Jump to content

User talk:Callanecc/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Callanecc

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 10.68.16.32 (talk) at 16:02, 1 November 2014 (Archiving 11 discussions from User talk:Callanecc. (BOT)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 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 remove this notice 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)

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.

Blake Gripling (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

List of Piggy Tales episodes

Hi. Please restore List of Piggy Tales episodes. Yes, the article was started by a banned user, but I've improved it and added sources, so the original reason for delete is not valid any more. Thanks.--Carniolus (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello

The rotating-circle-within-rotating-circle view of Chakravyuha has been promoted without any military basis or even without consultation with any military officers.

Most of the historical battles, fought from the days of bows and arrows, are studied even today. Not only Napoleon but also right up to Romes war with Hannibal - the time when the weaponry was similar to that used in Mahabharata.

I request you to study these battles and battle formations.

Also, if you are interested in factual assessment, please try making such formations with toy weapons. If you are further interested, please add a horse or two and see how impracticable it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.70.20.14 (talk) 16:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You need to go to the talk page and explain the change you want to make, making sure that you cite reliable sources which support the change you want to make. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protect

Hey, would you be able to semi-protect Ray Allen again? Since the last semi-protection expired, there have been no useful or constructive edits by IPs or new users. There is also a reported sports transaction involving him that has not been made official, and IPs and new users are constantly editing that i.e. further violations of BLP. DaHuzyBru (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Help - rules interpretation?

Hey there - a question for you pertaining to Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map: One user, 83.117.189.21, has made 11 unsourced edits this afternoon, seen here. I reverted the initial batch, and summarized "unsourced edit - please provide sources for this edit". The unsourced edits continue, and actually have increased in volume. If I revert again, I break 1RR, but the edits don't even have summaries, let alone sources. I don't know how to proceed. Obviously I don't want to break 1RR, but it's just irking me to sit back and watch a mess be made. Any feedback or assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Boredwhytekid: The 1RR (in this instance) doesn't apply to IPs, see WP:GS/SCW. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Karis_McLarty

Hello, please can you delete the comment of nha trang at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Karis_McLarty

the comment is offensive to me. he said karis is an energatic self promoter. that means karis wrote all the source and the wiki article? It is not true. Warn that user to be civil while commenting. The wiki article and the discussion can be seen by people from all over the world. It is harasment for us. Delete the whole article or such comments please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.47.231 (talk) 10:32, 8 October 2014‎ (UTC)

Your Instant Reversion of My Edits to "Portuguese Profanity"

Callanecc,

I am amazed at your almost instant rejection of the entire edit I made to the relevant section of the "Portuguese profanity" article, particularly because the only reason you give is "because it didn’t appear constructive to me". I would very much like you to let me know in what specific ways was my edit not "constructive".

As a native English speaker, and a professional English teacher, it was clear to me that some, at least, of the section was written by people whose English is not especially fluent, and I was editing the section to ensure that the expression was more fluent and accurate, as well as clearing up some imprecise information. My entire edit was constructive in purpose.

I look forward to your response.

211.31.213.200 (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

There are a few problems as far as I can see:
  • We generally try and avoid subjective terms such as "slur" as it has multiple meanings, instead we use the words which you replaced
  • We try and use internal links (for example with Casper the Friendly Ghost) so that people who aren't familiar with it can read about it
  • The names of Countries are almost always capitalised (that is American people)
  • Changing how "Chinese or Asian" were referred to changed the meaning (that is removing the word descent)
  • No offense intended, but there are other areas of the expression used which don't make as much sense as what was there before (such as "a very curse word") and where you've changed a word to an incorrect spelling (eg associated to associeted).
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc,

I am absolutely bewildered by your comments above. All the weaknesses you list are those of the *original* version which I edited out! If you actually look at what I did, you will see that I removed most of the uses of the word "slur" (for the reason you mention, as well as unnecessary repetition) and replaced it with "insulting", "derogatory", "pejorative" and "offensive".

I also corrected the existing spelling in numerous places and certainly did not introduce any new misspellings. (It's possible I missed one or two.)

I was the one who included a number of internal links, including the one to Casper the Friendly Ghost, for the very reason you mention.

