn't actually seen your edits at Revival). While you're here, I'd also point out (in case you hadn't noticed) that you're sitting on 3 reverts at the moment, so take care. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I only now just noticed; sometimes editing can go over your head but, am done editing the page this evening. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 01:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

An ban close discussion

The interesting question I request you ask the committee is whether they are willing to enforce the "This ban can only be contested by application to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee or Arbitration committee, " provision -- in other words take ownership of the ban. NE Ent 23:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I have, that's what I meant when I archive top and bottom'd the thread. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the well-done close. BMK (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Callanecc, and KTC, along with anyone else who helped. Apologies for the trouble caused. Worm^TT(talk) 07:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

(And KrakatoaKatie). No worries, it was probably a discussion the community needed to have once and for all. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I knew there was someone else! Sorry for missing you KrakatoaKatie! Worm^TT(talk) 07:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for your co-summary of the AN. Between you, you and Katie accurately read the consensus and spelled out the consequences. As another admin who was discretely trying to help Kumioko, and perhaps one of the few editors who remembers actually meeting him, I have followed every word on the subject for years but I stayed out of the discussions. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Reguyla

Should User talk:Reguyla/Archive 1 be protected as well? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

My thinking was, I don't see why not and not protecting it while the other 'important' pages are doesn't seem wise. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Thanks. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Question

Re. this, I just noticed this edit which is on a page that mentions the tea party. I am leaning towards ignoring it unless there are subsequent edits in violation of the topic ban, but am wondering at what point you suggest I file another enforcement request. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

No I don't think it's a violation, the section (and content) they edited wasn't related to the tea party, Kevin McCarthy isn't related to the tea party, and it was a minor edit. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. My understanding was than any edits (minor or not) to any pages which mention the tea party were off-limits. Safehaven86 (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Only if the ban specifically prohibits that, have a look at the weather example at WP:TBAN (especially 4th dot point). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

ANI case

Hello Callanec, @Sandstein:

I presented to the ANI:"The root of the problem here is Keysanger" a case you are well informed about the history and would like to know your opinion and your possible solutions. --Keysanger (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Not interested, sorry.  Sandstein  13:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

User Hanam190552

Hi.

I've been asked here to intervene with this user because of disruptive editing. I'm going to block him for a few days to get his attention and counsel him to, once the block expires, discuss intended potentially controversial edits with other users of the pages involved before making them and reach a consensus about the changes. In looking at this, I saw your warning to this user at User talk:Hanam190552#Sockpuppetry, and thought that a WP:SPI might be indicated. Can you let me know the details (links to diffs, IDs of the blocked accounts) behind your warning.

As I'm not well experienced in disputes I'd be thankful for any suggestions you think might be helpful, either by talk page exchange or by email.

Thanks & Cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Wt, the sock account is User:Hanam190553. My involvement was limited to the block and warning. I think what you're planning to talk about is good, and hopefully the block will get them to talk. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Pacific Rim Defender

Hey Callanecc, I don't see how Pacific Rim Defender and Century Plant Guy are sockpuppets of McAusten! I honestly looked at their contributions are don't see any editing that gives then away!
69.72.247.240 (talk) 07:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to say thank you for having faith that I will change. I assure you if I feel like I am right with a situation, I will talk to you first about it to get another opinion. Smoore95GAGA (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Reverting

Ok, so I put in reviews for Confident by Demi Lovato, and someone went and removed any mixed or negative ones. Clearly they are just doing it to make it seem like the album only received positive reviews. Would it be ok if I reverted that? Smoore95GAGA (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Smoore95GAGA: Since Callanecc isn't around, I will give you my opinion. Your recent edits to the article are fine, in my opinion, and the editor who removed the reviews was clearly being unconstructive. The article has now been protected to stop the disruptive editing, but if it had gone on any further, asking for advice here, as you did, would have been much better than allowing yourself to be dragged into another edit war. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Smoore95GAGA: One more comment. In a situation like this, I don't see any problem with reverting once, but be very careful about the temptation to keep reverting, even if you are convinced that the other editor is wrong. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Socks (?)

I have a strong suspicion that Ratioimply is another sock of Caradoc29105. Note the very similar user page (with a fake battle template), and the edits to Libyan Civil War. Thanks, GAB^Hello! 20:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, and the user page was edited by Khamis gaddafi, who has also edited the page of Bumpits3. You can clearly see the connection to Libyan topics, Khamis Gaddafi, and the battle templates on the userpages. GAB^Hello! 20:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi GeneralizationsAreBad, sure are. I've done a CheckUser, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Caradoc29105 for results. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Very persistent sockmaster. GAB^Hello! 22:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk page

Hi Callanecc, I don't want to bother you or anything, but can you please check my last post in [26] and tell me what you think/give your opinion? Thanks and regards. (N0n3up (talk) 06:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC))

I felt that N0n3up's treatment of me in regards to the topic at hand was relevant to other people whom they wished to engage with the topic at hand. Some might say I poisoned the well by sharing his accusation, I would counter that N0n3up did it first by making the accusation. I stand by my comments, and also by my further pledged silence on the matter. --Golbez (talk) 07:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

If you're going to avoid N0n3up in the future and avoid commenting on them then let's just leave it there. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Before Golbez gives you a twisted idea of what happened, let me just start that I wasn't the one who deleted and blocked someone for an edit instead of talking it out first, something the "admin" should've done. (N0n3up (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC))

Golbez is not the only one being silent about N0n3up. Unfortunately avoiding his type of behavior may just mean letting him have his way. Not my problem. User:JuanRiley(talk) 21:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

User:JuanRiley Thanks for your concern. How did you find this conversation anyways? (N0n3up (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC))

Ok, I think I modified two of the posts above by accident intending to post something else. Sorry, I'm abit sleepy at this moment. (N0n3up (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC))

Protection?

