User talk:Callanecc/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

202.137.22.114

Why was not it indef blocked? It has been vandalising since 2010 and it's obvious they can't be trusted. Luxure (talk) 07:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

See WP:IPBLENGTH. As IPs are used by various users and can be reassigned to completely different people we almost never block them indefinitely. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks anyway. Luxure (talk) 08:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Banning Policy case

This should be ready to unhat. Let me know if there's anything more I need to do. Thank you for your patience. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 09:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Workshop Page

Can you please go and review the accusations Neotarf is making on this page, literally most of it is completely unrelated to this case and damn near all of it is without any diffs and is accusing people not even involved with this case of misconduct. I feel the need to defend myself but I also think it's something that is going to cloud the issue too. Can you please review and moderate, I'm going to log out a while because I really don't want to pop off but a lot of the shit they are posting is so misrepresented it's not funny. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you also close this down [[1]] there are no diffs, no one has linked to naked women, called anyone any names, etc. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I will need to be able to go through and explain the context of the recently added material. How long will I have to respond? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You'll need to ask that on the workshop talk page and ping the drafting arbitrators (listed in the header). They're in charge of the deadlines for the case. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Reopened SPI?

I noticed you reopened the PiCo SPI. Thanks for doing that, but I'm not sure if/how to proceed. I do think there is a good chance someone is socking right now on WP:DRN. "First century" is too vague.... (PiCo) -- I agree with PiCo - "first century" is far too vague. (StAnselm) However it's hard to show conclusive evidence for long-time contributors -- simply agreeing with each other on something oddly specific. Since the IP activity was stale, do I have a path forward here? Andrevan@ 20:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Having gone through the evidence I don't think that there is a strong case for abusive sockpuppetry and as there isn't a policy against editing while logged out I don't think there is a case for sanctions regarding that either (I can't see an attempt to "actively try to deceive other editors"). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging, warned for edit warring, using specious analysis to block rebuttal to imbalanced article POV

Hello. You warned this person for his/her behavior in the Dreamcast topic in February, and I feel this person, with the backing of two others, is blocking the addition of useful content in the Atari Jaguar page. Moreover, an editor in 2011 found fault with the same thing I have been trying to correct, as is indicated in Talk.

TheTimesAreAChanging created an entry in Talk called "Recent IP edit" just recently. The convolution of demands now includes that a directly relevant appraisal of the worst video game console controllers ever made specifically include the Atari Jaguar in order to be cited, even though, by not being included, it is clear that other designs were considered worse by the article's author, a fact that is directly relevant as a rebuttal to the complaint included in the Wikipedia Atari Jaguar article. Moreover, the article also supports the rebuttal that the phone keypad design feature was used on other prior systems, which casts doubt upon relying heavily upon the Jaguar controller's inclusion of that feature as evidence of it being "the worst ever".

Three editors seem intent on maintaining the current imbalance on the page, characterized by the inclusion of three separate criticisms of the controller (one of which is a photo of a controller with a critical caption). The IGN editor's analysis is simply faulty. There have been worse designs, such as the controller of the Mattel Intellivision and the controller of the Atari 5200, both of which are included in the critical article "The Worst Video Game Controllers Ever Designed" that I cited and which TheTimesAreAChanging and others are refusing to allow, after I removed three other sources that received other complaints.

The other article is by Ronald Diemicke and one of the three editors said the source, due to it being MobyGames can't be used. Despite that, the article does include the Jaguar controller (thus satisfying the three editors' -- in my view obstructionist -- objection to the Gerry article) and yet ranks three other controllers higher in the list of "worst ever" designs. His choice for the worst controller ever is a very logical one.

I fail to see why so much energy is being put into blocking even the smallest attempt to correct the imbalance in the Jaguar's controller criticism, but I suspect it is a similar case vis-a-vis the aforementioned Dreamcast edit war. Comments critical of the controller criticism imbalance from 2012 on the Talk page were on the flaming side. However, an editor named Andrew1718 removed the IGN editor's complaint about the controller in 2011, arguing that the analysis was not well-supported ("I removed the bunk about the Jaguar having the 'worst controller' ever". So, I am hardly the only person who has found fault with the exaggerated criticism of the controller. The inclusion of the flawed appraisal of the IGN editor with no counterpoint is bad enough, but then there are two more criticisms of the controller in the same Wikipedia article!