I am very annoyed by your apparent misreading of what I did, and I strongly request that your revert to my edit, which fixes the very problems you've identified in your dot points.

Tullyvallin (talk) 00:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I sincerely apologise I don't know what I was looking at. I've reverted my edit on the page. Again my apologies. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Theodore bikel

I strongly believe your block of Theodore bikel is mistaken. The POV tag has been discussed quite a bit on Twitter and other parts of social media. A Twitter user that tweeted several times about the POV tag edit-war as it was happening has the exact account name there as the Wikipedia account. Seems this person saw the edit war as it was happening and jumped into the dispute using the exact same account name. It may be the editor's real name as well, in which case a false accusation of sock-puppetry should be withdrawn promptly.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey, are you gonna look into that block?--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Was on Special:Unblock/Theodorebikel when I got your message just then. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thank you.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

School asking students to add incorrect information

Susie0susie (talk · contribs) has said she has been asked to add incorrect information, as have another 100 students at her school. I'm guessing that CU's can't check to see if she is using a school account in order to identify and contact the school, but no harm in asking. Dougweller (talk) 09:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Possibly a justifiable reason to check, but personally I'd rather wait to see if there is another account or it was just an overstatement. Having said that I wouldn't mind if you wanted to make a quick CU request at WP:SPI for another opinion. In any case might be worth leaving a message on the user's talk page asking their teacher to contact us. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Quick CU request done, will add note to talk page. Dougweller (talk) 11:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI, trying to break the new DS alert coding

Hi, FYI please see some testing I did and if you agree there's an issue, to whom should we address the matter? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Restoring User:Exec8's image uploads?

On behalf of the Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines, may I request the restoration of User:Exec8's image uploads now that their account as been cleared of sockpuppet issues? I can do the restoration as an admin myself but I think it would be a bit conflict of interest as Exec8 and I have collaborated with each other in the wiki for years. --Lenticel (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! I'll go ahead and notify the Tambayan. --Lenticel (talk) 06:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the aid dude, as always! I trust him too, so it's a shame he got caught up in a sockpuppetry case which he wouldn't honestly do. Blake Gripling (talk) 07:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah the evidence was there but on another look there are some aspects which didn't fit. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the change. Honestly, I haven't done any edits for a month now and just read these comments only today. --Exec8 (talk) 12:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Callanecc. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Adnarkey which you closed recently. It's missing the usual link to the case's archive. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it's there now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Iselilja (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Scholarlyarticles SPI case

[2] You what this without action? Think you missed a word. Also, I think this edit is a clear violation of WP:SCRUTINY given the RFC/U. As is, "A number of editors have raised the question as to which version of the these two versions are libelous" (i.e., her) --NeilN talk to me 03:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

My understanding of the RFC/U (please correct me if I'm wrong as it's not an area I'm familar with) is that it wasn't closed with a statement that Scholarlyarticles should avoid the article and was mainly about their actions overall. So they weren't under any restrictions or current discussion so they haven't violated the requirements of WP:Clean start. The only thing they haven't done is disclosed the previous account, which we can ask them to do with a talk page message. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:CLEANSTART says, "...new account must avoid editing patterns or behaviors that would allow other users to recognize and identify the account." But disclosing and editing with only one account is good enough however she won't really get the benefits of a clean start. --NeilN talk to me 03:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I've tagged both accounts as alternates of each other which is the practice once a clean start has been identified. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Language on the GG article

Just went through the talk page, ALL mentions of the word fuck are by Ryulong haha, oh there's one by TaraInDC telling someone to fuck off Loganmac (talk) 11:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

And I asked him to stop, what's your point? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

An issue at BLPN needs the attention of an admin

A BLPN was closed prior to 7 days of review, and the consensus so far was that it was a BLP violation. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Investigative_Project_on_Terrorism I notified the closer User_talk:Lithistman on his talk page. I'm not sure what else to do. This issue must be resolved - the controversy has gone on for nearly 7 months. Thank you. Atsme☯Consult 19:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

