User talk:Callanecc/Archive 22

Question on arbitration enforcement
Hi there: I saw that you recently closed a WP:AE request against HughD without taking action. He is continuing to edit the Watchdog.org article, both in article space and on the talk page. The article says that "Watchdog.org represented the 'largest media investment to date' for Charles and David Koch" as well as "the Franklin Center [Watchdog.org's parent organization] has its origins in the Sam Adams Alliance, a non-profit organization that promotes free-market Tea Party-style citizen activism." HughD has recently opened up an RFC on the talk page relating to the "degree of partisanship" of Watchdog.org's content. Given his topic ban on tea party and Koch articles, I'm wondering if you consider his most recent participation on that article to be in violation of his topic ban, and if so, what steps should be taken. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you please give diffs, and an explanation of how that diff is related to the Kochs. I had a look at the bottom talk page section and I can't see anything in there which would be a TBAN vio. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure. The topic ban says HughD is banned from editing "any articles involving the Tea Party movement broadly, including but not limited to anything at all related to Americans for Prosperity, Koch Industries, the Koch brothers, for one year." He was blocked for one week for editing the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, the parent organization of Watchdog.org. His edits at the Franklin Center did not specifically relate to the Kochs or the tea party, but he was told in that block to avoid the topics broadly (the blocking admin found the Franklin Center to be related to the TBAN because the article says the organization was funded by Donors Trust, which is Koch-funded). His appeal of that block was declined. On the Watchdog article, he has repeatedly added a section about outside assessments of the Watchdog.org site's ideology and partisanship. When you declined the recent AE request, I think you were correct in assessing consensus. However, I think what's going on here is that the consensus at AE emerged before this edit was made, which clearly establishes that Watchdog.org is in the wheelhouse of the Koch brothers. Me and and at least two other editors have brought up the topic ban issue with Hugh with regards to this article, but he has kept aggressively editing the article, including filing a recent RFC (Talk:Watchdog.org) and a WP:3O which was declined because there were more than two participants in the dispute. He first came to the page with aggressive POV edits. The type of editing behavior he's exhibiting here is why he was given the topic ban in the first place. The article states that Watchdog.org is the Koch's largest media investment. If HughD's persistent attempts to document the website's degree of partisan/ideological bias don't count as a topic ban, I'm not sure what would count. It seems pretty clear to me that the website's partisan/ideological tilt is related to the Kochs, which our article says are the site's main funders. Other diffs of Hugh editing in Watchdog article space:, , , . Safehaven86 (talk) 06:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * HughD is topic banned from Koch bros-related articles for a reason: because he has repeatedly shown he is unable to edit neutrally in this area. Watchdog.org is a Koch-funded group. Nobody disputes they are major investors in this group. The topic ban is quite specific to stay away from these articles - whether or not he is specifically writing about the Koch bros is irrelevant: he should not be editing the articles at all. That's why he has a topic ban. Why would someone topic banned from Koch bros be encouraged by Arb to edit articles on Koch-funded organizations? —Мандичка YO 😜 09:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I just thought I would ad my 2 cents here. The previous AE (~ Nov 30-Dec 1) was dismissed because the article did not have a Koch connection and the material being added lacked a Koch connection.  The previous block for violating the topic ban (mid Oct) was because the reference article being added to the WP page made a clear Koch connection (even though the edit did not).  On Dec 3rd the relationship between Watchdog and Koch was explicitly added to the article.  I think some valid questions are: Is the article now subject to the broad Koch topic ban now vs last week?  Does last week's consensus that editing the article is OK still apply if the answer to the previous question is 'yes, the ban applies now'?  I personally think last week's decline and Callanecc's closure was the correct choice.  I think the important question this week is have the circumstances of the article changed due to the explicit addition of a Koch reference to the article.  Declaimer, I have a few edits on the page in question and previous interactions with the editor in question.  Springee (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello all. I was not notified of this discussion. May I offer a perspective?

Some editors were disappointed that my topic ban was not American Politics, and will not let it go. Some editors were disappointed at the disposition of the recent AE request, and will not let it go. For some editors noticeboard filings are easier than the heavy lifting of collaborating on content.

Policy is clear, please see WP:TBAN, the fourth bullet: coverage of a banned topic in an article does not "infect" the whole article and bring it in to scope, just that part of the article, emphasis in the original. The stated purpose of our topic ban policy is to allow a conscientious topic banned editor to continue to contribute to our project, not to allow editors a method to use notice board filings to pick and choose who they want to collaborate with.

I beg temporary, local leave to address the dubious Koch-Watchdog connection here on our AE clerk's talk page since it was raised in attacking me here. Thank you.

In 2013, the Kochs were rumored to be looking at the Tribune company newspapers, a deal valued at some $600M. On that occasion, the Columbia Journalism Review reposted an earlier report on Franklin and Watchdog, and prefaced it with several paragraphs of editorial commentary, which teaser fancifully, tongue-in-cheek referred to an alleged Koch -> Donors Trust -> Franklin -> Watchdog funding stream as an "investment."

Watchdog.org is not a company, it is a set of websites built by the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, which is a non-profit charity. Not only are the Kochs not investors in The Franklin Center, the Franklin Center has no "investors". In fact it is illegal to invest in the Franklin Center.

On 10 July 2013 one of our colleagues attempted to add a Koch connection to Watchdog.org, supported by that very source, and Safehaven86 within minutes, with an edit summary of "Remove WP:SYNTH", with no effort to collaborate, salvage or repair. This exclusion persisted, until, after the consensus that Watchdog.org was out of scope developed at the AE noticeboard, suddenly, the editor who filed the failing AE request for enforcement added the source back, in a failed, blatant, pathetic hail mary attempt to salvage a failing pointed, game-ridden, sad, pathetic, harassing AE request. I doubt our project's arbiters may want to endorse a strategy of filing requests for topic ban enforcements first, and then editing the subject article to bring it within scope as necessary later; and I doubt our arbiters may want to endorse a strategy of cleansing our project's articles of content deemed unflattering, while maintaining an undocumented understanding that a connection sufficient for topic ban enforcement exists; but if any editor thinks so, a new filing might be appropriate.

Please note there is no evidence of disruptive editing and no evidence of a topic ban violation as one would look for before additional sanctions; this is a pure content dispute, regarding the neutrality of our project's article Watchdog.org with respect to reliable sources. Involved editors are kindly requested to return to article talk in good faith and make their best policy- and guideline-based cases for their preferred edits, in collaboration with the editors they find there. No one should feel threatened by a request for comment. A request for comment is how reasonable Wikipedia editors address a local consensus which may be at odds with our pillars, our policies, or our guidelines. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It's interesting you missed the Watchdog-Koch connection when you made this edit to the article, adding this source ("How A Right-Wing Group Is Infiltrating State News Coverage"), which is specifically about various Koch connections to Franklin/Watchdog. And the fact that I reverted an edit to the article in 2013 (an edit not much better than vandalism, with "DAvid Koch" in it) has nothing to do with the fact that another editor added Koch material to the article in 2015. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * No evidence? Really?


