User talk:Callanecc/Archive 27

Nearing three months
You said you wanted to see three months of uncontroversial editing before considering a review of my TBAN (on the basis that it was initiated by a sock), but how about two and a half months, a GA, two DYKs and various page creations , ? Iskandar323 (talk) 05:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: While not directly related to my editing, I feel it is worth noting that every user that participated in the original enforcement request and made a statement unfavorable to me has now been blocked for socking. This includes the OP, 11Fox11, Geshem Bracha and now User:Free1Soul - the latter is this SPI. Two of these are confirmed Icewhiz socks, while the latter is a suspected sock, but untagged for now. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Return of sockpuppet
Not sure where to go, but I've seen you involved in the Sockpuppet investigations/King kong92/Archive case so wanted to mention that I suspect that the editor has returned again with the account. --Semsûrî (talk) 14:27, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

King kong92 is not me. Kind regards WakaWakaQdh (talk) 15:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Can you take a look, since Callanecc hasn't been active for some days now. --Semsûrî (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Semsûrî if you suspect this user of being a sockpuppet, I'd suggest opening a SPI case if you don't get a reply soon for Callanecc. I'm not involved with this case, so I'm not sure what to look for similarty wise. If you can detail what makes you suspect this user as a sock over at SPI or here if you don't want to file an SPI / file one yet that would be helpful in determining what actions I or Callanecc could take. If it's either off-wiki evidence or you feel like WP:BEANS applies then emailing me with the evidence is an option. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 23:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

This is a Til Eulenpiegel sock
KZebegna Doug Weller  talk 16:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users
Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year 2022
Hello, Callanecc,

I was looking at an old SPI case, saw your signature and decided to look to see how active you were these days and saw you've been away for a few months. I hope that you are just busy with fun, more exciting things than Wikipedia and that you and your loved ones are well and had a pleasant holiday season. You are missed! Come back should you have the inclination and free time. All the best, Liz Read! Talk! 20:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Email
Hi Callanecc, I've sent you a couple of emails to the address you last used to contact ArbCom. Could you please email me back when you have a chance? Thanks!  Maxim (talk)   13:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Callanecc, just going to try drawing your attention to the emails one more time in hopes you might see it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Changes to functionary team
In accordance with the policy on CheckUser and Oversighter inactivity, the CheckUser and Oversight rights of are removed.

You have blocked me unnecessarily
Hi admin. You have blocked me due to my edits on Eastern Catholic Churches. Everything I wrote in that article is with reference. The official website of the Syro-Malabar Church and numerous sources say that the Syro-Malabar hierarchy was established in 1923 and not 1663. But User:Pbritti is constantly vandalising the page with an incorrect date 1663 and misleading citation. 2402:8100:3905:5B17:B9F5:859C:BC89:4AD0 (talk) 06:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia it's important to engage in discussion when your edits are challenged rather than continuing to revert. That's even if you think you're right, you need to avoid edit warring and discuss your proposed changes with others using reliable sources. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the IP editor in question is circumventing the block from editing Eastern Catholic Churches under . ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I am not circumventing any block. When I tried to restore the correct version, I got a message from Wikipedia saying: "your ip address has been blocked. Try creating an account or edit other articles." Meanwhile, I have added quote substantiating my argument. But Pbritti still wants to create his/her imaginations reality by adding it in Wikipedia article. Sad. Qaumrambista (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement
22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

You need to add 19 April Kantar poll for second round I dont know how to edit.
You need to add 19 April Kantar poll for second round I dont know how to edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intracampos (talk • contribs) 11:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Intracampos, if you put a message on the talk page of the article, someone who is familar with it will be able to help. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Pre-emptive clarification on blockban
Not fighting a weeklong ban on a page I'm not touching, but I would like to thank you for doing a page specific ban and to ask you to keep it as such unless there's any major attack. Maybe I'm being paranoid, but last year someone on Es-Wikipedia had a sitewide ban for the whole block (three months, IIRC), and that obviously sucked. Claro, or at least Claro Honduras, periodically rotates IPs. In my case it happens around every two months or so, dunno why whoever was spamming that page was burning through so many IPs so fast. --181.115.61.24 (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hopefully they stay limited to that article and don't expand elsewhere! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Source for Koskeniemmi
Thank you for your message. You are right that we should have a source. Here is a reputable Finnish website that states the basic fact: https://sananvapauteen.fi/artikkeli/1999

This fact is also on the Wiki page for "Far-right Finnish politics" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.212.143.164 (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Be very cautious that the source supports all of the statement you want to add while considering the context. For a claim like that you are likely going to need multiple high-quality reliable sources. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by shout
Hey, Callanecc - it's been a while since our paths have crossed, and I've wondered how you were getting along. I recall you being pretty busy in RL, and it appears that hasn't changed. Good to see that you're still active on WP as well. Warm regards... Atsme 💬 📧 12:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) Still busy but not as busy for a little bit. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Kajouz
Hi, Callanecc. I'm concerned that this is not, strictly speaking, a vandalistic account. It may be a role account representing M1 Group. To my eye, its edits are completely focused on removing content that it says is counterfactual. I can't see how this amounts to vandalism. We do need somehow to get its attention and force it to use talk pages though.—S Marshall T/C 13:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I put it in the vandalism bucket based on the blanking of (sourced) content without providing a legitimate reason after warnings to stop. If they appeal the block with an explanation then it stops being vandalism and the edit warring can be dealt with. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

IP vandalism from someone who keeps switching their IP address
Hello. You denied my request for page protection because you said that there wasn’t enough recent activity, and the vandal struck again hours ago while I was sleeping, twice, this time switching up their act and changing all sorts of things to put false information on the article.

You also said that I should “warn them for edit warring and/or removing content without a source and then report if it continues”. But this is not edit warring, this is vandalism, plain and simple. This vandal is just doing anything they can to mess up the page now, and there’s nothing stopping them from going to the “List of countries by Human Development Index” Wikipedia page or the official HDI website to see that they’re wrong, and it’s been pointed out the them that what they’re doing is wrong, and they don’t care. And surely it would be completely pointless to warn or block an IP that is now constantly changing, anyway. This person is using multiple IP addresses. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I think this page needs to be permanently protected in that way that prevents IPs from editing a page, because this vandal switches their IP address constantly, so blocking them wouldn’t work, and they’re persistent, and they’ve shown that they’ll wait for months, obviously constantly watching for anyone to undo the ways in which they’ve falsely presented the information from the HDI study/studies, and there doesn’t seem to be any users watching the page except for me. I didn’t think that I’d need to add this page to my watchlist when I undid this anonymous person’s vandalism the first time, and I wouldn’t have caught it the second time if I hadn’t happened to go back to that page.

Please help. I’ve been dealing with an extremely painful back injury that came out of nowhere since yesterday, and a giant spider tried to attack me while I was still in bed this morning, so my luck is clearly going bad enough that I might somehow die today and not be around to undo more vandalism to this page (which is the “ List of U.S. states and territories by Human Development Index” article, by the way, which I forgot to mention because I’d just woken up). Anyway, it’s already evident that I’m not going to be able to stay on top of it, and, frankly, it’s cruel to waste my time like this. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Again please, see my reverts
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:P_J_Chatterjee Sportski recenzist (talk) 23:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

See
User talk:Biblicaldna and. Doug Weller talk 18:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

BEKLE
... ANSIZIN. İ 176.40.230.220 (talk) 05:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Good luck for you

AnujinLA (talk) 02:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC) 

Unprotection request
Hello, I request unprotection of these templates - All three have less than 5 transclusions and no recent history of disruption. The protection was originally applied by you when they were in another editors userspace. When they moved them out to template namespace, the protection got moved as well. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Here are more templates to unprotect for the same reason -
 * ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Eddie891 · Euryalus · TheresNoTime
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Alex.muller · Excirial · RedWordSmith · Ron Ritzman · TheresNoTime · Stephen

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg TheresNoTime
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg TheresNoTime

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg TheresNoTime

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news
 * Consensus has been found in an RfC to automatically place RfAs on hold after one week.
 * The article creation at scale RfC has been closed.
 * An RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign has been closed.