You protected Murder of Anni Dewani on Saturday, but it appears you set it to expire immediately. In any event, it's not currently protected... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-43

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

Recent changes

• Tech News is trying to make reading the newsletter easier. The icon means the item is in the newsletter every week, but with new dates. The icon means the item is mainly relevant for readers with technical knowledge. You can leave feedback on this change.
• Timestamps in the protection log will now be in the user's timezone. Previously they would show Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). [27]

Problems

• A problem with MediaWiki made some pages show no content on October 14. This has now been fixed. [28]
• Some templates were misplaced in the Flow description bar. This could make it impossible to click on links. This will be fixed this week. [29]
• The deployment of the new MediaWiki version was stopped on October 14. No new code was deployed for the rest of week. This meant planned changes did not happen. [30]

Changes this week

• Changes that were planned to happen last week will happen this week. [31]
• Wikispecies, Meta and MediaWiki.org will be able to use Wikidata for sitelinks. [32][33][34][35]

Meetings

• You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 20 October at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.

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

16:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Appeal

Hello, I saw that you have banned me from a topic (Spiro Koleka), but I see no justification for it. Can you please elaborate on your recent decision? I don't think I deserve to be banned for standing up against greek nationalist propaganda and racist comments. Burridheut (talk) 08:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

You were topic banned as you have a conflict of interest which you appear unable to manage it without resorting to incivility and personal attacks [36] [37] [38] [39], a battleground attitude [40] and ownership of the article [41]. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

It appears that as soon as the ae case closed, Burrit. engaged into a new wave of disruption. Similar articles are his new targets right now [[42]]. The same disruptive pattern: instant reverts, aggresive edit summaries without talkpage participation.Alexikoua (talk) 11:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Leave it, let everything settle until everyone has calmed down then we'll see if there is a trend. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

You had no authority in my case., because that was not related to Macedonia. Also, be notified that the user you are replying to or one of his "friends" has created an anonymous account just to comment on my user page regarding the other articles. Burridheut (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Burridheut, if you think that an editor has multiple accounts (or sockpuppets) used to for other purposes, then that should be addressed in the appropriate forums so an investigation can be conducted. As for you being lumped in the Macedonia category, they need to upgrade that to Balkans or something. In the past there use to be a lot of edit warring between Macedonian and Greek editors for various reasons. Now they have subsided, but the name of that section under which you are banned has stayed. I am not sure if you can get your ban revoked, but please follow Wikipedia procedure and refrain from personal attacks. There are so few Albanian editors out there anyway and people wanting to make a contribution like yourself are most welcome. Just undertake care. Your heart is in the right place, just go by the policy regarding interactions with other editors and peer reviewed sources.Resnjari (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

please sign

Please sign [43] per WP:SIGNHAT. NE Ent 00:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Sort of done, just with username per the documentation. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Sock-puppet

I think our friend, Smoore95GAGA, is back in full bloom action. Check out the investigation and the new account's edits. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 12:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

ACC terms

Another thing I worked on recently... I branched off of your User:Callanecc/ACCRIGHT and made User:MusikAnimal/ACC terms. I sort of dumbed it down since these newbie event coordinators are often unfamiliar with policy and probably won't read all of WP:U. The main thing I think is for them not to bypass the spoofing and blacklist, and to essentially use common sense when choosing usernames. What do you think? If you are okay with this modification I thought I'd also move this to the template namespace and merge the history of your template so the attribution is there. Either way I realize I need to update mine to say it was mostly taken from you :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thank you! I've done the history merge, don't worry about any attribution other than that. Feel free to move into template space. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015 GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors October 2015 Newsletter September drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 25 editors who signed up, 18 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. October blitz: The one-week October blitz, targeting requests, has just concluded. Of the nine editors who signed up, seven copyedited at least one request; check your talk page for your barnstar! The month-long November drive, focusing on our oldest backlog articles (June, July, and August 2014) and the October requests, is just around the corner. Hope to see you there! Thanks again for your support; together, we can improve the encyclopedia! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, KieranTribe, Miniapolis and Pax85. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-44

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

Changes this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from October 27. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from October 28. It will be on all Wikipedias from October 29 (calendar).
• The first time you use the visual editor, pop-ups will explain why and when you should use the citation and link tools. [44]
• You will be able to upload images to Wikimedia Commons from inside the wikitext editor by clicking "Upload" in the "Insert file" dialog. You will also be able to drag and drop them into an article when using the visual editor. [45][46]
• When you edit a code block in visual editor, you will have the syntax highlighted. [47][48]
• Index and Page namespaces on Wikisource will be defined as content namespaces in $wgContentNamespaces. [49]

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

18:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Boko Haram

There was a request for unprotection on Boko Haram. I've removed it for now. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Giant panda

Unprotection is requested here. This article has been semi - protected since 6 December 2013. 31.54.205.170 (talk) 11:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Done: I've changed it to pending changes to see what will happen (and if it can be unprotected). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Removing my comment at AE2

[50] I thought it was helpful, and it's also my one and only comment on the case; I've decided against making any more. Are you enjoying being a clerk? Have you considered blocking Bishzilla for threatening grievous bodily harm to an arbitrator? Bishonen | talk 11:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Making it on Giano's talk page was funny linking to it in the arbitration case was unhelpful and POINTy at worst. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course it was pointy. Shoehorning Giano into the case was pointy. He goes no better there than Bishzilla. Making that point is helpful. Bishonen | talk 08:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC).