 * 1) October 22, 2015 Watchdog.org clearly contains, "It is a project of the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity." in the lede paragraph. Diff
 * 2) October 29, 2015 User:Ricky81682 informs HughD that he is blocked in addition to the TBAN for editing Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity in User_talk:HughD and states: "As I shouldn't have to remind you, your topic ban is related to the Tea Party politics generally not just the Kochs. Second, your comments at my talk page that it's not a part of the topic ban because it "makes no mention of the Kochs" is ridiculously disingenuous if you are going to be adding content related to Donors Trust which is directly related to Tea party politics and to the Kochs in general." Diff
 * HughD has numerous edits in the article space on Watchdog.org since the Oct. 29 block.
 * Disclosure I am not connected to the topic at hand in any manner, paid or otherwise, my paid edit statement in my signature is there out of an abundance of caution. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 17:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * More recently (last week), a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators was that Watchdog.org was out of scope. Time for you to return to article talk and use your mastery of policy and guideline to convince our community of the value of your preferred edits. Thank you! Hugh (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * When announcing the one week Block, on October 29, 2015, User:Ricky81682 clearly defined the terms of your one year TBAN already in force, which you acknowledged on your talk page, with the understanding that this included all Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity related articles. In effect, between the Block and the result of the AE, you defied User:Ricky81682's authority, knowing full well that Watchdog.org is Franklin related, it is and was stated in the lede. (diffs above). Therefore, any edit you have made to Watchdog between Oct. 29 and the closure of the AE is a violation of the TBAN. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 02:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * My topic ban was not changed to include the Franklin Center or Watchdog.org. Hugh (talk) 07:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I've asked User:Ricky81682, the TBAN and blocking editor, to weigh in here and at the new ANI.-- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 02:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Commment I think this is another violation of the intent of the ban but rather than block, we need to just expand the ban broadly and move forward. HughD isn't going to follow this in good faith and he's attempts to edit as close as possible to the ban without going over just create more work for everyone else. I blocked him for one week for this edit where the edit itself doesn't mention Tea party politics but the edit is linking to this page as a reference which does go into the Koch brothers and into Tea party politics. The point is, topic bans only work if the person banned isn't spending every second of their day trying to dance around it and the fact that the only arguments he keeps going to are "search for 'Koch', it's not there so I win" are not helpful. Looking at Talk:Watchdog.org, Hugh clearly wants to put in the partisanship claim and rather than being able to have a normal discussion about it, when Safehaven86 does respond that Columbia has discussions about Koch, HughD has to go into jumping around the issue because he knows he would be in violation of the ban if he responded about that link in contrast to the very particular link he's picked that doesn't explicitly mention Koch. Discussions shouldn't have to be fractured this way just because HughD wants to edit this without violating the topic ban he himself got. Safehaven86 and anyone else should be free to have whatever discussion they need on the topic broadly and editors who are barred from the topic should just stay away entirely. It would just be easier for everyone if HughD quit trying to play these games but he won't so, we need it more concrete. The Tea Party movement started during the Obama administration so I'd say expand the topic ban to "everything related to conservative US politics from 2009 to the present, broadly construed." That should cut the line-drawing games down, HughD can always ask at AE if he wants to edit particular articles but I fully expect more line-testing later. HughD does some work with historical Chicago (largely Democratic I believe) local politics and that shouldn't be lost but if he can show that he's learned not to cause the precise problems that got the topic ban enacted then it can be scaled back or carved differently. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a way forward to me! Are you happy to do it yourself? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "very particular link he's picked that doesn't explicitly mention Koch" What? You are ascribing nefarious motives to me without basis. I did not pick a ref in order to be clever as some sort of bizarre topic ban dodge. Are you seriously contemplating additional sanctions, on the basis of me suggested summarizing noteworthy content from a reliable source article, but another article from the same magazine mentions the Kochs, so it's a topic ban violation? This is outrageous. Broadened sanctions are completely unjustified, there is no topic ban violation here, there is no disruptive editing, what there is is some editors who find it easier to file at notice boards rather than defend their exclusion of noteworthy, reliably sourced content on the basis of policy or guideline. Again friend Rick you are acting in haste and in anger, as those who yank your chain have come to know you will reliably. Take a breath and accept your responsibility to do your due diligence and spend more time objectively examining the talk page and article space edit behavior before you act on who is playing games and who is creating more work. I launched an RfC, that's what adults are supposed to do. It is unfair to further sanction me because some editors have calculate they will not prevail in a fair RfC. Where is your outrage at the blatant well poisoning at that RfC? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 06:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally I'm a bit tired of this at the moment. It's been months of this routine of how it's **my** job to police and analyze Hugh's antics. Do you mind taking this on? I don't know whether to treat this as an rewording of the sanctions under Tea party politics or to move it back to American politics 2 where I started the two weeks initial ban with HughD but I'd guess rewording makes more sense at the moment (I don't even know why I split them). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * How does this sound? Keep participating as you are at Watchdog.org, however be extremely careful to avoid the Kochs any other sort of editing which doesn't comply with policy/guideline. If you do do either of those two, you should expect a block and/or a widened topic ban. However if the other editors discuss something with which you can't be involved then that's what they need to do and you'll have to respect the consensus they come to about that issue. Also note that there is a strong idea which has been brought up here that you are trying to game and/or push the boundaries of your restriction, if you continue to do that you can also expect a widened topic ban. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am aware of your recent elevation, congrats, you are a natural, you will do well, thank you for your past & future service to our project, so I have to ask, are we just a couple of editors talking or is this some kind of formal or informal or semi-formal warning? Because please recognize that what you just wrote will be thrown in my face, which I guess I resent because I don't deserve it at this time, if I deserved it I would say so. Of course I understand topic ban and PAG violations have consequences, it goes without saying. But a complaint is a not violation. It is not a new story that some are more than willing to make participation miserable for an editor with a history they think can leverage to the advantage of their point of view. It is not a new story that some editors think they can pick their collaborators. It is not a new story that we have colleagues who are passionate about the writing and colleagues who are passionate about the gamesmanship. I am aware some have advanced the theory that I am gaming or pushing boundaries, but I very much disagree it is a "strong idea." I guess I resent being warned to avoid edits involving the Kochs because I have. I resent being warned to comply with policy and guideline because I always have and always will. Meanwhile I am way less prone to file or bother an admin than most. So, in closing, I guess I hope you were sincerely asking me what I think and not explaining here's the deal. Respectfully request you close this thread on your talk page by asking the involved editors to return to article talk in good faith, with a general warning regarding expectations of best behavior all around, and please collapse the disruptive well-poisoning in the open, active, perfectly reasonable RfC. How does this sound to you? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 09:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) Regarding gaming or pushing the boundaries it's present here and at AE, so it is something you need to be very careful of.
 * I will remind everyone of behavioural expectations however you need to stop doing so in your comments on the talk page (which you did in 3 of 4 replies in that section). However as I mentioned above your behaviour will likely be more closely looked at than the others given that you have a sanction in the area. And any misconduct on your part will likely have more severe sanctions than misconduct from other editors who are not under a sanction. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for your help and patience. I would like to make sure I understand what you are saying here. "gaming or pushing the boundaries it's present here and at AE" Boundaries, yes I may mention the Brothers Who Shall Not Be Named in explaining myself on an arbcom clerk's or arbcom member's talk page or at AE, which I of course would not do at for example article talk, is that what you are referring to? But what is an example of me gaming? "I will remind everyone of behavioural expectations however you need to stop doing so in your comments on the talk page" Going forward what is your advice, how should I respond to personal attacks or other disruptive editor behavior at article talk? At article talk may I do what you did below, simply calmly explain WP:TBAN, without being the object of a filing regarding arguing the topic ban within nanoseconds? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You may ask for reasonable clarification or defend yourself, I don't see why that would necessarily happen on an arb clerk or arb's talk page. The issue of gaming is closely related to pushing the boundaries and I'll use the an example from your previous block. This edit was gaming/pushing boundaries as the TBAN while you didn't add Donor's Trust you made an edit about it. You need to ensure that you draw a wide bow around things which are related to your topic ban, that's going to include the Funding section as well as anything else which is related to the Kochs or directly related to their interests/positions/actions. I'll keep an eye on the talk page, but you can give me (or to AE) diffs of personal attacks. To explain TBAN you need to comment on the topic you are topic banned from so no you can't do that, and you might be considered to be pushing the boundaries. Once we've worked out everything here I'll explain what's going on on the talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I would like some more clarification on this. Right now, I don't see the logic in what I think is happening here: Hugh is broadly topic-banned from Koch-related articles, yet he is being sanctioned to continue editing Watchdog.org, the largest media investment of the Kochs. What articles is Hugh banned from editing? Or is he not banned from any articles, he is just not allowed to edit sentences or sections of articles that mention Kochs? Because his current desire to add information on the partisanship of Watchdog strikes me as clearly related to the Kochs, as they are the website's major donors, so I'm sure their ideology and the website's ideology are related and not coincidentally so. The ongoing issue here for all parties seems to be understanding the application of this unique topic ban, and I don't feel that we've gotten any closer to understanding it, so more clarity is appreciated. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Considering Ricky81682 statement above, "The Tea Party movement started during the Obama administration so I'd say expand the topic ban to "everything related to conservative US politics from 2009 to the present, broadly construed." vs. Callanecc's, "Keep participating as you are at Watchdog.org, however be extremely careful to avoid the Kochs any other sort of editing which doesn't comply with policy/guideline." comes anywhere near a consensus here. HughD was blocked, for violating his TBAN for editing Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity. Diff On November 30 he resumes editing the Franklin related article Watchdog.org, starting with a POV hat. The Franklin Center association clearly mentioned in the Lede as evidenced in the diff.Diff  This is another bizarre interpretation of what has been discussed here. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 17:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hugh is broadly topic banned from the Tea Party Movement including the Kochs, that an important distinction to make as it identifies the area the ban needs to be more stringently enforced (this relates to the slippage Drmies and Gamaliel referred to at AE). Topic bans apply to articles which are related (such as, are about) to the topic (which this one isn't). So Hugh wouldn't be allowed to edit Koch family or Invista as they are about the Kochs (or Koch Industries). However Hugh can edit articles which aren't about the Kochs. For example, Watchdog.org isn't about the Kochs. For example, if Hugh were only banned from the Kochs and if they were donors to both the Tea Party and Democrat party Hugh would still be able to edit those two articles just certain bits of them (sentences, paragraphs, sections). Does that help?