Technical news
 * A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget.

Arbitration
 * Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 12, 2022 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
 * The proposed decision for the 2021-22 review of the discretionary sanctions system is open.
 * The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has been closed.
 * The arbitration case Stephen has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 1 December 2022.
 * A motion has modified the procedures for contacting an admin facing Level 2 desysop.

Miscellaneous
 * Tech tip: A single IPv6 connection usually has access to a "subnet" of 18 quintillion IPs. Add  to the end of an IP in Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!
 '''Wishing Callanecc a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Best wishes! CAPTAIN RAJU''' (T) 21:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy holidays!
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Callanecc: Enjoy the holiday season&#32;and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, The SandDoctor  Talk 18:17, 25 December 2022 (UTC) Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message From my family to yours The SandDoctor  Talk 18:17, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

LGBT UAE protections

 * Although the sentiments of your block are admirable, I am an editor trying to improve the page. AukusRuckus has shown bad faith immediately and made accusations against me which I fully deny. I feel like you were possibly misled or used. He tried to get you to unwittingly protect the page as a way to shut down valid discussion on the talk page so he could avoid addressing my edit concerns, proposing a reasonable edit suggestion, and may have unwittingly converted you into a WP:cowboy. I don't see you at fault for this in fact I don't take your actions personally. However, I think you may have jumped the gun on your decision without thinking about my side and what role he may have put you in by having you protect it without telling him to not duck away from our conversation and to actually type in there first. I will continue to try to assume good faith but this doesn't seem like he had good intentions from the outside looking in. I hope you will reconsider this page protection. Thank you. 01:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The page protection isn't just about your edits. There is a long-term history of sockpuppetry and disruptive edits on the article going back years with page protections on and off throughout that. Making no comment on the merits of what you want to add, my suggestion would be to use the edit request process to suggest and dicuss the changes you want to make. If you try to edit the article there will be some instructions which appear. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * My concerns are that without the barrier of that protection he will ignore my pleas for honest and open discussion in the talk page. It's not really fair to me or the community for one user to selfishly ignore conversations that can improve the page. Can you please at least prod him or try to get him to talk there? We can't discuss it if he stonewalls me and we will not get anywhere if I'm by myself. Thanks. 04:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.137.183.249 (talk)


 * An edit request would go to everyone not just him. I would suggest to you though that it appears that you are a sock or meatpuppet of User:Jacobkennedy given that you are making extremely similar edits to those that Jacobkennedy and their sockpuppets have made. Because of that it is fairly likely that other edits may ignore or decline the request(s) you make for that reason. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Oversight request
Hello there. I wonder if you were responding to my oversight request (via email) on Blu del Barrio to address the record these additions when you protected the page? The additions include information that may-or-may-not be about the subject before they were notable. I really don't know the best way to phrase this; please bare with me. Assuming they are about the subject is obviously original research; speculative; investigative. If they are about the subject, and we cannot be sure, they fall under policies of deadnaming. If they're not about the subject; I don't think they're quite libel or defamatory but I'm no lawyer and would defer to my feelings on the subject, which are that maintaining a record of possibly completely false or at least undesirably revealing details of the subject is just not okay. At the end of the day; the details are not contributing to the article, but are possibly damaging to the subject, so should (IMO) be at least hidden. Cheers  10:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether using a deadname (which is now only in the article history) will rise to level required to justify suppression but it may reach the level required to justify revision deletion (which all administrators can do). If you've already submitted a ticket to the oversight team I'll leave it to their judgement and processes. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I see you were responding to 's request for page protection not my request for oversight, and just replied to the email/ticket with a rejection, so I guess it's noticeboard time. Sorry to bother you; have a good day :)   09:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Query
Dear Callanecc,

You banned me for 12 months but may I question if this is the right choice?

Regarding the first incident, I take complete responsibility, It was only of the first things I’ve done on Wikipedia, and though I was unlucky to be ‘caught’ (I’ve seen worse!), I did slow down as another user suggested and mainly for used on small, newcomer copy edits to fix grammar, as you can see on my contributions. I also learnt not to edit a featured page without permission from those on the talk page. This is not something I have done again, thankfully.

However, the second incident was in fact an edit war with another user, something I didn’t know the rules concerning and at that point hadn’t heard of. As far as I was concerned at that point, I had added well-sourced info which hat gained support by a more senior user on the talk page, and looking at that talk page I saw that the person constantly removing the info was also swearing on the talk page. While the page that I added material to is a heavy debate, I added information to both the ‘Support’ and ‘Opposition’ sections, while the other user caught up in the edit war only removed my edits to the ‘Opposition’ section until I pointed it out. Again, I believed I was just protecting the page from vandalism as looking through the second user’s contributions similar things had happened with other pages. The difference was that on other, more protected pages, it was a senior editor who stopped them, and on this one, it was a newcomer – me. This second user was lucky though because I backed down after I was enlightened as to what an edit war was (which I realised I had just done) and their changes were made. Moreover, they got no punishment despite a previous history of being nasty while editing and on talk pages.

I don’t really intend to work on gender-related articles in the future. It’s like stepping into a minefield and whatever you do, there are angry users chasing after you. I’m currently working on pages such as Upper Slaughter and Darwin Núñez (true, they’re not related at all). I only ask you if your could possibly review if you have time the comments I have made and if that changes your opinion over what is to happen to me.

Have a Happy New Year when it comes!

Scientelensia Scientelensia (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I think part of the problem you had, as you mention above, is that you stepped into a really difficult area to edit accurately and within the bounds of policy where the consequences for not doing so are higher than they would be in other less contentious areas. Your plan to edit in other areas for while to gain some more knowledge of how Wikipedia works and what you're expected to do is a good one. To take a point from above, the issue wasn't necessarily about you needing to seek permission to edit featured articles it's more about ensuring that your edits meet the criteria that featured articles need to maintain and if you're not sure asking for second opinion before making changes. Once you have experience in other areas I don't think you'll run into problems in the more contentious areas but you, likely the vast majority of other new editors, need experience before working on those topics. While it's not nice to be on the receiving end of a topic ban, I don't think there's a strong justification for removing it at this stage. Having said that, once you've spent 3-6 months editing well in other areas I've no issue looking at it again to see if it can be removed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you! Scientelensia (talk) 09:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps a longer block after all
For. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's see if they actually edit, they may not realise that they can. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Your Lock on Kim Seon-ho
Please read and response to my comments on the Talk about why I tried to edit a part of article which is related on anonymous source using and actual misleading sentences for months.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kim_Seon-ho#On_Using_Dispatch_and_Misleading_Sentences TheWandering (talk) 09:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've asked for a second opinion on the BLP noticeboard but until that happens I'm not super inclined to change the version to something else especially since it has been the stable version of the article for so long. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but the "stable version" can be very problematic if there was no check and balance in the first place. This is worse than sock-puppet. Clearly there has been oversight, but more precisely: fans playing editors.
 * As a person who is familiar with K-Pop industry, I know (everyone knows) how controversial Dispatch is. But the editors in that page insist to retain Dispatch because it gives a better light for the celeb in question.
 * If you really insist to keep the article for sometime, at least remove the two misleading sentences. This part is especially a lie and not even written in the sources. I suspect the fans try to shift the blame to the ex-girlfriend.
 * "Screen-captures of chat conversations from acquaintances revealed that the ex-girlfriend had been the one to suggest the abortion, contrary to her claims." TheWandering (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You've added an edit request to the talk page for another administrator to review and posted on the BLP noticeboard and have disucssed it with a number of editors on the article's talk page. You need to stop pushing, stop casting aspersions about what you think are the motiviations and thinking of other editors and allow the processes you have started to take place. Continuing to ask the same question in multiple places and making accusations against other editors is not going to help you make the changes you want to make. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * After months of oversight with no one actually checked the obviously misleading sentences, and those who were actually there somehow not bothering to correct it while insisting to use an unconfirmed report with anonymous source from a controversial entertainment website, obviously my conjecture did not magically come out of nowhere.
 * Also I ask around since the Korean Reliable source board is very unresponsive. Someone asked about Dispatch a few months ago and no response. I was also redirected from a Korean board talk page because it's not active. And you are the one who locked the page, so I assumed you at least already checked the problematic part, which is why I came here. TheWandering (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If you want to open a general discussion about the reliability of Dispatch as a source you can try the Reliable sources/Noticeboard but you may get a similar response as at the Korea WikiProject page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:36, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Undeletion?
Could you explain your rationale for this undeletion? I don't see any REFUND request anywhere. Primefac (talk)
 * Hi, I closed the AFD with a soft delete and it was still on my watchlist. The article has since been recreated, with a different subject, so I couldn't see a good reason to keep the original version deleted. Although the brief description in the AFD describes a different person having it undeleted in the article's history allows everyone access to the previous version. Effectively, the reason to keep it soft deleted, so it doesn't appear publically, was no longer necessary as the current version of the article was for someone different. Had the AFD received more participation and I'd closed it as 'delete', as opposed to 'soft delete', that reason would not have applied. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The idea that it's desirable for an article to contain history segments about two different people, especially when they constitute (admittedly minor) parallel histories is bizarre, and I would argue serves to obfuscate what happened rather than clarify it. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't catch the parallel history, I thought they were separated in the page history in the page history which would have made the connection (or disconnection) between them clearer. I must have misread the order of the dates and years. I'll redelete it and restore the current version. Sorry about that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You bungled the redeletion - Special:PermaLink/614374151 should have been deleted but wasn't. For the record I've been periodically checking the undeletion log for the last several months to work around T315591, saw your undeletion, assumed someone had contested the soft-deletion off-wiki, and requested an admin split out the two versions at Requests for history merge, which lead Primefac to ask you here. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, fixed now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Cheers, ta. Primefac (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 January 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Callanecc!


