User talk:Callanecc/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28

This page has archives. Sections older than 32 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

PC-protected pages expiring in June

Extend PC time for Megara, Tim Burton, Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, The Winds of Winter, List of The Looney Tunes Show episodes? --George Ho (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I've semi'd one, and added more time to two of the PC protections. Let's see what happens with the other two. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

What about Vermiform appendix, Tybalt, Juliet, Characters in Romeo and Juliet, and Ink Master (season 4)? --George Ho (talk) 02:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Dan Wagner Page Unlock

Hi, could the Dan Wagner page please be unlocked? The user who asked for the page to be locked down in the first place is an employee of the PR agency Dan Wagner employs to look after his online interests. Another employee of Dan Wagner has since been blocked as he had a clear conflict of interest in getting involved in this situation. The users involved in the edit war should have been dealt with rather than the page being locked down, as it's still in dire need of some sanity checks and for emotive language (both positive and negative) to be removed. The PR agency is involved in edit wars with ex-Powa employees across multiple sites, for example, two very obviously fake positive reviews were added to Powa's Glassdoor page on the 14th, which coincides with the time the edit war was occurring. All this lock down is doing is ensuring that Dan Wagner is able to use Wikipedia to project his own corporate interests, rather than in telling the real story behind the many companies he has run. Boomboombangbang (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary it's preventing them from editing and allowing more established editors (such as those who monitor WP:COIN to edit and fix the article. You can always request edits on the article's talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Palestine-Israel enforcement

Hello Callanecc. This is a template which I think should be marked as deprecated in line with your recent change to Uw-balkans.

Going through Category:Wikipedia arbitration enforcement templates there are a total of four templates which are used for DS notices that aren't yet marked as deprecated:

Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I've depreciated all but Palestine-Israel enforcement, which also includes a mention of 1RR being in effect. When I've got some more time I'll add the depreciation format I've used with the others along with a message stating that 1RR is also in effect. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

All done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Are Padmalakshmisx's articles eligible for G5 speedy deletion?

Callanecc, thanks for your efforts on the Padmalakshmisx case. I'm wondering if the articles he's created (for eg, these) are eligible for speedy deletion per G5, "Creations by banned or blocked users"?—indopug (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Deleted Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Robert A. Bradway has been recreated. Its creator is a clear SOCK...—indopug (talk) 10:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I've had a look at their contribs and I'm not convinced they are a clear sock or without an SPI and/or a CU investigation. Could you please report with appropriate evidence. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Dan Wagner Page

Callanecc, I wanted to write and thank you for locking the Dan Wagner page as there is a disgruntled ex-employee who has been vandalizing this page for the last few weeks since he/she and others were let go as a result of the Znap acquisition (which is referenced on the page). The reference 'Wagners management style has generated some controversy, with a number of current and former employees appraising it on independent sites very negatively [35]' relates to a site where he/she and others has sought to create negative sentiment. It is untrue to characterize the statement as being present on 'on independent sites' when only one site carries such propaganda. It would be appropriate therefore to remove this statement and link.

I work for the company and would be grateful if the page remained locked for the foreseeable future as we would prefer this page to remain unedited from now on and for the foreseeable future. Would that be possible?

Andy Muldoon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bothyventures (talk • contribs) 10:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bothyventures, I've left a couple messages on your talk page which might help. If the company wishes to make contact regarding the content of the article the best think to do is to contact our volunteer response team. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Callanecc, the underlying issues with the page have not been resolved. A number of valid points, independently sourced have been removed. For instance, all references to 'dial-a-dog' in relation to Dialog, have been removed despite being widely known and in numourous articles. The recent telegraph piece relating to a number of redundancies was also removed. This piece makes reference to an incident in which Dan Wagner wiped 10p of the share value of MAID by wearing a Donald Duck waistcoat to a press conference. This should also be represented in the article and yet is deemes vandalism by Powa employees. The page reads as a pr piece and clearly lacks balance and neutrality. I tried to raise this point with bothyventures to which he blanked his talk page and refused to engage in constructive discussion. Please can you comment and advice?66.249.93.141 (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The company is looking to launch an Initial Public Offering sooner rather than later and is removing all negative traces from the page, with regards to the Powa platform's history as an ex-Venda platform, and with regards to some of Wagner's failed acquisitions. These are appropriate to include in the page if the content is referenced and free from emotive content, which it is for the most part. Efforts should be made to tidy that content up, rather than rewriting the page to read as a PR piece for Wagner and Powa Technologies. Andy Muldoon who works at Powa and who has previously worked with Wagner at Venda stands to profit massively from a successful IPO, and should not be dictating what can and cannot be posted on the page. 89.242.91.197 (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that Bothyventures is giving warnings to users for 'vandalising' the pages. Those edits are adding references. He is directly attempting to compromise Wikipedia's integrity for his own benefit. 89.242.91.197 (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc, this user 66.249.93.141 and 89.242.91.197 and Ol King Col is the same disgruntled former employee I referenced in my previous post to you. I have had no such engagement from this user on my talk page so I have no idea why he/she is saying that I refused to engage. The users' comments about the company looking to launch an Initial Public Offering is incorrect and no comments have been posted on the page that were negative until this user started his/her vandalistic campaign. The page hasn't been re-written, just reverted to what has been on Wikipedia for years and years. I have no material interest in this other than trying to prevent malicious and deliberate vandalism on a otherwise fair and independent page on Wikipedia. I believe this user who has yet to identify himself/herself, should be barred from Wikipedia and prevented from acting in this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bothyventures (talk • contribs) 16:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

One more thing Callanecc, if you see the talk page for 66.249.93.141 you will see multiple abuses from this contributor and multiple references to vandalism. Please blacklist him/her to prevent further abuse. The same user masquerading under 89.242.91.197 has ONLY made negative contributions to the Dan Wagner page and Ol King Col has done the same. This use is malicious and deliberate in his/her attempts to undermine the independence of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bothyventures (talk • contribs) 16:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The wonderful thing about Mediawiki software is that it preserves a pages edit history. The edit that 66.249.93.141 is referring to, and that Bothyventures is denying knowledge of is this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bothyventures&oldid=612903892 The subsequent edit by Bothyventures was to blank the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bothyventures&oldid=612904438 Both of these are clearly visible in the pages edit history, and it's disingenuous for Bothyventures to deny knowledge of it. Dan Wagner has been quoted numerous times with regards to floating Powa Technologies, here's an article from Bloomberg http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-14/square-s-london-rival-targets-ipo-with-wallet-for-europe.html on the subject.

It should also be noted that the initial request for page protection by Techtrek should be reconsidered. His edit history makes it clear that he is personally involved in putting a positive spin on Dan Wagner's online presence and is quite probably someone working for a PR agency hired by Powa Technologies.

With regards to accusations of vandalism, it is worth looking into who the users are who are removing content which is well referenced, regardless on whether that content is positive or negative. 89.242.91.197 (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I have created a COI case with regards to this incident. 89.242.91.197 (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Callanecc, I have attempted to re-write the Dan Wagner article, removing the advertisement aspects of it, trying to bring balance. All material / claims have been fully sourced and referenced in there now. As it is apparent that there are people out there ready to change the article to put a positive spin only on it as per above conversation, including some who have clear conflict of interest (Bothyventures has now been blocked due to his COI) I would suggest that if you read it and agree it is now balanced and validly sourced that the article is protected past the current 22nd. Many thanks User talk:ol king col — Preceding undated comment added 12:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Nitishkumartn

New reports have been submitted on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nitishkumartn. I know you had recently banned one of the sock, but I think that there are many socks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

One more sock could've been added to the list. I was notified yesterday, but I don't have enough proof. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Why is Tony Abbott under WP:1RR?

You recently tagged the Tony Abbott article as being under WP:ARBCOM discretionary sanctions linked to this arbcom case. Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't see anything in that Arbcom case that suggests the Tony Abbott article should be under WP:1RR. Could you please explain? --Surturz (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

[ Talk page stalker comment ] I don't see why not to @Surturz:...he is the most <Callanecc removed word> prime minister in Australia at the moment. A very big target for vandals and edit wars. Lor^Chat 01:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Surturz: The Arbitration Committee authorised administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any BLP (hence including Tony Abbott) and as an uninvolved admin I determined that due to continual edit wars a one revert rule was appropriate to prevent the disruption to the page. Hope that answers your question.

@Lor: I've removed a word from your comment above as it was a BLP violation. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. Bit hard to keep thoughts to myself. I'll quickly depart before i make another BLP violation forgetting to keep my opinion to myself...Lor^Chat 07:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. It is not clear from Talk:Tony Abbott that the decision to impose WP:1RR was made by you. The template implies that ArbCom imposed the restriction. What has actually happened is that you have exercised a power that ArbCom has delegated to all administrators. Per WP:ADMINACCT, which requires admins to justify admin actions when needed, could you please indicate in the template on Talk:Tony Abbott:

that you are the admin imposing the restriction
why you have imposed the restriction, and
how long you expect the restriction to be required?

In addition,

Arbcom procedures requires you to log the page restriction. This page would seem the correct place for you to do so.

Thanks. --Surturz (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I've edited the message on the talk page to make that a bit clearer. At the bottom of the section you suggested I log it in specifies a different location for logging sanctions issued under the discretionary sanctions for this topic. Regarding your second and third points, 1RR has been imposed on that page in the past (by the community) and is needed again due to the continued edit warring (which has been going for months on different topics) so I've made it indefinite for that reason. Perhaps when Tony Abbott is not such a public figure it won't be needed anymore however we'll need to wait and see before I can guess what will happen. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for promptly addressing my concerns. Apologies for my misreadings of ARBCOMese :-) --Surturz (talk) 04:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Return of an IP vandal

Hello Callanecc. You had blocked IP 58.172.21.104 twice for vandal edits on Batman: Arkham related pages. They have since returned to the two pages they were originally vandalizing (here and here) and have migrated to a new page (here). These are the only pages this IP edits on (sans two edits) so I believe it is time for possibly an indefinite block. Thank you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for six months this time. IP addresses are very rarely blocked because they can be reassigned (sometimes they are used by the same connection for months at a time) or be used a place (like a big household or business for example) where there are multiple people. In any case, we can just block it for longer and longer it's not too much of an issue, especially six months down the track. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to say hello

Well Hello Sir,

I am a new user here and trying to write articles.. Please help me when you get some free time...