 * Regarding the topic ban, I'm not convinced (which is why I asked if Ricky wanted to do it) that there is enough evidence to warrant imposing a more restrictive topic ban at the moment (see ), and evidence of other misconduct hasn't been presented. Therefore, I'd rather give Hugh a chance to show they can edit with their topic ban (and I noted above that that wouldn't be easy as if there is a topic he can't talk about then he needs to accept the consensus of editors who can talk about it). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your dispassionate, timely and concise explanation of our project's topic ban policy WP:TBAN, and in particular bullet 4. This policy is key and your comments are exactly what is needed here. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 03:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Our project will benefit from the RfC at Watchdog.org. The RfC is a measured, reasonable, mature response to the content dispute. I would appreciate your help with a little judicious follow-up clean-up. Could I please ask that you skim the RfC and collapse or at least move the most egregious disruptive well-poisoning, so the RfC may have a fair chance of achieving its goal of broadening community discussion? I am fairly certain were I to add collapses, or attempt to consolidate an individual editor's comments in a statement of position, it would be reverted and generate a filing. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 04:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not understanding how the partisanship/ideological bent of Watchdog.org doesn't fall under the topic ban since our article states Watchdog.org is primarily funded by the Koch brothers. There's clearly a relationship between funding and the ideological persuasion of a media outlet, is there not? Safehaven86 (talk) 05:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you were topic banned from a donor and their business to the Democratic Party you wouldn't necessarily be banned from editing Democratic Party (United States). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it seems like a tough gray area. Unfortunately HughD's track record shows that he'll attempt to get as close to the fire as possible without technically touching it. Safehaven86 (talk) 05:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * @Callanecc, please consider these points for your opinion in the ANI. The guidance on WP:TBAN states: "Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic." In light of this, the Dec 7 AE is defective, it is not the duty of the sanctioning administrator to define every article. The onus is on the editor to avoid the topic all inclusive, this is reinforced in my next paragraph.


 * The original ban may have been Tea Party / Koch related, but on Oct. 29, that scope was specifically widened, in no uncertain terms, to include Franklin Center and related topics. HughD's one year TBAN was clarified for him on October 29, when he was additionally blocked for editing Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity.Diff An October 22 diff shows that the Watchdog.org article Lede plainly stated that it is a Franklin Center website as it still is today.Diff As the article's edit history shows, the editor continued editing in the article space and and on the talk page (For talk page clarification, see bullet one on WP:TBAN).


 * The stalking of Safehaven86's talk page, Diff going through my history to discover and critique my most recent article as retribution, Diff rearranging the talk page section heading to suit his agenda minutes before submitting to WP:30, Diff and Diff, and moving my logic from the RfC (the ones you've hatted) to a less prominent position without a signature, or notice, Diff are just a few other plain indications that this editor is not demonstrating good faith (WP:DGF) and is not here to present neutral content.


 * The references in the RfC are not the problem, the problem is that the editor is trying to reopen the door to re-invoke content that was found to be WP:CHERRY, taken out of context for WP:BALANCE, wordy and already adequately covered/summarized by consensus.Diff see Outside analysis section This is a technique that contentious editors use to chase off other editors and degrade an article to the point to where they can nominate it for AfD. 009o9 (talk) 06:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems like my point was missed entirely here. As I stated, this seemed like a clear-cut violation of the ban. The ban is a topic ban, not an "edit" ban so HughD needs to stay away from the topics that he's banned from; we don't analyze his conduct edit by edit. If someone took Watchdog.org to AFD, he would be banned from commenting there period, not told that he can comment but only if he doesn't use the "magic banning words". The fact that he can't even have a discussion without tripping up the ban means that he's already in the territory and it's enough for me so I was proposing an expansion of the ban to a more clear-cut language since it seems like I screwed up defining it so vague he can find holes and waste time with it. As opposed to a two-week or further block, I'm going to expand and define the ban more broadly going forward. HughD shouldn't get to keep on working on WatchDog.org while everyone can see the relationship to Tea party politics. The fact that the editing is causing more problems tells me this hasn't or won't be resolved by simply letting it slide at the moment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah I didn't get that you thought it was a violation of the ban you imposed. Thanks for redefining it (having the same enforcing admin does make it easier). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of what one administrator thinks. a consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE correctly applied WP:TBAN and concluded that my edits to Watchdog.org are out of scope of a Koch/Tea Party topic ban. Are not administrators bound by policy and consensus just like everybody else? Hugh (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Administrators are not bound by consensus when doing arbitration enforcement and when it is there own sanctions they have leeway in defining it (for example if it has not been interpreted the way they intended). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply, and thank you again for your attempt to intervene with a voice of reason here, I'm sorry it seems to have come to nought. Are administrators doing arbitration enforcement bound by policy? I understand an administrator who issues a topic ban must concur on its repeal, is that the leeway you mention? I am not aware of this more general leeway you mention. I would like to read more about this leeway, can you direct me? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Depends which policy you're referring to? That (and a consensus can overrule them) plus they are able to modify sanctions they impose (which is why I had to get permission from Ricky before I could do anything), so the leeway is that they can change, clarify and redefine as they believe is needed. WP:ACDS relates, WP:ACDS specifically. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. You don't have to explain yourself, you tried to be reasonable, your hands were tied, I understand. OK, I see that an admin cannot modify another admin's enforcement action. An enforcing admin may arbitrarily "change, clarify, and redefine" their own enforcement action I can't find, and I don't find "expand" either. Can you please help? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 04:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a combination of the ordinary authority to impose sanctions (WP:ACDS) and that they can modify their own sanctions. So they can change a sanction they impose using both the bit about modifications and imposing sanctions generally. So they can't do it arbitrarily it still has to be in response to a belief (which is a pretty low standard) that it is "necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project". However you could say that, in your case, ensuring "smooth running" meant redefining the sanction so that it was clear what it applied to. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your reply. In the case you mention, the notice to the editor said "expansion," and it is clearly an unjustified expansion, with no diffs of violation or disruptive behavior provided. Can you please help me find the policy basis for an unjustified expansion of an enforcement action? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 06:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your patience in sharing your understanding of WP:ACDS. Is an expansion of an enforcement action authorized? Wouldn't one expect some evidence of additional disruptive editor behavior to generally be required? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 07:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it would, however also consider the point I made above about "smooth running". Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You are reminding me the standard is an individual administrator's reasonable belief in a threat to smooth running, not necessary evidence of a threat, let alone a consensus on a threat. Hugh (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for your patience in explaining WP:ACDS. This leeway you mention, does it generally extend to overriding policy? For example, is an administrator considered to have leeway to craft a custom topic ban to which bullet 4 of WP:TBAN does not apply? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC) For example, might an admininstrator issue "Topic ban on topic X, but for WP:TBAN bullet 4 I substitute a custom 2-degrees of separation rule" or say "Topic ban on topic X, but under the leeway afforded to enforcing administrators by WP:ACDS, I reserve the right to be the sole adjudicator of the scope of X, without logging requirements, and regardless of protections which may be afforded the topic banned editor by WP:TBAN." Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for sharing your impressive understanding of WP:ACDS and WP:TBAN. When you get a chance I would very much appreciate your help in better understanding the written and cultural practice of the leeway. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Removing an exception isn't overriding policy, in fact things like denying the exemptions (such as WP:BANEX and WP:3RRNO) is reasonably regularly done, but it does need to be noted in the text of the ban. Generally the enforcers judgement on what is and is not covered by the ban is considered quite strongly, for example requesting clarification from ArbCom on bans they impose. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. Thank you for your recent notification of discretionary sanctions to . May I respectfully request that you please take a look at at Talk:Watchdog.org? Paid Editor 009o9 is disrupting a legitimate RfC, prior to the notification, by ignoring the clear instructions in the RfC regarding segregation of statements of position from threaded discussion, and through personal attacks, and now, post-notification, by calling for a close after a week and four comments, and poisoning the well with continued personal attacks. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Above in this thread on your talk page, the original poster wrote in her complaint, The article says that "Watchdog.org represented the 'largest media investment to date' for Charles and David Koch" as well as "the Franklin Center [Watchdog.org's parent organization] has its origins in the Sam Adams Alliance, a non-profit organization that promotes free-market Tea Party-style citizen activism." Involved editor  filed a topic ban violation request for enforcement 30 November 2015, then after he saw the consensus of uninvolved editors found the article out of scope, added this content and references  to the article, then added it to the request for enforcement. Yesterday, a week after a successfully orchestrated, long-sought expansion of the topic ban, the original poster Safehaven86 shamelessly removed the content, please see  and . Is this typical? I understand we are asked not to edit article space to make a point. I would appreciate your thoughts. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 06:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hugh, I've been away for a while but I'd like to gently suggest a review of WP:TBAN. Revisiting the issues and articles which are covered by ban is not, as I understand it, allowed...even on talk pages...even on one's own talk page. " Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic. " and also "anywhere on Wikipedia, for instance a deletion discussion concerning an article about a meteorologist, but also including edit summaries and the user's own user and talk pages (including sandboxes)." I can understand frustration but re-fighting battles about those articles is perhaps not the best approach. My opinion, for what it's worth. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestion. I am greatly heartened to know I will be able to count on you for support of an appeal of the topic ban, should I choose to pursue that. Meanwhile, please respect that I am not banned from clarifying questions of policy with a learned colleague of ours, and please do not attempt to disrupt good faith talk page dialog between your fellow editors, please direct further helpful comments you may have on my behavior to my talk page, and meanwhile I am content to wait for a reply to my above queries as holiday schedules allow. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , the edit to which is referring may be this one  [].  Since that edit is clearly watchdog.org related it may be a topic ban violation.  Springee (talk) 02:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings


GABHello! is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Best of luck in 2016,

GABHello! 15:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi
I have started an enforcement request regarding a warning/sanction that you logged as an administrator  --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 07:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You know, your behavior on the article is bad enough, as is the fact that you showed up there to edit war as a form of revenge/stalking (spillover from Economy of Poland). Now you're also engaging in blatant WP:CANVASSing and trying to use WP:AE to win a dispute.  Volunteer Marek   08:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I can confirm the bad behavior from Volunteer Marek. However I believe the talk page speaks by itself, now he managed to make it a total mess creating new sections not related to the content which should be present in the main article, but just creating them in order to attack the other users along his personal opinions. Also he avoid persistently to discuss reliable sources' content which are not according to his personal beliefs, starting to apply denigratory labels and keeping to say that there is a "misrepresentation" while never providing links neither going in detail (like making at least some citation) in despise of the most common editing discussions rules, as the ones reported here . -- Flushout1999 (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!
 Season's Greetings and Happy New Year!