DS alert

Could you please look at this edit? As I recall, the last time I alerted an editor to WP:ARBPIA, before I committed my edit, it allowed me to check if any alerts had previously been left. Here, that didn't happen. Also, when I looked at the edit filter log with this user name, I didn't see my alert added to the log. Could you explain what's going on and if I did something wrong? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I reverted my alert because Dougweller advised me he'd already had one. I should've seen it as it was very close to mine, but my technical questions still remain when you have a moment.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I had a similar problem when I left this one, it let me save on first try. I thought maybe it was because the user had several earlier DS warnings in different areas. Dreadstar ☥ 21:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Discussing the same issue with NewsAndEventsGuy here at the moment. Since AGK is away I'll bring it up on the clerks mailing list to check it'll do what I want it to do. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
FYI for anyone, Callanec linked to a midpoint in my debug testing notes, which begin here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

More recently, I used the template again, and the familiar pink box came up as it used to do. FWIW, I was using the topic code blp. However, it reported that another user had alerted twice, but the two entries were identical (date and time), and the other user had alerted only once.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

What are the names of the users so I can have a look at the page histories? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Europefan / GLGerman

Hi Callanecc,

we have currently high acticity of this troll in German Wikipedia. I have checked the IP addresses that he used during the past six months and calculated these ranges:

It looks like the provider (Vodafone) arbitrarily assigns addresses from these five ranges, so to mute this user, I think you need to block them all, or at least No 2 to 5. Currently only the second and third are blocked. No 4 and 5 have been blocked in the past. --PM3 (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info PM3, I'll keep it in mind. Europefan hasn't used any of those ranges (apart from the two which are currently blocked) for a couple months so I'm going to hold off on blocking them and wait to see what happens next. But thank you for calculating them! Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Look at this: [3] I am sure that this is an Eurofan block, but it's way too large. You may reduce it to the two ranges that I calculated, that will set free 27,648 unneccessarily blocked IPs. --PM3 (talk) 06:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Well that explains why there are no recent edits. I'll have a closer look and check with Salvio giuliano in case there is someone else he's targeting. Thanks again, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

TheTruth

TheTruth200 now has a sock. User:Thetruth300. Can you please indef them both as Vandalism only? VVikingTalkEdits 09:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Cathal Pendred

Hi Just wondering why you deleted the Wikipedia entry for Cathal Pendred? Cathal is a huge star in Ireland, a current UFC star on a 2-0 run and former Cage Warriors Welterweight champion and I feel With the growth of MMA in Ireland there is a considerable interest in this fighter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonard-88 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Leonard-88 and welcome to Wikipedia! The page was deleted as the result of a deletion discussion which you can view here if you'd like to re-create the article you need to start a discussion at deletion review. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration case request

Hello again! First, thank you for making sure that things "work" at ArbCom. Second, it looks like this edit by Lithistman, while well intentioned, moved the response to an incorrect location (DaveApter's, where it should have been moved to Zambelo's response section, I believe). I am reluctant to edit other's responses. As clerk, would you move it to the correct location? Thank you for looking, Tgeairn (talk) 02:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • My apologies for that. I noticed Zambelo's angry response to the topic ban improperly threaded, and tried to move it to his section. No clue how it ended up in DaveApter's section. Thanks for cleaning up the mess I helped make. LHMask me a question 02:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I saw your note to Zambelo, and just to clarify, Zambelo added his reply to TParis's note on Zambelo's topic banning. In trying to fix this obvious mistake, I actually MOVED it to DaveApter's section by mistake, instead of into Zambelo's. I have no idea how I managed to screw it up that bad, but I did. Again, my apologies, and my brief stint as a self-appointed substitute clerk are over... LHMask me a question 03:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification Lithistman. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Protection request

Can you please put registered users protection in place for Indian Super League and 2014 Indian Super League season pages? The league is new and the inaugural season has just started and as you can note from the history, there is a lot of vandalism (like adding spam links, removing sourced content) and the regular editors have a tough time while keep removing such content. And most of this vandalism comes from unregistered useres. Coderzombie (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't see enough on either of those pages to warrant semi at a quick look, but feel free to make a request at WP:RFPP. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Accounting

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 05:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy for it to run out, feel free to go to WP:RFPP though. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

OTRS user right

Hi, I just noticed you changed my user rights to "OTRS members". I'm curious about what effect this has. Is it just a designation similar to slapping a category tag on my user page, or is it actually a "right" in the sense of a switch that allows me to do something?