Thank u...

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavanbhat619 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

There's not a lot I can do to help you other than suggest you read Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:Starting an article. Once you've got a final draft I can have a look through it, depending on how much time I've got. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Callanecc. You have new messages at Solarra's talk page.
Message added 13:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 13:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Question Re TBAN

I am currently working on an article in user space. I need to know if I add this from one of my sources, would it be a violation of the TBAN? "The trafficking of women and girls in the form of abduction and sexual enslavement by military and/or rebel groups has also been well-documented and is reported to have continued in more recent conflicts across numerous countries including Angola, the former Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone, Liberia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Indonesia, Colombia, Burma, Afghanistan and Sudan" Obviously I would be paraphrasing it, but it does mention Afghanistan, so should I just drop that from what I write? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, including Afghanistan would be a violation of your TBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Erm, what about copyvios? Policy says I ought to revert them on sight, but the TBAN prevent that. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, here is what I am going to do, revet obvious socks on sight, revert obvious copyvios on sight, You have the option of either blocking me, or writing up an obviously needed exemption. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines: Per WP:BANEX you are permitted to revert obvious vandalism or BLP vios, you are also able to report socks to SPI. That is all, the idea of a topic ban is that you will step away completely from the topic, and remove the pages you're banned from your watchlist. The exception to report is because sometimes these sockpuppeteers make themselves somwhat obvious in other areas then confirm it within the area you're topic banned from so you have that exception. If you do revert copyright or revert socks and the edits they make are not "obvious vandalism" then you are liable to be blocked or the ban extended/changed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I have mailed you the link to the copyvio. So I am allowed to revert obvious vandalism then? I had not known that. So for clarification, changes to sourced content such as here in which deliberate factual errors are introduced are OK to revert? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Hi, I' m avoiding terrorism related articles like Sandstein and you said (see the TBan on my Talk Page), but I'm not sure where the discussion here is headed. I thought the wikipedia article on Homeopathy is biased and reported it here. I posted a body of studies and clinical trials, but it was redacted here. Please tell me if the Homeopathy article needs an NPOV tag.—Khabboos (talk) 15:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the discussion on Talk:Homeopathy is working so I think it's best if I don't get involved here. Let me know if it gets out of hand and I'll give you some advice then. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Lw1982

Warned by a user. Still committing sock puppetry.[1],[2] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The page has been semi'd so let's wait and see what happens now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail

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

—Khabboos (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Your comment at SPI

Hi - I'm not sure what " If you're just filing to the change to and we can just archive it straight away". Dougweller (talk) 05:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry not sure what happened there. If you use Twinkle to make reports, edit the SPI page after you've filed the case and change {{SPI case status|}} to {{SPI case status|close}} and leave a note in the admin section that you're just filing for the record. If you use the box on the main WP:SPI page, when you make the report note in the |admincomment= parameter that you're filing it for the record and that will automatically close the case. That way the clerks can archive it straight away. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure I should have known that. Will do in the future. Dougweller (talk) 07:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning‎

There have been reverts on edits by autoconfirmed users lately. I guess that semi-protection must be strengthened? --George Ho (talk) 07:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Nothing there that I can see which would warrant full protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Andrewbf's IP address

IP address Special:Contributions/187.194.5.88 recently did same edits. User:Ponyo blocked him/her for 31 hours (has been expired). Can you re-block him/her for three months? 183.171.160.108 (talk) 10:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for one week. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Please Accept My Apologies

To all members of Wikipedia that have been involved in this case, especially Bgwhite: I'm sincerely sorry for everything: I want to apologize for always giving you guys a hard time with my edits and contributions to any articles here on Wikipedia regarding Jordanian footballers and teams and I sincerely apologize for always ignoring your rules and warnings. I admit I was being selfish, thought I could always get away with it and always have it my way, as well as being too lazy to listen to any of you by ignoring the reasons you provide me as to why some of my edits violate the rules here on this website and ignoring your warnings. I apologize for my rude and selfish behavior. I just wanted to help, and I thought I could by adding more links and references to such articles, but I seriously did not know that using double brackets and this | in the links and references I add was a violation, I thought it wouldn't matter. With all due respect, what's the big deal with that exactly, what harm could be done? Is it only because it's totally unnecessary or what? And what's wrong with providing Arabic links and references here on Wikipedia? I mean, there are lots of articles here on Wikipedia, besides ones regarding Jordanian footballers, that include Arabic links and references. The only reason why I like to provide Arabic links and references to articles of Jordanian footballers here on Wikipedia is because they are the only ones that back up the information of these footballers and make a lot of sense, and there are hardly any English ones out there that help back up the info. Trust me, the Arabic ones are much better because they contain much more, or better yet, all sources of the info I provide. So I provide these links and references as sources to back up the info I provide. And as for all the Facebook links I've been trying to provide for the past few months, which I have also just removed myself for the past few days after I found out why providing certain Facebook links is inappropriate here on Wikipedia, I thought it was completely fine to do that after I saw Lionel Messi's Facebook page provided as a link on an article of him here on Wikipedia, so I thought I could help by doing the same to articles of Jordanian footballers here on Wikipedia, and I thought it wouldn't matter, in fact I thought the same was allowed to be done for any article here on Wikipedia of a footballer. So if it's really the links and references you guys have a problem with, just remove them yourselves from now on without having to revert my recent edits, like manually. As for me, I promise to never ever do this again. I really didn't mean to cause you guys any trouble with all I've been doing, I just wanted to help because I enjoy doing this, and I've been doing all this because I'm the one who created most articles/pages here on Wikipedia of Jordanian footballers, national teams, and clubs and improved all others created by other people. You see, I used to be the only one here on Wikipedia who had access to all the information of Jordanian footballers and teams until I tried to help everyone else here on Wikipedia, like readers and members, giving them access to this information by providing it here on Wikipedia.

So as of for now and from now on, please accept and leave my recent edits and contributions that I have made for the past few days because they are all now totally accurate and I tried to make it easier for you guys by removing Facebook links and the | symbols from the references I've been providing. Will you guys please forgive me, not get me into anymore trouble and not try to stop me from contributing by blocking me. Please let's just forget about all this and allow me to continue contributing because I want to help, is that so wrong? :(

Thank you for your cooperation :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Everyoneis1 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

RE:User:Stephaniemuue

Hi. This editor is currently blocked for removing speedy delete tags from Robert F.O'Neal. I recommend a long block as the article in question which Stephaniemuue created is a hoax, the person does not exist -- per Google and IMDb searches. Farrah Fawcett and Ryan O'Neal had only one child, Redmond. This editor is ~~some~~ kind of twisted ~~individual~~; I mean even I never created an article for a non-existent person. I reviewed other edits "she" has made. Yours, Quis separabit? 02:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

mint press news

hello Callanecc, if you wont look at this sockpuppet investigation[3], and are leaving a monstrously pov version of this article Mint Press News in place could I atleast tag the article without changing it until my 3 month block expires, as it is very poor at the moment and has excised all criticism , even ake sellstrom's , chemical weapons expert of the U.N , and adds reams of self congratulation and self promotion, really crappy,- if admins don't do anything to keep an eye on quality and aptness for an encyclopedia of content at least I should be allowed to tag the article, no? - as I have found you rude and unhelpful and negligent over the sockpuppet investigation relating to this page where you inserted your adminship I have written of my disagreeable and alienating interaction with you here [4]Sayerslle (talk) 11:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

List of Dreamcast games

I am a bit surprised about your decision to semi-protect the article List of Dreamcast games, instead of the requested pending changes. This is quite unfortunate, as we have now Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NYCSlover with a suspected sockpuppet registered account. With PC the articles involved can be used as honey-pot without making it visible for the whole community. The Banner talk 00:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

That account edited the page before the semi protection. If they start using autoconfirmed accounts (which is reasonably unlikely given their history) I'll look into fully protecting the article and it also makes it more likely rangeblocks will be placed. The idea here is to prevent them from editing, as targeting their IP isn't an option at the moment preventing them editing the articles they generally edit is our goal. Pending changes still allows them to edit, which is what they want to do - cause disruption, semi protection stops that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

See [[5]], another sockpuppet that was about a week old when it was thrown in action. The Banner talk 10:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Well let's wait and see what happens. The use of autoconfirmed accounts is much more disruptive and is more likely to convince a CheckUser to lock the underlying IP or range. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/End of Watch

Please see note on your DYK review. Yoninah (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Quotation deletions

Hi, can you check the edits of 64.4.93.100. I'm not sure of the exact regulations, but they seem to be serial-deleting quotations all over. Regards Denisarona (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Denisarona: This should probably go to ANI to get some more input, a bit beyond what one admin can deal with. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Liverpool F.C. Player of the Year

Hello,

I'm User:Alexgreene87, and I've recently created Template:Liverpool F.C. Player of the Year which Luis Suárez won in the last two seasons. As you were the one who protected the Luis Suárez page, is it possible to add this template to the page.

