User talk:Callanecc/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

50.26.24.73

Hi C, IP 50.26.24.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is fresh off a block, and of their three current edits, this one doesn't make sense because they've inexplicably removed wikilinks that weren't redlinking. By doing so, two of those disambiguation lines no longer have links, which is required on a disambig page. Anyhow, not requesting intervention just yet, only hoping to draw your eye to them should they become sloppy or obviously disruptive. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't look like the edits on the 30th are block worthy, but I'll keep an eye on them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Since you're awake

Can you please do something about [1]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: Who's sock is it? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Same thread. [2], [3] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, blocked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. They'll be back, but thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Portuguese District Football Associations

Hi. One guy (using several IP adresses-He is being blocked in pt.wikipedia.org due to vandalism, and keep changing the IP adress) is making a lot of non constructive changes in several articles. It's not possible to talk with this guy. In the first revert~, I've tried to call him do discuss the subject in the talk page, no result. With other editors that reverted these IP editions, he used unapropriated language, so I won't adress him a single word. I made a request to block this IP in Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and also a request to protect page in Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (no result so far).

I'm reverting the editions in this article, because the IP is copying text from other articles (having duplication of content) and don't belong to this article.

I've noticed, that this IP was finally blocked (by you). So, its possible to revert his last edition or I'll be blocked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpo.castro (talk • contribs) 09:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the page has already been protected and the IP has been reverted. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Problem solve (at least from now). Regards.Rpo.castro (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

75.177.156.78

I know you temp banned this user before but do you mind telling him/her that threatning to get another user banned because they the change an article that they have edited is not illigal. Everytime this person didagrees with an edit he/she threatens to have to banned from WIKI. You can read through this person's editing history, they have done it several times.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.189.113.1 (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Where's the image license?

Here... where's the image license indicating it's suitability for use? All I can see is a link to APH which does not allow images to be used under Creative Commons. Same with Andrew Broad. Timeshift (talk) 02:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

That's what I thought, then I found this. There used to be a note there stating that images weren't covered but it isn't there any more, unless they've moved it and I can't find it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

"NonCommercial-NoDerivs". Wikipedia doesn't allow this. CC images must be available for commercial use and derivatives allowed. Should you remove the images from the articles or should I? Timeshift (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Done, ah well good while it lasted. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 02:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Kitty Wells

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 05:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't really think it needs it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

My SPI mess

I'm sorry for landing you with some messy work due to my error in filing the Admirenepal SPI case at that page for Pankaj1506. I still don't know why I did that: it isn't as if I am unfamiliar with the pair of them. Thanks for sorting it all out. - Sitush (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

No worries, I've always found complex moves like that strangely fun and satisfying. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

ANI and new restrictions on Septate

You had closed the ANI section which was concerned with the implementation of restrictions on Septate.[4] You will have to do it again, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic ban proposal. Many of the admins on ANI are arguing about closing and opening a thread where I am completely uninvolved, no hope that anyone will close this request anytime soon. Dougweller has also requested once and he had to make a reply yesterday or else this section was going to be archived without action. Thanks and please do it. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and next time any violation of restrictions can be reported here. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Technotopia SPI

I provided the additional information you requested on the SPI. Let me know if you need any other information, and thanks for your review. --McDoobAU93 13:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Sky0000

Hey, Callan, you gotta block them first and then slap the notice on their talk page. I did it for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I ticked the box with the SPI tool but left them a different message (plus I wrote three months in the SPI tool expiry box). So I suspect I confused it, possibly with the edit conflict. Thank you anyways. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23 While you're around, you're opinion on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Afro-Eurasian would be good. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

It'll have to wait until tomorrow. It's late and I'm tired. I'm gonna be on-wiki for a little longer but my brain is not functioning at full capacity.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

No worries, I know the feeling. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Agree with you and closed. Perhaps you could e-mail me in response to my implicit query. Best.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Understanding policy

I have some questions about the Consensus policy, specifically about "forum shopping," that I would like to discuss. You were the first person I thought of, but since you were the clerk in the case that ended up in my topic-ban, and you are the clerk (a clerk?) in the civility case that has not yet been opened... This is the question, and if you don't want to answer it, maybe you can recommend some uninvolved party?

If an editor goes to an admin's talk page to ask for help on something he/she feels is urgent, and if after some hours the admin does not respond (I understand admins, like the rest of us, have lives outside WP), is it considered forum shopping for that editor to then take her concern to ANI? The two policy subsections involved are WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE (which says to use RFCU or a request at ANI) and WP:FORUMSHOP. To be honest, if someone feels they're being stalked, I don't see how forum shopping applies. As a subsection of consensus, it seems to apply primarily to content disputes - not to resolving user conduct disputes.

Actually, just going through the effort of crafting this request makes it quite clear to me. Someone who thinks they are being stalked is not forum shopping by going to ANI. Still, if you feel differently, I would be interested in your explanation, or recommendation to an uninvolved party who can explain. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 01:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with that (as explained), as long as the admin hasn't responded and they're left a note which says that the user has taken it to ANI instead. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Merging SPIs?

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Supreme Elite Commander has claimed that he is in fact Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mr Wiki Pro. I supposed this should be looked into, and potentially merged, but am unsure of how exactly to go about it. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Leave it with me, I want to check on a few things first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

PC-protection expiring on or before 8 August 2014

Ted Bundy, Frequency, Seth Rogen, Lou Gehrig, Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa? --George Ho (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

And List of The Amazing World of Gumball characters? --George Ho (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Forgetting something? --George Ho (talk) 09:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Page protection

Can you put a semi-protection on this page? There is persistent sockpuppetry from an IP-hopping user. The same user[5] from here is back.Supersaiyen312 (talk) 07:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

List of European countries by average wage may need a semi-protection also, that seems to be his target right now. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive Editions of IP-hopper

Hi. I've added a new entry in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents about the IP Hoper CoUser1 (talk · contribs) here that maybe you want to check. I've also made a requesto to semi-protect to pages target by this user, here. Best regards.Rpo.castro (talk) 10:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Dealt with by others ANI. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Looks like User:Wikiman 36 is a sockpuppet of banned user User:COD T 3. Same comments, same behavior: [6]. Might restoring the version prior to his edit and protecting the article for awhile be a good idea?Faustian (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

COD T 3

Thank you for topic-banning COD T 3, in addition to the indef block for sock-puppetry, just in case he is unblocked. However, since he has already blanked his talk page repeatedly, removing block notices that may not be removed, he almost certainly will remove the topic-ban. Oh well. I wasn't at first sure that focusing on him over Faustian was right, but it is clear now. Faustian is an editor with a POV who tries to edit reasonably, while COD T 3 appears to be a disruptive sockmaster who has forfeited the assumption of good faith. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLANKING has been changed recently, it now allows editors to remove notices of current sanctions, so there is nothing that can be done about it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

SPI Clerk

Yunshui pointed me in your direction for mentorship as a clerk trainee. I already put my request in the appropriate page. I'd really appreciate it if you'd take me under your wing. :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪ ♀ Contribs ♀} 09:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm Yunshui, and I approve this message. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Given the recent chatter about non-admin clerks, and since they need to sign off anyway, I've sent an email to functionaries-en asking for some options from CUs. Hopefully, we'll have a response soon. Yunshui, you should come back and help out (pleeease)! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I really should... I'll try and get myself over there again. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Just peg me when the word comes down :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪ ♀ Contribs ♀} 02:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Not to badger, but is there any verdict? ♥ Solarra ♥ • _{T ♀ C} 05:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I haven't heard anything back, I've asked one of CUs if there has been any discussion. Depending on the outcome of WP:AUSC2014 I may be able to bring this up myself, but even if not I'll ask around and find out what's happening. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

So

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Is that two or three weeks yet, sorry can`t find question mark, been on it for a few days,sorry, Darkness Shines (talk)

No problem. I've had a look through some of your contribs and I still have a couple concerns:

• The edit war on Jodie Foster (whether using BLP exception or not) still suggests that this might continue to be an issue.
• This comment is incivil, bordering on a personal attack which reinforces one of the other issues which was brought up during the AE request.