I could have added myself to that user right, but I didn't even realize it existed until I was notified that you flipped the switch. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The user group only has the read right so it doesn't allow you to do anything. At this stage, it exists only for Special:AbuseFilter/635 which logs OTRS templates placed by non-OTRS permission queue members. I've just been adding it to accounts which have been in listed in the log but which have access to the permissions queue. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah. I see. I didn't know that my placement of OTRS templates got logged. By adding me to the group, I am not logged and the log becomes more useful. That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. ~Amatulić (talk) 10:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Report

Hello sir, With all sense of humility as an editor who has learn from his past, I had finally decided to report 'Tiptoethrutheminefield based On a behavior I considered disruptive and the extent of damages he might caused to the project (wikipedia). I can no longer fold my arms to see a bad condition getting worst. Tiptoethrutheminefield joined wikipedia 6 month ago with 436 edit to unique pages (only created one poorly referenced page so far) but move around AfD, Talk pages and ANI to attack other editors, directing Non-sequitur comment to editors that vote against their wish at AfD and often follows them around wikipedia for the purpose of attack, even with no experience on how things work here on wikipedia. This one to Epeefleche. After I told him here, to refrain from directing non-sequitur comment to me, he apologized but repeated the same thing here again yesterday. Also am aware that he has just been banned from Armenia and Azerbaijan related article For disruptive behavior. I don't want any problems with him and I don't want to warn him. I just had a serious issue in a just concluded discussion at ANI and have learn from my mistakes, I don't want the same thing to repeat itself that's why I had come to report to you instead of reacting to his comments. Thank you sir. Wikicology (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi. I'm not familiar with Wikicology's above issue. But, since I was mentioned above, the outline of my recent problem with the editor he mentions has been as follows:
  1. This began when I took a position contrary to that of the other editor at this AfD.
  2. That was followed by the talkpage discussion relating to wp:v and wp:burden reflected here.
  3. And by the editor restoring uncited material here.
  4. And then by the editor following me to an article I had just edited, and reverting me, restoring uncited material (he later submitted a ref for 1 sentence, but restored 2 wholly uncited sentences without providing a ref) here.
  5. The editor then wrote: "It seems as if I am going to have to watch all of your edits in the future".
  6. He then followed me to an article I had just created, and deleted a cat I had just added to the article, under the incorrect assertion that the article did not relate to the cat.
  7. He then wrote to me: "I said I will continue to take a look at those of your edits that consist of deletions of content."
  8. An outside editor also raised to him the possibility that he was wikihounding me. Which he rejected.
  9. The editor then followed me to another subject, an AfD that I had !voted at, to !vote against me.
These are just some of the instances of the many articles which he followed me to. Through all of this, I discussed wp:burden and wp:v with him multiple times, and both requested and warned him multiple times to stop hounding me, as is in part reflected in the discussion here under "wp:burden". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epeefleche (talk • contribs) 20:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Wikicology, could you please clarify what the problem is with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levon Harutyunyan? It's a revert restriction not a ban. I've left them a message about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monica Ogah.
Oh... It was a mixed up sir. It is not Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levon Harutyunyan but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basildon Town Centre, where they directed their comments to me. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levon Harutyunyan is one of the AfD discussion they followed me to. Wikicology (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Epeefleche, I understand that the appearance of someone who could be following you around is concerning, however if they are just going to added sources to previously unsourced content then I'd be inclined to let them, though if it is really bothering you I can try and have a word with them, though my options are limited. Especially since this edit seems to indicate that they now agree that removing unsourced content is the "right" thing to do. If they follow you around and revert without adding a source let me know and I'll take action then. Also if they continue following you to deletion (etc) discussion let me know and I'll have a word with them about it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I think it's beyond "appearance" of following; the track record coupled with the direct statements quoted above are something more substantial. And, as reflected above, it goes beyond adding unsourced content, but in fact includes: a) restoring unsourced content without any refs whatsoever (a direct violation of wp:burden, after that was quoted and pointed to); b) plentiful innappropriate personal attack edit summaries; and c) following me to an AfD to !vote against my !vote. This pattern has continued unabated, with him being warned by another editor for hounding, and yet indicating he remained unimpressed by the warning. What you point to was not part of his personal hounding of me -- it was a !vote against my !vote, in an AfD he had followed me to as part of his pattern of hounding, and his comment related to removal of information not by me but rather by another editor. What it does do is highlight the uniquely personal and hypocritical nature of his hounding--he accepts such deletions from others, but follows me around the project to revert my similar edits, at times without supplying refs to the restored content, and to !vote against me at an AfD he has only landed at because of his practice of stalking. I find this upsetting, and it has the effect of affecting my editing. Epeefleche (talk) 06:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Can you please grab me some diffs of personal attacks in edit summaries or reverting without adding a source in the last day or two? Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Sure. Here are some examples from this week.
  1. Following me to article, and restoring material challenged and deleted per wp:v, without supplying any refs (which are required per wp:burden, on October 10. With an edit summary of "rv unconstructive edit".
  2. Following me to article, and restoring material challenged and deleted per wp:v, without supplying any refs for last two sentences (which are required per wp:burden, on October 10.
  3. Following me to article where I deleted per wp:v and July tag, and reverting, with edit summary of "reverting Epeefleche's typically unconstructive edit", on October 11.
  4. Following me to article, and restoring material challenged and deleted per wp:v, without supplying any refs (which are required per wp:burden), on October 11.
  5. Following me to article I just created, and deleting cat of article - improperly, on October 11.
  6. Following me to an AfD to !vote opposite my earlier !vote, on October 14.