So pointing outsomething you see as being pointy by being pointy is a good and constructive way to go about things? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sir. Wikilawyering to drag in WP:POINT here is constructive? That guideline is not within shouting distance of my post on that talkpage. You should read it. But I'm done, I don't think we'll get any further. Feel free to have the always valuable last word. Bishonen | talk 12:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC).

Your suggestion about the Huma Abedin article

At WP:AE you've recommended a 0RR for some participants. In your mind, does that prevent any existing text from being removed from the article even as part of a sentence revision? The ancient meaning of "revert" was an edit that restored a previous version of the article. When people defined the 0RR that could be what they were thinking. But in practice, it's not so easy to draw the line. EdJohnston (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I interpret it as removing part or whole of another defined person's edit. Which is not necessarily going to make the article look identical to what it did in the past, for example they might remove another person's change and add something in a different part of the article. My test for reverts is that I need to be able to see that part of the article the same as it was at some stage in the past. Therefore the rule is there to prevent edit warring rather than just getting in the way of allowing constructive editing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Block query

Now that you have been mentioned at WP:AN by @Softlavender:, I would kindly request you to read this message once again that I had posted with regards to lack of abuse of multiple accounts, in the sense that multiple accounts were never used in same discussion or pages.(tool results) And also that there was as no block evasion after the block.

I agree that these things could've been clarified on talk page right after the block, but I really didn't knew if "indefinite" block could be removed, it seemed like an "infinite" block. I made these clarifications about never socking on my talk page only after I got to know off-wiki that all blocks can be removed, that's why it took me more than a year.

But as far as we know, if there is no abuse of multiple account, they are just not blocked, they are tagged as alternative instead.

Maybe you can also alter my block log that there was no abuse of sock puppetry? Because some users seem to be making blocks as point for justifying things that are often irrelevant to others block log. Including this recent comment[51] where a user is treating your block as fixated for as one year punishment, even though it was just due to my absence. D4iNa4 (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@D4iNa4: Given a checkuser connected RealRx with Rafikhsk and the data can't be accessed any more it's pretty much impossible to prove that those two accounts (and hence including you) are not connected. Even with the reverts of each other you pointed out on your talk page when you were unblocked, as we've seen that type of behaviour from the same person with multiple account before. Sorry I can't help there. However as I said above I've made the point (and ANI) that I can't see how a block for sockpuppetry should affect any decision to be made in this instance. Having said that at, I also pointed out where your behaviour has been problematic so I'd appreciate it if you could address that at ANI. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Keeping it cool, I asked because only you can help with this. This account(D4iNa4) and RealRx(edit history) were editing on same days, why Elockid didn't blocked this account? I made only total of three accounts. Rafikhsk last time edited on 2011, so how he could be considered as sockmaster in 2014? Another proof is this CU report by DoRD, who could confirm my two more accounts as mine, not Rafikhsk or any other. Why Elockid didn't blocked Rafikshk and it was only you who blocked it. There must have been some mistake like I said. If there was any connection with any other accounts DoRD would have said "likely", "possible" and named other accounts, but he didn't cause there were none. Can we discuss with both DoRd and Elockid that how they investigates, especially DoRD? As for ANI, thanks for mentioning, I have commented there. Please note that I always avoided edit warring and I was always the one to open talk page sections.[52] D4iNa4 (talk) 12:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi D4iNa4, I'll have a closer look at everything later (including the ANI thread). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Idea

I'm hardly your best friend, and it's not as if I think you're the perfect candidate, but considering how extremely weak the field is right now, I think you should consider running. (And who could refuse after such an effusive recommendation?) BMK (talk) 08:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, that was a surprise! I was actually thinking I wouldn't nominate a week ago, but I've mostly changed my mind over the past few days (and your comment definitely made a big difference. This might sound corny but it really was heartening that you'd ask me (and put me at least close to being in a group with NE Ent and NYB). So, thank you! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem. BMK (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Request

Callanecc, can you check this edit out? Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Others generally don't subscribe to it, but you'd have to ask the Committee whether they can just request it or there has to be a need. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

List of military occupations

I'm trying to figure out why you locked the article. You have a user violating 1rr on basis of rather weak argument.They are willing to let the Gaza listing stand but only if their unsourced original research is allowed. They lack a valid reason to actually remove the material. They didn't challenge it on the basis of it being unsourced and it is sourced. They challenged it on the basis of original research and simply not liking it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The difference between blocking and protecting is primarily administrative discretion. There were a couple reasons I decided to protect:

the first is that they are talking on the talk page and I'd rather encourage that rather than prevent (punish) that,

and the second is that they were half-way through filing an arbitration request.

The other thing is that depending on your definition of a "revert" this wasn't one as it didn't revert a specific editor and/or revert to a specific previous version of the article.