So given that, I don't think this would be a good time to lift the sanction. Having said that, if you want to appeal or discuss further please do. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Not seeing how that is even remotely close to a PA, nor was it all that uncivil. To me it is a straightforward question to some very blatant idinnahearya. Jimmy Broole is a SPA, and his actions on that article and talk page speaks for itself, personally I think I have shown remarkable restraint given his actions over there. And one snarky comment is hardly the same as what I called my stalker, who funnily enough has yet again turned up at an article I created, weird how that keeps happening. Edit warring to remove a BLPCAT violation is not edit warring, and I did not go past 3RR, and I also took it to the talk page. Cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The point is that there are sources which describe her as gay so I don't except such removal is required (per WP:EW), nor is it negative and unsourced so there is no overridding reason to remove the category especially given the consensus on the talk page. Instead it would have been more appropriate to talk to the closed admin and let them know that there is a local consensus issue. However without litigating the issue, one of the things raised at AE and through looking through your contribs at the time was that you revert rather than discuss first. The "one snarky comment" is definitely incivil, Do you guys have reading issues? is a blatantly commenting on contributor not content. Whether the account you're addressing is an SPA or not, that doesn't justify it, which I believe was brought up at or around the AE request as well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

You may as well just ban me then, I am not about to become all sweetness and light just because some insist that I do, I am the way I am, and that is hardly going to change just because a few people do not like it. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I was clear. What I meant was that given the admin consensus was for indef I don't feel comfortable lifting the sanction unilaterally (which I suggested previously would be the case), however you should still feel free to appeal to WP:AE or WP:AN as the behaviour may have changed enough. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

And this is what you get for thrust, a cunt. Seriously, fuck you, obviously not to be remotely trusted. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Callanecc,

I am very concerned about DS's behaviour. DS seems not to be impressed by the sanctions imposed in a long list of cases.

User Darknes Shines cites A Reference Guide to Latin American History (page 155) as support for the 14. February 1879 as the date of the beginning of the War of the Pacific, The source is fine, but here are a few more: [7]. The book states on page 155:

Bolivia responded to Chilean protests by asserting the legality of the tax and declaring war on Chile (March 14., 1879). By that time Chilean forces had already seized the Bolivian port of Antofagasta (February 14., 1879).

There is no support for the 14. February date.

Furthermore, User Darkness Shines had no problem to invent a Combat of Antofagasta, on 14. February 1879. despite I asked DS twice ([8], [9]) to deliver a WP:RS for the statement, DS never did it. This is an "event" that never took place.

Both cases are a picture-book edit for WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. These edits lead to discussions, search in internet, compare of book and citation, and more discussion in the pages of admins.

My question is, what can be done in this case to "to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment"?. --Keysanger (Talk) 23:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, you're welcome to think whatever you want, expressing it like that just reinforces that the sanction shouldn't be lifted yet. If on a cursory look I couldn't find the behaviour which lead to the sanction I would have lifted it myself. However while ever there is I'm not going to lift it unilaterally and there will need to be discussion, which I certainly won't stand in the way of. Keysanger, to either WP:AE or WP:AN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

fyi

Sphilbrick has amended her comment on AE here. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

CVUA

Hi, Callanecc. I was wondering if there was an academy for CVUA-instructors (joking ;). I'd like your opinion on whether I'd be qualified to be a CVUA instructor, and if not, what qualifications you seek. Cheers and Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 00:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

There isn't a central page for instructors, the best information you'll find is the syllabus at Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy plus these two pages from the old version Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy (old)/Resources and Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy (old)/Instruction methods. As to whether you're ready, it's really a matter of personal opinion, if you think you can accurately and adequately teach then feel free to put your name down. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Sayerslle

I see that the case on User:Sayerslle [10] has been closed which is unfortunate because I had no chance to respond due to having no time to but given the fact User:Sayerslle has not paid attention to it and ignored it completely by not participating in it sheds light on how much he really wants to solve the dispute or cares about it. I urge you to seal the article off against User:Sayerslle [11] because he has so far reverted every single of my contributions to the article Down and Out in Paris and London without properly explaining himself or providing any counter-evidence except his own rambling either in the summary section (like this one) or my talk page where he feels absolutely okay to resort to ad hominem. I feel like he played a major deal in underestimating repercussions of the book by silently tossing a portion of content to the review section accompanied with no arguments to disprove sources (or their reliability). I have faith in the sources I have presented, that they were not factually compromised and absolutely neutral and although I can see people objecting to Ha'aretz for seeing them as conflicting I don't see a reason not to count Ha'aretz as a reliable source since the previous ruling on ANI [google reliable source haaretz site:en.wikipedia] did not find Ha'aretz unreliable but if that information is outdated please let me know. Sincerely, ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry didn't get a chance to look at this. Should get a chance in the next 24 hours. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

ItsAlwaysLupis you might want to heed the advice of those at ANI and comment on Talk:Down_and_Out_in_Paris_and_London#Mentions_of_antisemitism_and_racsism_in_the_lead instead of edit warring over the issue. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@ItsAlwaysLupus: Until you've joined the discussion on the talk page there isn't much we can do. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

On what talk page? There is at least a hundred discussions about this topic currently scattered all around and this way of handling the debate serves is just purposeless for all parties involved. How am I supposed to react whatsoever when there is a hundred talk pages to choose from? It would be fine if you all kept it confined within Down and Out in Paris and London talk page, okay? Also the user in question should not knee-jerk revert any previous edits until we come to a conclusion because this is actually a two-part edit that is not only about anti-Semitism but also deals with the doubtful and factually incorrect view about the book's genre (non-fictional memoir →‎ non-fiction novel [whatever that means]) and this overlooked albeit important tidbit of information keeps getting removed which really does not help either. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

what do you mean 'on what talk page? - of course on the talk page of the book. it would be good if we could sort out a lead we could agree on , on the talk page there, instead of changing the article text all the time in the lead between us - your versions are too slipshod imo and drag in odd refs, and then misrepresent material , like Rodden, I cant see him calling it a novel - but this belongs on the article talk page. saying 'on what talk page?' - that is just bizarre, lupus and doesn't inspire confidence.Sayerslle (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Blue Army (Poland) neutral edit violations

After account COD T 3 was blocked, user Faustian edited the Blue Army (Poland) article. The edits are significant/bias and were made without initiating any kind of discussion on the talk page (not covered by any of the RfCs). Also, the changes were made immediately after user Faustian received a ArbCom warning regarding his approach to editing the article. Please take action against such disruptive and bias behavior.