Looking through his edits of the past few days, it is notable what a high percentage of them are of articles to which he followed me, as anyone can plainly see.

I think these edits, coupled with his admission that he is following me (though, with a bulk of his edits this week being ones where he followed me, it was clear in any event), and his admitted rejection of an uninvolved editor's warning (as well as my own), and the upset he is causing me, are not what our Project has in mind as acceptable editing. Epeefleche (talk) 07:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look more closely tomorrow. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Looks like it'll be next week. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
About Epeefleche: Tiptoethrutheminefield messaged me on my talkpage early on the 12th, expressing their concern about Epeefleche's deletionist way of going about unreferenced content. In a prolonged discussion, I explained to them that Epeefleche's actions were allowed per WP policy and that it would be best for them if they dropped the issue. I think that has happened in the meantime? I think this editor acted out of concern (a bit over the top perhaps) for WP, and is still finding out what is, and what isn't allowed here on Wikipedia. You can see the discussion here on my talk page where I pointed them to the relevant policy pages and meta-discussions on this topic. My remarks there about Epeefleche are just remarks about deletionists in general, reflecting in part on what I was told by TTTTMF. I don't know who Epeefleche is, what they do, and have never had any problems with them so it's not meant to be taken personally. Regards, - Takeaway (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/81.153.185.157

He/she defends admins for accusing on Talk:Diamonds (Rihanna song). It must be MariaJaydHicky’s IP. 115.164.53.12 (talk) 06:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Mail

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

OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

If someone doesn't beat me to it, I'll get to it next week. It doesn't look like there is a consensus to restore access, and if there is it is only very weak. But I'll have a proper read through later. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

SPI

Regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/E4024, how do you know they're using two different equipment? I think using a checkuser won't hurt. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I did a checkuser and that was the result. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Luke Shaw

Extend PC time or upgrade to semi? --George Ho (talk) 02:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Titanium Dragon violating BLP again

Is this what you hoped to see from Titanium Dragon when lifting their topic ban? Are unfounded intimations that Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu fabricated the death threats against them for attention considered acceptable on the encyclopedia? I have opened a WP:ANI thread on this issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

IP block exemption

Hi Callanecc, TheLateDentarthurdent has contacted me saying they're being affected by an IP range block and would like an exemption. I can vouch for the editor and the fact that this is the only IP they can use at their current location. Would you mind having a quick look? Thanks,--Cúchullain t/c 14:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey Callanecc, did you miss this question? I'd like to get them exempted soon if possible.--Cúchullain t/c 14:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I went ahead and exempted him; he's been waiting around long enough. Let me know if you have any other questions.--Cúchullain t/c 13:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
@Cuchullain: I sent you an email. I softened the block so they should be able to edit through it without IPBE. If they still need it let me know and I'll check if there is another hardblock effecting them.
Oh, sorry, must have missed your email. Thanks for checking it out. I'll remove the IPBE and have him let me know if he still has a problem with it.--Cúchullain t/c 12:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Aaron Abera