Wishing you a happy holiday season and a Merry Christmas. May your new year be happy and prosperous. ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 01:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Signpost Arbitration interview request
Excuse me. I am lead writer for the Signpost's "Arbitration Report" and am wondering if you would be interested in answering some interviews questions as a newly elected Arbitrator. The questions will be asked through email, unless answering them here would be a more suitable choice. GamerPro64 22:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

E-mail
--Steverci (talk) 04:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Callanecc!


Happy New Year! Callanecc, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

User Steverci
Hello Callanecc, isn't Steverci TBAN'ed on all things concerning Armenia? Jaqeli 23:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Predicted vandalism to Douchebag
Just a quick note that the vandalism that I predicted within one week of the article in question coming of a year long full protection expiring occured within the predicted week. The indefinite full protection that I asked for was finally granted. Hasteur (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, !


Happy New Year! , Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia!

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Comeback
I wish that you'll come back soon. 115.164.176.6 (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am around just don't have a lot of time up my sleeve right now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Checkuser Unblock
Hello. I'd like to tell me, because I see that you have checkuser jurisdiction, how can I be unblocked. Remove the block from my account may enforce only checkuser Commission, not ordinary administrators. I would like to remind you that my only real account Parkirovskieng, and he is infinitely blocked due to harmful use sockpuppets. I promise you and arbitration checkuser Commission which should by forwarding this message from me, I know why I was blocked and I would never use at all sockpuppet but only a real account Parkirovskieng. More importantly I will never vandalize Wikipedia, because now I know the rules. While I used sockpuppet, I was not so familiar with the rules of conduct on Wikipedia but I'm well aware of what you can do and what must not. I request you to notify checkuser Commission that all sock puppets accounts Parkirovskieng will never be used, but more importantly will not vandalize Wikipedia. The only account that I use is Parkirovskieng. I'd even let you know that the account Parkirovskieng blocked just because I was with a false account deleted a comment another user. There was no bad intention but ordinary inattention. That is why I requested that we checkuser Commission to take as a mitigating factor if approved unblock my account. It's all easily verifiable and you can check if you do not at all lie already talking a fact. If you unblock my account, I have nothing against that all further activities account follow them because I can guarantee one hundred percent that nothing more damaging to Wikipedia will not do. I'll be exemplary user. It does not hurt to inform Checkuser arbitration commission that my Unblock Ticket Request System was rejected on the grounds that only after six months of blocking my accounts can be unblocked. For me it is ambiguity whether, and how, after those six months that we remove the block and what to do to make me unblocked. I really do not understand why so long I should wait. It occurs to me that if I ever will be unblocked, but now I address directly with volunteers Checkuser status that only can I unblock with arbitration. So we wrote the account it that only you do it in my case. That's why I wanted to read carefully this my plea and I hope we give a "second chance" or unblock my account. And you know that we're all volunteers here and understand my reasonable request. For me it is a punishment and unfair to wait six months as blocked and after that everything is uncertain whether I will unblock or block may extend to one year. For me it was a penalty. I repeat that I will not ever one hundred percent use any sockpuppet my account Parkirovskieng, but only Parkirovskieng as a true and honest account. I know the rules and I will never do damage Wikipedia. If I had not been familiar with the rules and now I am free I can unblock. I know you must not delete the comments from other people and that it is vandalism. I appeal strongly hope that you will like the competent Checkuser arbitration commission take into consideration this my remark and permanently unblock my account. 109.121.50.177 (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC) I'm interested in what the chances are that if you now send the request to be unblocked. Can you give me to help with other administrators, and just so you know I forgot gmail of Parkirovskieng account. Is has a genuine gmail from my account Parkirovskieng or can be made new for communication with the Unblock Ticket Request System. 109.121.50.177 (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC) I sent a very thorough request to unblock my account. We are asking you to influence the decision the arbitration to be unblocked. Really you'd ask you to give me "a new chance". Parkirovskieng. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.50.177 (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You have tried to appeal and been declined multiple times, finding different people to appeal to each time is not going to change that you've been told to wait six months without any further socking. Added to that, you may only file appeals from your main account, as your talk page access has been removed you need to do that through the unblock ticket request system. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination)
Hello,

I was not sure who to talk to in regards to this, I've seen three emails to Arb Com and Doug Weller. I am innocent of this accusation and therefore must have this resolved. I've have not been followed up and I was wondering what the status and outcome of this is. Particularly who the accuser is. Valoem  talk   contrib  18:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Valoem, the mailing list has been very busy and I've been away for a bit, I'll have a look through the threads and see what I can find. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks please do let me know. :) Valoem   talk   contrib  15:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

?
Destiny Leo (talk) 11:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing received. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong about the policy
You just said that "proxying is not against policy" – Well, sure, not as such. But proxying for a harasser is against policy. Because the moment you reinstate the harasser's posting, "taking responsibility" for it, you are yourself the harasser. "Taking responsibility" means you are prepared to be judged as if you yourself were the author of the offending posting. The moment TRM restored that posting, he had made himself accessory to the same offense as the IP troll himself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 01:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes TRM took responsibility for it, as I said in my comment someone else who has taken responsibility for the edit, ie "it's my talkpage, and I've already replied", which is also related to the reason I suggested an admonishment for them as well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * But that entails his edit was exactly as much an obvious policy violation in need of removal as the original edit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 01:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm missing something, how was that edit from the IP a policy breach as harassment? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's the entire pattern, of going round posting wild allegations against me and other admins day after day, for months. Some of the postings are more incoherent than others. This one was in fact so incoherent it's hard to extract much in the way of concrete offensive claims, as the actual defamation was packaged indirectly (in a link to a link to a link), but if you actually follow the sock's instructions about finding out "what our friend [i.e. me] has been up to", you end up in a wild loop of links from one rant to another, all of them about how I allegedly blocked half of London, how I allegedly broke SPI rules in identifying his sock IPs, how I have "severe WP:CIR issues", how I am a "self-described sex worker", and so on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 02:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * While I can see what you mean by harassment and it is definitely there and I too encourage you (or someone else familiar with them) to take it to WMF and see what they can do in this specific situation the only reasons given for your revert is that it's a "banned harassment vandal" not who it is, or why that specific edit should be removed apart from it being from a banned editor. Had you said that the edit in question is harassing you then it might be different (and TRM would need to have commented on that when they reverted rather than just proxying), this is an area (as has been brought up in the case request) where more information in the edit summary is necessary. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Any competent observer could have figured out its abusive nature by themselves. TRM is not a newb, he has no excuse for not recognizing it for what it was (no matter whether he understood which specific vandal it was, which is rather irrelevant.) Since he was "taking responsibility" for it, and doing so again after I told him it was a banned harasser, it was also within his own responsibility to make sure he understood who it was and what it was. Fut.Perf. ☼ 02:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Enough with the claims of "no competence" and "lack of brain" and "proxying for a sockpuppet". Little wonder people react so negatively towards you FPAS, you may feel harassed, but your bad faith towards other is astonishing. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Callanecc could you look at this (plus related reverts & restores & editsums); I like to know if FPAS acted appropriately or not: User talk:Ihardlythinkso (Thank you.) IHTS (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

For what it is worth when I saw the edit it was abundantly clear it was harassment. The first hint was that it was spammed on several user pages, the second hint was the content. HighInBC 04:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Activity at my Talk
I recently requested admin HighInBC to stay off my Talk. (I made the request recently at his Talk, it is hard to believe he forgot the request so quickly.) He posted to my Talk today, and an IP responded to the post, and now as a result the overly aggressive admin Future Perfect at Sunrise has locked my Talk from IPs. (That hardly seems equitable. I recently aided an IP posting to my Talk re correcting info in a chess-related article. And is there any way to "semi-protect" HighInBC from posting again, who ignored my request to stay away, and precipitated this problem??) I'd like semi-protect removed, and HighInBC warned. (Are my requests unreasonable?) Thx for your consider. IHTS (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi IHTS, your requests for action aren't up to me (best place would be ANI). It probably best to remind (politely) HighInBC that you asked them not to edit your talk page, there's no easy technical means which can be used to do that. If you'd like your talk page to be unprotected you can ask at WP:RFUP, but it is unlikely to be granted completely as the priority is protecting Wikipedia, in this case from a banned user who is harassing other editors. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