• Name of disputed section changed: "Controversies" to "Anti-Semitic Violence" - 14:16, 7 August 2014‎
• Removed long standing Undue Weight tag from disputed section, originally added after an unsuccessful Mediation Board: "Undue|section|date=June 2014" - 00:56, 7 August 2014‎

--Wikirun 20 (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

This guy is almost certainly sockpuppet #3: [12].Faustian (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, blocked as a obvious DUCK. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc, and you are an obvious FRAUD, this Kangaroo court ArbCom ignored abuse and biased statements directed at me and the article, even when they occurred weeks before the misrepresented statement that I was blocked for. See here:

• No User:COD T 3 is engaging in original research and Jew-baiting. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
• User:Faustian titles a talk page discussion "Blue Army Rapists" — statement blatantly bias, made on 04:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow! How can you ignore that? You sided with POV arguments that only served your own interests not neutrality. Now, you will get an easy ribbon for your user page and "approval" from the agenda driven Admins, because you weeded out a "disruptive" user who got in the way of their point of view. --Wikinonsense (talk) 09:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Another  Confirmed sock blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

PC-protection expiring on or before August 16, 2014

Extend time for Constitution of India, Ontario, and Dan Bilzerian? --George Ho (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Done two. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

PC-protection expiring on or before August 16, 2014

Extend time for Constitution of India, Ontario, and Dan Bilzerian? --George Ho (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Done two. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

CCAC

Please inform the user Jdey123 about climate change arbitration case. The editor recently added uncited synopsis and removed valid data from the climate change article, and begun reverting on that article. Thank You. prokaryotes (talk) 10:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Prokaryotes, the discretionary sanctions procedures allow any editor to alert someone else to discretionary sanctions using {{Ds/alert}}. So you alert them yourself rather than needing to find an admin. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, ok. prokaryotes (talk) 11:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Syrian civil war sanctions

Callan, I want to change {{Syrian Civil War enforcement}} to be consistent with the language in WP:SCWGS. The sanctions page does not say that an editor must be notified by an uninvolved administrator, whereas the template says, "This notice is effective only if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged ..." Before changing the template, I wanted to check with you as you were the last person to work on the template. Part of your restructuring of the template was just to make it read better, but you also added the uninvolved part. I just want to be sure that there isn't some discussion about this, at WP:AN for example, that I'm forgetting (I couldn't find any). At the same time I want to go a bit further and eliminate the requirement on the sanctions page that the notification may be done only by an administrator. All of this would be in keeping with the new ArbCom alert system, although I don't want to get that fancy, and the notification would still have to be logged. What are your thoughts?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Bbb23: No problems with that, I was just clarifying that the admin has to be uninvolved. My interpretation of your close on AN was that they echoed that ARBPIA as they were at the time and wouldn't change if the ARBPIA sanctions were changed, is that right? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that's technically correct, Callan, at least not without another discussion at WP:AN, but, frankly, I can't remember if pre-DS-changes only an uninvolved administrator could notify a user of the sanctions. Is that the way it was? I don't think my close says one way or the other, but it does say that we were mirroring ArbCom sanctions but through the community.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

This is the old copy it doesn't specify either way so feel free to remove it so that any editor can notify another. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Callan, very helpful. Tomorrow I will make the changes to the template and to the sanctions language to allow any editor to notify another editor of the sanctions. However, I'm going to phrase it so they use the template. I really don't like it when we say they can use similar language. It often results in non-neutral language. Conceptually, it may be okay, but practically it doesn't work well. I'll let you and Doug know after the changes are made so you can review them.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Hi - why does this say it can only be added by an uninvolved Administrator? I thought we'd changed that. So did Bbb23. Dougweller (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: Only administrators can issue discretionary sanctions (such as blocks, topic bans or revert restrictions on individual editors and pages). However, per WP:AC/DS any editor can alert another editor to discretionary sanctions with {{Ds/alert}}. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

That's my understanding also. Apologies, that was the wrong link. This[13] notice you are using says "This notice is effective only if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged at Talk:Syrian civil war/General sanctions#Log of notifications. " Dougweller (talk) 04:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

In that case merging with above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Callan and Doug, I've made two relatively minor but substantive changes to the template and the sanctions page. Hopefully, they'll meet with your approval.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 12 August 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Replied. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Lang-ko and Template:Lang-vi

Lower to semi-protection? You were the last person changing protection level of each template. --George Ho (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Around 1000 is generally my cut off for semi vs template protection so these are close enough that I'll leave them at TE. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pass a Method

Hello, Callanecc. I was referred to you by an editor via email about the following matter: Would you mind looking in on/assessing this case? The strong evidence that I presented there is currently being ignored, and it would be a travesty if Pass a Method was sent the message that he can essentially continue to WP:Sockpuppet without any consequences. The GoGatorMeds and ArordineriiiUkhtt accounts should be indefinitely blocked, as far as I can see, and so should the Pass a Method account. The Overagainst account is more iffy.

I have temporarily put your user page on my WP:Watchlist, so no need to ping me back here via WP:Echo if you reply. Flyer22 (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't really have time to check it out at the moment, Bbb23 might be able to help. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Bbb23 is mentioned in the investigation, since he was against one of Pass a Method's favorite editing angles. But Mike V has blocked two of the accounts so far. Flyer22 (talk) 07:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I assume that he re-opened the case to see if you would response there, and perhaps if anyone else has anything to state on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 07:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Reverting change in barebacking

Moved to Talk:Bareback (sex) § See also links

I disagree with you - bugchasing is a subtype of batebacking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deisenbe (talk • contribs) 15:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from, but for inclusion due to that reason it would need to be in the article text with a reference. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

User:COD T 3 AE sanctions

Not sure if you noticed, but this user is indefinitely blocked. Tiptoety ^talk 19:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I did, when I closed the AE request I said that'd topic banned them mainly for posterity in case they are unblocked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

He's baaack

This action recently expired, and it seems he's already back at it. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Leann Tilley

How do I retrieve the text to remediate the problem with this page? Mdeea (talk) 04:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)mdeea

The text of the article was a copyright infringement of http://www.asbmb.org.au/awards/tilley.html so I am unable to give you a copy of the deleted text. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Spambots

I've just removed six spambot user talk pages, all plugging alphafuelxt dot info/ (in its proper format, of course). It's some sort of bodybuilding junk, I think. Is it possible to put this onto a filter or blacklist, or is it best left alone so that the spam post is obvious to the patrollers? An example of this spam is at User talk:VBeep. Why the hell they think it's going to get them any business there, I just don't know. I also don't know about filters and blacklists... <8-( Peridon (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Blippy at BlackLight Power

Hello Callanecc. Last January you closed an AE complaint against User:Blippy with a six-month ban from all fringe topics including BlackLight Power. The ban expired in July. See User talk:Blippy#Edit warring at BlackLight Power for a new complaint about his edits of that article. This seems to be a renewal of the behavior for which he was originally sanctioned. In my opinion an indef ban from the domain of WP:ARBPS should be considered. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree. We're seeing some edit warring and POV pushing done even after warnings. Their talk page has numerous warnings. They know they are editing under ArbCom Discretionary sanctions, yet persist, even pretending they don't understand in what manner they were edit warring. We're not dealing with a newbie. They do know better. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I've taken an interest in monitoring the BLP article and Talk page as an uninvolved admin after being notified about the existence of the article in a comment on my User Talk. I've reviewed Blippy's contribs there. It's very concerning to me that after the 6-month topic ban, Blippy stopped editing altogether for 6 months and a few days, and then their first edits upon returning were to go right back to the same article with the same editing angle. A topic ban is supposed to give the editor a chance to gain experience in other areas; simply not editing for the entire length of the ban and then returning right to the same article that prompted the ban provides no evidence any learning was done.