Primarily though it was the first one. Now that they have the DS alert there is much more latitude to act (ie deal with the DONTLIKE) as needed. I was actually tempted to revert the article back to the stable version but decided not to given that the protection was short. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

That's reasonable. Thanks.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Review of past issues

I'd like to have the way I've been pushed off Wikipedia reviewed. Where would be the best venue for a public review? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jaakobou, without more information I really can't give you much more advice than to review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Have you heard any news about some of the stabbing attacks in Israel? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

No sorry I haven't, but how does that related to Wikipedia. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

There is an ongoing wave of attacks on Jews (more than 30 in 1.5 months; mostly stabbing attacks), a part of the overall "popular resistance" strategy adopted at the Sixth Fatah Conference in August 2009. Incitement to "sharpen the weapons" against Jews, albeit masqueraded as a paraphrase on Shakespeare (quoted from an Arab newspaper) and whatnot; this is at the core of what was used to herd me off the Wikipedia. Arab 'mukawama' (doctrine of conflict enhancement) themes on violence and poetic militancy seem improper for Wikipedia user-space. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

(continued) There are a few editors who didn't see the real life effect of this (e.g. more than 30 attacks the past 1.5 months; mostly stabbing attacks). With respect to the fact that people are being attacked daily in real life, I'm sure there is room to reintroduce the issues of user-space usage of "poetic" violence promotion (and wiki-cliques that may drop by soon to hail the validity of these).

Proper disclosure: I was herded off for misrepresenting this matter a few years ago (observing a consensus where it wasn't as strong as I thought it was). Perhaps, a few of the involved group of people mentioned above (e.g. @Timotheus Canens:, @Foxj:, @Kim Dent-Brown:, @Black Kite:, @Crazycomputers:) would be able to see the light now that a couple years passed and there's a clearer wave of stabbings and killings and videos to boot. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what you want me (as a Wikipedia admin) to do about it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I hope you find it reasonable, that I request of you in this time of heavy real life violence (which is leaking out and inspiring more violence[53]) - to open a poll for other admins regarding Jew-stabbing poetic violence themes (Similar to "#JeSuisCouteau") not being allowed on user-space. It didn't ring right when there were a few attacks per month, and doesn't ring right now, when there are daily stabbings. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what you'd like us as administrators to actually do about this. Can you at least link to something that's on Wikipedia we can look at? It goes without saying that there's little we can do about the Israel–Palestine conflict. — foxj 14:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@Foxj:

Thinking long-term, I'd like to see it written down officially, that poetic militancy and other 'mukawama' writings are not to be tolerated (unless it is directly related to editing). This is in the best interest of Wikipedia and would allow speedy handling of current and future occurrences. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Another stabbing attack today. 40 year old civilian stabbed in the chest outside a supermarket (he might not make it). I'm not saying the text on a Wikipedian's user-page makes all these attacks, but that text doesn't belong on this site. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Foxj:

Not yet 13:00 and its the second attack today... a stabbing on a gate-guard to a small locality. He responded quickly and his injury is categorized as 'light'. The other three attacked by a car earlier were not so lucky. Can we get rid poetic violence off user-pages in the Israeli-Arab conflict category? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Do you figure this can be raised for the ARBCOM committee to explicitly clarify that 'poetic militancy' (on either side of the conflict) is inappropriate for the purpose of the project? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• It sounds like (and I might have read this wrong) that what you're describing is already prohibited (by WP:UP#GOALS and possibily WP:UP#POLEMIC). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The existence of these has (one might notice with the diff I provided) not been enough. There is at least one more current example of 'goals/polemic' that I've found (looking at user-space of editors of stabbing related articles) but my focus lies elsewhere. I'd be happy to be proven wrong here, but it would seem that the policy is not clear enough, and thus a number of editors have been circumventing it even when repeatedly asked to remove such materials. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Ok, so the best thing to do it to ask them (politely) on their talk page to remove it with a description of how the guideline I linked above applies (why it's not permitted according to the policy). If that doesn't work, if it's a whole page follow the steps at WP:MFD or if it's part of a userpage post on WP:ANI with a brief neutral summary of what you believe does not meet the guideline, and why that you have tried to resolve it on their talk page first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• • • • There is a real problem where your suggestions fail.[54][55] Chances are, an MFD/ANI about a single instance will be quickly derailed. When it comes to a small country like Israel, phrases that would not pass otherwise find a way to stay in. This matter is pretty serious, as between October 1 - November 8, 2015, there were 62 stabbings, 7 shootings and 8 car rammings. This is heavily promoted by poetic militancy (see: another sample). Despite my real life concerns and the legitimacy of the suggestion, my past experiences tell me to avoid the MFD route. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC) + clarify Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
      • @FunkMonk:, @Graeme Bartlett: the above text includes two of your notes and your response would be welcome. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow, is this about allowing some kind of user boxes that denounce stabbings? Can't see how that would be a problem... FunkMonk (talk) 10:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@FunkMonk:

The opposite. Use of user-space to promote militancy

e.g.

- "sharpen the weapons with which he will secure his victory" (against Isrsaelis - quote from advocacy to "justified violence")

- "the villainy you teach me, I will execute; and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction." (Palestinian to a Jew - poetic militant take on Shakespeare)

p.s. two more stabbing attacks today and the day is still young (not yet 13:00) - [56]

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC) + justified violence note Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

My earlier remark still stands: "When I looked at this earlier for Jaakobou I found the text disturbing and disagreeable. However most of what is there is not illegal or grossly offensive, and could be tolerated as opinion on Wikipedia user pages, so I did nothing about it." I will add that Wikipedia would be better off without those quotes on user talk pages. However I don't think that recent events have aggravated the statements. They are quite in character for many from this group and I expect that most Palestinians are hostile all the time in this respect, so such statements are not out of my expectation. Perhaps if individuals cannot tolerate their presence we can devise a style sheet that would render them invisible. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Callanecc:@FunkMonk:@Graeme Bartlett:

1) incitement to militancy is a crime in a few countries, e.g., the UK,[57][58] France,[59] Australia.[60]

2) My understanding is that "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying"[61] does not require content to be illegal.