This user
Hello Callanecc,

Isn't this user TBAN'd on all things Armenia-related? Jaqeli 22:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If so, he violated it, please see this, this and this edits. Jaqeli 13:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If they weren't more than two weeks old, it'd probably be worth doing something. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What does that mean? Isn't that a vio? I've wrote you about the issue first on Jan 5 but no response than. Jaqeli 13:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Had I seen it on the 5th (I was away/had very limited access for most of January) I would have blocked them. But only knowing about it 2 weeks later makes blocked seem mean and nasty rather than achieving a purpose. In the future, remember you can report TBAN vios to WP:AE, or WP:ANI. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You would've been going against your own rules, as you told me in an email The last topic ban included Azerbaijan and ethnic conflicts related to Turkey, this one is prevents you from editing only topics related to Armenia. I haven't gone against this once, please check that then respond to the 2 month old email I sent you. --Steverci (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I should have said that it only prevents you from editing topics which are related to Armenia the one in the email above wasn't very clear. Could you please send the email again, I can't find it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

--Steverci (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Acc tool status
What is the status of Acc tool? --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Tito, no idea sorry (other than the internal interface isn't working). Maybe ask on the mailing list. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

User Steverci again
Hi Callanecc, he just violated again his TBAN here. Jaqeli 12:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Motion
Hi, Callanecc, Looking at the edit history, it looks like you wrote the motion that is being proposed about Floq. Right now, it looks like it is a decree delivered from on high so even if the motion has the support of the entire arbitration committee could you include a note somewhere about your authorship? It reminds editors that the committee consists of distinct individuals who make different kinds of contributions. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk!</b> 00:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Good thinking Liz, how's . Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That does the trick, thank you. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 17:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Freeling, South Australia
Last edit was September 2015, but there have been reverts until then. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 01:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Extended to indefinite. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Consensus
I see you recently protected the Coffee article. We have consensus to have Yemen in the infobox by itself. If its not too much trouble, can you make that edit? Or I can wait a week its fine. Zekenyan (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks alot! Zekenyan (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Western Thought
The page, as it is now, should not exist. There is no such thing as Western Thought. The very term itself suggests incommensurabilites which are purely fictitious.

There is however, the concept being bandied about, and it would be much more interesting to create a page which presents the (political) history of that concept, expecially in the course of the last 70 years.

For far too many topics in the social sciences and the humanities, Wikipedia reflects the myths to which final year highschoolers and first-year undergrads are beholden at a given time (which may be a boon to sociologists). This page is one of the crassest examples of it. My satirical edit was merely trying to highlight this.87.240.197.233 (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi 87.240.197.233, whether certain topics exist is up to the community of editors. I'd suggest that you either propose it for deletion and see if anyone objects or start a discussion about whether it should be deleted, let me know which option (or if neither) you decide to go with and I'll guide you through how to do it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Questions
Can I edit articles that aren't specifically about Armenia, but have the word Armenia somewhere on them, if I don't touch the part about Armenia? For example I was planning on expanding the Alexander Suvorov article soon, which merely has the mention of a military school in Armenia named after him. If there is no mention of Armenia anywhere, is it automatically safe? --Steverci (talk) 01:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Steverci, if you have a look at this section and replace things which are related to weather with Armenia, that should be a good starting point for you. Regarding Alexander Suvorov, it also mentions that he may have Armenian heritage and that he had interactions with Armenian migrants in the late 1700s, and that he has a military school named after him. If you avoid anything related to his heritage which may be related to Armenia and any points in his history where he had anything to do with Armenia then you can edit the article. Whether it's safe or not depends on what the article is about (for example, a company that does work in Armenia but doesn't say that anywhere in the article would be covered), what edits you're making and if those edits themselves are related to Armenia, so no, not mentioning Armenia doesn't mean that it's automatically safe to edit. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Any news?
On this Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination)? Valoem  talk   contrib  19:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not getting back to you, thank for the reminder. From what I've read so far, the agreement among the arbitrators was the the matter wasn't an issue the Committee needed to get involved with, and one arb had discussed it with you privately. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The only Arb I spoke with is Doug Weller, who did not give any information and said he would be in touch if he need any information. I received no further contact from him. I assume this means I was found not guilty of canvassing, can you please post the outcome or any information regarding this on my talk page? Valoem   talk   contrib  17:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Naoum Mokarzel
Hi Canalec I appreciate your help, it comforts me. The fact is that I did for several years an accurate research on Naoum Mocarzel, and Salloum Mokarzel life achievements, I was happy if someone, without changing the facts I archeologically discovered, contribute and make it better, that is great, there is people in Wikipedia, that with the help "offer" are obstacles, with the argument that I don’t understand this or that, of course, if someone does not know history they are not going to understand, so I explain, give more sources, etc. Now he claim mi references are not reliable, please check them. The New York Times; Arab American Historian; The Society for Orthodox Christian History in the Americas (orthodoxhistory.org); Joseph Nathan Kane book More First Facts; University of Minnesota Immigration History Research Center; Annual report of the Commissioner of Patents for the year; After this “argument” I know is never going to be all right for them. since they threaten me for immediate deletion, if I don’t take their help, (offering “protection”) if you check the article I made, it is set for immediate deletion of course by another user, minute after the last message. Imagine I am going to hand wrestle, one and later anther user for trying to contribute with un refutable sources. Come on. who needs that. I try to contribute with culture, for accurate History, it was unwelcome. Mi contributions in Lebanon, etc reverted. So to please Wikipedia I blank Naoum Mokarzel and Salloum Mokarzel articles I made. If Wikipedia wants accurate history, or want to feed the myth, actions will be done. But not by me. I did not try to offend no one. Just contribute with history. Thank you, --Trinity Abbey (talk) 11:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi I hadn't realised that you created the page. I've deleted it for you. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thinking of a "pp-unsourced" template
I was just looking around some protection templates, and then I just was thinking about adding a pp-unsourced template. I was thinking of it being similar to the format of your pp-sock template, except with the reason being "to promote compliance with Wikipedia's policy on verifiability". If you like this idea, I would appreciate it. Thanks, Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 20:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Qwerty, it sounds like a good idea to me. But it's been moved to a Lua module (Module:Protection banner) which is beyond my level of knowledge, so it would probably be best to propose it on the module talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * For some reason, I was also thinking up about an alternate account named Callannec because of my misspelling of your username accidentally. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 19:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC) By the way, I did ask that Module:Protection banner thing. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 19:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Notification of ANI discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attacks by Claudebone reported by Jim1138. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 08:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Dead links
Hi Callanecc, Thank you for your message. I have tried to repair some links (maybe sometimes not hard enough?), but sometime the website does not exist anymore (e.g. http://www.gastronomiaenvenezuela.com/2012/04/rasgos-del-ron-de-venezuela/). So there is no way to repair it. How should we do?

Thank you

Lionel


 * Hi, have a look at the information here - Link rot. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Motion in January 2015 that enacted the DSLOG?
Hello Callanecc. You referred to the passing of the motion here. But where is it? I looked in WP:Arbitration/Index/Motions and don't see it. Lately there has been a discussion at User talk:Drmies on where to log new sanctions, and I wanted to link to where the DSLOG was enacted. It seems that already some sanctions have been mistakenly logged in the regular cases post-January 2015, suggesting a worthwhile task for a clerk that understands this stuff. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 06:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added it to the motions index page, there is a link at WP:AC/DS as well. I'll post a message to the clerks list. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Request page protection for AlDub
Hi, I see that you have semi-protected kalyeserye for vandalism. I am requesting that you do the same for this related page, AlDub. If you check its revision history, numerous instances of vandalism by IP editors occur often. Thank you! Tankytoon (talk) 09:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Patrick Beverley
Despite very low edit, I notice that none of IP edits were good. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 08:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to let it expire. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Moving sanctions from 2015 to 2016
Hello Callanecc. Please see User talk:Miniapolis. Can you explain the theory? The only problem I knew about previously was that sanctions were being recorded on the end of the cases during 2015, that should have been in the log instead. I'm unclear on why sanctions that were put in the log in 2015 also need to be copied into later logs. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Sachin Tomar
Sachin Tomar is protected from creation and I came across Tomar Sachin's. Since you were the one who last deleted the article, can you check if it has the same information. And if not, move the article to its proper name. Regards,  Ya  sh  !   11:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * If you can't move an article to its proper name, it's always worth looking at that article to see why it was protected - in this case it's because a sockpuppeting spammer kept recreating it. I've raised a new SPI over the account that created the Tomar Sachin article. --McGeddon (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Editor DuckZz
Earlier you have put the ban of edit all articles about the war in Syria for this editor because he is broke rules of edit here But later you remove this ban but this guy still violate the rules of edit. He is again remove the towns and villages from map and do other editings without any sources on based suggestions and on based of him personal desires and his actions are causing great harm to the map.hereherehere He ignored all comments in which I ask him stop make such edits but he again provide me only his suggestions and reflections, and nothing more. According to the rules of edit here: 1-A source, reliable for that specific edit, should be provided. a) A well-known source that has a reputation for neutral (not biased) territorial control coverage, can be used (is deemed reliable) for all edits. b) A well-known source that does not have a reputation for neutral (not biased) territorial control coverage, can be used (is deemed reliable) only for edits that are unfavorable to the side it prefers (favorable to the side it opposes). c) A source that is not well-known (or that has proven inaccurate for all edits) cannot be used (is deemed unreliable) for any edit. This includes all maps (see item 2- next).

2-Copying from maps is strictly prohibited. Maps from mainstream media are approximate and therefore unreliable for any edit. Maps from amateur sources are below the standards of Wikipedia for any edit. They violate WP:RS and WP:CIRCULAR. WP:RS: “Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.” Source: Verifiability WP:CIRCULAR: “Do not use websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources.”

