User talk:Callanecc

Sju hav and Lapsed Pacifist

I was quite surprised to see that you found Sju hav to be a sockpuppet of Lapsed Pacifist. I am very familiar with Sju hav and when I compared him to Lapsed Pacifist I didn't find any particular similarities, quite the opposite:

• Lapsed Pacifist's prime interest was the Irish/British conflict topic area where they had a clear Irish republican POV. I have never seen Sju hav show any interest for the Irish cause. Likewise, most of Sju hav's edits are related to Norway, an area I don't think Lapsed Pacifist edited in.
• Many of Lapsed Pacifist's edits were of the copyediting style, often changing wording to fit their POV. Sju hav has very little of this; his typical edits are to insert new stuff, mostly based on what is in Norwegian news at different times.
• Lapsed Pacifist appeared to master the English language at a native level, while Sju hav is Norwegian and has only intermediate English language skills.
• Iselilja (talk) 09:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I might leave it you and Berean Hunter to discuss, probably best on the SPI page. I was going with what he was said plus the bit I found. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Iselilja, Lapsed Pacifist and Sju hav have article intersections on the articles Asbjørn Sunde, Osvald Group, Ernst Wollweber (Sju's sock Selslapt), Kowtow (Abalonney), and Peder Furubotn (Sju sock Holoabu) and probably Stavanger. Lapsed's interests were in politically revolutionary or radical subjects which go well beyond Irish subjects and he edited some on Norwegian subjects occasionally.

Also noting that Amss125 and Amss126 are obvious socks of each other but not necessarily related to Sju or Lapsed. Brontosaurus72 is also a sock and is more likely related.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Berean Hunter. I hadn't noticed that Lapsed Pacifist had edited some Norwegian articles and the same as Sju hav, so I see your point. But I still think there are too many things that separate them for the two to be related.

• Lapsed Pacifist appears to be Irish. He was banned by ArbCom from articles related to Northern Ireland in 2006 and from articles related to the Corrib gas project in 2009. In the latter case, he had a declared COI: " I've been involved with the campaign for quite some time.... I attend protests when I can, and I've often stayed in the Kilcommon area for extended periods."
• Sju hav is Norwegian. He often uses Norwegian words in articles and has a ton of sockpuppets on Norwegian Wikipedia. He started editing in 2008 with a special focus on the Norwegian defense and a former soldier. The first sockpuppet investigations give some background information I think it's worth to keep in mind (October 2010 and May 2011). When I recently reported one of Sju hav's puppets, he was still editing about the Norwegian defense and that particular soldier (six years after he first started). I believe Sju hav's edits about the WWII Communist resistance movement is based on his interest for military issues, combined with an interest for controversies (The treatment of the communists have been controversial), not a general interest in revolutionary movements.
• There is an overlap in time between Lapsed Pacifist and Sju hav. At the first CU of Sju hav in 2010 Lapsed Pacifist was actively editing under his own name; yet didn't turn up as related to Sju hav in the CU check. Likewise, at the second CU of Sju hav, LP had recently been editing with a sockpuppet (Gestur), yet the CU of Sju hav which found a lot of puppets didn't find Gestur. Likewise, the many puppets of Sju hav at the time didn't turn up in the CU of LP which documented that Gestur was a puppet.

With my knowledge of Sju hav I just can't see him as the same guy who is heavily involved in environmental protests in remote areas of Northern Ireland. Their writing styles are also totally different. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Very good points and unless there is further evidence of a connection then the status quo should be fine. Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

About those Darkfrog24 editing restrictions...

About a month ago, you unblocked Darkfrog24 for edit-warring in "Oathkeeper", a Game of Thrones-related article. You set up a series of editing restrictions which seemed to imply that, moving forward, she was limited to 1RR in the article where she was edit-warring and waiting 48 hourts after proposing a change in talk. IIRC, she made a point of discussing the minutiae of the restrictions, and it would appear that she was looking for a way around them. Darkfrog24 seems to think that those restrictions expired after a week. Thusly, she has been engaging in precisely the same sort of behavior elsewhere, and has argued that she no longer has to follow those restrictions. Could you confirm that the editing restrictions indeed expired after the week of the block?
I know you meant those instructions to help her adjust the speed with which she edited; I'm suggesting that they have failed to work as you intended. The behavior was not modified, - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes they did expire, I don't see in policy where admins can impose indefinite conditions without further authorisation (ArbCom or community). However I would have expected that Darkfrog would have taken it on board and edited more carefully focusing on discussion rather than edit warring, but this incident is pretty stale now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey. I now understand your position about the editing restrictions on Darkfrog24, but would like to preserve the value of unblock conditions for future use. The convention used by some admins when considering unblock requests is that conditions may be proposed, which the user is free to accept or decline. Once accepted, they are binding. Until now I haven't been aware of a rule that they can't exceed the length of the original block. To see examples of previous unblock conditions that have been entered at WP:RESTRICT search that file for 'unblock'. Whenever a user is made subject to an unblock condition, they can obviously appeal it at a noticeboard at any time they believe it is no longer necessary. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