Considering the above comments by FunkMonk and Graeme Bartkett, I reiterate my suggestion regarding a clarification in POLEMIC. If paraphrases about the righteousness of militancy are passable law-wise (debatable), it does not make it right for the Wiki-project. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

If you believe clarification is needed (regarding what is/is not permitted) then the best thing to do would be to start a discussion (or WP:RFC) at WT:UP. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Possible post - Jaakobou

@Callanecc: I've prepared the following text. Before I consider posting it to Wikipedia talk:User pages, I'd appreciate your input: if you see it as making the issue clear enough without 'lecturing' or making it a personal issue with anyone on the project.

I've been witness to several instances where editors managed to circumvent WP:UP#POLEMIC. It is my suggestion to further clarify on the policy that poetic militancy (similar to "#JeSuisCouteau", "will of the people", and "my land will not be humiliated") is not permissible. Promotion of militancy (a.k.a. "Mukawama", "Jihad") is illegal in several countries, e.g., the UK,[62][63] France,[64] Australia.[65] My understanding is that "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying" does not require content to be illegal. However, if paraphrases about the righteousness of militancy are sometimes passable law-wise, it does not make them right for the Wiki-project.

Thank you in advance, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@FunkMonk:, @Graeme Bartlett:, @Foxj:. Do you find the above text clear enough? Thank you all for your contributions here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Certainly that text sounds OK to start a discussion about it. You may also wish to propose a clear modification to the Wikipedia:User pages content. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. And the change could be as simple as a footnote stating that poetic militancy is not permitted under WP:UP#POLEMIC. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Rephrase Suggestions - Jaakobou

• Original:
• Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive).
• Suggestion A: Laconic version
• Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive). Poetic militancy is not permitted under WP:UP#POLEMIC.
• Suggestion B: Expanded version
• Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive). Poetic militancy in support of or promoting violent acts, quotes and paraphrases to raise the spirit of fight and other forms of political militant activism are illegal in several countries and should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki).

My thoughts:

- Suggestion A: Not without merit, is a simple footnote. Whether this is the community's preferred version and whether it would be sufficient, that remains to be seen. It is always possible that even an extended version would sometimes falter.

- Suggestion B: To cut down on the 'circumvention factor'. Perhaps too much, but weighing brevity vs. results, cutting down on room for interpretation where real-world conflicts and political agendas are involved. "Raise the spirit of fight" is a quote from a Taliban songwriter.[66] Thoughts? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd go with a combination: suggest that Poetic militancy in support of or promoting violent acts, quotes and paraphrases to raise the spirit of fight and other forms of political militant activism are not permitted be added to the end of the dot point, or that it be included as a footnote. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you again for the input. I've gone ahead and posted the note and rephrase suggestion at the UP talkpage. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions question on R&I

Race & Intelligence is under discretionary sanctions broadly construed etc. Would this apply to disruptive and uncivil editing around race/ethnicity - but unrelated to its intersection with physical/mental characteristics? The wording is a bit ambiguous in the final decision, it says 'the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed' - I read that as it requires race/ethnicity in *combination* with their impact on human abilities to qualify, however 'broadly construed' has been in the past taken to include individual parts of active sanctions. (Essentially there is an uncivil editor arguing over the use of race or ethnicity, and while being able to warn on R&I sanctions would make it a lot easier, I dont think it applies, but wanted to get a second opinion, because if not, due to the lack of any enforcement of basic civility, its going to be difficult dealing with them.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I would say that it's not covered given that the remedy specifically includes "intersection", but you'd need to ask the Committee for a definitive answer. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

PRetty much what I thought then unfortunately, Regards. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Xania's IPBE request

I can't see anything so far that indicates they're trying to edit through the Great Firewall. Looks entirely probable though that they are. I'm willing to AGF on this one. Elockid ^{Message me} 14:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

User:N0n3up Who you might have been in goodwill too kind with.

He is now reverting my edits arbitrarily only to get me into a war. Sorry to saddle you with this complaint. Pardon the lack of signature. Juan Riley (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Juan Riley Don't lie. I reverted your edits because of the simple fact that your edits weren't backed by sources nor consensus. I even cordially invited you here to revert my edit if you or someone else disagreed yet or if sources would be provided. And may I need to remind you of your past personal attacks and edit-stalking which I would be more than happy to show as resulting you on the other side. (N0n3up (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC))

N0n3up

Hi C, FYI: User_talk:Cyphoidbomb#Re_N0n3up_comments Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I think one of the only ways forward (given I've already tired discussion and explanation) is for them to agree to a voluntary 1RR. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Mail

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

-- John of Reading (talk) 08:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

ACE

Best of luck, my friend. → Call me Hahc21 22:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! It's nice to see your username again. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I check Wikipedia from time to time. Usually to see how things are going :) → Call me Hahc21 15:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Byron Krieger

Hi there, my name is Evelyn Krieger. I am Byron Krieger's daughter and was updating some of the sources and references because the links were dead. Please restore the changes that I made. He just passed away and various news outlets may be writing up obituaries for him and I want them to have the most up to date information available. 66.31.158.152 (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Thank you.