User talk:Alexgreene87, 23 June 2014, 20:57 (UTC)

I don't see why not, it's a semi protection preventing vandalism so no reason to check first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yalladar

I see you started reverting edits, which have since been undone by a Yalladar sock. Before, I've waited till the SPI has been closed before reverting. Should I still wait or can I proceed with reverting? Bgwhite (talk) 22:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You can revert edits (or G5 pages) as soon as you're comfortable that they are a sock. I generally think of it as, would I block as them as a sock if I had to make a call now, if yes then revert/delete/block if not wait for confirmation. I don't have time to go through all the accounts' edits and revert them but if someone doesn't beat me to it I'll go through them later. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you and thank you for the explanation. I'll start doing the reverts in about 5-6 hours from now. <sarcasm>It's such a fun-filled activate that anybody would enjoy doing</sarcasm> Bgwhite (talk) 23:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

At least there is rollback all, which generally works. Also you don't need to report socks to SPI. Feel free to block and tag them yourself and if you want file a report for the record use the box on the main WP:SPI page and make a note of that using the |admincomment=. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

Callanecc, if you are not too busy, I was wondering whether you could give your input into a recent dispute over a particular article with another editor.

Yesterday, noticing that it had not been edited in some time and might be in need of further improvement, I made a brief edit to the Muslim Conquests article, concerning the involvement of Arab Christians in conflicts between the Caliphate and the Byzantine and Persian Empires: [6]. However, User:Kansas Bear quickly removed the edit not eight minutes afterwards, demanding a source, which I tried to provide, which he rejected and removed once more, demanding further sources, which I also tried to seek out and add, with similarly little success: [7]. After accusing me of falsifying information and deliberately providing a "fake source", and before I had a chance to respond to his harsh attacks or at least clarify, he had already reported me and next had a friend of his remove the edit altogether once more, something I have not attempted to contest out of wariness of further escalating this debate. I but wanted to make a small addition to a page I was browsing through, I did not at all expect or intend for others to take such offence or for it to come to this.

What is more, for some time now, this user has frequently accused many other editors of "edit-warring" while blatantly doing so himself, leaving them very harsh, uncivil and even threatening messages, some even bordering on personal attacks, as he did with me, with threats of reporting them to administrators or having them banned altogether (see [8][9][10][11][12][13]), while further engaging in very heated and lengthy discussions on similar articles, such as Talk:Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent, constantly reverting or removing edits on this and numerous other related articles while seeming to disregard, for the most part, the input and arguments of other users. Torontas (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller is definitely not going to revert just because he's "friends" with Kansas Bear. In any case if you have a look at WP:BRD after being reverted you should take the issue to the talk page so that it can be discussed and a consensus be established. Those warnings look to be appropriate however they should be substituted. In any case you need to be involved in the discussion on the talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

A lot of editors ask for my help. User:Torontas has just contacted 10 editors asking (neutrally) for their comments but hasn't used the article's talk page. I have an issue with the fact that the sources used by Torontas do not appear to back the edit(one is available through archives so there's no question of some of it not being available online) and I asked for an explanation as to why the sources were used. I didn't get one. It may well be, as Torontas suggests, "fairly common knowledge that there were Arab Christian tribes who were indeed involved in various engagements in the time of Muslim conquests." If that's the case then it should be easy to find modern academic sources making this explicit. He has suggested another source and I hope he'll quote from that at the article's talk page. I'll try to post there in the next hour or two. Dougweller (talk) 08:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Building prep sets

Hi, I see you're getting involved in building prep sets. You might want to read Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines#Rules of thumb for preparing updates. In general, try to alternate biography and non-biography hooks. That means that in a set of 7 hooks, if you start with a bio, you'll end with a bio, and come up with a total of 4 bios and 3 non-bios. If you start with a non-bio, you'll end with a non-bio, and come up with 4 non-bios and 3 bios. Best of luck, Yoninah (talk) 01:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Not really getting involved, getting back involved really. That seems to fit into another one of the criticisms of DYK which is that it's bureaucratic. I understand the 50% for bios and US topics, that makes sense. However an arbitrary rule that they should be alternated seems pointless and unnecessarily restrictive. If two or three hooks go together than why does it matter if they are bios about very different people. In the example you described it would also mean that both the image and the funny/quirky hook would need to be bios which is unrealistic. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Really? You seemed to find a plethora of bios in your recent prep sets, and the emphasis is always on "hooky". I usually have no problem find quirky bios or non-bios. Yoninah (talk) 09:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

There were (and still are) a lot of bio hooks (but strangely not as many US topics as usual) at the moment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Your Jan 2014 3RR closure was mentioned at AE

Hello Callanecc. Please see WP:AE#Plot Spoiler. Your earlier closure at the 3RR board was mentioned in the discussion. Since the AE is about Plot Spoiler's behavior you might have input to provide. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

IP Vandal has returned.

The guy who vandalized List of Yu-Gi-Oh! episodes in March earlier this year is back. I sent him warnings on the talk pages of his 2 most recent IPs, but he still ignores all of the warnings and persists in his disruptive behavior. Can you please rangeblock 2602:300::/24 for an extended amount of time (2 to 3 months, given that he has continued his vandalism after his 1 month rangeblock earlier this year), since that appears to be his IP Range? If the rangeblock isn't possible for some reason, then can you please semi-protect the article for 3 months to guard against future vandalism attempts? Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Malek Fahd Islamic School

On 27 June 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Malek Fahd Islamic School, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 2013 Malek Fahd Islamic School was the largest Islamic school in Australia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Malek Fahd Islamic School. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Dan Nainan

Thank you for putting the gold lock (edits allowed by admin only) on Dan Nainan as you know it expires tommrow June 28th. I fear once it expires vandalism will continue by halfdoghalfdeer,Desibabe and hellinabucket. It appears that halfdoghalfdeer and desibabe are accounts created for the sole purpose of vandalising the page and would continue as soon as they are able too.

Would it also be able to put a lower level lock on the page that would allow registered users who have created pages to edit it but won't allow anomous users or new users to edit the page or would you be willing to extend the gold lock for a longer period of time. What other options do i have to fight vandalism from trolls like Desibabe and hellinabucket.

Thanks

Nerdypunkkid (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

You need to review what vandalism is as all of those edits where in good faith. Given that none of the other editors involved have commented on the talk page I would likely warn and/or block them if they were to revert after the page protection expired. Once the full protection expires I'll reinstate the semi protection which I overrode with the full protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Paid editing?

What is the policy on paid editors now? I had an editor say they were commissioned to edit an article (see User_talk:EvergreenFir#Frank_Pommersheim). From what I can tell they just have to declare it? Just want some clarification. For the records, their edits seems decent (not too promotional or anything). Please ping me in reply. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Not really a point. They can declare, it will require some proof. As long as the editing is not violating the guidelines and rules, there wouldn't be a need to point. But if the person continues to claim that they were paid for editing, it may become disruptive. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: The Wikimedia policy is at the bottom of this section. Basically the user must disclose it and the edit must meet normal policies (such as WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you OccultZone and Callanecc. I'll inform them that they should declare and link that page. I knew there was a discussion on the issue recently and thought it best to ask. Thanks! EvergreenFir (talk) 06:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

2014 Malaysia Cup

You had deleted that article? It has been re-created, not sure if it is same editor or other. But you may want to check. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

There isn't a deleted page at that name, what was it's name when I deleted it? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014 Malaysia Cup. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah ok, it's fine it was just a see also list with a few dot points created by an IP. Thanks for checking! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Bungle

Please re-evaluate your semi protection of Mr. Bungle. From a quick glance of the history, both versions of the article are unsourced and this appears to be a case of edit warring between an IP and a registered editor rather than vandalism; therefore the protection is in violation of policy. Please refer to the ANI thread. Thank you. —Dark 11:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I've replaced the semi with full protection. I'm on my phone so I can't look to much into it now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Articles that only have one ref.

I am seeing many article that only have one ref. and yet are not being deleted ,I would like to know the reasoning behind it also that show no importance what so ever , like MetaCrawler-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacrawler, this one has no refs -Harvester42 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvester42 and I can name hundreds of more.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewolf12 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 29 June 2014‎ (UTC)

Roovet was deleted because it was promotional and didn't show why the company was significant. The pages I've linked to will explain it in more detail. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up im rewritting an article now and editing a few also --Thewolf12 (talk) 05:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Callanecc. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 09:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 09:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

RD SPI

Read your action on Richard Daft SPI. Many people still don't know that IP's abuse should be based on behavioral evidence and probably all other SPI reports. But what you meant from "Let's what and see what happens", you meant to say "Let's watch and see what happens" or "Let's wait and see what happens", I would've fixed but here it is matter of doubt. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Signatures

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Signatures. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Deleting a sanction notice

Hello, your sanction notice was removed.[14] Per WP:BLANKING, notices "regarding an active sanction" may not be removed by the user.

The user continues to spread misinformation about the SPIs. I am still perplexed that my AE statements were ignored -- would you please advise regarding the last thread? vzaak 04:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I've left them a message about the removal.

I've had a look through their contribs but I haven't seen anything in their recent contribs which would be sanctionable. As I've said before if you believe that Askahrc's behavior please post an AE request. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, Callanecc, I reverted my clean up to restore the notification. I wasn't aware of the WP:BLANKING policy; I'll be sure to leave it there when I clean up my Talk Page in the future.

@Vzaak, I've already left you a message asking you to please either file an AE or stop making these claims. I corrected an editor who stated I had been sanctioned for multiple SPI's by telling them I was only sanctioned for one of the two brought against me, and the only significant conversation you and I had was a civil discussion about not needing to monitor enthusiasm for WP:FRINGE, merely observance of it. These interactions do not constitute "misinformation", "defamation," "disruption" or "attacks." I don't want to waste the community's or my time with any more vitriol, so let's bury the hatchet, yes? The Cap'n (talk) 06:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc, there seems to be some miscommunication. You asked for diffs in the last thread and I gave some; you didn't mention submitting an AE request. I waited for your response, but there was none. The issue is: What is going on with AE? Why are my statements seemingly ignored? Per his own admission, this person has been targeting me since the first ANI he brought (the "revolver", as he called it). From just the sample evidence I gave, per your request, why is this not actionable? Could you be specific? Why is Askahrc permitted to engage in evidence-free defamation? Before submitting an AE request, I need to know why this statement (for example) was ignored. vzaak 21:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Or we can keep wasting time going over the same months-old material over and over and over... Clarification, I've never admitted to "targeting you." I'm not, and have been trying to get you to leave me alone for some time. As for the rest, this has all been addressed more times than I can count, and I for one am not going to clutter up Callanecc's Talk Page doing so again. If Callanecc wants my feedback or you bring an AE I'll be happy to give it then, yet again. The Cap'n (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Askahrc, this is more of the same strategy I outlined in the last thread. You are saying so many things that are not true -- it's impossible to keep up. Responding to them all would create a menacing wall of text.