3-WP:POV pushing and intentional misinterpretation of sources will not be tolerated. If you are not sure about what the source is saying (or its reliability), post it on the talk page first so that it would be discussed.

We must edit only based relaible sources which must distinctly provide all our edits but his many times ignored this rules. So I ask you to convince him not to do so or to restore previously established ban otherwise its illegal actions will continue to cause damage to this article.Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map Sûriyeya (talk) 07:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail
Destiny Leo (talk) 08:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

ACC CU Backlog
Hello old friend, there is currently an ACC CU backlog of 15+ requests at the time of writing this. Any assistance would be appreciated! '''<span title="Shoot!" style="font-family: Mono; Cursor: crosshair;">-- Cheers,   Ri l ey  ''' 02:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Riley, nice to see you again! I've cleared out the backlog. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Review of old SPI
It's been 2 years since I was warned about sockpuppeting, and I was hoping to have the issue reviewed. I didn't do so at the time because I didn't want to appear disrespectful of admin authority, but I have been consistently frustrated by the false charge and the stigma it has given me on WP. The Appeals page recommends I speak to the enforcing admin first, so I thought I'd run my reasoning by you. 2 years ago Vzaak(they since left WP) and I had several disagreeable interactions while editing, and they began stating I should be removed from WP. As a side note, two of the editors who at various times supported Vzaak's claims against me (Barney and 76) were later sanctioned and/or blocked for inappropriate personal attacks.
 * Shortly afterward they filed a charge against me in SPI, with a huge list of circumstantial "clues" they had compiled indicating my guilt, mostly based on the editing IP and my alma mater both being in Long Beach, CA. Never having faced an SPI, I don't think I responded to their many accusations very well, and I was warned for sockpuppeting.
 * Vzaak then initiated an AE against me, which was set aside.
 * Vzaak then initiated another SPI against me, using an almost identical huge list of clues to prove that I was again sockpuppeting (and issuing death threats) from Long Beach, CA... except I was hundreds of miles away before, during, and after the supposed socking activity, as confirmed by admin Checkusers. When the admins dug a little deeper, they also found that the other accusations Vzaak had leveled against me (that I was "suppressing edits" in some kind of warring behavior) at the time were completely false.

Would you please consider reviewing the warning I have on record? To this day it is difficult to resolve any policy discussion without someone referring to me as a "sock" and disregarding any points I was making. The initial SPI originated from an editor who had a clear hostility toward me, charged me with various infractions over and over, and was eventually proven to have been citing inaccurate information. Please let me know what you think. Thank you! The Cap&#39;n (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Given the time which has elapsed I'd be willing to remove the restriction on you alerting others to the discretionary sanctions if you can tell me how you'll avoid encountering issues with that, as what occurred last time. Regarding the one account restriction, I'm not as convinced that that should be removed, but I'm willing to be convinced. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I honestly have no problem voluntarily abstaining from any new accounts or bothering others with discretionary notices.  The only account I have any desire to use is this one, or occasionally my IP if I forget to sign in (which I clarify afterward).  The only times I was ever accused of that behavior was in Vzaak's SPI's, and as I mentioned, his "evidence" of my socking ended up getting solidly debunked.  I may have a strong voice (and could be accused of being a WP:OGRE), but in every circumstance I've always tried to uphold WP policies and guidelines to the best of my ability, have publicly announced all CoI's, tried to maintain WP:CIVIL, etc.
 * My main concern is to be exonerated of the socking charge and be able to remove that notice from my Talk Page. In 7 years of editing Vzaak was the only person who ever accused me of socking (though others have called me that since the notice went up on my Talk); I've never had any accusations of acting illicitly before or since.  People disagree with my positions, sure, but no one else has charged me with deliberate violations of WP policy.
 * To sum up, socking has never been in my pattern of behavior, my initial SPI conviction was not supported by a Checkuser, and the following SPI (using the same type of evidence) confirmed with Checkuser that I had no possible connection to the supposed sock, and that Vzaak's other charges were false as well. If there are lingering concerns about disruption, I'll voluntarily submit to random Checkusers, restrain from using other accounts, notifications, or whatever else seems reasonable. I just want to stop being vilified for something I didn't do. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This much time after the event it's unlikely that you'd be exonerated, especially since the evidence presented convinced both myself and another administrator. Having said that I can't see a reason why you can't remove or archive the notice from your talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

My confession.
I want to confess to the hoax I pulled on Robert Young in 2012.

It was under his name, I create a sockpuppet account, that and post irresponsible, unacceptable content on Wikipedia and make unacceptable edits. Robert Young is innocent, I am not living on the same continent than Robert. I live in South Africa, he lives in the USA.

It is my fault that he has difficulty return to Wikipedia. I am sorry for the disruption I cause and are ashamed of how immature my behaviour was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfredo9087 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map
Why someone of admins remove protection from this article Syrian Civil War detailed mapand for now all users also unregistered IP editors. Need put protection that be protect from IP edtors which violated rules of edit and break the article. So I ak you fix this error. Sûriyeya (talk) 08:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It was removed automatically when the full protection expired, I've put the semi back on there. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So now map in safe. Thank's! Sûriyeya (talk) 09:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Some advice
Hi, Callanecc, I was hoping to get some advice from you. This week, I've run into three relatively new editors (2-3 months) who spend most of their time posting on user pages and user talk pages. They are either young or pretending to be young. I've posted the "Wikipedia is not a social network" message on some talk pages and at least one editor is taking the message to heart. But for the editors who continue with this behavior (which includes asking other editors to offer personal information to them), how long is this tolerated? This could be a new editor who doesn't understand the purpose of Wikipedia or it could be a troll, wasting our time. How much rope/time is given before showing a clueless editor to the exit? Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 15:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you please email me with who the users are, it might be a case where Oversight or ArbCom need to step in. Once I see some details I can talk you through what I'd do next. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Will do. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 10:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't received anything? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, Callanecc. Most of the accounts were blocked as socks although there are still a couple more. I'll will send the email though. I apologize for the delay. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 10:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

A questions
I ran into all of this by accident and I figured you could offer some perspective. Do you think there is enough connection between this user and this blocked user to justify an SPI? DaltonCastle (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * After seeing their remark on User talk:Felsic2, I think it might be too obvious. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 00:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly. DaltonCastle (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'd say it's worth filing an SPI. Though it can't be discounted that this isn't someone trying to impersonate her. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Could you offer a suggestion
Callanecc, I was hoping you could offer suggestions for dealing with an issue. A while back you suggested I avoid interacting with HughD. Aside from pages we had been both editing prior to that suggestion I have followed that request. Since that time HughD has made much of that post, for example here. HughD took that comment to mean, "don't follow HughD to other pages". Fair enough. On March 2nd HughD decided to follow me to the Ford Pinto page. I've been involved with the page and related talk page for a while. It seems if a person is complaining that they are being wikihounded, the correct action is to avoid the hound NOT to "hound the hound" by going to an article I have been working on and the getting the other editors mad at you. He even searched through my edit history to note another page I've been involved with [General Motors Streetcar Conspiracy] page.