Adding information and sources is good, however in the edits from you which I reverted you actually removed most of the content from the page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Please read your email

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

Minor4th 02:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Signpost email

I've emailed you via mediawiki on an ArbCom election matter, since I've reached my limit for today's emailing. Tony (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Question regarding WP:CDS proposal

I see that you have launched a candidacy for the Arbitration Committee. I imagine that you will be returned. I wish you good luck in this. However, I wanted to ask you about your prior proposal at WP:CDS. As you may have noticed, in the case of recently launched CDS such as WP:GS/ECIG, enforcement has simply not occurred. I believe this is because the appropriate enforcement mechanisms simply are not in place. Your proposal would go a long way toward remedying this situation, and would hopefully nip situations like the failed electronic cigarettes case from occurring. If enforcement of the community sanctions had occurred, there would've been not need for a case. The case, trapped in a limbo for months, has not worked. The most recent successful example of GS enforcement was WP:GS/GG, which worked largely because of the establishment of WP:GS/GG/E. Have you any desire to move forward with the proposal? Increasing the efficacy of community DS will go a long way toward reducing the load of the Committee, remedying disputes, and reducing the kind of limbo that often exists following the establishment of CDS or other community general sanctions. RGloucester — ☎ 16:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes and no, I'm not actually sure whether it'll make much difference as I suspect the main reasons for the lack of support is that admins and other simply aren't aware of them (WP:GS/SCW works quite well) and of how they should be enforced and I don't think the proposal would make too much difference. The main reason I say that is that ArbCom DS are very well known and respected (and the bits about expectations of administrators can and are enforced). I actually suspect that having a specific enforcement page for all community discretionary sanctions would help solve some of that (by having a specific place for enforcement requests rather than being lost in AN or ANI), however the community (in the past) hasn't been supportive of this so I'm not sure whether it's worth it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I largely agree with you. The fundamental problem is that AE has a dedicated group of administrators, and many watchers, which allows the existence of the sanctions to be publicised, and for them to be enforced. The SCW CDS work because, again, there is a group dedicated to enforcing them. The only way that I can figure to draw administrators into new CDS areas is to provide a simple enforcement mechanism, which such a noticeboard provides. Otherwise, CDS are largely useless. If the community is presented with evidence, such as the electronic cigarettes case, where CDS should've done something but didn't, I do believe that there is a potential for advancement of such a proposal. Something needs to be done to improve their efficacy, one way or the other. As you have the most knowledge in this area, I hope that might be able to provide a way toward making CDS more effective. RGloucester — ☎ 20:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it'd be worth proposing that a community sanctions enforcement page (for all sanctions imposed by the community or just for community general sanctions, including discretionary sanctions) be set up. What do you think? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it is worth a shot. The dispute resolution process is off-kilter at the moment, and anything to make community sanctions more effective is worth trying. Community sanctions have the power to limit the need of the Arbitration Committee to get involved in every dispute. This leaves them to deal with only the most serious of disputes, or those that have to do with private information. If we can prevent the likes of the electronic cigarettes case, and indeed, can prevent the need for a case in areas as volatile as SCW&ISIL, that's quite worth it for the community's sake. RGloucester — ☎ 18:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I thought you might like a look at this: User:RGloucester/Sanctions. It is a little history of the sanctions system, a guide if you will. It is a work-in-progress, for the moment. As I'm sure you know, there is quite a lot of confusion about what all the different terms and types of sanctions mean. I hope this essay will provide some clarity. RGloucester — ☎ 06:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a really good idea! Good job! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm sorry Callanecc for vandalising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PiggyFacey (talk • contribs) 13:40, 17 September 2015‎ (UTC)

IP vandal

200.122.128.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) likely sock of 91.233.116.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) per edits at Talk:Helena (empress). SPI open but IP is making repeated personal attacks against myself and other editors - could you block if available? samtar ^{t} 11:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Already blocked by someone else. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks for closing off the SPI samtar ^{t} 11:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Indefinite protection

Due to the protection log, recent disruptive editing and popularity of the articles, i requested indefinite semi-protection of these articles. I am not aware of any rules, that if any administrator semi-protects a page for one year, another administrator can't override the decision. I feel they needs indefinite semi-protection. Rocky Mountains, Mummy, Pyramid. These are very popular chapters in school geography, history books. Other than Mummy and Pyramid is mentioned in movies, novels and TV shows.--Galaxy Kid (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Galaxy Kid, I find many of your indefinite requests excessive. There should be heavy and persistent vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: I came here as Callanecc protected Daniel which had less protection log than above mentioned pages. Samasara protected Fossil fuel giving reason that it's highly visible page. All these pages were requested by me. When and which particular day there wil be regular vandalism, can't be predicted. I make an assumption whether any particular page will face repeated vandalism or not. Galaxy Kid (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Galaxy Kid, every admin is going to use their own judgement when deciding protection types and protection lengths. No admin is going to unilaterally override the judgement of others. If that were to occur, I could easily say I don't like Callanecc's indefinite semi-protection and reduce it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

My actions at Metrojet Flight 9268

Hi Callanecc. I would be interested in your take on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Metrojet Flight 9268. --John (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it got sorted out, in context I think your actions were appropriate (especially that you asked for feedback on AN). You could have tried a post on ANI to get some more admin eyes but that's into NOTBURO territory. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Red Russian Cocktail