Hipocrite didn't say that you were sanctioned for "multiple SPIs".[15] Your attack came out of the blue; you said the SPIs I filed "were part of a pattern by a specific editor of accusing me (and numerous others) of socking over and over until the latest round was finally dismissed".[16] You are suggesting that there is misconduct on my part for filing the SPIs, in continuation of your campaign against me, e.g., 'high number of editors who have been accused and blocked by vzaak for being "socks"',[17] "vzaak has an inappropriate tendency to accuse people who disagree with them of sockpuppetry".[18] Moreover, it's absolutely not true that "numerous editors" or "high numbers of editors" had SPIs brought against them, as you claim. As Callanecc knows, the evidence of Tumbleman's sockpuppetry is quite solid. I wish you would look at the evidence instead of blindly believing the assertions of someone who has a reputation for being an Internet troll, a view also held by Wikipedia admins.

The problem, Askahrc, is that you believe so many things that just aren't true, such as that Barleybannocks and Alfozo Green were blocked as Tumbleman socks[19] (they weren't blocked, and they were never suspected socks). It was that unique idea that contributed to your getting nailed for sockpuppetry yourself, since you are the only one on the planet who has conceived it.

In your message on my talk page, you used quotes around "persistent harassment", suggesting that I said that, but I have not. You derogatorily passed off your attacks as "imagined slights" on my behalf. You made the same misrepresentations there as you did here.[20] vzaak 01:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I thought it was you I said that to. A lot of the diffs are more than a month old (and were when you posted them) so it's difficult to justify taking action. Maybe the best thing would to do moving forward is to either file an AE request (which probably would result in anything other than possibly an IBAN) or just avoid each other. If they make comments which are clearly about you from now (given their comment above) then let me know and I'll deal with it (either with a warning or sanctions). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Taking one example, it was nine days between the attack and my AE statement.[21][22] (My comment above explains the context of the attack.) It seems more likely that my statement was simply ignored than silently discarded as stale. Regardless, I don't understand why timing should be a factor in stopping a long line of personal attacks. What does one have to do with the other? vzaak 01:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Whilst I see where you're coming from with that diff, I can also see the explanation/excuse for it. That is I could have looked like you were trying to get him blocked or otherwise sanctioned (as that is a very common outcome from SPI and AE) and he was also replying to a comment from someone else about his history. Whilst it would have been better to make a comment like, "yes I did I'm sorry won't happen again" he didn't which is slightly a problem. The reason they need to be recent is that we (enforcing admins) need to see that 1 there is a pattern (and I don't disagree that there has been) and 2 that the user is currently disruptive etc. As I said before the likely sanction to be imposed in that case will be a standard mutual IBAN between the two of you. If you both agree then you can have at as a more informal agreement then if it's breached we (or I) can impose it as a formal discretionary sanctions IBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. "Attacking" Vzaak is of no interest to me, an IBAN would be an ideal way to go our separate ways (something I've been trying to do for quite awhile) and spend our time constructively. The Cap'n (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc, Askahrc can reply to a comment without continuing his pattern of promulgating untruths in his attempt to discredit me.

If you don't mind, I am still trying to understand what is going on with AE. Consider for instance the WP:POLEMICs on Akahrc's talk page, to which I brought attention in the first AE request months ago. To this day, the page continues to host conspiracies and attacks against me.[23] For instance:

It contains the untruth that Barleybannocks and Alfonzo Green were blocked for being Tumbleman sockpuppets, which makes no sense and serves no purpose except to further Askahrc's idea that there have been "collateral losses" regarding Tumbleman sockpuppets. This is connected to the untruths that Askahrc has been telling about me, e.g., 'high number of editors who have been accused and blocked by vzaak for being "socks"' (explained above).
The page contains evidence-free aspersions from a blocked user.
In one polemic, Askahrc links a statement I made to the phrase "bad neighborhoods" in reference to another readily-debunked conspiracy.
Askahrc calls me "disgruntled". (I was/am not.)
"You're one thorough sneak, Vzaak."

I don't understand why Askahrc was not directed to remove the untruths and personal attacks per my AE request. Hipocrite was able to get Askahrc's untruth against him removed -- why am I unable to do the same? An IBAN would not solve this problem, and indeed would prevent the problem from being solved.

This is not just about me. Askahrc has proclaimed his motivations off-wiki where he has called editors "scoundrels" and "pisspoor bastards". The untruths that Askahrc has promulgated, both on-wiki and off-wiki, have been picked up by conspiracy bloggers and even Deepak Chopra himself. Incoming editors have been inflamed by these conspiracies.

Callanecc, since Askahrc denies your conclusion about this SPI, perhaps you could explain to him why you were right. (Since I am one of the "pisspoor bastards", Askahrc is unlikely to take correction from me.) It is normally best to ignore conspiracies, but considering that Chopra himself has now bought into them, I think they should be addressed. vzaak 20:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

At first you said your problem was my supposed harassment, but when I agree to an IBAN so you could never be bothered by me again, you now say that I need to be stopped from apparently inflaming massive conspiracies (I've said I don't endorse conspiracy theories about a dozen times now) and Deepak Chopra, presumably resulting in WP:APOCALYPSE. I'm flattered you think I'm so important, but I spend my time editing history articles and addressing BLP issues, not riding pale horses and waving flaming swords.
I respect the decision of the admins who sanctioned me and have said so numerous times. What I've complained about is your continued SPI's, AE's and behavior against me since then.
The "scoundrels & pisspoor bastards" you're so fond of quoting was off-wiki, was not directed at anyone specific (by name or implication), and was part of an obviously farcical pirate speech.
The height of my so-called attacks are calling you disgruntled and sneaky (whereas you've persistently implied that I've issued criminal death threats against people, despite admins telling you that you're wrong)

I'm offering again to partake in a voluntary IBAN. Either take up Callanecc's reasonable solution or give up these claims that I'm harassing you, because I'm the one trying to walk away here. Save us and WP hours of wasted time; make the right decision and agree to the IBAN. The Cap'n (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Respectively:

Askahrc added "massive" to "massive conspiracies" while citing WP:APOCALYPSE. It is wrong to build that strawman. It is wrong for Askahrc to promote blatant untruths both off-wiki and on his talk page while falsely disparaging me. His untrue statements have been cited by conspiracy bloggers, and there is no question that he has contributed to the conspiracies which have inflamed incoming editors.
Askahrc said "continued SPI's", but there was only one other SPI. It is wrong to imply that there were more.
In the non-pirate text Askahrc called editors "unethical" and "bullies", among other things. It is wrong to try to pass off the pirate text as being farcical; it was a translation, which is exactly how Askahrc characterized it.
Askahrc's many attacks have been shown in this thread and the last, and that is only a sample. It is wrong to suggest that this is merely a matter of the "disgruntled" and "sneak" remarks. Because there is strong evidence linking Askahrc to the Ralph Abraham article, I filed a checkuser request, nothing more. It is untrue that any admin said I was "wrong". If anything, by running a checkuser the admin was saying that I was right: the admin agreed that there was sufficient evidence for checkuser. A checkuser result alone does not exonerate or condemn -- accompanying evidence is always needed. In this case the accompanying evidence is very much against Askahrc.

My conversation with Callanecc keeps getting interrupted. I am still seeking clarification: I don't understand why Askahrc was not directed to remove the untruths and personal attacks per my AE request -- or per my direct request here. By all indications Askahrc is expected to continue his off-wiki bullying campaign, but co-opting his Wikipedia user talk page for that purpose is unacceptable. vzaak 02:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

For crying out loud, it's getting interrupted because you won't listen to anyone who's saying anything other than what you want to hear. Leaving aside the apparently incendiary use of words like "massive" and "continuing" to mean "extensive" and "repeated", the simple fact is that I am not bullying you, I'm asking you to leave me alone. Saying (half a year ago) that there have been editors (with no names listed) who have behaved in an inappropriate manner is not bullying, Vzaak, especially considering the fact that numerous editors on all sides have been sanctioned for inappropriate behavior. For the record, I have no interest in chasing you down, bullying you, silencing your valid opinions or otherwise causing you problems. I just want you to leave me alone. I again agree to an IBAN as proposed by Callanecc. This would resolve any fears you have about me "attacking" you.

One last thing, and one that is indicative of why I want you to leave me alone: you have persistently misrepresented the 2nd SPI you brought against me, something that is very serious considering that inherent in it is the accusation that I threatened a man's life. You keep saying that no admins told you that you were wrong:

"This case needs to be dealt with, so checking per comments above. I can say that Askahrc (talk · contribs) is Unrelated to the IP mentioned above and is geographically located elsewhere - Alison ❤ 19:06, 4 April 2014" (UTC) & "...the user agent that this editor uses is pretty consistent across locations, yet is radically different to the one used for the vandalistic edits. I don't want to say more than that, but it's not as clear as you portray above - Alison ❤ 19:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)"

Claiming that A) the evidence came out against me, and B) simply having a CheckUser run against me (at your request) means that you were right is disingenuous at best. A man's life was threatened, of course admin's were going to run a CheckUser on anyone who was accused, as Deskana referenced when he said "...I have extraordinarily tagged this request as requiring checkuser attention in spite of the fact that it doesn't require a checkuser." Continuing to insist that the evidence shows my involvement in a threat to murder Ralph Abraham, despite the fact that the SPI showed no connection and the admin involved told you there were multiple factors showing my lack of connection, is bordering on WP:ASPERSIONS.