Happy New Year! Callanecc, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. See this for background context.

— Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 22:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Gadar 2
Hi The Article Full Name is Gadar 2:The Katha Continues. Peter181 (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Peter181: I've moved the article for you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Peter181 (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Introduction
Hi - I've noticed that you've become a lot more active recently, and I just wanted to reach out and introduce myself. You cast a long shadow - took me through CVUA training in 2018, and I believe the curriculum he used was mostly your work; I then used that curriculum to train quite a lot of new users, and I also believe that you trained, who I have worked closely with since I started working SPIs in 2020. Essentially, I just wanted to say hi, but I also wanted to mention that I remain very open to constructive criticism - I'm one of the more active CUs at SPI at the moment, so if you ever find yourself scratching your head at something I've done, please don't hesitate to let me know. I am always grateful for a steer from an old hand. Happy new year, and good to see you back. Girth Summit  (blether) 21:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @Girth Summit Yup, I'm a Callanecc trainee (and good to see that you're active again!). I've been trying to pass on the wisdom to @User:Jack Frost and @MarioGom, although I've drifted away from SPI lately and gone for the deep dive on WP:DYK. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the intro . I was actually looking at the CVUA still in my subpages a couple of days ago wondering if it ended up being helpful. I'm glad has been! Ah yes, the training of Roy, I remember it well, I think that material also ended up being passed around as well. I'll let you know if I notice anything. 😊 Nice to see you around Roy, I hadn't seen your username much as SPI, but the DYK focus explained it. I spent some time working on the queues at some point, always interesting to see, sometimes fascinating. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

SA20 links
Hi. I saw you posted on on of the anon edits on an SA20 site that is adding the fake site. Whoever it is is adding that site to all the SA20 related sites. Anon has also started adding a fake site to the ILT20 sites. I added all the official sites yesterday for all the SA20 teams but anon changed them all back to the fake site this morning. I don't have time to revert them back now so thought I would let at least one other editor know what was happening, especially since the tournament starts today. Looking for info for it was how I found out about the fake sites to begin with ... XinJeisan (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @XinJeisan: I've blocked the IP range that's been used to add the links so that should stop them at least for the next three days. If they come back after the block and keep adding the links let me know and I'll see what else I can do. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. XinJeisan (talk) 08:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Making true statements about bad behaviour
It's a little unclear, yes, how one is to seek help with egregious behavior if one cannot describe for what is at at ANI when slandered on one's eighth or ninth attempt to draw attention to it. i realize you don't know me and several other people probably recused, so I do not want to give you, personally, a hard time, but seriously, have you read that ANI thread? And please, what am I to do about his aspersions against me? He is, right now, still trying to keep rape by Russian soldiers out of Wikipedia, and boasts that he doesn't read my posts. I am interested in the official answer to this question and don't want to berate you about what I think of this. Thanks. Elinruby (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that's in relation to Gitz? If so, the same time I warned you I gave them an indefinite topic ban from the Russo-Ukrainian War based on what was in that thread. The way to avoid it in the future is to provide or directly refer to evidence when making accusations about other editors. If Gitz continues to make aspersions about you in the Eastern Europe topic area (or another area covered by discretionary sanctions) report it to WP:AE so that further sanctions can be considered (such as an interaction ban. If it's in another topic area you can report it (succinctly and with evidence) to ANI. Your decision to post a photo of a chicken was pretty poor too - I'd suggest that avoiding incendiary things like that would be a good idea. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah. The cause of truth thanks you for that, then, since as you probably gathered, the problem went far beyond three or four untruths that were about me personally of the many in that thread. Just to tie up some loose ends, yeah, this seems a lot less unfair knowing that. I am not even surprised, really.

I don't claim the chicken was tactful ;) It seemed necessary at the time and considering that that several admins had unofficially told me pretty much that, possibly I was even correct in that assessment, and seriously, pretty much the same complaint had been getting "no appetite" for months at every noticeboard there is, from most of them several times.

I *can* see that some other editors who agree with him are probably complaining about unfairness even at this, and probably would have howled had I not been warned. I am still deciding whether or not to appeal, as I suspect that saying that "chicken" might possibly have been true is not going to go over well ;) and I mostly hang out at French law where nobody is going to claim that mass rapes are not notable.

Quick followup on Gitz6666 though: I hope you blocked him from the topic area not just the page? Because he kept trying to build a case for Ukrainian war crimes in small spinoff articles. Since I do expect him to sign on with another account, what constitutes proof? Would a proclivity for certain unusual sources be enough? If that's a complicated question, answer it at your leisure, or just point me at a link, if there is one that covers that.