I'm pretty sure parts of this Red Russian Cocktail entry is made up and derogatory to Russians. It states that in Soviet Russia the cocktail is often made with boiled cow blood. Does that sound remotely plausible to you? Why specify "Soviet Russia"? Is it to parallel the Yakov Smirnoff joke, 'In Soviet Russia, (noun) (verb) you!'? Hence my edit to draw attention to this absurdity. If you're going to delete my absurd contribution, you should delete this entire ludicrous entry. I am not Russian, but I find this highly offensive in stereotyping Russians or the perceived bleakness of life in a communist country. I have lived in communist, red China. I was born there. We are not all peasants who envy the lifestyle of the West. Some of us are proud of our culture and political ideals.

There is in fact a Chinese dish made with boiled pigs blood often served at dim sum, which you can find even in Chinese restaurants in the West, although rarely eaten by non-Chinese. My parents eat this all the time. So I know for a fact that when blood is boiled, it curdles into the consistency of something like semi-hard tofu. You cannot boil cow blood, or any blood for that matter, and drink it in a cocktail. I can't say with 100% certainty, but it seems to reason that part of this entry is apocryphal, added entirely with malicious intent to put down another culture. My comment was meant to draw attention to this absurdity. The fact that my satire was labelled "vandalism" but the real "vandalism" was left in place belies Western-centric assumptions made on your part. That's the real crime here.

2602:306:CC59:5690:C05:221B:FDBC:B21D (talk) 08:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I've removed it and added some references. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Recent Edit

Hi, no my edit wasn't a test or anything. I really really do not like seeing the word "homosexual" used in reference to gay people because of it's history as a term used to pathologize gay people and treat us as diseased and mentally disordered (plus the medical abuse that comes with it being treated as a disorder). It's a word that is hurtful to me and a lot of other gay people. Yes, it's just a small semantic change, but to a lot of gay people it means a lot There's really no reason to refer to a gay or lesbian person as "homosexual" when the words gay and lesbian exist and are preferred by most people. I probably put the source in the wrong place but the one I did list (http://www.glaad.org/reference/style) lists the editorial guidelines of the Associated Press and the New York Times for language pertaining to LGBT people. This source is actually used on Wikipedia's own article on "Terminology of Homosexuality" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminology_of_homosexuality) which discusses how the term is considered derogatory so it should fit Wikipedia's standards.

At any rate it's just a simple semantic change but one that really does make a big difference so I would appreciate it if you retained it, especially given that it doesn't affect any of the content that you've worked on for the article :]

(And sorry if I've made any mistakes, I don't have any experience editing nor do I have much interest in doing a lot of it - I find the formatting too intimidating! One word is all I have enough confidence to touch without being scared I'll throw the whole article out of whack haha) Leesandeul (talk) 12:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Leesandeul, welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for explaining your reasoning! :) I can't see a problem with you making those changes but can I suggest you might like to post a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies which will put you in contact with a group of editors who might be able to give you hand or give you some guidance. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Sanction

For what reason was a sanctioned, in relevance to the Syrian Civil War and ISIS?Prohibited Area (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Prohibited Area you weren't sanctioned the message I left on your talk page was just informative so that you know about the situation. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

New Twinkle speedy module

If you are still up for doing some testing, just add the following to your common.js:

setTimeout(function() {
	importScript('User:MusikAnimal/Gadget-twinklespeedy.js');
}, 500);

I know testing something that deletes stuff is a little sketch, but I'm quite confident you won't run into any erratic behaviour or delete something by accident. I anticipate only potential Twinkle interface issues, but we'll see :) Thank you for your assistance! — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me! The only thing I'd suggest (and only if possible) would be that the deletion reason specifies which criterion the additional information is related to. For example, at Test (Callanecc) its not clear what Rationale: Created for testing purposes refers to (but that's fairly minor). Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I see what you mean. This may be fixable, by you, by me, or any confirmed user who knows how to edit templates... That's because Twinkle now uses the template-generated deletion summaries! So this one is coming from {{db-multiple}}. I gave it a lot of thought and concluded going by the templates was best, as now we can maintain the deletion summaries in one place, in addition to MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown. Otherwise it'd be a lot of crazy logic to get the multi-rationale to look right, but as you're seeing here, the template doesn't quite do it right either. I still think it's probably fixable, but I'm not the best with those parser functions, so going to leave it someone who is. Going to wait for the code review from TTO before deploying this. Thanks for the help!

By the way... the next big thing I was going to bring up probably at WP:AN was about functionality to issue both a tag to the user and delete the page. This is simply so they can be informed as to why their page got deleted, saving you the time of doing that if you were planning on it. The only problem is those speedy deletion notices say something like your page was inappropriate and may be deleted... click here to contest. Obviously that doesn't work because we've already deleted it. So I guess we need to work on allowing a |deleted=yes parameter to the templates that will change the wording to the past-tense, but still offer a friendly-ish message, or more stern message, depending on the rationale. Does that sound like something worthwhile? — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah it does! Probably worth getting consensus before making changes to the template. I reckon it'd almost be worth creating a new template for an already done deletion given that the information needed to 'contest' is completely different. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