I don't make it a policy to make the lives of other editors difficult, but I also don't want other editors talking to everyone they can find about trying to sanction me for old, imagined slights until they find someone who will. Seeing accusations against me pop up in other editors AE's and on admin's pages is not why I come to WP. Yet again, I endorse the IBAN. Just leave me alone, Vzaak. The Cap'n (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Is it acceptable for non-admins to use {{Ds/alert}} or is that something we should leave to you all? Didn't know about this template until I saw your edits and it looks quite useful. Ping me in reply. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) 04:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: See WP:AC/DS#Alerts, any editor can notify another editor however it needs to be done with {{Ds/alert}}. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! EvergreenFir (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

General debate of the sixty-ninth session of the United Nations General Assembly

I think G6 would fit. Iits needless at the moment and can easily be created come September (3 months away)Lihaas (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

G6 is for completely uncontroversial housekeeping not deleting articles per WP:CRYSTAL. It's been redirected tp General debate of the sixty-ninth session of the United Nations General Assembly which seems appropriate. If you want it to be deleted you're going to need to take it to WP:RFD. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

You may be interested in,

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AmirSurfLera, I included one of the socks you included in your SPI report yesterday. Sepsis II (talk) 07:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Stephaniemuee

This relentless vandal-only editor, about whom I warned that a 36 hour block would not be sufficient, nor was a subsequent longer block by another admin, has returned and is causing trouble (see [24], [25]). Quis separabit? 16:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC) Done

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you for blocking IP 73.182.225.223 a while ago. That user is a big ol' sock puppet, I've been tracing its vandalism history and awarding barnstars to everybody who took part in the fight against it. O Great Britannia (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Nitishkumartn

Resolved

SPI is backlogged these days, so I wanted to update here, check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nitishkumartn. It maybe enough to just block and close, but this editor usually got multiple accounts. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Just saw you have removed a sock edit from this talk page. Can you tag? I don't even know who's sock it was. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Dan Nainan

The user Desibabe has done a lot of vandalism and won't comment on the talk page to resolve the issue. More so it seems Desibabe does not like Dan Nainan b/c that the only page you has done any editing on and he has not created any pages. More so his account was created around the same time as Dan Nainan article

He has posted irrelevant and poorly sourced material and has undid other edits by other writers.

Nerdypunkkid (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Callanecc. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/82.51.155.9

Sorry for interrupt, can you please block him/her for three months, he/she added unsourced genre recently, like this. 183.171.162.92 (talk) 02:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like this particular IP has stopped, let me know if they start up again. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

But most recent two edits are What the Hell and California King Bed. (Although I reverted) 183.171.164.9 (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Callanecc. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom

I saw that you were an active clerk for ARBCOM. I was going to open a clarification but it's not about a case. It's about discretionary sanctions. Specifically 1RR. I'm not sure that the clarification section is the appropriate forum. So I thought I would ask a clerk which forum I should go to.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Serialjoepsycho, it depends on what you're asking for. I might be able to help or ask the enforcing administrator. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

wp:an3 and wp:are you can take 1RR violations from articles that are under discretionary sanctions from an active arbitration case. It seems to me from some of the language on both pages that wp:are may be under a higher amount of scrutiny. To me these discretionary sanctions are intended to end disruption not silence (for a lack of a better term) your opponents. There's a pretty big potential for abuse. I'd like to see either 1RR's taken care of in wp:are or have the standards of wp:are to apply in wp:an3 in 1RR situations.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

1RR violations are pretty clear and are generally pretty quickly dealt with by a block, as a 3RR violation would be. If there is longer term disruption or 1RR (etc) violation the admin might impose a ban or ask for further comments. In any case the banned user can always appeal the sanction and it will receive further input from others. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

While I agree they are pretty well straight forward, I don't feel they should be treated as such. My concerns are not really the person who receives the ban as much as the person who seeks that ban. I'll also note that wp:ARE is set up in a way that limit the involvement of some admins. Some of the Admins that might get involved in the scenario you mention above may not get involved in wp:ARE. Some of the Admins that may get involved in wp:AN3 may also not get involved in wp:ARE. I'd be more inclined to think. wp:AN3 is very well suited revert violations. But is it suited for checking "clean hands"? If a violator of wp:ARBPIA brings a 1RR complaint what are the chances they get caught on their violation at wp:AN3? This really could be easily exploited if it currently already isn't. Anyway that's the nail on the head but honestly it's not really much of an issue unless it is happening.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, when your investigating any enforcement request (AIV, ARE, AN3) there are always things you need to check. For 1RR (or any edit warring) it's the page history, talk page, contribs and history of those involved. So while looking at a report to AN3 you might only look at the history of reverts and their block log, at AE if only 1RR enforcement is requested (as opposed to discretionary sanctions as well) it's quite reasonable that the enforcing admin won't look as deeply into the history of the two users. However admins will generally ask for evidence to be submitted and then go looking for more, rather than the other way around. Admins look at the evidence presented and the provision which we are being asked to enforce, if it's just diffs of a 1RR violation then that's what they'll look at (ie just the reverts and page history) if there is evidence presented of more or other provisions (eg discretionary sanctions) then they'll look at that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I do thank you for your time here, btw. Not sure what AIV is. There are always things that you need to check but it seems to me there is a limited primary focus of AN3. You could more easily miss a non-revert violation of an arbitration case by the editor seeking sanctions for another editor. There may also be Admins who check AN3 that are either discouraged or even barred from working at ARE. It maybe that only stronger language is used at ARE, but the language at ARE strongly suggests that the editors seeking sanctions, the editors who may receive sanctions, and Admins who give out sanctions can highly scrutinized. Which obviously ARE needs that high level of scrutiny. On paper at least AN3 doesn't have that scrutiny. But I'll just drop this and hopefully nothing unintended comes up.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Request due process

Hello,

I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but you closed the WP:AE case against me before the reviewing administrators even read my response and were able to assess it. (I was not able to reply until after three administrator's made their preliminary verdict). This violates the basic principles of jurisprudence.

All three mentioned the claims by Nishidani and Pluto2012, however both contained serious distortions that they were not aware of. Furthermore Pluto2012's complaint was in a topic area unrelated the ARBPIA discussion and therefore should not be considered as a basis for ARBPIA sanctions.

Judging by his brief statement which did not take into account my explanation, it is likely that the fourth administrator may not have seen my response to Nishidani too which I added later.

I request that you allow time for the administrator's to review my response and respond accordingly.

Thank you.

I would also like to add that the one instance in the past that I was sanctioned for ARBPIA (that is one time in 8 years), I tried to appeal in every way possible including my talk page and email. However each time I was told that it would easier for me to wait it out. This is despite the fact that I had clearly stated that I wanted to appeal. I was not afforded the opportunity to appeal. This is evident on my talk page, and I can provide email correspondence too. This seems like deja-vu.

Wikieditorpro (talk) 10:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Given that both Sandstein and I assessed the request with your statement there I don't think it's necessary to wait for the other admins to comment again. Though if they have changed their mind based on your statement and let me know I'd be happy to have another look. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Sandstein read my response to Nishidani, since it was only added later. He seems to think that I deliberately reverted an POV edit. I explained that Nishidani made a single edit which I reverted. That single edit included several controversial changes that Nishidani had made without commenting or explaining. The minor edit slipped beneath the radar. I have seen this happen literally thousands of times on Wikipedia. The sin of a minor oversight is completely disproportionate to the punishment of lengthy ban. Wikieditorpro (talk) 10:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Even accepting that, your reply to Nishidani on the talk page after they identified that you reverted "the justifiable deaths..." back into the article shows that you are commenting on the person rather than the content. Having realised that you reverted the wrong edit you didn't appologise for it or make the comment you made here or at AE rather you called or referred to them as "bizarre" and "laughable". Just a further comment, whether sanctions might be required for other editors is irrelevant at this stage as you are currently topic banned. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I did not revert the wrong edit. I reverted the right edit, which had both the intended consequence and separately an unintended consequence. Given that as I noted at AE there was a massive overreaction on his part to what he should have realized was a simple and very common oversight, an overreaction that included a the most egregious personal attack that I've seen on Wikipedia, I cannot accept that I should have apologized given that his overreaction and personal attack was completely disproportionate to my oversight. Do you not agree that his attack was "laughable" and "bizarre"? It certainly seemed that way being on the receiving end of it. The same goes for his claim that I reverted "only because of his name".

There doesn't really seem to be any point in carrying on this discussion here since you don't seem receptive to the argument that I am making despite the strong belief I have that I acted in a reasonable manner given the circumstances, and my belief that the administrators should have had an opportunity to review my response before the topic was closed. I expect that I will end up taking this through the appeals process.

I also don't understand the rationale behind the statement that "whether sanctions are required is irrelevant." I noted at the beginning of my comment several egregious violations that were completely unrelated to the topic. Furthermore, given the uncivil behavior that I documented, I think that is reasonable that to take action of the basis of the violations of rules themselves as those editors will still be engaging with other editors on that topic, and possibly myself on other topics.

Separately from my case, it seems that there is a problem with administrators passing judgment before the accused has had a chance to to tell his side of events (for example in my case the administrator's relied on a series of half-truths and complete lies). I think it is only fair that editors who are reported are given a period of say 24-72 hours to respond. Given the severe bans, I don't think there needs to be such a rush to judgment. I know that this isn't the right venue to discuss policy, but could you direct me to the appropriate noticeboard to raise that issue? Thank you for your time. Wikieditorpro (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

And the unintended consequence was the mistake.

Once the ban has been imposed arguing that other users need to be sanctioned is irrelevant as by making that argument you are breaching your topic ban. You aren't able to present evidence about their behaviour in that topic as you're banned from commenting on it.