Since March 2nd HughD averaged about 50 edits per day (talk page ). That large volume of edits makes it harder for other editors to work on the page. The article has been locked twice due to his edit warring,. HughD is currently bludgeoning the talk page and generally not listening to not only myself but another long term editor (see Greglocock's comments in the 3RR complaints) but also badgering 3rd party editors responding to his RfC. Do you have suggestions for dealing with this situation? I don't care that he is at the page but I do care that he refuses to work with other editors and is generally being disruptive. Thanks for any suggestions. Springee (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I need your advice as an admin!
In Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map a high probability of war editors because of repeated violations the established rules of editing. I want prevent this in advance, and I need your advice. What I can do, and maybe you can look at this discussions here here and can advise me something. Some editors just frankly do not want to observe the rules for editing here. I just really do not want that again has been established temporary limitation to edit of this module: here. Sûriyeya (talk) 09:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Moreover, the problem is deeper and more persistent than the above seems to indicate. User:LightandDark2000 is a POV pusher who has been a very disruptive editor for a long time on the Syria & Iraq modules. His bad faith, bad source edits that broke long established consensus has turned all editors against him. You can read entire sections of complaints about him on the talk pages: Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 50 and Module talk:Iraqi insurgency detailed map/Archive 4. Also there were a report about him at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive904 where he was blocked for one month. The mess he creates regularly takes time to be cleaned. He injects in the maps his POV pushing and total disregard for other editors’ opinions, sources and established consensus & rules. He has done nothing but make the maps wrong with his POV pushing & unresponsive behavior towards other editors. 2A01:CB04:63D:D700:38FA:A4DD:BA04:AB51 (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for unprotection
-- John of Reading (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail
Destiny Leo (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't find it, could you please send it again. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Possibly return of Truthalwaysrules as new account
Hi, Gilliam. I think Truthalwaysrules has possibly return as. He has the same interest of The Calling, Matchbox Twenty, Nickelback and his other favorite rock/metal bands. 115.164.84.7 (talk) 09:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you left this on the right talk page. But it's probably best to create a sockpuppet investigation report here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Retired user checking in to say thanks
Hi Callanecc, been a long time since I posted on a talk page! Every now and again I'll stop by and check a few things, one of which is my vanished account's history. So having done that today, I just wanted to confirm that the block of User:Lukeno94 is valid, because that wasn't me and was indeed an impostor (the American date usage on European articles should make it as obvious as anything else.) Seems a bit of a strange time to start impersonating me, since I walked out several months before that! 95.144.61.53 (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User pages protection
should be looked at in this context Legacypac (talk) 07:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the background, but even so the edit warring on that page needs to stop. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you mind pointing to the edit warring? Honestly, I don't see any. There was one revert in the 24 hours prior to your page protection and that reversion set the page back to a 2015 version with no discussion whatsoever. You can see editors working productively over the past year in the edit history, reaching compromises on what content on the page should be. These contributors were on both sides of the issue (Ricky being one of the so-called "deletionists" at MfD and SmokeyJoe being one of the "keep everything" folk, for your context). As it stands, the policy now represents the view of a single editor who decided that the past year of work is a net negative rather than the more than a dozen editors who've edited the policy and had maintained a pretty much stable version over the past several months. ~ RobTalk 05:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There are just 4 editors introducing changes and having closed discussion based on compromises, if you think they reflect the view of the community, you're mistaken. --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif">QEDK ( T &#128214;  C ) 05:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Callanecc - I'd also like to draw your attention to the edit summary here:, where QEDK apparently takes it as a personal affront that I've asked for clarification on this page protection and threatens to "run everywhere against me". I'm withdrawing myself from this argument because the amount of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior is way above my head, but I really don't think that protecting a policy page for a month to match the views of a single editor who is actively threatening me and is currently trying to get another dissenting editor topic banned at ANI is really the way to go. Give it some thought. Cheers. ~ RobTalk 05:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Whaaaaaat? You're the one who wanted this protection overturned (not to mention, you did not once mention it on the MfD page). I want it to stay, why can't I present my arguments? I humourously presumed that you're running everywhere against me and that I'll do it too. I haven't insulted you or hounded you, what the hell, dude? --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif">QEDK ( T &#128214;  C ) 06:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not getting drawn into this. The edit summary speaks for itself. ~ RobTalk 06:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm seeing comments such as:
 * significant [and arbitrary] change made without consensus, amid a related discussion on the talk page
 * This (and->or) is a substantive change for which consensus was not aought′
 * Restoring content which has been accepted here since 2010, repeatedly removed by one editor.
 * They all seems to indicate that page protection (in the current version) is required to encourage discussion on the talk page rather than long-term edit warring. Regarding the conflict between the two of you, the battleground behaviour is evident from both of you and you both need to tone it down and get back to discussing the issue rather than each other. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies about the template, I thought you were the only one using it. As for the battleground mentality, I've only pointed out deficits in his arguments. --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif">QEDK ( T &#128214;  C ) 14:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Aaron Schock
Time has passed. No vandalism occurred at this time. Downgrade to PC or unprotect? --George Ho (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've downgraded to PC, let's see how it goes. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Impose Sanction on Yemeni Civil War map
Hello sir, sorry for taking your time.

With regards to WP:GS/ISIL and WP:GS/SCW&ISIL sanctions regime that said: “''All articles related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, broadly construed, are placed under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume an edit is related and so is a revert''.”

by knowing that and being involved this matter with Yemeni Civil War and subpages related to it (such as Map of the Yemeni Civil War) also existence of edit warring at there and even breach of this restriction & revert it from documentation subpage ,,

Might applied this sanction on those pages as legally?

Best regards. K!lluminati (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Original version. Grayshark is not admin, the haven't roght to impose 1RR. No admin has decided to implement 1RR while for the Libyan theme, there is no restriction 1RR while there, the presence of Daesh is even greater. --Panam2014 (talk) 10:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Let me remind that WP:GS/SCW&ISIL interpreted widely and encompass of anything that is related to ISIL, whether Libya or Yemen. this law levied in WP:ARBPIA generally then adhere to it not only by command of admin. K!lluminati (talk) 11:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If there are sanctions, it should cover not only Yemen but also Libya and for modules and articles. Then for Yemen ( article and maps) it is relative , it is not as if there were editing wars on the cities controlled by the ISIS group. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Ironically general sanctions are a tool to improve the editing atmosphere of an article or topic area also help to resolve disputes and curtail disruptive behaviour and prevention of spread edit war. K!lluminati (talk) 12:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

E-mail
--Steverci (talk) 03:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

About Your Decline of My Request for Speedy Deletion of Department of Plant Protection (Pakistan)
Yeah, hi. You declined my speedy deletion request of the above mentioned article as per A7 of the Criteria for speedy deletion. This article makes no clear assertion of importance, and A7 only excludes educational institutions, which this does not fall under. So can you please explain me why you rejected my request for speedy deletion? Thanks. --113.203.203.53 (talk) 13:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi 113.203.203.53, I declined the speedy deletion as I believe that it being a government agency gives it a credible claim of importance which is all that's needed to get through CSD A7. If you still believe it should be deleted you can propose it for deletion or start a deletion discussion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dave Sharma
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dave Sharma you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MPJ-DK -- MPJ-DK (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dave Sharma
The article Dave Sharma you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Dave Sharma for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MPJ-DK -- MPJ-DK (talk) 05:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dave Sharma
The article Dave Sharma you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dave Sharma for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MPJ-DK -- MPJ-DK (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map
Joint decisions were adopted the basic rules for the editing of this module:

1- A reliable source for that specific edit should be provided.

2- Copying from maps is strictly prohibited.

3- WP:POV pushing and intentional misinterpretation of sources will not be tolerated. here

These rules help us to keep order and prevent unjustified changes in module. But this guy here try break of these rules and he don't want fallow to them herehere, but such actions can have very serious consequences because then the rest of the editors also will be not follow these rules and this will provoke a lot of unjustified changes and this will harm of module. Maybe you how the administrator can influence of it. Otherwise, all editors also will cease to respect the rules. Because we have many unreliable amateur maps and unreliable sources and if all start use them it is will be very bad and it may even provoke a war edits. Sûriyeya (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Since I have been accused I would like to say a few things in my defense. 1. As the very first thing, I would like to say I did not POV push any issue, or broke rules multiple times, as Suriyeya is claiming. Not to mention, I did not state I don't want to follow them, and in fact, I stated multiple times I agree with the said rules. 2. Editor Suriyeya stated, in his personal opinion, that the source in question (deSyracuse) is, and I quote, a amateur activist from a twitter and nothing more, even though I provided to him a link for the source which is an appropriate website with really professionally done maps and in great detail. Plus, I find his reasoning odd considering Sûriyeya uses twitter posts on a regular basis to edit the Syrian war Wikipedia map. I pointed out that, to mark a source as unreliable, he would have to provide evidence (other sources) that question the reliability of the said source (which he did not). 3. I advised him that unsourced negative personal opinions on a source is considered POV OR, which is not per WP policy. Furthermore, I provided to him a link to a news site that uses maps from the source in question. Note, this news site Suriyeya also uses on a regular basis and calls it a reliable source. I thought, considering this is considered a reliable source and it is using the maps from deSyracuse, would give a level of verifiability to deSyracuse. This part he ignored. 4. Furthermore, he said the usage of any maps as sources on the Wikipedia map is in violation of WP:RS and WP:CIRCULAR. I explained to him that WP:RS does not have a general rule prohibiting any kinds of maps and that WP:CIRCULAR does not have anything to do with the usage of maps, but that instead it prohibits the usage of Wikipedia articles as sources on Wikipedia. Than, he pointed out the article's talk page rule ''Maps from mainstream media are approximate and therefore unreliable for any edit. Maps from amateur sources are below the standards of Wikipedia for any edit.'' I pointed out to him that I agree with both rules, but that the source is not a mainstream media nor is it an amateur source (remind again the maps are professionally done maps and in great detail and there is an official website). He ignored this part as well. 5. As I tried to continue discussing the issue, he threatened to call an administrator and said he was not interested in a lengthy discussion on the talk page. I told him that issuing threats instead of continuing to discuss the issue on the talk page is not per WP policy on assuming good faith. Not to mention, a few times, I tried to end the discussion myself and let it be as he wants it, trying to leave the issue on a good note, but he continued the argument himself. Also, all the while we were having the discussion he made several subtle but still uncivil comments towards me which were not per WP: Civil. He also basically has accused me of POV pushing even though he has continued to denounce the source in question in a POV manner (like I said, calling it an amateur activist from a twitter even though he himself has used twitter posts multiple times). I see he has also accused me of misinterpretation of the source, even though I have not made any edits that are contrary to the source. 6. Finally, at the very start of our argument, he said my edit was ultimately fine and OK because it reverted an edit that was in violation of another talk page rule. So, he coming to an administrator is more of a reaction to me trying to continue the discussion about the source, which he himself said he was not interested in having, and he probably felt bugged by me. And I really don't see how my ONE edit (that is in his lone opinion improper) and my subsequent attempt at having a discussion for the sake of clarification and compromise (that he himself has stated is not interested in having) makes me the bad guy? EkoGraf (talk) 00:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * PS, sorry for taking your time with this Callanecc and that you have been involved in this argument. As far as I'm concerned, I'm not interested in pushing the issue or being involved in this matter further. Like I already stated earlier, Sûriyeya can act/edit (and behave) as he wants, even though I think its not proper, and he won't hear from me anymore about the problem (as he wanted). Regards! EkoGraf (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * EkoGraf I tried talk with you but you ignored my oppinion when I said that source which you use is amateur activist and he create and update maps just on based claims from twitter or some sources and not all of them crediable. And in our rules it was said that "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources." And that acording rules "use maps as a source prohibited" as we dont know according which sources he created his maps. On his of interactive map too many very importent mistkakes and many changes which was made just on the based claims from the not reliable too biased activists from Twitter. That's all I wanted to say. Sûriyeya (talk) 06:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not ignore you, I provided to you evidence like Masdar that per WP policy give verifiability to the source, which you yourself ignored. You also did not provide proof on the unreliability of deSyracuse. And I still find it odd you have a problem with deSyracuse allegedly using twitter as a source (for which you haven't provided proof) when you yourself use twitter as a source. In any case, I'm done like I said. EkoGraf (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