I suspect he will gravitate back to proving Ukrainian war crimes not to messing with me personally, even though he was pretty angry with me. But I am not his mission; he dislikes VM much much more. Thank you for explaining that to me; I came back in to ask about this because I noticed your experience on your user page after my last post. Cheers. Elinruby (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "The cause of truth thanks you for that" is probably not very helpful too. Yes, Gitz is banned from making any edit about or editing any page about the Russo-Ukrainian War. Regarding using a different account to try and get around the topic ban, that would be sock puppetry. Signs of sockpuppetry gives some ideas on what to look for but, yes, using similar sources on similar articles to argue similar things would probably be enough evidence. Obviously, it's impossible for me to say that definitively as we're talking in hypotheticals. Hopefully, Gitz will spend 6 months editing positively in other areas and then file an appeal. If you suspect sock puppetry you can make a report at Sockpuppet investigations (there are instructions there in the lead section in a collapse box). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * PPS If I decide to appeal I may have more questions about evidence later as I did provide 40-50 links, and I am wondering right now if the problem was that they had been so extensively argued with (?) Right now, though, let's just stick to the question of what a checkuser would need, assuming of course a named a count. I get the part about geolocating an IP, on a basic level anyway. Thanks some more. Elinruby (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Honestly, my opinion is that the only successful way to appeal the warning I gave you would be to (1) demonstrate that you were so extensively provoked that you deserve special consideration for everything you said and/or (2) that you had already provided evidence in the ANI thread to support everything you said in ANI thread (especially in the diffs I referred to) that the warning was incorrect. If I were filing an SPI in this situation, I'd almost certainly be asking a CheckUser to have a look. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Alright alright ;) You're right and I am not going to go out and throw a party. I'll even let the other people I was talking to at the sexual violence page figure it out for themselves as they are all quite competent and capable of doing so. Elinruby (talk) 03:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry out of synch. I hadn't asked for an SPI, but, well, I have imposed enough on your time for now. Since I am not going to name names proving the chicken part would be pretty tough, except for all of the non appetite stuff going around. I personally don't feel at the moment that I strayed very far into hyperbole, if at all, but I'll sit will that a bit then make an organized case.Thanks. Elinruby (talk) 03:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misread your post, I thought you were asking (if and when you do file an SPI) if you should ask a CU to take a look and I was saying yes. I now see that you were just asking how much a CU would need, which wouldn't be as much as what I said above but it really depends on the situation. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you !!
Thank you for your prompt reply regarding the sockpuppet investigation. I have been investigating for the past week and have uncovered a sock farm engaged in UPE. I have also gathered additional evidence outside of Wikipedia. I can mail you if needed. I think you should also have a look at https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Window369. All the articles created by this sock farm are eligible for G5. Could you review this and delete the eligible UPE articles so that I don't need to individually tag all of them with G5. Akevsharma (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've deleted all except Tharun Moorthy as it has been extensively edited by other editors. Any off-wiki evidence should be sent to so that it can be reviewed by the CheckUser team. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey @Callanecc, I am uncertain if it is appropriate to bring this up here, but I am trying to avoid the hassle of opening another sockpuppet investigation. A new account, has  been created a few hours back and their first edit was creating a draft for a non-notable film actor, similar to what the previous sockpuppets of  used to do. The previous sockpuppet investigation was closed only a few hours ago. I was wondering if it is necessary to reopen the investigation or if you could take a look into it and take the necessary action. Akevsharma (talk) 08:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If you could file a new case I'd appreciate it. It's probably worth us requesting a CheckUser take a look this time. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Akevsharma (talk) 10:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

For External link
Recently I add a external link that is very relevant with Bangladesh recipes. Who want to know more about Recipe of Bangladesh. Please add that link again that is more helpful for readers. Wp Umme Habiba (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Wp Umme Habiba: Wikipedia has specific rules on when links to external websites can be added. Have a look at External links for more information. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Private question
Hello and good day to you. Can I send you an email? I have some questions that I'd want to ask in private. A b r v a g l (<b style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#d43134">PingMe</b>) 19:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure can, just note this before you do. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Changes from DS to CT
Hello. Am I allowed to ask a question at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard concerning the change announced, concerning DS to CT? I'm asking due to my current 't-ban', which might be affected by the change. I don't want to ask my question there & have someone yelling that I've breach my t-ban. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking at WP:AC/CT I don't think there would be any changes to the TBAN. Per WP:BANEX you can ask "for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban". Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

A longer block may be in order
Per the response to your block here. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Blocked indefinitely. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Speaker Knockerz
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Speaker Knockerz. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Célestin Denis (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

BLPN
Hi Callanecc, hope you're doing well.

I removed rather large and irrelevant material since, in my experience, the larger a thread becomes, the less likely it is that someone would respond. I was referring to WP:TALKOFFTOPIC and WP:NOTFORUM, as well as my prior observations of editors removing irrelevant comments.

However, I think you are right, although my intention was to aid the dispute resolution, from side it may be misinterpreted considering that I am "part of the dispute". As such, may I ask that you, as an uninvolved party, review the aforementioned comment and decide whether keeping it will be beneficial to the discussion? Because the aforementioned comment literally describes a story that has absolutely nothing to do with the BLPN topic. For example: In the South Caucasus region, part of the former USSR, there is a territorial conflict between two countries, Armenia and Azerbaijan...; In 2020, Azerbaijan successfully launched an invasion of Artsakh...; In the next two years, Azerbaijan economically developed the territories.. I'm not sure how literally copying and pasting the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict article's content is relevant to and beneficial to the BLPN.

Thanks in advance! A b r v a g l (<b style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#d43134">PingMe</b>) 09:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I've collapsed part of it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't copy-paste content. All of that info was written in my own words? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, the discrepancy which had to be mentioned is that this is a "BLPN" case that applies to an article that isn't actually the main article of the person in question. So, obviously, it has to be explained what the article actually is, where the dispute is occurring, and how the situation might qualify as BLPN in the first place. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni's talk page

 * Hi Callanecc, hope you're doing well. Just wanted to leave a small comment regarding this: I was happy to see Jargo being self-critical on my talk page, – I believe it's a good quality to have especially for Wikipedia. I also wanted to ask whether their comments should've been entirely removed by a different editor? Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bother you again Callanecc, please just revert if you're not interested (I'll completely understand), but this was the blpn comment and the whole purpose of the non-issue discussion opened on my talk (with follow-up WP:HUSH even when I asked the user to stop). ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're asking me to do here? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a warning to the user to stop bothering and borderline harassing my talk with pseudo-lectures that I didn't ask for? If I did anything wrong with that comment, I'll gladly take criticism. But I don't think that simply providing the WP:undue context regarding an issue highly (almost entirely) challenged/discussed as undue on the talk (especially when it's the first time of it appearing outside the talk) is "wrong" in any way. In fact, OP themselves and a third-party  (from Abrvagl's own thread) have commented the same undue, which I also don't think is wrong in any way.
 * I just don't fathom how Abrvagl thought this was an issue at all, no less "educating" me in blpn, coming to my talk with the same lecture, and then commenting this gaslighting reply again when I kindly asked them to stop the non-issue discussion on my talk. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You've explicitly made a request for not to comment on your talk page per WP:USERTALKSTOP now. If they ignore WP:USERTALKSTOP you can make a report at WP:ANI if you feel it necessary. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Topic ban
Hi, I'm not sure why you think I have been "attacking people" when the people in question have been composing libelous content (which, in and of itself, can be considered to be attacking a person), and I was rightfully calling it out.

The discussion with regards to my Russia/Ukraine-related activities on Wikipedia has very little in common with my activities regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh region. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Note: I originally edited the Artsakh blockade article in order to make it easier to read. I did several copy-edits to the lead and to the various subsections. Subsequently, I became involved in the dispute over the "Arrival of Ruben Vardanyan", because this section had suddenly appeared in the article, and it seemed questionable. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I linked some revisions in particular in the notice I left on your talk page which demonstrate the behaviour I was referring to. I can give you specific quotes if you need? Given that similar issues have presented in the topic area discussed in the AE thread and in relation to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict they seem, in fact, to be linked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Did you agree with the allegations made against me recently at my talk page? Because, I did not. The user Grandmaster had written an entire section in which he accused Ruben Vardanyan of being a Russian puppet, and I pointed out that some of the wording, such as "if Vardanyan was its man", seemed like it was personally attacking Vardanyan. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As I referred to in the TBAN notice, yes, you made personal remarks about the behavior of other editors on the talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that my "personal vendetta" comment was a personal attack. I was pointing to specific policies, and I provided legitimate reasons/evidence for my assessment. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It was. The fact that you can't see that it was suggests that you need a break from that topic area. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced by the "it was" argument. Some reasoning would be helpful. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You were making an accusation about the contributor, not the content. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * But the content was entirely written by the contributor? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I will also point out that I said "Grandmaster's paragraph is a personal vendetta against Vardanyan", which does mean that I was specifically addressing the paragraph (i.e. the paragraph about Vardanyan inside of the article itself, not on the talk page). The paragraph just happened to be written by Grandmaster. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Article talk pages are not the place to discuss conduct issues, there are noticeboards for that. The purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of the articles not the people who put the content into the article, the second sentence in the no personal attacks policy explicitly states comment on content, not on the contributor. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * But as I pointed out, I wasn't really attacking the person. In this context, the term "personal vendetta" serves as a synonym for "hit piece". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In the specific comment about "personal vendetta", I was leading directly into my argument that the section qualified as libel. So, in that respect, I don't think it was really a personal attack against Grandmaster, and it was instead a criticism of the section that Grandmaster had written. Please take note of the clause "This is not an encyclopaedic way to frame the allegations...". As you can see, I was primarily discussing the content within the article at that point in time, and Grandmaster's name was only mentioned because he's the person who wrote the bulk of that content. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Dallavid
Hi. Do you think it is appropriate for this user to come along and remove an entire sourced section from an article, despite ongoing discussion at talk? This user has recently received a logged warning for edit warring: Thank you. Grand master  22:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not ideal but, you and reverting it was also not a great idea. There seems to be agreement in the discussion that the section on Vardanyan needs to be shortened. It's now just a matter of developing a consensus version of text. That takes discussion not edit warring. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I totally agree, reverting is never good. I rarely revert anything, I prefer consensus building and dispute resolution, in accordance with the rules. I made 2 proposals on talk on how to better summarize the text, trying to build consensus. But then Dallavid comes along and simply removes the entire section. I don't think it was a constructive approach. Anyway, thanks for the attention to this topic, and placing the article on notice. Much appreciated. Grand  master  09:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll keep an eye on the discussion as best I can. Now that there's an agreement to shorten the content hopefully it will make the discussion more focused on doing that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. Grand  master  10:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Was it appropriate for you to restore the new section you had just created when there was already a strong consensus against it? --Dallavid (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration case Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 opened
Hello ,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 10, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