One of the things I've been intending to do for a while is start to develop a policy basis for this, which we currently don't have, except "a commitment to change is given" (WP:BLOCK#Unblocking) and WP:BLOCK#Other important information. Any commitment given by the user would be voluntary except if it was a 'suspended block' still hanging over them (ie one year block, unblocked after six months with a condition, if they breach it the rest of original block is reimposed (ie with same expiry date)). In this case I blocked the user for one week and under your system they would be subject to a sanction indefinitely but if were left blocked would only have been subject for that one week. There is very little policy basis for enforceable voluntary sanctions, especially given that normally the ability of admins to impose them needs to be approved by the community or ArbCom. Anyways one of these days I'll start collecting opinions from people and try and get something together. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

[Illegitimate blanking] and [Vandalism] by User:Director

Three days only after being on the verge of being blocked, User:Director removed large sourced sections of text in Istrian Exodus without even discussing. He briefly mentioned in the edit summary he would have rolled back forever. So I had no option and filed an ANI for vandalism [[1]]. I hope this does not account for WP:CANVASSING. It is just that it is astronomically difficult to deal with this user. Silvio1973 (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I have reported Director for 3RR. Silvio1973 (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Belated congrats

I wander back from a three week holiday and find that you've garnered yet another shiny hat! Congrats on the CU appointment - now I have another person to pester on my list of people-who-can-see-way-more-useful-stuff-than-I-can. DoRD and Reaper will no doubt breathe a sigh of releif... Yunshui ^雲_水 14:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And this one as well, though it's an appointment to AUSC so only for a year and I imagine a good few months at least will be learning. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes - both well-deserved. It couldn't have happened to a nicer hopeless masochist ...er, person. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Serendipity abounds; straight after leaving this message for you I wandered straight into this unblock request. What's a checkuser-alto when it's at home? And would you mind giving your CU opinion on the best course of action for this user? Cheers, Yunshui ^雲_水 14:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Without doing a CU check it'll be best to ask Tim about it first or just send the user straight to ACC. Plus that sort of thing is a bit beyond me at the moment and the block is recent enough that it's still very likely to be necessary. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

ACC sounds good to me; Timotheus seems to have gone to bed already. Also found Template:Checkuser-alto, which suggests ACC as well. In fact, I might just drop the template there; it explains things pretty well. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

They can see it everytime they click the edit button, so just referring to ACC in your answer should do the job. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

ACC request #125280

Sent you an email per your note. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Elockid, I've replied. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Protection of Labor Day

It used to be a rule that we wouldn't protect things while they were linked from the front page. Has this changed? Samsara (FA • FP) 16:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I've never heard of that rule, the only one I knew regarding the main page is that we don't preemptively protect [ages linked from there (except full move protection) but wait instead. In this case it's much more likely that the vandals are getting there from Google or direct search on WP than through the main page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The templates here make me think it's been abandoned. In a nutshell, the idea used to be that people coming through the main page should be allowed to get a flavour of Wikipedia, and so the main page linked articles should be editable. This used to tie up scores of people in mopping up after the vandals coming from the main page, and was presumably discontinued for this reason as soon as changes in leadership allowed doing so. Thanks for being the starting point of this clarification - good to know for the future. Cheers, Samsara (FA • FP) 16:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Thank You and Request

First thank you for giving http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SantiLak a warning. I am glad Admins like you are paying attention. This same user is edit warring on many other pages, and he just deletes requests to discuss the articles. In one article he erased entire sections 9 times in less than 12 hours without discussing it once. If possible, could you take whatever steps are appropriate? I thought I'd ask since you already noticed the issue yourself: I.e., he's done this before and you have admonished him. Many thanks in advance and you have a great page! Cheers.2.177.205.239 (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I think I have a right to respond to these accusations. This is the second IP that this user has utilized. They first posted on the State bar page and I reverted it suggesting that they move it lower in the article and provide reliable sources. They moved it to the top section and kept the same sources. I then researched criticism of the state bar and found reliable sources that weren't taken out of context and created a criticism section. The IP user then reverted my changes and started posting on my talk page. They claim that I am deleting requests to discuss articles but I have responded to all of their claims on my talk page, their talk page, and the article's talk page in an attempt to discuss it but they haven't responded at all. All they do is revert the edits and post copied and pasted warnings from different parts of the page. In fact they copied and pasted a legitimate warning that you gave me about Arontrice's talk page and I acknowledged it. They then went about reverting my removal of copied and pasted warnings from one of Arontrice's sock puppets who had been posting them on my user page and my talk page. I don't delete their concerns, I just delete the copied and pasted warnings that they add to my talk page but not the actual accusations they have and I respond to all of them. For the future I will not revert their edits to the state bar page so that I don't technically edit war but that does not excuse their behavior in editing that page and refusing to discuss anything while accusing me of refusing to discuss anything. SantiLak (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Email

Sorry about that. I wasn't paying attention to what I forwarded earlier. Sent the right one this time.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

No worries. I've blocked them now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocked user and DYK

Hi Callenecc, I saw that you blocked Papajeckloy recently. I just noticed that he has passed the nomination of my DYK nom, which initially I did not notice. After a little looking around, I saw that he did the same to another one, except this was not even reviewed. The second one, I can understand is invalid, but will this affect my DYK nom as well? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It was only promoted by Papajeckloy not reviewed by them. The only problem would have been if one of their socks were involved which it doesn't look like they were. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Callanecc. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 13:42, 2 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.