With that, the only return to edit-warring behavior I see from Blippy is: [14][15]. I see Blippy discussing on the Talk page with what's coming across with a bit of a disingenuous tone but nothing actionable, yet. I'm keeping my eye on Blippy and others at the article and my threshold for action there hasn't been tripped quite yet (although it's close). Of course if any other uninvolved admin feels action is necessary, do what needs to be done. Zad68 03:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look Zad, I'm happy to go with your assessment at this stage and keep an eye on it. If there's anything further though I'd be quite likely to support an indef topic ban. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Thanks Zad. I agree that the purpose of the topic ban has been missed/avoided, and the SPA angle makes me strongly suspect a COI problem, with possible editing by one or more company reps and/or a real sock problem. We need to encourage someone to step forward as an official company representative on the talk page, one who can serve as a voice for BLP. Such a proactive stance will enable us to "get it right" while avoiding a chilling litigious atmosphere. They deserve some input, and also need to learn what is allowed here and what is legal. Internet "republication" of even libelous material is legal, but we, simply from ethical grounds, don't have to push that envelope. We can document it, but we won't push truly libelous content in Wikipedia's voice. We should document it, if only for NPOV and historical purposes. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I am looking for a 42-gun British Man-o-War in there somewhere

I am seeing a whole lot of inappropriate canvassing being mass-posted by Darkfrog24 (blocked by yourself for edit-warring an OR statement into Oathkeeper). Since her block, she's been following the limitations on her behavior to the letter, but some recent actions are imo cause for concern.
Not seeing any traction for her preferred edit from the Oathkeeper discussion page, RSN or two different RfC's thus far, she canvassed well over a dozen (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, etc.) other Game of Thrones-related articles for input.
Normally, I'd think this was fine, but after the first batch of canvassing, she didn't get the responses she was looking for, and has since expanded her canvassing (listed above). I am not seeing any intention of leeting this matter go. I for one am getting tired at the constant pressure for including material that has been downvoted by almost everyone she has interacted with.
As I am involved in this matter, I can't make more than an inquiry about the matter, as she will definitely not listen to my concerns. As the previous blocking admin, I would hope that you could say something. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that the notifications are inappropriate per WP:CANVASS#Inappropriate notification. Also, "Sorry lady, I've already made up my mind on you" (in that section is incivil and does nothing to help your argument at all. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Russavia's SPI

Could you also block this little socky? :) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 15:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Afro-Eurasian

Hey, Callan, if you have the time, please take a look at this SPI and tell me what you think. Poor Borsoka has worked so hard to demonstrate a behavioral relationship, and despite all his points, I think it's thin. Also, I think it's fairly important that the two accounts have been indeffed anyway, even if not for socking. If you don't have time, no worries. BTW, I'm leaving it closed, and it's possible that it'll get archived. If you do decide to look at it, don't let that stop you. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

At the quick look I had I think your assessment was pretty accurate, though I didn't look too deeply into it. My general philosophy is that if the account is related it'll do something later on that gives it away. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Callan, that helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Q

I don't understand your comment on my talk page. Why do I have to recommend that the committee accept the case to be considered making a constructive comment. Your commend appears biased to me. 15:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to recommend that they accept just what ever argument you make needs to be constructive and supported by evidence. Sorry for the confusion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

your Conduct

Here reporting your Conduct which is not correct and it seems you are abusing your role on Wikipedia.

I'm an 82 year old lady and am feeling distressed by your Conduct. Why are you deleting ip address of new wikipedia users and editors who are doing things correctly ? Why are you accusing me of committing sick poppetetry? What is that and why did you block my home ip — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.19.110 (talk) 07:31, 21 August 2014‎ (UTC)

Sockpuppetry is using multiple accounts or IP addresses against policy, and in this case evading a block. You aren't allowed to edit from more than one account except in certain limited circumstances, which were not followed in this case. Given that you have already been blocked you should only edit from the talk page of your main account. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly why you are wrong. I have NOT used multiple accounts or ips. So why are you accusing me of it? You are abusing your role and making false accusations. The only time I'm using another ip is to write on your talk page because you blocked my home ip I'm using my cell phone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.19.39 (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

You just said you had been. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

C.b.299

Please can you do something about this user. He continues to vandalise pages of professional footballers, editing in incorrect statistics which take the place of correct information and/or deleting antire swathes of information.

78.145.95.235 (talk) 23:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for three days. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Malky Mackay

Hi I'm a fairly new editor and gave just had my first deletion. The subject is a football professional involved in a scandal over recent racist and homophobic texts. I added a link to the UK daily telegraph ( a respected UK newspaper) which has coverage of the details and immediately had the text removed by someone whois clearly football orientated and I suspect probably a friend of the person concerned. Basically he's trying to do a whitewash of the incident.

I have reverted his deletion but suspect it will be re-reverted shortly. What can I do about this blatant whitewash pls? Can you assist?

John G6cid (talk) 01:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The reason your addition was removed is that there is no encyclopedic gain to having a link in the text messages for only that purpose. Wikipedia reports events neutral way which doesn't give undue weight. Also, in the future, please ensure that you comment on the content not the contributor, making unfounded comments about contributors is incivil and may be a personal attack. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Lifeontech

Hi Thanks for welcoming to editing Wikipedia. However, it's not the first time.

Re the edit-warring case I've been reported on. Please note that:

1. No three reversions of content were made thus no violation of WP:3RR I reckon.
2. My account is no sleeper: generally I contribute financially not editorially.
3. Previous page versions referred to biased or single POV sources of information or based of unconfirmed data. No alternative sources were represented which led to violation of WP:POV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifeontech (talk • contribs) 04:48, 25 August 2014‎ (UTC)

The fact that there haven't been more than three reverts is the only reason you aren't blocked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

How was there not more than three reverts? I count four or five. Diffs were provided.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

A consecutive series of edits (with no intervening edit by someone else) only counts once, so I wasn't considering the edits from the 23rd only those from the 25th. So there are only three which count toward 3RR on 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, the reason is that I'm almost in opposite time zone to UTC so while I took edits within two days (pm on prev day and am next day), it appeared as 3RR to you. I admit I missed that point however, it points to some inperfectness in rules based on time lasting when uncautious editors may be caught in a trap (Redacted). Lifeontech (talk) 06:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Given the three edits I'm referring to are within about three hours of each other I'm not sure that's relevant. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Steve McFadden

Hello

Can I please ask what is happening with Steve McFadden? It's just that you added on semi protection, however the article already has indefinite pending changes protection and that appears to have been left on?

In all honesty I don't know that semi protecting the article would work. I think I tried that a while back and the sock simply vandalised more articles. 5 albert square (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Removed Pending changes from the Steve McFadden article. I assume that the use of both protections was inadvertent. Please revert if you disagree. EdJohnston (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. 5 albert square sent you an email. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the email Calcaneus. Because of what you said I have upgraded the article to indefinite semi protection. I think it's best that way. 5 albert square (talk) 06:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup needed on aisle five

Could you address / remove / collapse the side conversations between Risker & T Canens and Hasteur & Risker at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media_Viewer_RfC/Proposed_decision#Proposed_motion:_Case_suspended ? NE Ent 03:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up NE, leave it with me. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Some arb cases still contain old language about how to give DS notices

Please see my recent update to WP:ARBAA2. Does this agree with your understanding of the new rules? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me. When May comes around I'm thinking it might be worth collapsing or removing the logged notifications so there is no confusion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It looks like WP:ARBPIA has been updated at least partially:

List here editors who have been placed on notice of the remedies in place in this case (including the diff of the notification). For convenience, the template {{subst:Palestine-Israel enforcement}} may be used, or an individual message containing the same information. Under the 2014 revisions to discretionary sanctions, consider using {{subst:alert|a-i}}, in which case the notification does not have to be logged.