2022–2023 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh
One question. Is it Ok to remove all the sourced information from the article, when the discussion is still ongoing? I suggested to take the issue to WP:BLPN, if Jargo Nautilus thought it was libelous, but he simply deleted everything. I took it to BLPN myself, but I don't think it is Ok to simply delete everything in the absence of a clear consensus. Grand master  10:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no harm in having it not there while a consensus (shortened) wording is established. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Alright, thanks. I made 3 different proposals on the wording at talk. And I hope BLPN discussion will lead to third party opinions on the subject, in particular as to whether there are BLP and UNDUE issues with the sources that discuss Vardanyan. Grand  master  13:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi. It appears that the BLPN request did not result in any third party opinions. And as you can see, some users object to the inclusion of the information about Vardanyan in the article even in the shortened form. But I don't think that publications in mainstream international media and opinions of top experts could be considered fringe or undue. What do you think would be appropriate as further steps for the dispute resolution? Grand  master  11:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Most WP:RS consider Azerbaijan's desire to speed up the resolution of the Karabakh conflict and other contentious issues in its favor as the reasons for 2022–2023 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh (just a couple of RS, more in the article: [97 ], [98 ], [99) ]. Even the so-called "activists" claimed (and highly doubted) version is allegations of "illegal" gold mining [14 ]. Just because 1-2 sources mention Vardanyan doesn't mean he's a reason or factor for the blockade, and to add him as such in the article would indeed be WP:undue considering the majority of WP:RS don't even mention him in context of blockade or that he's a reason/factor for it – just wanted to clarify this part. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * A request for comment that suggests the options (e.g. long /status quo version, shortened (paragraph or two) version, very short (a sentence or two), no mention) would be the next step in the dispute resolution procedure to assist in gaining third party options. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks very much. Will do. Grand  master  16:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * A small question: Is the status quo version in this case the "no mention" option as the information was added very recently and challenged on talk almost immediately? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah probably. I've struck "status quo" in my commment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Callanecc. The RfC has been launched, but I feel like "with all the relevant details" part in the long version text should be removed as it's not neutral and seems to be OP's own opinion injected into one of the RfC options. Thoughts?
 * The OP also links their own sandbox in the RfC which only includes sources presumably aimed at supporting inclusion. I believe the sandbox link in RfC should also be removed as something like that should be argued in one's own vote and it makes the RfC non-neutral. I also think someone with the experience of Grandmaster should've been lot more diligent on this matter overall. Can you please take a look? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I changed "relevant" to "more". You could have discussed that with me, I would have fixed that. As for sources, I think the voter should be informed which particular sources are being discussed. I did not want to waste space at RFC, and created a separate page for that purpose. If Callanecc considers that inappropriate, I can move it to my own vote. Grand  master  21:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I changed "relevant" to "more". You could have discussed that with me, I would have fixed that. - Could you please just keep it as "long version"? As it doesn't make sense to me, are we going to add next to Shortened version "with less details" now? See, just keeping it simple makes most sense. Also I wanted to ask a neutral third-party and an admin's thoughts that's why I came here.
 * As for sources, I think the voter should be informed which particular sources are being discussed. I did not want to waste space at RFC, and created a separate page for that purpose. - Grandmaster, the RfC template isn't designed for your own sandbox with couple sources you cherry-picked/included that specifically are aimed at supporting (supposedly) your own voted option, while you seem to have omitted any other sources that don't even mention Vardanyan (which happen to be overwhelming majority). If you want to argue with those four sources, please add that sandbox link to your own vote, how would that "waste space at RFC"? You literally would have to move the cherry-picked sources' link from the RfC to your own vote comment, that's it. Also do you not understand that by your own problematic logic, everyone can add their sources' link to the RfC and it'll become a non-neutral farse? There are individual votes for a reason, RfC template should always be kept neutral. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * But the whole point of the RFC is to ask the community whether to use these particular sources or not. If we don't link them to the RFC text, how would the voter know which exactly sources are being discussed? And I changed it to "long version". I hope this part is resolved now. Grand  master  21:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * But the whole point of the RFC is to ask the community whether to use or not these particular sources. – How is that the reason for the RfC when Vardanyan's info you've added was mostly challenged as WP:undue? To prove something is undue, someone like me (who voted Option 4 – no mention) by virtue has no choice but to provide the overwhelming majority of sources that would demonstrate actual blockade reasons/factors and that Vardanyan relation to blockade happening is highly undue. Do you not see that this makes your highly cherry-picked sandbox link in the RfC statement itself non-neutral? Not only it's cherry-picked (by yourself as the OP) with four sources that support a specific option of RfC, it omits the vast majority of WP:RS that could be used to easily argue for Option 4 as an example. Then this creates the issue of every editor adding their own sources/sandbox in the RFC template, which'll make it a farse. That's why you need to link your sandbox (which includes couple specific sources) in your vote itself. Do I really need to explain the second time that an RfC template should be kept neutral of any viewpoint or sources  cherry-picked by OP no less considering there is a highly challenged WP:undue factor here?
 * If you still want to argue, I'd kindly urge waiting for Callanecc's third-party input instead. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I moved the link to sources on Vardanyan to my own comment, to address ZaniGiovanni's concerns. But I would appreciate if Callanecc could advise if those sources are better linked to the RFC question, or my personal comment. Thanks. Grand  master  22:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I may be able to give a thorough answer to you (if Callanecc doesn't mind), as someone involved in the discussion: the info you've added was challenged to be removed by at least four editors on talk, and edited-out/cut by three, , , another three editors suggested shortening it. I would call this the definition of something being disputed hence WP:ONUS applies: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content – meaning you. Until then as you mentioned, there is no consensus for its inclusion. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Error?
Your post at Z's talk page and your entry at the log have the p ban ending January 18. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 07:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Looks like I'm still working a month behind. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

A quick question
Dear Callanecc,

I was wondering if my ban, which concerns “gender-related disputes”, relates to sexual violence or anything concerning sex. I would assume not as the first is about culture wars whereas the second is not, but just thought to check. For instance, I added some information to an article about someone not so good (to say the least), Andrew Tate. I added some details about recent news about his trafficking but it was reverted to err on the side of caution. The information has been added by someone else now but I thought to add at first it as it was not to do with a gender related dispute. However, this led me to think that this might require enquiry with you.