Either at WP:Arbitration/Requests or from the Committee at WP:ARCA would be the best place. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for review of the notability of the article on Rin Nakai

Hi, you appeared to have been the admin who closed the deletion review for this article - I believe the deletion review had problems and should be reviewed - reasons are given on the article's talk page [26]123.193.40.25 (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Rin Nakai

The subject of this article is notable, and was unfairly deleted without a thorough and accurate review of its notability. The person who brought this article up for deletion grossly misrepresented the fighting history of the fighter. "Coverage appears to be routine sports reporting and nothing shows that her 4 wrestling matches give her notability. Mdtemp" This is completely made up and untrue: if you examine her fight history, she had already participated in 16 fights by Dec 2013, when the article was nominated for deletion. Her fight history by that time included a win against Tara LaRosa[27], a fighter who was notable enough to have a rather extensive article on Wikipedia.

Since then, she has defeated Sarah D'Alelio[28], another fighter with an extensive article on Wikipedia. She is also now scheduled to fight Miesha Tate[29], another fighter with an extensive article on Wikipedia.

This fighter is undefeated, extremely popular in Japan[30], the #1 fighter in her weight class in Japan, the current title holder in her weight class in Japan (per a Wikipedia article) [31], having held the title since Dec '12 (per another Wikipedia article) [32], and the #10 fighter overall internationally in her weight class [33] (All of the other fighters in her weight class in the top 10 have their own article).

This fighter is notable enough to have articles on her in 4 different editions of Wikipedia, the most extensive of which, unsurprisingly, comes from the JPN Wikipedia [34] - there's been an article on her since 2009 in the JPN Wikipedia.

If you check the article views, it jumped to 444 recently, which is unsurprising since readers probably came here to search for information on this fighter due to her upcoming fight against Miesha Tate. Unfortunately, the article appears to have been re-deleted on that same day by an admin who didn't bother to check or investigate whether the fighter had become more notable since the last deletion of this article, which, of course she has.

I believe there's more than sufficient evidence to show that this fighter is notable, so the article on this person should be restored. 123.193.40.25 (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@123.193.40.25: I have PRODed that page because it is talk page of a deleted page, and I have copied whole content above for you. I think you should really register account, and make your article on sandbox, you can inform here again. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Your other option is to submit the article through the WP:AFC process. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the original creator of the article on Rin Nakai. have no idea what the original article looks like. It would be a complete waste of time for me to create the article anew if the admins will just delete the article once again without bothering to discuss the notability merits of the article in question. If you check the history of this article, it's already happened once. I'm just looking for the proper venue to contest the original deletion of this article, which was highly problematic. I tried multiple venues, but apparently I must be doing something wrong bureaucratically, since I keep getting my posts deleted. Is there anywhere you can point me to that I can actually voice my concerns over and contest the original deletion of this article?123.193.40.25 (talk) 08:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:Deletion review is the place to contest deletions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Rin Nakai

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rin Nakai. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

User talk:GjonPreni

Hi Callanecc, would you mind taking a look at this user's talk page and joining the discussion there? I have some questions about the block you placed on them. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Bszabo15

Hey C, so Bszabo15 apparently can't be taught to stop submitting unsourced content. After his recent 10 day block, he returned with this. What's interesting is that the intermediate edits suggest he may have actually found a source, then removed it. I think we might be dealing with either a WP:COMPETENCE issue or a deliberately disruptive user. Thanks for looking into it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Bureaucratic crap

Following your comment here, seems even though the hook approved was essentially the same, and the fact that nothing at all was wrong with my QPQ, it seems bureaucracy will not be denied, time to give up on DYK I think. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I go in waves of doing stuff then giving up and going back when the backlog gets to be huge then giving up again. I question whether there is anything wrong with your QPQ as nothing in the rules (that I can find) says you need to check another and have that check be the last one done. Plus as everything gets checked 3+ times it's a waste editor time and effort which could be better spent doing things. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for your contributions! Clearly no one has handled WP:SPI better than you this year. You are indeed very hardworking and intelligent member of en.wiki. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 19:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! There's a lot of work there at the moment that a number of admins (such as Bbb23) are working their fingers off to get done. But the most thanks needs to go to the CheckUsers (such as DoRD) who are putting in a lot of work to try and keep the backlogs down on that page. So that you and thanks to all of them as well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Module:IsValidPageName (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Since 2000 transclusions does not meet the "high-risk" threshold required for protection at the Template editor level per WP:PINKLOCK may only be used on high-risk templates and modules, and possibly in rarer cases where pages in other namespaces become transcluded to a very high degree, of which this user page is not, I'm requesting you lower the protection level — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

My cutoff for template protection is anywhere between 1000 and 5000 tranclusions. Given this template is used in BLPs of politicians there is a strong case for pre-emptive protection, however it is two to three templates down the line so that case isn't as strong. However my protection of the module was based on the protection level of the template is invokes, Template:IsValidPageName (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), which was full protected by Mr.Z-man so I'd like to get his opinion before dropping it to semi. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Little note about your decision on my report.

I don't ask you to change your decision but FYI when user edit the article [35] he sees a big a warning about reverts and this the reason that WP:ARBPIA warning is not needed.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I know I just updated it to the new format. :) But still if they've stopped editing and they now have a talk page full of warnings (one of them from me) I think they've got the message. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Scope of topic ban of Gibson Flying V

At User_talk:Gibson_Flying_V#Community_imposed_topic_ban, DangerousPanda seems to be interpreting Gibson Flying V's WP:TBAN per this example bullet item of forbidden edits: "discussions or suggestions about weather-related topics anywhere on Wikipedia" i.e. user talk pages count as "anywhere". However, your closing specified that "User:Gibson Flying V is indefinitely topic banned from anything height-related on any article related to association football." Can clarify whether the ban is literally limited to the article namespace, or if it includes all areas in Wikipedia e.g. user talk pages, WikiProject pages, etc. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Based on the consensus of the discussion, it applies everywhere - hopefully it wasn't closed with less restrictive wording accidentally the panda ₯’ 22:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

For further background, DangerousPanda was originally concerned about User_talk:Technical_13#Your_contribution_to_my_topic_ban_discussion, a thread Gibson Flying V started and discussed footballer heights. Gibson has also continued discussing footballer heights at User_talk:Mark_Miller#Note_to_self...—Bagumba (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Having another look at the AN discussion the original proposal definitely related to "articles" however if there is continuing disruptive behaviour in a couple days (after the dust has settled) there is a little latitude in the banning policy and the discussion to interpret it as all pages which I'll clarify if necessary. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I have a question

Hello Callanecc, please tell me exactly how a case page is created, once the Committee may elect to hear a case. I am working on a template that I hope to switch its output based on the existence of a case page, if that is possible. For convenience, if you will, please use the Redrose/T13 request as an example, showing the location and page or section title that would be used if that case were accepted. I appreciate your assistance in this regard. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Using Template:ArbCase might work for you. Though "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/case titile" is the current format being used. This case (if the Committee doesn't decide to rename it) would be Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/User:Technical 13 and User:Redrose64. This template might be a useful starting point for you... Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much!—John Cline (talk) 11:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

For clarification, may I also ask; did you unlink the two user names to preclude pinging the users, or because in fact they would not be linked in the current format being used? Knowing this will complete the uncertainties I have, allowing me to move forward in confidence. Thank you in advance.—John Cline (talk) 11:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't have linked them in the case request title as you can't wikilink in page titles (which is what they'd turn into if the case was accepted). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Toeverywhere and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hellohhhhsss

What's the point of the separate cases if it's the same sockmaster as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Superbrightidea?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Per the CU result they aren't socks of Superbrightidea they are socks of each other (which is the same as the most recent CU result, not socks of Superbrightidea but of Toeverywhere. That's my understanding of Tiptoety's results anyway. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Superbrightidea (talk · contribs) is

Stale, meaning there is no technical way to link that account to the others. That connection would need to be made based on behavioral evidence. Tiptoety ^talk 02:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah ok, any chance that Toeverywhere and Hellohhhhsss are related? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

That's a loaded question. Based on the technical evidence available to me on this project, they appear unrelated. Based on the technical evidence available to me on another project (Commons), they are possibly related. That all said, the behavioral evidence is what ties them together. This user is known to travel, so it is very possible that one group of accounts was created while this user was traveling leading to the different useragent and geolocation. Like I said, a loaded question. I hope this helps, Tiptoety ^talk 02:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

That does it for me just needed the possibility, and a clarification of the different results on the two projects. I'll merge them back into one and tag them as socks of Rasputinfa on the editing area and behaviour. I'm also going to replace Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Superbrightidea with the SPIarchive notice template. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Works for me. When I initially posted my results on en.wiki, I had not ran checks on Commons. All of that said, the accounts are nearly quacking. I'd be comfortable calling them the same sockmaster based on editing behavior alone. Thanks for your work on this, Tiptoety ^talk 03:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

←Did you mean to block User:Nowa? Tiptoety ^talk 03:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd just noticed that and was reverting myself. Thanks for the heads up. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Fo sho. ;-) Tiptoety ^talk 03:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban violation

Callanecc, there is a violation of a topic ban by User:Darkness Shines.here (Not that it matters, but DS didn't revert vandalism, only a POV edit in a POV article). He also used Twinkle in the edit. User:Darnkess Shines is under a topic ban in India and Pakistan related articles. I don't know where on wikipedia to report this. @Sandstein: @Future Perfect at Sunrise: --Calypsomusic (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? I was reverting vandalism, section blanking & introducing deliberate factual errors. Cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@Calypsomusic:I would also like to know why you are following my edits, and why you pinged FPAS? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The section blanking was reverted by Vanamonde93, not by you. What you reverted was a POV edit (strong POV maybe, but no case of clear vandalism). In a topic ban, you are not allowed to revert pov edits or even vandalism and you know it. I pinged them because they were involved in the topic ban. (The article was on my watchlist). --Calypsomusic (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually I am allowed to revert vandalism, I was told so on this page by the admin who imposed the TBAN. A page on your watchlist that you have never edited, ya right. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@Calypsomusic: Please report violations of arbitration related sanctions to WP:AE. Unless they are blatant, that there is no way they'd be able to claim WP:BANEX. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I had checked this one, something is wrong with the complaint. @Calypsomusic: It maybe better if you look out for another violation of topic ban. Re:[36], if the user had a point, should've clarified not just replace large amount of sourced data with one sentence. I hate to use the word, but I agree that other user vandalized the page. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