We should probably get rid of 'an individual message containing the same information' and 'Consider using...' The current wording of WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts says that the template message has to be placed unmodified on the talk page of the person being alerted. So there is no optional language any more. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Changed that one and added a sentence to WP:ARBAA2, I'll go through the others and check them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Congrats!

Congrats! And feel free to ask if you have questions... I would assume Trijnstel has already sent you info about getting on the global stuff. --Rschen7754 04:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Trijnstel asked someone to add me to the list and wiki, and got my email address and IRC details. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course, you know I wish you nothing but the best, but I wish there were a way you could do what you want and not stop clerking at SPI. It's a major loss. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, all CUs are clerks, and are still allowed to do clerk stuff... though they usually don't, since we're here to help them :P --Rschen7754 05:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, then, you'll just have to take up the slack, won't you? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 05:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm somehow above and below the CUs, so I don't even know what to say here... --Rschen7754 05:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Use the above part and figure out a way. Seriously, without meaning to embarrass Callan, I've been a fan for quite some time. He's special. Cheers, everyone.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Nawww! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Amanda Eliasch

Hi Callanecc, this trashy non notable Amanda Eliasch article has been recreated. I put this under SFD last week @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Eliasch and Orangemike speedy deleted it, the reason CSD G11. Now it's been recreated? Is it normal for the article to be recreated so quickly. I think the Afd outcome would have been delete, based on initial comments. scope_creep talk 22:45 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi scope creep, I've reblocked the IP but the additions by Sionk are significant enough for it not to qualify for CSD§G5 and I don't believe any of the other criteria apply so it will need to go back to AfD if you still think it should have been deleted. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey scope_creep, thanks for calling it trashy ;) I helped rewrite it and re-source it (something I believ could have been easily done without speedy'ing it), therfore hardly think it is "trashy". To be honest, it sounds very much like IDONTLIKEIT argument from a number of editors. If someone is generally notable, the subject of a number of major newspaper articles over a 15 year period, that's generally good enough for me. I've no great affinity with millionaire socialites, but try and take each subject on its merits. Sionk (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: The VoA template

Hello, Callanecc. You have new messages at 1999sportsfan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

1999sportsfan (talk) 11:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fairyspit

Since it's been confirmed does that mean they can be blocked and the SPI closed? LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Yep just needs an admin to come by and action it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. 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) 00:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Summichum

Since his return, he is disrupting those pages because of which he was blocked 4 times. Pages include Mufaddal Saifuddin, 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra), etc. I am unsure that why he requested Speedy deletion of Talk:Qutbi Bohra. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

You probably need to take this to WP:AN if you believe that sanctions are needed, what I can do on my own authority is limited. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The Mousetrap

Hello! I've noticed that you semi-protected the above mentioned page until February of next year. There's just two slight problems with that. First, and most importantly, the level of vandalism lately has been far too low to deserve semi-protection of any length. For the month of August, I see only three unconstructive edits to the page. There are articles which receive more vandalism but are not even given pending changes protection, let alone semi-protection. Secondly, there was a discussion on the talk page about two years ago, and the consensus was to implement PC in place of semi-protection in order to allow constructive editing by IPs.

In light of this, I kindly ask you to remove the semi-protection and re-implement pending changes to the article The Mousetrap. Thank you and happy editing. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Replied at WP:RFPP. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Ray Allen

Hi. Could Ray Allen please be semi-protected again due to vandalism? Two weeks ago it was semi-protected for the same thing and it worked brilliantly as no one edited it in those two weeks. But now, less then 24 hours after protection ceased, vandalism has started up again. Thanks for your time. DaHuzyBru (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of one month. After one month the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Callanecc. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.
Message added 14:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Appeal

I have filed an appeal against the TBAN you imposed here Darkness Shines (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Instantnood

Hello, would you just confirm for me that this diff is intended to say that all of the accounts listed as "confirmed" are operating from the same IP, and that that IP is an exact match for the IP of User:Instantnood who has been banned now for seven years? Or is it your intention to say that the investigation satisfactorily shows the accounts in question to be the actions of User:Instantnood? ~ R.T.G 13:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't say much more due to the privacy policy, except that there all linked to each other (as I said in my results) and I'm fairly sure it's Instantnood. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a negative. You can tell me if the IPs match or not. The privacy policy regarding this is explicit. ~ R.T.G 14:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't see any CU data on Instantnood prior to this, it's all stale (not there anymore) so I can't tell you if they match as I can't see it. I was referring to the IPs listed in the archive I can't link to them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Well can you not even say if they are using one IP address? I mean the policy states you should be general so as not to be personally identifying but what you've written is more like vague. I'm not really trying to question your personal conduct, but I may request that the case be reviewed as something other than sockpuppetry, that's the point if you are wondering. ~ R.T.G 14:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I can see you are a busy editor, don't worry about getting into a long debate, I have no personal complaints for you or philosophical debates or anything don't worry. ~ R.T.G 14:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean "...I may request that the case be reviewed as something other than sockpuppetry"? --IJBall (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, RTG. What the hell are you going on about regarding this case?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Leadership

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I think I might leave it without protection and see what happens. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Aldota sockpuppet accounts

Hi, I can see you added tags to some of the user pages on blocked sockpuppet accounts from Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Aldota. However, it would appear that one-by-one throwaway IPs are vandalising these user pages by removing or amending the tags so the account no longer appears in the category.

I have restored all the tags on all the account I have found, however, you may wish to add the userpages to your watchlist to monitor any potential future vandalism or protect the pages, thanks take care. Tanbircdq (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Tanbircdq, I've had a look and watchlisted some of them. It be good if you could watchlist all pages in a category. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:08, 1 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 [[16]]. 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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

@Nyttend: Once you get into it it's not too hard, and there are a lot of requests which don't need a checkuser but are just sitting there waiting for an admin to look at behaviour. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

And now he is edit warring, infringing copyrights on this page[17] Yes this 115. ip is him, see [18] same edits. He also raged on talk page of his SPI too with this ip.[19]

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)

@Bladesmulti: I've semi protected the article. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes and you blocked the new sock too. Thanks! Bladesmulti (talk) 10:57, 8 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)

Extended for two days. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

RevDel

Hi Callanecc. Thanks for RevDel'ing those two edits by User:Rosberg the great. Could you please also RevDel all the other edits by that user, which are similar racist vandalism. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 10:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 10:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi again Callanecc. Could you please also RevDel the edits by Rosberg the great's sockpuppets User:Errscord and User:Tokenanab, which are similar racist vandalism (just using a different word). I have requested an edit filter to try to address the issue. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Surprising "CU decline"

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Reddyuday. I disagree with the action of User:Yunshui.

Just because a user admits that they have used the alleged sock accounts, it warrants clerk to decline CU? It seems to me like this user has probably got more sock accounts and only for avoiding such investigation he and his friend (Vanamonde93) requested for the CU decline.