Thank you,

Scientelensia (talk) 07:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, it would definitely cover sexual violence. I'd imagine that most if not all edits relating to Andrew Tate would be convered by the topic ban. Whether it would include everything related to sex, I'd say no, but you'd need to be careful. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you! Scientelensia (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 update: Parties added, evidence phase extended
Hello ,

Three parties have been added to the Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 arbitration case. The evidence phase has been extended and will close on February 21, 2023.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 21, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration committee, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek
Hey Callanecc,

Last month you closed a case involving Volunteer Marek. You found that he had "a history of personal attacks and/or casting aspersions", but did not believe that "a TBAN or block would be appropriate at this stage", and instead issued an "enhanced warning" in the form of an "indefinite civility restriction in the ARBEE topic area"., In the same discussion, Synotia was blocked for 72h for a single derogatory comment,  and Michael60634 - "a fairly new account" - was T-banned for six months.

This "enhanced warning", like all others before it, had little effect. Since it was issued, VM has:


 * 1) 04:51, 25 January 2023 Suggested Cukrakalnis was abusing a noticeboard.
 * 2) 00:26, 2 February 2023 Accused PilotSheng of WP:POINT and WP:EDITWAR.
 * 3) 20:14, 4 February 2023 Accused Alaexis of "cherry-picking".
 * 4) 03:52, 10 February 2023, 06:36, 10 February 2023 Accused two BLP, one of which is also an editor, of serving as the mouth-piece of an indef-banned editor. These accusations are reminiscent of those he made against another BLP/editor a year and a half ago. A similar comment, made by another editor (now blocked), was seen as "beyond the pale".
 * 5) 05:22, 12 February 2023 Accused me of enabling the same - something he was specifically warned against at least five times.

Please act on your warning and stop this. François Robere (talk) 11:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I am going to mostly ignore the first 3 diffs since these are spurious "diff-padding". Saying "this edit violates WP:EDITWAR" cannot reasonably be interpreted as "uncivil" otherwise half the wikipedia'd get banned. Likewise saying "this sentence is cherry picked" is very clearly discussing CONTENT, which is exactly what I was instructed to do. The fact that Francois Robere is trying to get me in trouble over stuff like this, well, that speaks for itself.
 * Regarding the other two diffs, first, the restriction applies to "On articles and article talk pages that relate to Eastern Europe". This is WP:AN, not article or article talk, and Francois Robere is taking extreme pains to avoid mentioning the context of these comments. This was in a discussion over an external article that doxxes me. It also involved discussing the CONTENT of this article. Francois Robere is quoted in this article, in an approving manner. The issue of doxxing has been relayed to T&S and ArbCom, as has the role of Icewhiz in the article (and the very fact that certain editors are trying to seriously pretend that Icewhiz had no involvement with this article, when over 50% of it deals exclusively with him and is based on his diffs and (false) accusations, and when one of the authors apparently openly admitted, to another editor, to interviewing him for it, is just... mind boggling)
 * Regarding the last diff. The restriction applies to "On articles and article talk pages that relate to Eastern Europe". This is Village Pump. The restriction also says "If another editor notifies you that you are in violation of this sanction you can remedy the problem by removing the comment, editing it with the appropriate strike and underline markup, or hatting the comment. ". I have not been notified of being in violation of any sanction. Francois Robere - would you like me to remove or edit the comment with a "strike"? Alternatively I can provide diffs to the evidence from the ArbCom case if you wish.
 * As an aside Francois Robere's diffs of "specific" warnings are unrelated. They are also the same ol' diffs he tries to drag out every single time. I can just as easily present similar warnings for Francois Robere. For example, an administrator telling FR "Drop the stick while you have the chance" (this was almost 3 years ago! The stick has not been dropped it seems. And yes, it regards the exact same dispute), or warning them about WP:HOUNDING (same dispute) (FR also has an interaction ban with another user precisely for similar reasons ) same, and here is an explicit warning to FR about accusing others of "aggressive comments" .   Volunteer Marek   19:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * While the restriction doesn't apply to pages such as Village Pump, in good faith, I have struck the portion of my comment which was upsetting Francois Robere . If this particular facet of the issue becomes pertinent in broader discussions I can provide the relevant diffs.  Volunteer Marek   19:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Here are also some very relevant diffs from that very WP:AE report Francois, it's long past time to let old grudges go. I am not even going to respond to FR's accusations as they're old, they misrepresent stuff or present it out of context and they're opportunistic and unrelated to this dispute. It would basically take a whole another AE report to deal with FR's problematic behavior and their skirting of their IBAN.. In light of these and the diffs I put above, specifically previous admin warnings to FR to drop the stick and avoid hounding, I'm now thinking that I would very much like to request an WP:IBAN (preferably one way, since the fault really is on one side) with Francois Robere.  Volunteer Marek   19:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The last time VM edited this page was in 2018, so presumably he's only here because he followed me here.
 * Just like he followed me four months ago to several pages (thanks to for noticing ).
 * Just like he followed me in 2021 to Guerillero's TP.
 * I tried T&S; they couldn't help, and eventually I just stopped editing on Poland. François Robere (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "The last time VM edited this page was in 2018,[29] so presumably he's only here because he followed me here.". Oh my god. Callanecc imposed a restriction on me. You post on their talk page. About me. About the very specific restriction THEY imposed. And then... you act surprised that I responded. Wait. No, not just "surprised". You in fact allege that I am stalking you. Because I responded to your comments about me. On the talk page of someone who imposed a restriction on me. The very restriction you were referencing.
 * Seriously. Mind blown. Like, really, it never crossed your mind that Callanecc's talk page might be on my watchlist? Because, you know, they imposed a restriction on me.
 * (with regard to your last point, have you considered the possibility that the reason T&S couldn't help you was because there was simply no basis for your request? Just like there is no basis for your aspersions here?).  Volunteer Marek   20:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * User:François Robere, if you genuinely believe (let's say) that I am "stalking" you (because I responded to your accusations against me, apparently) then an WP:IBAN would solve that problem, no? We can make it two way, I'm fine with that, because even though I'm at no fault here, I am gracious like that.  Volunteer Marek   21:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Only looking at the edits reported by François Robere that occur on article talk pages there's [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABattle_of_Bakhmut&diff=prev&oldid=1136928371 Talk:Battle of Bakhmut] and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWar_in_Donbas_%282014%E2%80%932022%29&diff=prev&oldid=1137443085 Talk:War in Donbas (2014–2022)]. Of these I would only consider that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABattle_of_Bakhmut&diff=prev&oldid=1136928371 Talk:Battle of Bakhmut] could breach the restriction as it accuses an editor of bad-faith editing and I'd ask that you strike that VM (noting that it is 10 days old). I don't consider [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWar_in_Donbas_%282014%E2%80%932022%29&diff=prev&oldid=1137443085 Talk:War in Donbas (2014–2022)] to be a breach of the restriction. While the civility restriction itself doesn't apply on pages rather than article and article talk pages there is a warning to include evidence that supports accusations. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)&diff=prev&oldid=1138876846 This one] is the only one I'd consider that really needs evidence and that's likely only because I'm not familar with it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with VM responding to the allegations made and if VM hadn't come here by himself I would have pinged him. Before I got to VM's comment about an IBAN was already intending to bring it up. Do you have any concerns with a two-way IBAN, if so what are they? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I struck the one comment you mentioned per request.  Volunteer Marek   12:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I do object to a 2-way Iban, Callanecc, because there's nothing 2-way about this behavior - it's entirely one-sided, and the only evidence that's been brought to suggest otherwise are a handful of three-year-old quotes from a now-desysopped admin, and a couple of comments from one of VM's oldest Wiki-collaborators. That said, since ArbCom has chosen to start its own inquiry, I'm withdrawing this request and will reserve any other evidence that I have for later use. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, if ArbCom decides not to take the case I'll come back to this if I remember as I have some concerns with not doing anything here given the obvious animosity. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Welp, there you go. I do believe the ArbCom will take the case but honestly an IBAN might be a good idea regardless (with the exception for participation in the case itself) in light of FR's comments here and then their follow up.  Volunteer Marek   07:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

On 2022–2023 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh
Hi Callanecc. If you're still following the article, there is a new account making rapid WP:TE changes and edit-warring in the article, I thought you might be interested. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the FYI. I've warned them and gave a CT alert. We'll see what happens next. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Sock block
You blocked as a sockpuppet (Sockpuppet investigations/KieranCallahan72), but you only placed a temporary block. Shouldn't this be permanent? WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:28, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, and to for fixing the block. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:02, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

List of best-selling girl groups
Morning! Could you check my protection level. That page all blurs together for me now. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I'll go ask Lectonar. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Change to the Functionaries team
Following a request to the Committee, the CheckUser and Oversight permissions of have been restored.