Thank you for reading this. I am sorry to both you with what should not be something that has taken so many hours of time already. I really would appreciate it if you could look into this, since it is a longstanding unresolved problem with a Wikipedia page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.12.52 (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you merge 2 SPI reports for me?

Okay starting here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mjnichols, then there seems to be one though that seems to be connected to that user though as he did the same pages Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HaroldSalasI/Archive. So yeah it just got confusing and I need someone to merge these, thanks! Wgolf (talk) 03:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done. @Wgolf: Could you please supply some diffs of similar behaviour between the accounts. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Callanecc. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 14:17, 30 September 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Yunshui ^雲_水 14:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey dude...

Thought you might want to take a look at this proposal on Malusia, given how much of a persistent nuisance he is. I'm not sure if it's absolutely necessary to just hand out bans for those who have only been a problem user for just a year or two, but I guess enough is enough for someone who has confused and deceived users for quite some time. Blake Gripling (talk) 03:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

DS question

I DS-BLP templated this user, but wanted to make sure this was correct. It doesn't look like the user actually edited the BLP subject articles or talk pages, but they did engage in an ANI discussion about the BLPs and they made a BLP-violating edit to another users talk page, which was revdeleted and user was blocked. Just making sure the template was the right thing to do in this case. Dreadstar ☥ 22:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds right to me. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Dreadstar ☥ 01:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Thedevilini

The user page contains clearly as "River Stumpf" that was familiar. Can you sockpuppet him/her? 183.171.168.48 (talk) 07:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

SPI for User:Showitwew

Any thoughts on adding Emikhan9999? Looks remarkably suspicious to me... Yunshui ^雲_水 08:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I've got to go, but I've left a comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Showitwew. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate SPIs

I redirected Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Khursheed Khan Pictures to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Showitwew then saw your note, and rollbacked my edit. /Khursheed_Khan_Pictures didn't have any valuable case information, and the same socks were reported at /SHowitwew. Why then would we need a merge? Do we typically always merge duplicate cases, as opposed to using redirects? Thanks — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

We normally don't I just didn't have time to look at what needed to happen so I used that word. Khursheed Khan Pictures is the older account so it needed to go there. It can be helpful to keep all of the evidence together, but generally when there is only user reporting we can just redirect, no harm in histmerging though (and good practice for trainee clerks). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Question about discretionary sanctions - BLP

Re: Gamergate controversy. Is it ok if I ask you to clarify how the article involves a BLP issue? I'm just trying to learn the ropes, and acquire a better understanding of policy. Thx. Atsme☯^Consult 14:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

If you have a look at the wording of the discretionary sanctions and WP:BLP both apply to edits and articles which have biographical content which is what Gamergate controversy is about at it's base level. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Atsme☯^Consult 14:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

John P. Galea

Thanks for that! Might want to put a page protection on that variation too. But yep thanks! Wgolf (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather just keep it watchlisted, they're going to keep coming back so this way I might catch an account. You might like to consider creating a long term abuse page which you can refer to if you need to request speedy deletion in the future. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Malusia

I think we might want to revdel the edits he made on the Syndicate page and several others to keep him from linking to those on other articles. I can provide you with diffs if you want to, too. This guy and his crazy antics is really getting in my nerves. Blake Gripling (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Diffs would be helpful, just make sure that one of the RevDel criteria apply. I've taken adding something to the edit filter which will hopefully slow them down. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I posted some on the LTA page for him, though there could be more to which I'll link to tomorrow as I'm on my tablet and it's getting late here on my end. Blake Gripling (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

DS BLP

Would you mind responding to this?. Thanks! Dreadstar ☥ 22:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)