—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You are a very good Admin, Very Professional

Many thanks for your professionalism in stopping edit warring on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Bar_of_California Many thanks for your fair-mindedness in allowing a section on Public Criticisms of a Public Entity: They are critiques by the courts, magazines, and even the Public Entity itself. It says a lot that you respect journalist;s and the public's freedom of conscience to allow it to be said that, "This is a public entity and there have been some journalistic criticisms of it." Cheers and have a great day! 2.177.205.239 (talk) 16:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Regrettable attitude

If you have time you might want to give a look to my talk page. Director did not hide his satisfaction because he exploited 3RR to have his version of the article Istrian exodus protected. I find this attitude regrettable. Edit-war is always wrong and even more if it is exploited with the specific intent to impinge on any development of an article. I do not know what to think... Silvio1973 (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Jade Cole

Hi, did you consider the old AfD when you moved this article? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I did however I think the current (new) version is different enough from the seven year old deleted version that it would need to go through a new AfD. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

As a side note, this closure is memorable. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team/Userright RfC

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team/Userright RfC. 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) 00:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:SPI/Siddheart

Based on the technical evidence alone (for which you said "Likely"), do you believe a sockblock is warranted for AbhinavKumar1289? There's a discussion at WP:ANI about the situation, with a dispute between the SPI's filer and subject, and the easiest thing would be a block for AbhinavKumar if it's warranted. Nyttend (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I brought it to the Administrator noticeboard because this user is carrying out personal attacks on SPI and he was edit warring there too. Now he is edit warring on Administrator noticeboard(Incidents). Investigation may take some time as Gauravsood0289 is still left. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti when did I attack on SPI. I didn't attack you. I only explained your edits and asked for forgiveness If I hurted your sentiments on that page. AbhinavKumar1289 (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't block purely on technical evidence, there is always an element of behaviour. Likely is a step down from confirmed so there needs to be behavioural evidence which indicates that there is a connection. I've marked the report as closed, if evidence re Gauravsood0289 comes up a new SPI can be filed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I remember more commonly seeing "Unrelated" and no block, or "Confirmed" and a block; I've seen "Likely", but never in a case to which I was paying much attention, so I had no clue if such an account would be blocked without behavioral examination. Nyttend (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Likely and Possible are the two main ones apart from confirmed, unrelated and inconclusive which are fairly self explanatory. Until you start doing checks you don't really get a good grasp of what Likely and Possible actually mean in the technical sense until you run checks yourself. In the practical sense a confirmed result generally means that the technical data checks out as well as behaviour (so can be blocked with a cursory look through behaviour) but likely needs more non-technical evidence to support a connection and a more definite link for a possible result. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me understand better. I thought that they meant something like this:

• Confirmed — they're using the same IP addresses, and if they're not the same person, it's two different people sitting at the same computer
• Unrelated — they're clearly in different regions, countries, or continents. Basically the same as Confirmed, except you confirm that they're not the same person
• Likely — some overlap between IP addresses, but there's a chance that it's someone else
• Possible and Inconclusive — somewhere between Likely and Unrelated, vaguely comparable to a not proven verdict in a legal case.

I never realised that behavioral evaluation played into the checkuser results; I just figured that you issued a statement solely from your checkuser examination. Nyttend (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

That's the difference between  Confirmed and  Technically indistinguishable most CUs when they say confirmed have done something to check that the behaviour is also consistent (so confirmed is the only one which the CU *might* check behaviour). But blocking admin still needs to check. I was referring to the amount of evidence an admin would need to see before blocking. Possible generally means that they geolocate from the same area and there might be a crossover in the equipment they're using. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess it's a good thing I've always been hesitant to do admin work for SPIs! I vaguely remember seeing "technically indistinguishable", but only quickly and not often, since I took it to mean the same as "inconclusive". Nyttend (talk) 11:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

And now he is edit warring, infringing copyrights on this page[2] Yes this 115. ip is him, see [3] same edits. He also raged on talk page of his SPI too with this ip.[4]

I know that I should request on RequestForPageProtection board, but they will randomly say "No massive edit warring, rejected", without knowing that this user is a sock. Any admin should protect this page. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Belated congratulations

On becoming checkuser and oversighter. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, just for a year though. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Please could you extend protection of Istrian exodus?

Hi Callanecc. The protection you applied to Istrian exodus expires today, and I'm wondering if you might extend it for a further two days, please? Discussions have been long-winded, but some progress has been made. But last night/this morning there has been a set-back, and I'd like time to give it one more try. I have RL commitments all day today, but will be able to continue tomorrow, and for my own sake as well, I won't allow it to drag on longer than that. Best, --Stfg (talk) 09:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)