For the Arbitration Committee, Primefac (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: 

You've got mail
Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

A request
Howdy Callanecc. Would you keep an eye on Donald Trump's talkpage, please :) GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, but I'm not really sure what I should be looking at. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps keep an eye on responses to any of my posts, there. I don't want to go deeply into detail, for now. GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Response
EC had asked GCB to pare down the list of diffs which went above AE reqs; I hoped to start my defense once she did that. However, she is yet to and I have started my defense. I hope that the AE thread is not closed rn. TrangaBellam (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * gave an exemption to GCB to keep the diff list as is given that he and I had already looking through it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, I missed it. Nonetheless, I am slowly building my response ... TrangaBellam (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * And I am seeking an increase in word limit. You cannot respond to such a long list of diffs w/o extension. TrangaBellam (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest focusing on the ones I linked in my response to you. They are the ones I saw from GCB's list that I really had an issue with. How many words do you think you'll need remembering that the focus is on refuting what GCB says they demonstrate? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I have always been at the other side of AE - filing requests. Not much experience.
 * What GCB does is providing a part of the narrative and skipping the rest - see my response to 6; they skip vital details of the narrative. So, I do need to check each diff and find out what has been represented and what not. That said, I guess, 1000 words will suffice.
 * Anyway, I will like to hear from you how the behaviour at Talk:Mariusz Bechta is remotely appropriate. TrangaBellam (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Two of your diffs are same. See my response. TrangaBellam (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Response at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. I think that I am within the word limits. TrangaBellam (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Getting back to an appeal
I have thought about it, and while I realize you're probably busy, but I do think I *will* appeal. When you can, could you let me know what you need from me, since, really, "casting aspersions" (at ANI?) seems kinda wrong, no offense. You told me at the time that I should have provided some evidence, which makes me think that the several dozen links I provided got lost in the Gitz6666 walls of text I was complaining about, among other obstruction. So... I'm not mad, I just think you missed some stuff, which I totally understand having dealt myself quite a bit with walls of text  in that context.

It will take.me a while, but unless you have another preference, I propose I put in a subpage (bullet pointed) what I said, the evidence I provided at the time, plus links to the many many Noticeboard, ANI and Arbcom proceedings that led to my complaint about inaction. Would that work for you? Answer at leisure; I am definitely overcommitted ATM and won't even start on this for at least a week. Elinruby (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * To successfully appeal the warning you'd need to demonstrate that you were so extensively provoked that you deserve special consideration for everything you said and/or that you had already provided evidence in the ANI thread to support everything you said in ANI thread. Given that the warning was also regarding battleground conduct you would need to demonstrate that you were not engaged in that or that it was because you were extensively provoked so you deserve special consideration. The appeals process is explained here. I've looked through the ANI thread again and I don't see a way that I'd accept an appeal so your next step would be to appeal at WP:AE or WP:AN using the arbitration enforcement appeals template. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)


 * thanks for the answer. So it isn't the case that you just didn't see the diffs in all of the everything, is what I am hearing. Ok. That means it will need to be very organized, then, as there's a lot of material. Alright, thanks. I know you gave me that link before. To be clear, I haven't re-read the thread and will do that before I start, but I still kind of disagree, not that I think I was polite, but in that polite clearly wasn't working and had resulted in an article that blatantly distorted widely reported truths. Not mad at you about it though. I think that it probably seemed fair in that other people got worse sanctions, which is true. I think Arbcom is kinda busy at the moment so no rush. I'll mull it and maybe gather some diffs as I re-read. Is there anything in particular that you feel I didn't substantiate? No rush on this question either. Cheers and thanks for what you do. Elinruby (talk) 04:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding anything in particular you didn't substantiate, there's nothing in particular outside what I linked in the warning noting that it's battleground conduct as well as the aspersions themselves. Also noting that ArbCom is different to AE (which is a review by uninvolved admins). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

thanks, I guess I conflated. I appreciate the procedural help. Elinruby (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Armenia-Azerbaijan 3: Proposed decision mentioning you
Hi Callanecc, in the open Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. You are not directly affected by any proposed sanction; this is just for your information. Your AE request closure and amendment request that led to the opening of the case have been mentioned. Also, your warning of Dallavid has been mentioned in Dallavid's "sanction history" section. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material
I saw that you changed visibility of 3 revisions on page Muhammad (name) where an IP editor had posted grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material on 12 March. He/she/it pasted similar material on the same page on 4 March. Please could you change the visibility on that as well. -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Vardanyan
Hi. I would like to ask for your advice again. The RFC on this issue had almost no outside contribution. Very few votes, and some parties are now topic banned. In the meantime, Vardanyan was fired from his position, and it is linked to the blockade, but we cannot even mention that, because of the consensus issue. So what do you think would be the best way to proceed now? Grand master  09:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I've closed the RfC with some recommendations. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Grand  master  10:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

T-ban
So eventually it was "battleground behaviour" and "tendentious editing"! It's OK, I don't resent it and I won't hold a grudge. However, I'd like to understand a few things about why the decision was taken. I feel that you could help me understand whether and how to appeal. I know it's a lot of questions, but there is no hurry: you can answer whenever you want. But I would be very grateful if you would answer all my questions. I promise never to reply, to spare you the waste of time of a long discussion. Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 04:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) What was decisive for your decision: the high number of users in favour of the t-ban (nine users: Volunteer Marek, My very best wishes, GizzyCatBella, TimothyBlue, Elinruby, Cambial Yellowing, Horse Eye's Back, GabberFlasted, Jeppiz) compared to those against (four users excluding myself: Mr Ernie, François Robere, Pincrete, Levivich), or the strength of the arguments used in the discussion (discussion undoubtedly too long)? Or perhaps some comment of mine in particular, or a comment by one of my interlocutors that seemed decisive? Or a mixture of all these things?
 * 2) I'm a bit sorry about the "tendentious editing". Did you check the diffs I provided showing that I edit also for the Ukrainian side? See in particular 02:13, 13 January 2023, but also 08:26, 13 January 2023 and 21:32, 13 January 2023. Do they not prove that I at least tried in good faith to comply with NPOV? My very best wishes himself acknowledged that I made "many valid edits in this subject area" (16:59, 14 January 2023). Furthermore, I mentioned and linked to several threads I opened where my views achieved consensus (at the very least, one or two RfCs and one thread at AN), I mentioned that I wrote nearly 1/3 of War crimes during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, and I mentioned (but didn't ping to avoid WP:CANVASS) that there are editors who often or occasionally agree with me. Isn't achieving consensus at odds with being tendentious?
 * 3) Re battleground, I admit that in my eyes the EE area is kind of a battleground. I believe I found the battleground ready and waiting for me, but who knows, maybe I did my bit to polarise the field and pollute the air. However, I was wondering: was the argument put forward by Mr Ernie, Pincrete, François Robere and myself that it isn't fair to target one editor and leave the others untouched, since the others may have been as much or more responsible than me in creating the battleground, in any way convincing to you? As I said in the discussion, I have the feeling that AN/I isn't the right place to have our policies applied impartially to polarising issues such as the war in Ukraine (at 23:08, 11 January 2023). I also mentioned that El C suggested that perhaps ArbCom was the right forum for this kind of controversy in the EE area (09:53, 13 January 2023). Did you consider the possibility that he was right?
 * 4) At the end, I made a comments that may sound a bit WP:NOTAFORUM-like, but which I think is significant of my take on "battleground behaviour" and "tendentious editing". It's at 19:29, 14 January 2023. Have you read it? What do you think of it? If there is any truth to it, and my view of the EE area regarding the Russo-Ukrainian war is not purely delusional, aren't you afraid that by removing me, and only me, you have unbalanced the area, eaving it prey to warmongering spirits?