Hello, Callanecc. You have new messages at Greeneditor491's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Hi there, do I need to do anything else for my sanctions (warning?) to go away? Does it and the editing warring thing stay on my TalkPage for forever? I didn't think that I made the same edit while not logged in but if I did it wasn't a conscious attempt to do so surreptitiously. Greeneditor491 (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

That's only a notification so it can be removed any time, per WP:BLANKING. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Khaboos appeal

Hello Callanecc. Please see WP:AE#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Khabboos. The editor seems to be relying on an encouragement you gave him in an AE appeal that was declined in June. You did, however, request that he provide an appeal in proper form with adequate explanations of the past problems. It's your call as to whether he has achieved that:

I personally don't find the diff in my comment above to be a breach of the topic ban (see Khabboos's statement). However I still don't feel that we should lift the topic ban just yet. I think Khabboos's has learnt from this request exactly what they should put in their appeal statement next time and suggest that if worded and explained appropriately (that is, addressing the reasons for both topic bans and explaining why they will no longer be needed, use WP:GAB as a guide) an appeal in one to two months has a much higher chance of being accepted. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

EdJohnston (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Please inform user about climate change arbitration case

Hello, Callanecc could you inform the user 10stone5 about possible implications, he recently added weasel words and NPOV to an article/content related to climate change, here. Further it appears as if more recent user edits are in parts what i would call questionable, but not all are related to climate. Thanks.prokaryotes (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. See Template:Ds/alert for more information. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Gati123

He/she edit warring for its musical genre on Lorde three times. Can you please block him/her? 183.171.175.85 (talk) 13:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Probably worth logging into your account before requesting enforcement. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

@evleaks

Hi,

Thanks for your attention to @evleaks. I had marked it for speedy deletion with Db-promo due to the promotional nature of the article--the majority of the article is written by the subject and his personal assistant--as well as db-g10 due to the subject's use of attack and intimidation to control the page from contributor changes. I saw you removed the speedy deletion marks and noted it is not an attack page.

I agree it's not an attack page in itself, however I'm not sure what to do in this case when the subject of the article is attempting to control it through intimidation. (See the article's Talk page.) I do believe it is a promotional page and the subject hasn't proven notability other than being a blogger who leaks products. (There are many of those...)

Can you please advise on the @evleaks Talk page?

Thanks, Wikigeek2 (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

@Wikigeek2: I think WP:AFD would be the best place. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Thank you! I opened a discussion there. Wikigeek2 (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding my Gun Control TB

Am I allowed to respond regarding WP:AE#Sue Rangell or do I have to ask permission first? If so, what is the procedure? I just discovered that I'm being mentioned in this proceeding. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 18:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, per my request during the ARE, can I continue to edit specific firearm articles such as Remington Model 1858, Remington Model 1875, and Winchester rifle? I have also been asked if this applies to the rest of the topic blocked Editors. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 18:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, another question. Is this type of activity considered a violation of a topic ban [37] when an Editor intends to bring an edit to the attention of a non-topic banned Editor per this comment, "Oh, and I already beat you to clipping my watchlist - about an hour ago. (^_^) The only ones I kept are ones that aren't gun-control related, and maybe 12 gun-control related ones that get vandalized sometimes. If that happens on a gun-control related article while my ban is in force, I will bring it to the attention of someone who has permission to fix it."

--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 19:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It depends if what you respond to violates your topic ban. If it does then you aren't allowed to comment. I'd rather not grant an exemption as I don't see a need for you to comment.

Yes you are able to edit those articles as long as what you're editing isn't what you're banned from.

I've left a message for Lightbreather regarding that. Also if you believe it's a violation of the topic ban then you shouldn't be repeating or mentioning it as that in itself would be a violation. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I was more concerned with aiding Sue Rangell with her defense as I feel that the new ARE is much like many of LB's other attempts, ill thought out and will result in little (if any) positive outcome.
OK and as I understand the scope of the ban, editing factual information about a firearm would not violate the ban. Although, I can see where editing certain firearm articles would be problematic such as Assault Weapon or potentially AR-15 and AK-47 as those are considered "assault weapons".
So if I understand your warning, reporting a violation of a topic ban is considered a violation in itself?

--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 20:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that'll be too much of a problem. It looks like it's going to be closed with no action against SR pretty soon anyway.
As I understand the arbitration remedy that's correct.
Yes, as to report it you would be violating your own ban.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

So if I notice a violation, like I did above, I can't do anything about it without getting myself in trouble as well? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 01:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

See WP:BANEX. You can't report it because by reporting it you are not abiding by your ban, the point of which is to get you to avoid the area all together. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, I see the logic in it. So the assumption is that Wikipedia is then dependent on the User community to assist in enforcing a topic ban. OK, fair enough, thank you. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 15:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion help

This has been proposed for deletion but the categories does not reflect and say July 4 deletion page does not exist, and also the time is expired.--Vin09 (talk) 06:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

When you removed the tag the category was removed, readding the old tag confused it somehow. Anyway I've deleted it per the PROD. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you--Vin09 (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

My article on WP has been deleted by from, without any discussion. How to restore it? Thanks 141.2.133.173 (talk) 08:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Arturlazarian

Hi Arturlazarian, please log into your account. You can request undeletion at WP:REFUND. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection of a talk page

Hello Callanecc! I've seen that you've semi-protected cold fusion talk due to an apparent disruption due to an IP. I think you should have blocked that IP 84.106.. who apparently caused the disruption instead of discriminating legitimate IP comments from posting there.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

There has been disruption on that talk page for a long period of time from a number of different IP addresses. It is unfortunate that is prevents all people editing from an IP from contributing to the talk page but that is unavoidable. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Could you be so kind to provide evidence of these accusations?84.106.11.117 (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The edit warring and disruptive editing by you would be the most recent example. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Is that suppose to be funny? 84.106.11.117 (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Questions

I started a discussion on the clerks' talk page,[38] but EdJohnston suggested that I talk with you.

In a nutshell, re my topic ban: I've read the "Result" subsection several times now, and my question is: Was the ban based on edit warring with the other editor who was banned, or was it based on something else, or edit warring and more? (As I told Ed, whether or not I will appeal my ban depends on what I was banned for. If it was only for edit warring, then I won't appeal at this time. But if it was for something other than edit warring or in addition to edit warring, then I will appeal.)

Re: Sue's case, I don't want to appeal that decision but I would like to clarify the scope of the warning she received to focus on content, not on contributors. (For instance, does it apply to edit summaries?) I've read WP:TBAN and WP:BANEX several times now, and substituting "weather-related" with "gun-control related" - I think that's an allowable request. --Lightbreather (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

(In fact, her warning was more about a behavior than a topic, so the request for clarification is about behavior, not a topic. Does the warning apply to her edit summaries?) Lightbreather (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

You were sanctioned for edit warring against Scalhotrod yes. The reason for that edit warring was also related but that wouldn't have mattered if you hadn't been edit warring.

Asking about someone else's sanction in an area you are topic banned from doesn't fall under the provisions of WP:BANEX which is about your own ban not anyone else's. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Callanecc. Then I won't need to bother with an appeal at this time. However, would you please append the first sentence of the hat for the topic ban re: me and my fellow warrior: "for edit warring at National Rifle Association"?

And, could you append after "warned" in the hat for SR's warning, "for incivility" or "for personal attacks"?

(These would both be similar to the hat in the request above mine.)

--Lightbreather (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

After reading your last reply, I feel the need to return and ask a direct question: Am I allowed to file a request for clarification on SR's warning? Although the original request (my request) in that case was related to edits in a subject area from which I am now temporarily banned, the result for SR was a warning for incivility/personal attacks, and not simply in one subject area - if I'm reading it right. My request for clarification is not related to her edits on specific subject pages, but on all of her edits. Therefore, may I file a request for clarification? I feel I may have that right for three reasons. 1. The original ARE was mine. 2. Although SR was not banned, she was warned about incivility. 3. I was harassed on-wiki on May 19, and off-wiki on July 10. (Both events have been reported.) Without (that is to say, I am not) accusing SR specifically of these incidents, the fact remains that I have been harassed, which falls under Wikipedia civility policies. I respectfully ask you to please advise. Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Since it's already been archived I'd rather not make any changes and as I wasn't the one who closed the request and I don't see that it will achieve anything as one just has to look at the warning itself.

Filing an amendment or clarification on another user's sanction is generally not advised as there is no real point to it. If you were to file a request regarding it you wouldn't be able to mention anything in the field from which you have been banned. The other issue is that if you were to mention the AE request regarding SR you might be blocked as the request itself is covered by the discretionary sanctions you were requesting be enforced. This will be particularly the case if you're filing is believed to be pointy or disruptive. Personally I'd suggest you just drop the stick and move on. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Clear violation?