(←) Hey, a usability question... by default Twinkle pops up the prompt to edit the deletion summary after hitting submit. You can change this (see "Allow editing of deletion summary when deleting under these criteria" in WP:TW/PREF), however I was wondering if we wanted to disable it by default. For me, the idea here is to make things quick, and usually you're going to just delete under a criteria and not change the default summary. Maybe I could add a checkbox "Allow editing of deletion summary on submit"? — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I actually quite like it popping up (I actually thought it was disabled by default and I enabled it), however now that most criteria which need to have additional information have an input box appear to allow that when the criteria is selected I think you probably could disable it by default. You would however need to let people know before you do it so that they aren't caught off guard when they hit the 'go' button. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom

Hello Callanecc, I need your advice. A few months ago you closed an AE report about four users with no action, but told me here that you'd take action yourself if there were further problems on the article. There haven't been any more problems on that particular article (race and genetics), but one of the four users reported in that thread is causing a similar problem on another article covered by the same arbitration case, and I'd like advice on how to proceed now.

Here are the edits in question: [67] [68] There are two problems with these edits. One is his apparent indifference to how they misrepresent the viewpoint of the paragraph's source, and the other is (in the second edit summary) his unsubstantiated accusation of block evasion. He previously made this accusation against me at ANI, [69] and his report was closed with a directive for him to not continue making the accusation without any evidence.

About a month after you closed the AE thread, this user was also edit warring on the article's talk page. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I edit warred too, because I wasn't aware at the time that the three-revert rule applies to talk pages, but TheRedPenOfDoom has received enough warnings for edit warring over the years that he must be aware of where this policy does or doesn't apply.

I think this issue is past the point where it can be resolved by dispute resolution. It's a user conduct problem, and one that resurfaces every few months. What is the solution in this situation? Is it necessary for me to make an AE report? I've never made one before, so I'd rather not have to do that if there's any other solution. 43.228.158.64 (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi 43.228.158.64, non-autoconfirmed editors aren't actually allowed to file an AE report so you wouldn't be able to do that yourself, and in this case the only two diffs you have which are recent are the two to IQ and Global Inequality. The first edit seems to be fairly in line with the requirements of the manual of style and while TheRedPenOfDoom could have done better in explaining that in the edit summary there's not much more too that (the bit about it being a lit review seems to be semantic rather than adding important information). The edit summary on the second one is incivil (if not a blatant personal attack) and as they've previously been warned you might have some evidence which would be considered, but without more TRPoD would probably just be told to knock it off which is what I'll tell them do: please don't do it again RedPen, your judgement is usually right with this sort of thing, but you need to back it up. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that I'm not supposed to make an AE report. In that case, what recourse do I have if he continues accusing me of block evasion without ever presenting any evidence? 43.228.158.10 (talk) 09:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Not using a webhost is a good first step. You can post on ANI with evidence, but if you're using an open proxy or webhost it will likely be removed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

That's rather unhelpful. Nyttend gave him that warning in the context of me connecting to the internet the same way that I'm currently doing. (The nature of my internet connection has been public knowledge ever since Bbb23 mentioned it at AE. [70]) Am I to understand that if TheRedPenOfDoom continues doing the same thing in the same context for which he was warned, there is nothing I can really do about it? 103.46.143.25 (talk) 10:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily, you can report it to ANI with evidence of recent disruption (as well as showing a pattern of the same behaviour). Alternatively take it to an admin on their talk page with the same (evidence wise) and the reason you went to them personally rather than to a noticeboard. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit filter false positive report on Florida State Seminoles football

Please respond to Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports#8.26.246.224. This hit was caused by what you tried to do in this edit filter change. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Responded. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Request concerning Onefortyone

I have now responded to the false claims made by Excelse, whose attitude, especially his report for probation violations, reminds me of another user. See also the reliable sources I have cited on the related talk pages, for instance, [71] and [72]. Onefortyone (talk) 01:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

On the talk page I have now cited dozens of reliable sources supporting the view that Elvis died on the toilet. However, user Excelse doesn't accept my sources. He claims:

"As usual, it remains that these are not reliable sources and they have only represented a medical examiner's observation, who didn't actually confirmed his theory, but rather considered it as a "possibility" or "plausibility", it doesn't means that we should be taking it as a fact that he died on toilet, when he didn't." See [73].

I also do not understand EdJohnson’s statement here. Doesn’t he check the many sources I have provided on the talk pages and does he really accept the false and unsupported claims made by Excelse? See also my reply here. So what should be done? Onefortyone (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

In order to show good faith, I have now intensified the discussion on Talk:Graceland, now accepting the additional sources Excelse has provided. However, the sources seem to contradict each other. Perhaps you or another user can help to find the most appropriate wording for the questioned paragraph there. Onefortyone (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion is to follow dispute resolution, I'm not going to comment on the specifics of the content. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. However, most Wikipedians do not seem to be interested in these topics. Just an additional question. As I have been warned, shouldn't my opponent Excelse also be warned or even be placed on probation because of his sockpuppetry, edit warring, false claims and gaming the system? To my mind, his edits were more disruptive than mine, as he and his sockpuppets have only blindly removed content from Wikipedia articles - content that was part of the said articles for several years. Furthermore, despite of this warning by EdJohnson, he has continued to remove content that is not in line with his personal view from the article pages (see [74]), and it is to be feared that he will do so in the future. Onefortyone (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll definitely keep an eye on them. But let's see what happens after their block expires. In any case the only sanctions which can be put on them (without going to ANI) is blocks. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)