Also acknowledge that this user was warned[20] about discretionary sanctions of India, Pakistan, Afghanistan. Still he abused multiple accounts on discussions like Talk:Caste_system_in_India#OR_of_source.3F. Maybe indef block with STANDARDOFFER is to come. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Well first step is to discuss this with Yunshui. But I will say that before running a check a CheckUser needs to show that (in addition to some other things) it is necessary. For example, that there are likely other accounts, if they can't do that it's fishing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems correct, thanks. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

SPI/Topic ban

I created the following SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rhelen305#09_September_2014, which is very prolific and ongoing, so an expedited clerk would be appreciated. As it was [21] this edit on a user talk page I watch that made me aware of the socking, I will step away from this investigation as it borders my GC topic ban (As I stated on the SPI, the article does not mention GC, is not catted that way, and none of the sock edits that I have seen are on the topic of GC, but if it is determined to fall under the ban, I think WP:BANEX may apply due to the level of socking disruption involved. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Bearean hunter got to it already, so no action needed. I fear I did not follow through on my statement to step away, I got the bug to follow through the various contribs and find more socks, but as I examined more of the socks and diffs, it became apparent to me that it would not fall under my ban as nothing was related. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability. 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, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Just curious

Sorry to disturb you with an upfront question, but I was reading up on what clerks do here, and noticed you appear to be a master of all trades. How many hours a day do you usually wiki? I hope you don't mind the question.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It really depends on what's going on. Sometimes none, sometimes up to 6 or 10, but generally I'd guess around 3-5 is you were to add them all together. I sometimes lurk during the day (depending on what I'm doing) and do things if they come up while I'm watching. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Syrian civil war detailed map

Since I saw you have regularly administered the ban on more than one revert per day on the Syrian civil war map, I would like to report User:Boredwhytekid has made two reverts on the map today within 8 minutes of eachother. He reverted an edit made by Hanibal911 [22] and an edit I made [23]. Same goes for User:Paolowalter. He made two reverts in less than 24 hours. He reverted an edit made by Jafar Saeer [24] and another edit I made [25] 21 hours later. EkoGraf (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Boredwhytekid's reverts are a series of edits so as far as WP:1RR (and WP:3RR) are concerned they only count once, hence no 1RR vio. And I've warned Paolowalter. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Re:

Hey! If you are not the appropriate person to reach out to, I apologize in advance. On the talk page of Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War, latest section "Halafaya", User:Hwinsp just deleted one of my comments here and replaced it with his own here. I do not know what is a wiki-appropriate response to said action. Help or advise please? Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry brother.My mistake.I am new at wikipedia.Hwinsp (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

No worries, I assume good faith :). Callanecc - sorry for cluttering your page Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

PC-protection on pages expiring on or before September 19

Seven Wonders of the Ancient World and Saturday Night Live (season 39)? --George Ho (talk) 07:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Questionable close of VPIN AfD

I very rarely complain about admin actions, but I feel a need to say something about the VPIN AfD. I understand your need to blank the SPI associated with the AfD, due to outing issues. But when you did this, you became an involved party in the VPIN discussion. You should have let another uninvolved admin close the AfD; doing so yourself was a conflict of interest.

I've participated in what must be hundreds of AfD discussions by now and this one had all the signs of extensive sockpuppetry. As the effective consensus hinged on the outcome of the ongoing SPI (except for the nom, I think most the editors recommending delete were named in the SPI case), closing the AfD was also premature. While in theory the SPI could continue to be pursued and the deletion reviewed, we both know that closing an AfD has a chilling effect on discussion and no one likes taking an AfD to deletion review. It would have been wiser to leave the AfD open until the SPI had either been concluded or been dropped. --Mark viking (talk) 06:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree regarding being involved, WP:INVOLVED makes it clear that admin actions don't make you involved so the logical extension is that oversight actions don't either. The guidelines for filing a sockpuppetry report state that if vote fraud is suspected which would have affected the outcome the filer should "wait until vote closes before requesting checkuser". Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit filter tweak

Hi Callanecc. Could you please tweak the edit filter to also prevent the addition of "chimpanzee", per this edit? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Callanecc. The reactivation/tweaking of that edit filter don't seem to have been fully effective, e.g. they didn't prevent this edit. Can you please investigate? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 06:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't got it set to prevent the edit at the moment, only to tag it as a possible BLP violation as I want to check that it's not catching false positives. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

California Bar Article: Someone deleting entire sections again without discussion.

I hope you are doing well. Sorry to take up your time; Previously you kindly and judiciously intervened on the California State Bar article to prevent vandalism on a section noting sourced criticisms of the California Bar (a public entity). [ http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=State_Bar_of_California&action=history ] The deleted section contained quotes by the courts, for example, noting the California Bar is a state entity and had tried to take over federal licensing (The court criticized the Bar for involving itself in Federal matters). Other criticisms were by Slate Magazine, noting that the Bar admitted not addressing a huge backlog of complaints against lawyers. These are all uncontroversial sources with proper citations, and the Bar is a public entity.

I'm writing to you because, again someone without any discussion, has come along and deleted an entire section (not just a revision here or there). Basically they have white-washed the California Bar article to make it look like the courts, magazines, and legal scholars have never had any critiques of the Bar.

The only reason that has been given for deletion of the entire section, which makes absolutely no sense on its face, is as follows: "It's all very recent too; this organisation existed long before 2006." This makes absolutely no sense: They deleted several paragraphs of citations, not all of which are from the year 2006. And does it really matter that quote is from 2006? It's the first time I have heard such Wikipedia rule.

At any rate, I just thought I'd put a note on your page because I already know that you are a fair-minded and careful Administrator; and I hope whomever is doing this doesn't turn it into a case of edit warring.

Have a great day and much thanks for being a really good Admin (I feel guilty even taking up your time on this because you already stepped in once before). Thanks again.

--2.177.199.187 (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Nyttend reverted your edit due to the following guidelines/essays: WP:Undue weight and WP:Recentism. It is important on Wikipedia to ensure that we don't give too much weight to either good or bad aspects and events, especially recent events where the long-term effect of the event is unknown. If you want there to be an addition to the article you should start a discussion on the talk page to reach a consensus on how much and what should be included in the article. In fact an editor has already started a section, but you haven't replied. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I addressed the concerns on the article's talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:State_Bar_of_California#.22Due_Weight.22_Standard_-_Criticisms_of_the_California_Bar Thanks for your effort in this.

2.177.99.84 (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Istrian exodus yet again

Hi. Well, I did what I could, but honestly I'm wondering why you thought a 3O was going to accomplish anything at all over there. Those two have been at each other's throats for around 15 months now. A previous 3O was given but pretty much ignored, and a DRN that no volunteer was willing to take on. I can't really see what has changed except that the level of viciousness has increased.

Point: what this article obviously needs is not to have POV-pushers and a biased gate-keeper all over it, but to have a neutral historian work on it in peace, preferably a tenured academic historian who might know what sources are worth how much. Fat chance! What neutral and competent person is going to see this kind of thing and entertain the idea that their time will be well spent there? This is a conduct issue, pure and simple, isn't it?

I see you posted the standard DS alert to both these editors' talk pages on 1st June, but no sanctions have been forthcoming. I thought long and hard about posting an enforcement request, but have decided against it since that would open up to the Italian socks. Imho there are only two possible ways to deal with that article: (a) stub it and have someone with a block button watch it and block any POV-pusher on sight, or (b) stub it and fully protect it in perpetuo. I realise that Wikipedia culture may not approve such things, but if we can't exercise that sort of discipline over the battlegrounds, it seems ridiculous to hope that crowd-sourced articles on such emotive subjects could ever become encyclopedic.

Anyway, I'm done. I see little point spending any more time on content issues there, unless there was something specific you were looking for? Regards, --Stfg (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Gents, I have no problem in taking a share of responsability if I have any and probably I must have some, otherwise stfg would have written a different edit. However, I can write without any fear that Director's conduct is organic exactly to this objective: making other editors running away so that he can have things his way. Unfortunately I do not have the seniority and the competence to avoid this from happening. The best I can do is not to react to his provocations. But this has proven being not enough.