To what end?
called me out on a talk page. My only sanction is a Topic Ban imposed by Gamaliel. I am going to appeal it now that the the other party is Topic Banned. Is that forbidden? Can I defend myself from SV? I would love Gamaliel to be IBANned from me and have no problem never interacting again. It solves his INVOLVED problem. But being blamed by third parties because he violated admin rules is ludicrous. I respectfully reserve the right to comment to 3rd parties making scurrilous aspersions. --DHeyward (talk) 03:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi DHeyward, appealing your topic ban is completely fine per BANEX however I'd be very cautious of making comments on Gamaliel directly. I'd caution you regarding stepping close to the edges of the interaction ban as admins generally pretty strictly enforce ArbCom imposed sanctions. It would be better to either ignore or state that you can't comment on questions/accusations (etc) due to the IBAN and refer to the (open) case. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll wait then. I have more concern that the drive by comment by SV on the arbitration case talk page would preclude response. She made it sound like my April 2 CSD and it's resolution was responsible for actions on April 7.  Also, your tiny boxes on the top of your talk page say you are an Arb Clerk (hover comment) but I believe that you are an Arbitrator?  Can you update/clarify? --DHeyward (talk) 10:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am an arb, another thing I forgot to update when I got elected (thanks for the reminder). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Case management tradition
Traditionally, when an editor committed faux pas, a clerk handled it (allowing arbitrators to appear wise and distant), and they addressed the user on the talk page, rather than the public scolding of the evidence page. e.g. User_talk:NE_Ent/Archive/2012. Personally, I think it comes across better doing it the old way. NE Ent 02:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree to an extent, the arbitrators being involved in discussion on the evidence page demonstrates precisely what they're/we're after. Also, since the info DHeyward was discussing may have been suppressed and there's only one clerk with OS who can see it an arb was best placed to have that discussion. If I had then only discussed it with DHeyward, this would have been a message from someone stating that I've treated one editor different from another. My comment to Dennis was also related to what the intended scope of the case is, the clerks making comments like that have usually been questioned by others. Having said that, I do see where you're coming from, hopefully people will see it as the arbs being actively involved in the case which has been asked for as well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk page
Callanecc, excuse me if this is the not the right place to request this, but I noted you restored the Trump MFD for purposes of the arbitration. I noted the MFD refers to talk page discussion, so it would seem that this should also be restored in trying to trace the fighting over the page. cheers.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken 13:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess, technically it should have been requested on the evidence talk page, but who cares (shh, don't tell anyone :) ). Talk page restored to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence/Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-17/News and notes. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!
TJH2018  talk  18:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism
Can you block this user?: User:Gogo212121 because he vandalizes he is doing edits in some articles without any reasons nor sources. And this is not the first time that he does such actions. You can view his history of editinghere and you will see that all his changes are made without providing sources and such actions violates the rules of editing. I do not know how to make a request for a lock but I hope for your help. Sûriyeya (talk) 11:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * here
 * here
 * here

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Isaac Parker
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Isaac Parker you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Left Euryalus message that his rev del left a spurious charge but have seen no response.
See my comment there.. While the name was rev del'd it left aspersions that are unsubstantiated and part of your reques. I made no such comparison and "alleged" doesn't fix the unsubstantiated aspersion. You requested diffs, whic I provided but that sentence should also be rev del'd as it it makes no sense and also makes an accusation that is no longer defended or supported. --DHeyward (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Euryalus has responded. Please see .  I disagree a bit in that the statement casts me in a light that is negative and unsourced.  --DHeyward (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 's response seems to be pretty reasonable, and give you something to link to (as an explanation) if someone asks you about it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I put it here as you asked on the evidence page. You commented that it was my comments that were rev-deled when my reading of Euryalus statement was that my comments were not BLP violations. I was commenting on the apologia being posited and "the other editor" was User:SlimVirgin who was writing the apologia, blaming me. I did not make the connection that User:GorillaWarfare did, as Euryalus points out, that now stands alone with no diffs and no context. It reads as a statement of fact that was simply not true and it's distorted by the rev del. I don't mind reformatting my evidence to include the links, but I'd prefer if you remove your statements about aspersions before I change it to a statement rather than a reply.  --DHeyward (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be curious to know why you named that individual, then. Granted I don't know a ton about him, nor did I follow the news coverage, but is he known for blaming people who accused him of something other than these particular transgressions? Otherwise this seems like an attempt to coyly pretend you did not mean what you said. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As an aside, if you feel "alleged" is not sufficient to satisfy BLP, you should probably take that up on the bio article and the entire separate article with practically that exact wording for the title. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know what he's known for as I didn't say anything about him. I said the apologia was better suited for that articles  talk page because that notable personality had many defenders blaming other individuals despite the large numbers of people accusing him of wrongdoing.  And yes, it was your comment that triggered BLP violations and rev dels.  That you linked it to a crime had nothing to do with what I wrote. If you can think of someone else that has a large following set of fans that excuse his every move, feel free to replace it as the alleged crime had nothing to do with it.  The only one who made the connection to violate WP:BLPCRIME was you.  And it derailed the conversation so I guess you were successful.  Right now, you still have an unsupported aspersion on that page as I was not making the comparison you are still accusing me of making.  --DHeyward (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * But for full effect we have an article on the Pound Cake speech. --DHeyward (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And his defenders were defending him from the allegation I referenced. Trying to pretend you were not referring to that is absurd. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You made that connection. You obviously didn't read the Pound Cake speech where blame shifting showed the hypocrisy you are embracing.  Go figure out which side of blame shifting you are on and why you still haven't corrected your unsupported aspersion.  I realize you may think the comedian is a victim of abuse by powerless fans of Pound Cake, but that viewpoint has already been ridiculed.  Please retract your aspersions that were called out by Euryalus and myself.  --DHeyward (talk) 06:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, this conversation is getting so weird I'm starting to think we've entered the twilight zone. I have read the speech, but I continue to stand by my points about your comments above. If others actually feel I've cast aspersions or violated BLP, go ahead and remove it, but I'm seeing that conversation with you is going to go nowhere. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * You must have a wonderful gift to continue to assert what I must have been thinking, when I corrected you immediately, others have corrected you and I've patiently tolerated you explaining to me what I think. I'm grateful that you still believe yourself to be an authority and qualified to explain to me what I must be thinking, despite what I and others have said.  It truly must be a gift in the kyriarchy of Wikipedia.  I have no bits, status or privilege to challenge your insight to my thinking.  Thank you for explaining how you know what I must be thinking since I am obviously incapable of doing it for myself.  I feel as if it is only polite for me to offer you a sammich for helping me explain what I meant. --DHeyward (talk)

Repeated attempts to disparage
This is with regards to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foodfight!

As you may know, this page has repeatedly been used to disparage the film's director. If you look at traffic patterns for this page, it appears that someone is buying clicks, so that the page ranks high on any search for the film's director and/or production company.

If you cannot prevent this from happening, please remove this page.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkasanoff (talk • contribs) 20:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Re:ARCA and BANEX
Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Isaac Parker
The article Isaac Parker you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Isaac Parker for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Isaac Parker
Hello! Your submission of Isaac Parker at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Random86 (talk) 03:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-20
<section begin="technews-2016-W20"/> Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes
 * Some image thumbnails now load faster on mobile. They also take up less bandwidth.

Problems
 * Last week's MediaWiki version was late on some wikis.

Changes this week
 * Special:Notifications will have "mark as read" buttons for each day. The non-JavaScript version will get it this week. A JavaScript version will come later.
 * Wikis can now locally decide what wikitext they want the signature button to produce.
 * A one-time welcome message for users will now be shown in the wikitext editor. This will include existing users.
 * Octicons-sync.svg The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from May 17. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from May 18. It will be on all wikis from May 19 (calendar).

Meetings
 * Octicons-tools.svg You can join the next meeting with the Architecture committee. The topics this week are "Requirements for change propagation". The meeting will be on May 18 at 21:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes
 * Using self-closing tags like  and   to mean   and   will not work in the future. Templates and pages that use these tags should be fixed. When Phabricator ticket T134423 is fixed these tags will parse as   and   instead. This is normal in HTML5.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe. <section end="technews-2016-W20"/> 16:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)