Hi, After returning from the ban the user repeated the offence. Now what ? “WarKosign” 14:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Strange new user behavior

Hi C, an editor brought to my attention a user named Karlhard, who has only been editing for about 3 weeks, but who has processed a crapload of deletion nominations. The concerned editor suspects that they may be a sock, although I admit, I don't know who they might be a sock of. But I think we've all seen n00b users jump into advanced editing, and when we notice them, our sock detectors go off. If you could keep an eye on them, it would be appreciated. Thanx, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Question regarding warning

I was recently warned about DS. This is rather odd, the only change I made to the page is removing a extraneous quote mark. Yes I know Ds applies, but still rather odd to be warned after something like that. Is there some other reason you found what I did possibly in violation or felt the need to warn me? Or do you have it automated or something? --Obsidi (talk) 03:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-43

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. You can read translations.

Recent changes

  • You can test a new system to see math using MathML. Go to your display options and choose "⧼mw math mathml⧽".
  • You can add badges in Wikidata for quality articles and featured lists. [4] [5]

File information cleanup

Problems

  • Developers fixed a security problem. If you use Internet Explorer 6, you won't be able to log in any more. You should use a newer browser. [7]

Changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki (1.25wmf4) has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since October 16. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from October 21, and on all Wikipedias from October 23 (calendar).
  • 10% of logged-out readers are getting pages from servers that run the HHVM tool. HHVM should make pages load faster. You can also test it as a Beta Feature. [8]
  • If you add the same parameter twice in a template, it now puts the page in a tracking category. [9] [10]

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

13:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Your postings on my page

I had already made it clear that I considered your last post on my talk page to be unhelpful. I had put your sources question down to lack of knowledge on your part (such as an inability to look at the actual sources, or a lack of understanding that looking at the actual sources should be a requirement in any AfD). However, in light of your latest posting I now wonder if the real intent of it, and the latest post, was harassment. If you had really wanted clarification about what I meant by "garbage source", why did you not ask on the actual AfD page? Your latest post is even more unreasonable [11] - you accuse me of reverting without providing a reliable source yet fail to provide a single diff showing I have done any such thing. What am I to make of that? Is it another display of ignorance (a lack of realization that diffs should be given when accusing an editor of something), or part of an ongoing harassment? Please, do not post any more of your "advice" or "questions" on my talk page, and stop making false accusations. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I owe you a partial apology. I have just noticed that while restoring one piece of deleted content (its edit summary "no wikipedia article" being incorrect) I had not noticed that Epeefleche's same edit had also deleted a second name on the list. So my restoration of the first name (which I then wikilinked to the article with sources) [12] inadvertently also restored the second deleted name. I will delete that name again for now, but will hope it is restored later with sources since it is factually correct [13]. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. As I said I've no issue at all with you restoring material with reliable sources but given that you are 'following' (the impression of that whether intentional or not) Epeefleche's reverts it's important to ensure that when you revert your providing the sources. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy

Hello sir, its my pleasure to inform you that I love to enroll at the above academy and to be a student under your tutelage. I will be glad if my admission is granted. Thanks. Wikicology (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Technophant

I appreciate limiting factors and will be happy to take my enquiry elsewhere. I was advised in an edit by RGloucester to contact you regarding breaches by User:Technophant as indicated at User_talk:Technophant#SCW.26ISIL_sanctions and taken up at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request for clarification on Syrian Civil War and ISIL sanctions - warning policy. Help or advice would be equally appreciated. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Confusion over Syrian Civil Wars sanctions alert

Could you please take a look at WP:AN#Request for clarification on Syrian Civil War and ISIL sanctions - warning policy. What seems to have happened here is that Template:SCW&ISIL sanctions and Template:SCW&ISIL enforcement have not been updated to make it possible for any editor, as opposed to only administrators, to add what is basically a sanction alert to another editor's talk page. I certainly thought that this had been done and I thought we'd sorted it out here.[14] I can't see any reason for this to be an Admin only notice with a different process from general sanctions. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 September 28

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 September 28. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Callanecc/Archive_14&oldid=632023937"