Perhaps a well formed RfC could be a proper way to move things forward. And if socks will try to get in, well discipline should be enforced. The Istrian exodus is a very controversial matter but similar issues have been succesfully treated in WP.

However please note that in this 3O I have never - not a single time - offended in any way any user (I have been offended many times). And yes, we face an issue of conduct here. By the way, what should we think of an user who writes that 3RR is a valuable way to have things your way [26] ? Silvio1973 (talk) 23:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think that has to be acknowledged. Silvio has endured exceptionally rude and virulent personal attacks and has remained patient and courteous throughout. I have never even seen so much as a snarky comment from him, much less a personal attack. I'm not yet 100% certain of where he wants to take the article, but of his conduct I have no criticism at all. Sorry if my attempt at being impartial ended up as being something else. --Stfg (talk) 23:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Stfg, it is not difficult for me to be polite, it is part of my education. Yes, Director was rude but this is his problem not mine. Of course, he should be sanctioned because my patience is not a passport for his incivility (and really he treated me during the last 15 months like shit [27] and as he got never sanctioned he might feel he has the right to do so).

Concerning the article (and talking about that it's by far more interesting) I was satisfied (not happy) where we were. I would have very likely accepted your proposal for section #1 in the lede and section #2 was agreed. No doubt that those edits would have been refined later but at least we would have moved out of this moving sand. Please, rejoin again the 3O and propose something. With the article modified and a long term protection enforced things might settle down. Ending the 3O without deciding is IMHO the worst possible conclusion. Please reconsider again before leaving this 3O. Silvio1973 (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Silvio, I thought I had given my view on both the issues you raised, but if you think there's more that I can address in the context of your 3O request, please would you say so in the new subsection on the article talk page. I came here to ask Callanecc what he would like to happen.

@Callanecc, sorry about this turning into a branch of Talk:Istrian exodus. Will try to avoid that in future. Returning to the main question: is there any more you were hoping I might be able to do there? --Stfg (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I've had a look through the discussions and I can see what you mean re a conduct issue though I'm not sure there is a lot I can do apart from send it further into WP:DR to try and get a solution and more evidence of the conduct issue (maybe take it to AN in the future). Thanks for the work you put into this! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at it. I don't think it would help to take it further into DR right now, as there isn't a precise issue we could pinpoint, and I think it might do no more than drag yet another editor into the fray. You may have noticed that the dynamic has changed since a little less than a week ago. I'll keep it on my watch list for now, and if it goes quiet, another way to test the water may be for me to attempt a copy edit in a couple of months' time, and see whether it's allowed to fly. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (films). 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, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Ascii002

I would like to get your opinion on this: User_talk:Chillum#Autoblock.

I blocked user:Rajesh Khadka447 for sock puppetry and the autoblock hit Ascii002's IP. Given the prior block on Ascii002 by you for sock puppetry I wanted to get your opinion on the matter.

I suspect this may be a second case of sock puppetry in which case I think an indef block is in order. If this is not then I should remove the autoblock.

What do you think? Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 04:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Chillum, I ran a CheckUser and I'm going to get another opinion before I comment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Rahfatsalman SPI archival

Hi. I noticed you archived the Rahfatsalman SPI, but not the related Sibtain 007 SPI. Is it OK to archive the second SPI? Or is there a need to keep it around for a while longer? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

If Bbb23 is finished with it it can be archived. Only reason I didn't is because it wasn't marked as closed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry folks, I was waiting to see if Bilby commented and then I forgot to go back and look. He hasn't, so I just closed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

User's long-term abuse of editing privileges and possible SPI

Hi Callanecc. I wasn't sure if any particular noticeboard was appropriate for this... WP:ANI seemed a bit drastic. If this is better suited to discuss there or elsewhere, please let me know and I'll repost it.

User:Ron Robey has been using Wikipedia for all the wrong reasons, including:

Using his user talk page to...

• post self-penned song lyrics [28]
• rant about how he's been persecuted [29]
• proselytizing [30]
• WP:HOWTO advice [31]
• various self-promotion [32]
• promoting his business, Lighting by Veterans [33]

... as well as ranting about the name of a sports team mixed with claims of religious persecution, posted four times [34], [35], [36], [37].

I reported a related user Lighting By Veterans to WP:UAA, which was blocked as a WP:CORPNAME by Alexf. [38]

As well, the user Tina Matney appears to be a WP:SOCK, as the only contributions are promotional pieces in support of Ron Robey: User:Tina Matney/sandbox, [39] (repost [40]), [41]; and self-awarded praise [42], [43].

Looks to me like a person with delusions of grandeur using Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX and a free web host for his various ravings. Any advice? --Drm310 (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Drm310: I've blocked the account as they there are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Could you please file a sockpuppet case with the three accounts you mentioned plus User:American Veterans Fence Company (from Ron Robey's userpage). Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you beat me to it! Thanks for taking care of that. --Drm310 (talk) 07:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The Mahfouz Foundation / Mahfouz Bin Marei Bin Mahfouz

Moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ctfn

Hi Callanecc,

Thank you for your time and help. For the two articles i have added more information and more reliable sources and references to make the the articles more solid and wealthy with evidences. I do not know which versions of the articles you are comparing against but i can send you these two articles with all information by email if you wish. I have had the initial information of the two articles from my colleague in UK who was working on it but because he has lack of experience with Wikipedia as well as he was travelling a lot so he handed over the information to me and i have managed to gather more information from the Foundation itself and its founders to make the articles more wealthy of information.

Please kindly help me because i have been more than 3 months trying to create them but every time i get very disappointed from lack of support from Wikipedian.

Cheers, AhmadMidoahmad (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Kaldari sockpuppet investigation

Callanecc, per your request, I have added more evidence re the similar opinions and writing style to the SPI of Kaldari. Let me know if you need more evidence, but, per my update at the SPI, the opinions of Kaldari and Kaletony re gamers and misogyny is quite striking. To be satisfactorily resolved one way or the other, I suspect that this case will require a CU. Thanks. Memills (talk) 05:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I need diffs which prove what you're saying. For example, in what edit does Kaldari admit to sockpuppetry, in which diffs do they both say Wikipediocracy is a reliable source? I need quite a bit of evidence to check a well established user. See Template:DiffsNeeded for more information. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I added a link where Kaldari previously admitted to sockpuppetry, but, looks like the case has been closed out now.

A (somewhat related) question for you: Kaletony has been identified as a sock, but why is he/she still able to edit their Talk page? Kaletony is has been using it to taunt me and other editors. Thanks. Memills (talk) 04:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

MIG29VN Sockpuppetry case

Hello, you asked me to contact you if the Hanoi shill starts editing with the "1.55" starting IP's again. Didn't take long, he already has. See here 1.55.56.36. Greetings JamesRussels (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've blocked 1.55.48.0/20. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Quick question regarding a SPI

In regards to the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/E4024 case: E4024 has been socking with other IP's. Please see his former cases. Shall I include those IP's as part of the current report as well? Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The IPs in the archive of that case haven't edited for a while so probably don't need to include them again. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration case request

Hello! Would it be appropriate for you (or another clerk) to tag the editors mentioned in the statements on this case. It seems that if names are being given then those editors should be notified. Thank you for taking a look. Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

PC-protection expiring on or before September 26

Saturday Night Live (season 39), Slugterra: Ghoul from Beyond, List of Bonkers episodes, and Bonkers (TV series)? --George Ho (talk) 05:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Reply