I am not rushing to comment on ACE but saw this. Looks to me as if a user wanted to add an infobox, but didn't know how to that properly. Andy helped, no? Clear violation? Really? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I saw that, however my interpretation of the restriction is that they are no permitted to add an info box regardless of what was there before. That is if the user had inserted an infobox the restriction wouldn't apply but adding the infobox means that the restriction has been breached. My commenting rather than just blocking was so that this could be discussed, and I'll clarify that in my comment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The user added the infobox, he just failed to format it well. It looks like he saw other articles but didn't know that a template needs to be invoked. Andy did that for him. - If that is "adding an infobox", I am afraid that formality rules in a way that is not helpful. I like to bring good news. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree to some extent though I think my initial one week block was a bit harsh. My opinion is still that Andy added an infobox but we'll see how other admins define the restriction. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

We are again at the point where we take expressions more or less literally. "Create an article", I was taught, means turn a red link blue, not add more than 80% of content, see Polish Requiem. Who created that article if not I? - Who adds an infobox, the one who adds the content or the one who formats it, helping (!) the other and Wikipedia? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

We are indeed, which is why I've asked for more opinions. That's a question for us to answer to AE. Then we get into the language of creating and expanding. And also the example of changing a redirect into an article, as it was already a blue link when later turned into an article. Anyway questions for AE if not ArbCom. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I am beyond my voluntary restriction to two comments in a discussion ;) - You didn't succeed in convincing me that helping another user and Wikipedia should be sanctioned. How about a bit more AGF? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey

Just wanted to say thanks for the early unblock, the article is now a Good article. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations and well done! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

said so, too, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what are the chances of another exemption to the TBAN? I would like to try and work on few userspace drafts. I will obviously not be moving them to mainspace until such a time as you figure the TBAN can be lifted. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

If you wait another 2 or 3 weeks I'd very likely lift it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Cool, it will take that long at least to get this to GA status, thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

enrolment of town

As u know that karnal sher kaly is the big town and the oldest town commiti of swabi distric kpk but it still not the part of Google earth and weather forecast — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.33.253.213 (talk) 10:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi 39.33.253.213, Wikipedia has no control and isn't related to Google Earth or weather forecasts so I can't help you. If you're referring to a Wikipedia page can you please give me the web address or the exact title of the page so I can look into it further. Thank you, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Any way to get priority on an SPI?

Can you look into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dr. Syed Shahzad Ali Najmi, or let me know if there is any way to raise the priority of this report? The sock farm involved have been disruptively !voting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shahzad Ali Najmi, and I'd like to be able to weed out the invalid comments for greater clarity in the discussion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: If you add at least one diff or point to a blatant pattern of editing for each account and request checkuser (change {{SPI case status|}} to {{SPI case status|CURequest}}, that's probably going to be the fastest way. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for responding, and for your related actions. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Please, please help me

Callanecc and Lord Roem, I have been sick for a few days, and the old dog I inherited from my son and DIL (after their last baby was born) has been, too, and this is what I see going on upon my return:

SH - [39][40]

SR - [41][42][43][44]

The whole discussion: Gone silent?!?

Is this acceptable behavior? That first one of SR's really bothers me. I am no paid advocate for anyone, nor a volunteer advocate for anyone for that matter. Do I edit in an area that is important to me? Yes! Like the majority of WP editors, I imagine. Don't you?

I am so tired of being talked about like this... but I really don't want to be driven off. I just want other editors like these two to quit speculating about me and trying to brand me. Is there no way to get editors to quit talking about others like this without evidence?

I thought about using some formal process to report this, but I am so tired. And feeling a bit queasy in my stomach like I did last fall when I first reached out to SR for help.

Please, please help.

--Lightbreather (talk) 02:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

A ruling is needed

Please will you take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Septate: alternative proposal. You may recognise the proposed sanction; it is similar to one used successfully elsewhere. The proposal is the result of a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#SProposal for a topic ban on Septate. Septate asked for clarification, and I gave it at User talk:Septate#July 2014 ANI.

As all parties seem to be agreed, it only needs an admin to approve it (or not).--Toddy1 (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Template namespace

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Template namespace. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

re User:Aalaan sockpuppetry

You might want to take a look at Qesadila (talk · contribs). -C759 (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Question on redir you created

Hi Callenecc,

I've known about the WP:Casting aspersions shortcut for some time, but I had forgotten that instead of going to a section of WP:AGF or related policy/guideline, it actually goes to a paragraph in the principles section of an individual ARB ruling. I am writing you about it because you created the redir.

Is there a reason it points to a specific case ruling? Is there somewhere in policy or guidelines that would be less of an WP:EGG, assuming you perceive it as an EGG at all? If you agree it could be better pointed elsehwere but have no opinions as to a better place, I'm willing to work on figuring that out. Thanks for your thoughts. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, another place I can think of which would be appropriate is the 5th dot point at WP:NPA#WHATIS. However I think the principle deals with it in more detail, would have been good if the arbs had linked to WP:NPA but you can't have everything. If you can find somewhere better than that dot point go for. Thanks for asking as well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

List of association football teams to have won four or more trophies in one season article

The IP-hopper has predictably shown up with a registered account, as CoUser1 (talk · contribs); see here. Flyer22 (talk) 13:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I've fully protected the article. The edit warring here is a ridiculous. Since you're relying on the vandalism exception to 3RR you should have reported it account to AIV and waited, there's nothing in their edit for which they'd be a problem if it were live with an admin dealt with the request. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc, I was using WP:Huggle and was waiting for it to report CoUser1 to WP:AIV; it failed to do that. If CoUser1 had continued, I would have manually reported him there if WP:Huggle had failed again. Regarding full protecting the article, this is not a content dispute for me, considering that I don't care about the article other than stopping WP:Vandalism or other WP:Disruptive editing going on at it; I stumbled on to it while using WP:STiki. Not only is CoUser1 proving a problem for different editors at that article, he is, as you know, altering and removing people's comments at the article's talk page. He should be blocked, as far as I'm concerned; and seeing him in action, it seems that an indefinite block, not a temporary block, is what would be needed. I thought about going to Black Kite about the matter, since he semi-protected the article, but since he didn't respond to my suggestion here at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, I came to you, the one who did respond to it. Flyer22 (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Didn't notice what the edits to the talk page were actually doing. I've blocked them for two days, we'll see what happens then. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

PC protection on pages expiring on July 2014

Extend time for rock and roll, Billy Collins, Inner core? --George Ho (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it running out on all of them, there probably isn't enough recent activity to warrant protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Stalking by SH

@Callanecc:, I know that my talk page isn't really MY talk page, but, considering that he and I were topic-banned under the same decision for edit warring, and considering that he's been warned about speculating, along with another editor, about my identity and intentions as an editor,[45] I protest Scalhotrod's reverting my talk page based on what HE thinks does or does not belong there[46] - especially in a discussion that he wasn't involved in.

I think most are aware of it by now, but I think Wikipedia should do something a little more aggressive about PA and harassment behavior on the project. Lightbreather (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

OMG, while I was writing this, he did it again! Please help![47] Lightbreather (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually I was just following a fairly involved conversation that included several Admins that happened to bleed over onto your Talk page. The discussion from AN was even noted on the AN Project page before it was shut down "here". As for my edits, I was just preserving the full conversation for accuracy. As I stated in my edit summary, "If you're going to archive something, do it accurately without censorship or revisionism". Obviously you're free to change it nor will I revert it if you do. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 16:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Which you just did... [48] --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 16:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

This man is stalking me online. He is saying things about me on others' pages without offering evidence.[49] Will you please do something about this, or direct to the best place for handling it? Off to ANI again? I am tired of being asked not to be sensitive or to ignore this kind of conduct quite obviously directed at me. Please help! Lightbreather (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I am not stalking anyone. Lightbreather, I just don't care enough about you to put forth the effort. Your edits pop up in my watch list because of our previous interaction. I simply got tired of removing ANI and similar pages from my Watch list, so now they pop up all the time. I have to admit that I find the conversations fairly interesting.

As for stalking, you just rather openly assumed bad faith about my reason for joining the Gender Gap Task Force [50] AND made reference to a Personal Attack you made on me (twice!) in the recent ARE proceeding that got us Topic Banned. I have interacted with several of the members far longer than you have been an active editor on Wikipedia and respect their efforts and opinions. Your alarmist and personal bias driven accusations are becoming tedious. I am now asking YOU to stop this. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 18:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I would recommend not removing anything further or readding remomals, if LB removes parts of the conversation already replied to that's fine but if they wish to remove the last couple comments and that's it no big deal. I would then suggest you both drop the WP:STICK and drink a beer, take a break or something to distract yourself til you are less upset. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Not only did he go to another editor's talk page to talk about me, he started a discussion on his own page and invited others to analyze my edits and intentions.[51] WTF?! Lightbreather (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Totally normal, we all have the ability to look at people edits and history. I can see yours you can see mine, his...Peoples edits are discussed regularly here. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest moving on to something else..not only will you be less upset but sanctions will be less likely. I've been there when I had a multitude of people saying calm down and I was so mad I didn't listen and kept going on about things and ended up topic banned from commenting on situations and quite a few blocks. Even if you are right, at this point you have a whole slew of editors that think you are wrong and looking at everything you do. It's easy to make the wrong statement and find yourself blocked..take the break. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Good advice HB and a beer sounds pretty good right about now... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 19:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

E/C

I have no knowledge about the dispute and I don't want any. But I am interested in reducing WP:DRAMA across multiple venues. If you are sure you don't deserve a WP:BOOMERANG, just file a complaint at ANI and ask for an interaction ban that includes references to each other for the benefit of third parties. On the other hand, Hell in a Bucket's suggestion to just walk away sounds even better. If the same issue continues to pop up anywhere other than ANI, that would sure suggest to me that the issuance of timeouts (via blocks) is needed, so the appropriate person(s) can step back and regain perspective, but I have no opinion which person(s) that would be. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

User:NewsAndEventsGuy, it's so important to do that now because at this point there has been multiple discussions on multiple pages, including AN. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

As I just argued on Scal's talk page, I find inviting a coterie to discuss someone else unseemly, and I think that LB's WTF? is AOK. Drmies (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Drimes on this one it's ridiculous that you all can't stop antagonising each other. In terms of moving forward you've got two options: one, voluntary avoid each other, or two; post on AN asking for an IBAN (with evidence). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I opted for Door #1 several hours ago. I removed the necessary page from my Watch List and I'm off to greener pastures. I even stated as much on my Talk page. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 05:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI re Septate

As you were the one who closed the previous discussion regarding Septate Dougweller suggested you be advised of the urrent disussion regarding Septate at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Septate breaking his newly imposed editing restrictions.John Carter (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)