Replied on my user talk page. I'm a bit confused as to what you would have me do here? — Cirt (talk) 11:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Translation

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Translation. 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, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

California State Bar

State Bar of California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Extended content

1. A consensus was reached on including a criticisms section on the California State Bar, with most of the commentators saying the section was long over due. Thank you on your advice on that. 2. I'm writing to you about a new issue, which is a recurrence of an old issue: The User SantiLak that you previously warned about edit warring is back it. You will see that he is just reverting edits without discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=State_Bar_of_California&action=history 3. You were kind enough to previously caution SantiLak on the article and on his SantiLak's talk page: "Callanecc (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (43,108 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Protected State Bar of California: Edit warring / content dispute." 4. The item he is deleting now (regarding the 'Keller' case) -- again without discussion -- has such a strong agreement among editors that it even has its own Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keller_v._State_Bar_of_California I even pointed it out to him on the Talk Page last week before including it; he didn't even reply. 5. What is the Keller case? The U.S. Supreme Court told the State Bar that they were violating the First Amendment rights of its members by demanding mandatory fees and then using those fees to force members to support the political and ideological activities of the State Bar. 6. I've talked to SantiLak, you've warned him. I have written pages and pages of politely worded explanations and discussions, only to be personally attacked. He has written pages and pages of strange things, for example, accusing me of being a "Russian." (I'm not, but what difference could that possibly make?) 7. I just want to be up-front with you: Since I deal with him on a weekly basis, he is playing a game; frequently edit warring without discussion; and when he does respond, it's often in the form of personal attacks. If I take my eye off of that article he will sanitize salient points that many other editors have judged fit to include. I have always followed your advice. You are a good editor. This time around, please do something about SantiLak. Can't you just give him some sort of 'Time Out"? I checked his Talk Page and it looks like dozens of others have had the same problem. Thanks for your time and effort, and I hope you have a great week. 2.177.144.12 (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC) I think I have the right to respond to these allegations again. A consensus has not been reached, all the IP user did to gain a consensus was go to year's old discussions and add responses that said things like "Agreed." I am not reverting any edits again, in fact I didn't remove any of the keller material, I just shifted it to a different section, member fee authorization process because it seemed more relevant there. The IP user claims that I have personally attacked them when it is the other way around. The user went on my talk page after I invited them to continue the state bar discussion as they hadn't responded in nearly a week. What they did was go to each time that a user had been annoyed with me and claim that I had been blocked and that I was an abusive user even after the issue had been resolved. I didn't accuse them of being a russian, I did respond to claims they had said that I removed things from my talk page by reminding them that I had only removed copied and pasted warnings by a Russian IP user who was blocked. They instead went on the state bar talk page and accused me of being an employee of the state bar. I haven't been edit warring without discussion, if you look at the history of the state bar page you can see that up until when I shifted the Keller to a different section, which was only 2 edits, I hadn't edited it in 22 days which was when you admin only protected the page. I didn't attack them personally in any way and I haven't removed any salient information. No other users besides myself have judged the material to be salient. All that has happened is I have stated my concerns, then they have accused me of not citing any specific concerns and then I wrote a very long description with quotations of every one of their additions and why I felt they didn't belong but they didn't respond to my concerns. I am trying to follow wikipedia policy by discussing it but the other user isn't participating and is just going around slandering me on my talk page in irrelevant discussions, reverting my edits to other pages with the only reason being that I was once warned by an admin. I really want to solve this with discussion and all they seem to want to do is accuse me of things and not discuss the issues. SantiLak (talk) 04:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC) What SantiLak says above: "I haven't been edit warring without discussion SantiLak 04:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)" What SantiLak admitted to another editor: "I never said I wasn't edit warring then, I readily admitted it .... SantiLak (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)" What an Admin said to SantiLak: "You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on User talk:Arontrice. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)" Dear friend, I say this with respect for you and your time; he's been going at it like this for weeks now. You warned him, as have other Admins on his Talk Page. Let's not allow good faith editors to be driven out of here from these types of ongoing behaviors. Thank you. 2.177.170.75 (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC) SantiLak's repeated ad hominem attacks on an article about the California Bar! "The 4 separate IP users are you, one of your other IP's that you use, and two sockpuppets of a blocked russian IP. SantiLak (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)" "I didn't remove any of the keller material, I just shifted it to a different section.SantiLak 04:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)" He hasn't written 1 thing about Keller on the article. However, on Sep. 22, he removed (again without discussion) all of the Keller citations in the criticisms section -- precisely what you told him not to do. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=State_Bar_of_California&action=history If SantiLak has written something about Keller for the article, a quote and a link would prove it. You will never see it because it did not happen. He just reverts edits without discussion. 2.177.170.75 (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC) I don't know how this IP can continue on with these kinds of ridiculous accusations. I said today that I haven't been edit warring or really editing at all without discussion in reference to the accusations they made. I admitted that I had been edit warring by violating 3RR on Arontrice's talk page which is what you warned me about and I stopped then. That response to another editor was to that IP user who had been going around my talk page and adding responses to any time another user was mad at me for a csd template or for removing a rothschild conspiracy from the UN peacekeeping page. If you look in the history of the State bar page you will see that I moved the Keller information from the criticism section to the member fee authorization process section which is where other cases on that had been added. I did discuss it an mentioned that it would most likely be more appropriate in the member fee authorization process but the IP user again ignored me. I cited my change in the keller location in the article and did not revert any edits. I did not commit any ad hominen attacks and when I wrote ""The 4 separate IP users are you, one of your other IP's that you use, and two sockpuppets of a blocked russian IP", I was referencing two IP's used by a Russian user who eventually changed to arontrice who had been vandalizing my talk page and was blocked and the two different IP addresses used by that same user. I wasn't calling them Russian, I was just explaining why I had removed warnings that they claimed were key to the page. SantiLak (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Some general advice for both of you:

• Stop editing the article. 2.177.170.75 if you keep going you will get yourself blocked.
• Take a couple fays and have a break whether off Wikipedia or away from this topic. You both need to calm down and think about something else for a bit then come back with clear minds. Sound airy-fairy but it does help.
• Focus on the content which is in dispute rather than each other.
• After the couple days away put a neutral post on the talk page of the two WikiProjects ask ask for assistance and additional opinions to resolve the content dispute.
• Stop communicating in walls of text, they make it very difficult to come to agreement. Instead focus on bits of the article, section by section (the lead last) or one topic at a time.
• Have a look at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE specifically WP:SEEKHELP can you agree that one of those noticeboards might be able to help.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Likely Andrewbf's sock

Indiaman2223 and Special:Contributions/187.211.100.157 seems likely Andrewbf's pattern, recently disrupting defended Binksternet on house music, Stay the Night (Zedd song) and Clarity (song). Another account is Inidian maninian, named instead of Indian man, he/she posted on talk page for house music, similar with first diff. 183.171.172.96 (talk) 08:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Kuru blocked them. Never mind. 183.171.167.23 (talk) 11:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism

Thanks for intervening on Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism. Do keep on eye on it. Would it be good to add a tag saying that the article's content is undergoing (heated) discussion? This is just a questtion for your consideration, not a request. Esoglou (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

We usually don't as tagging the article in itself can sometimes be one of the things the involved editors are disputing. Though if you can find a neutral tag which says that (and doesn't imply other stuff like {{Disputed}} does) I'll take a look. I imagine it's going to need some admin involvement on the talk page but I'll leave that for later. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. I don't think I could find any tag that you couldn't find much more easily, and so I won't try. Besides, I understand the reasoning behind what you say. Esoglou (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)