 * Re 1: One of the reasons I imposed it as a discretionary sanction rather than a community-imposed sanction was that I wasn't weighing consensus in the discussion. The discretionary sanction was based on a range of evidence and arguments that had been brought up in the ANI thread. For example, your conduct in and referred to in this AN thread from December, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=1133170915&oldid=1133170402 this] comment from you (cf. the first paragraph of VM's [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=1133194243&oldid=1133190719 reply]).
 * Re 2: The tendentious editing I was referring to was specifically about the following sections from that page: §2.5, §2.9, §2.17 (since I have them to hand: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1133628685 eg 1] & eg 2 (your last comment in that section) . It's not necessarily that you only edit on one side of the dispute (which you don't) it's the approach you take when you are editing.
 * Re 3: I think seeing it as a battleground is a good reason to take a break from it. Spend 6 months editing positively in other areas then appeal the TBAN and come back with some fresh eyes. Re ArbCom, editors are free to file an arbitration case but since one hasn't been and at least this issue can be resolved with a discretionary sanction I have. If you want to file a case let me know and we can work out a way forward by modifying the TBAN - ArbCom would likely do the same for you.
 * Re 4: It's good that you're self-reflective and can identify your offwiki point of view, I won't comment on whether that appears to be the way your editing appears onwiki. Whether or not it's being left to "warmongering spirits" (which sounds like more WP:BATTLE) is really separate to whether or not the TBAN is justified. To use a different example, an admin should necessarily consider that when blocking someone who is edit warring against multiple other editors.
 * Hopefully that answers your questions in sufficient detail? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * By all means, thank you - your answers were comprehensive and helpful. I appreciate the time you have taken to untangle the intricate discussions I've been involved it. I was surprised by the reference to my "conduct in and referred to in this AN thread", which I hadn't perceived as problematic. Re filing a request at ArbCom, I don't intend to do this on my own without first receiving input from the community; I thank you for willingness to modify my TBAN in that case. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand that the T-ban applies also to my talk and other user talk discussions, including conversations about the t-ban itself. Is this correct? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the only exemptions to it are at WP:BANEX. You can engage in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution such as clarifying the ban but can't talk about the topic area outside of the limited scope of getting clarification or appealing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, could you please instruct me on how to interpret the scope of my T-ban on "Russo-Ukrainian War". I noticed that the message you left me (here) is missing the "broadly construed" clause. I just received an automatic notification to comment on an RfC about a 19th century Russian-Ukrainian historian: does it fall under the domain of the Russo-Ukrainian War? And what about contemporary Russian and Ukrainian politics not directly related to the Russo-Ukrainian war? Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't include 'broadly construed' primarily because that could effectively prevent you from editing anything that has a connection to the conflict. Technically you probably could contribute to that RfC but you would need to be very careful that you don't talk about the conflict between Russia and Ukraine as a reason for including or not including the content. Also that any sources you refer to that justify your argument also don't talk about the conflict. To me, the conflict seems like an inherent part of the discussion which would be required as part of the RfC so it's probably best not to participate unless the comment you want to make is very clearly not related to the conflict at all. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If I were to talk about the Russo-Ukrainian war as a reason to include or not include content about a 19th century historian, I would deserve to be blocked for trolling anyway, regardless of the t-ban... I am not eager to contribute to the RfC and I will follow your advice not to participate in that discussion, but there are topics in contemporary Ukrainian politics, not directly related to the war, that I'd rather not abandon, e.g. this article, which I had almost finished translating from the Ukrainian Wikipedia (year "2021" is still missing), and this discussion, which I opened and which seems to be over anyway. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Derussification in Ukraine would definitely be covered by the TBAN. You could potentially still participate in the BLPN discussion but you'd need to be cautious. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I wouldn't have guessed that Derussification in Ukraine was covered by the TBAN - I would have thought it was related to, but not included in, the Russo-Ukrainian war. This mismatch implies that it's very likely that I'll have to ask you again in the coming months and years to clarify the exact scope of the sanction. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello again. Today an RfC I had started in October was closed . The closer addressed me personally and I would like to reply on their talk page to let them know that I have received a topic ban and that therefore their suggestion to start over with a new text is not feasible. Despite the Consensus to add (much of) the information, this information will not be added because the editors who objected to inclusion (the same ones who apparently didn't show a "battleground mentality" and therefore were not topic banned...) will never write such a text. I'm now writing to you because I would like to know if this kind of comment on my part would be a violation of the topic ban. In my opinion, the topic of my comment on the closer's talk page would not be the war in Ukraine as such, but rather the consequences of my topic ban, i.e. the impossibility of enforcing the consensus reached in the RfC. Please let me know. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

FYI of the above regarding Gitz's topic ban and their concern that they won't be able to implement it themselves. Done for you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Callanecc, and thank you for the ping/note.
 * I was not aware of the topic ban in question when closing the discussion.
 * My comment in the close was referring to a couple attempts by Gitz in the discussion, which seemed to me to be good faithed attempts in the discussion to find middle ground and a way forward. I have not looked at any of their editing history.
 * As for the close itself, if the editor is under a topic ban, then, as I presume we're all aware - per WP:TBAN - regardless of whether others may or may not wish to continue productive discussion about the topic, the editor should just let it go and walk away.
 * I can understand this might not be the outcome the editor may have hoped for, but things are as they are.
 * And also, though I presume it could probably have gone without saying, but just for clarity in case anyone else asks in the future, I'm not "wearing my admin hat" for this, and have no problem deferring to your discernment in all of this.
 * If either of you have any other questions for me, please feel free to ping/leave a note, etc., as appropriate.
 * I hope you both are having a good day and wish you both well. - jc37 15:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jc37. I understand entirely, and I'm aware that it is not up to me to implement that RfC. This is a pity, though, because as you know, with the cooperation of other editors we had already prepared a text that took on board the comments from the discussion while implementing option 3: it is here. It is the result of my good faithed attempts to find a middle ground solution - I thank you for your appreciation in this regard. Despite being T-banned for having a "battleground mentality", I've always tried to mediate and find a consensus. Unfortunately, one can develop a battleground mentality at various times in life, one of which is when one is actually on a battleground... as I have tried many times to explain without success, that battleground was already there and I did not create it: I have always tried to cooperate with good faithed editors and to fully respect our policies and guidelines. Anyway, because of this unfortunate situation the !votes of nearly a dozens Wikipedians will remain without effect. Is there any way to avoid this outcome? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Gitz - The simplest answer to your question is: Let it drop.
 * I understand how it can feel to not be able to engage in a topic that you care about. But at this point, you've been topic banned from the topic. Please just let it drop.
 * I wish you well. - jc37 08:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, @Callanecc, I just wanted to draw your attention on this essay on "Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust". You will see that some of the editors involved there are the same ones who asked for my topic ban from the Russo-Ukraine war area; you will also see that the patter of behaviours described in the essay is identical to the one I complained about on various occasions (on this, I can provide many diffs). Contrary to Icewhiz, I did not create sockpuppets nor engage in off-wiki doxxing: I reacted to this kind of deeply problematic nationalist editing by opening several (maybe too many) community discussions, where my arguments often achieved consensus. I was always civil and respectful, I had no secret agenda, my behaviour was in line with policies and was inspired by NPOV and V concerns. I'd like you too please reflect on this and possibly reconsider the sanction you applied to me. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No. Your persistent focus on the topic ban rather than moving on and editing in other areas really isn't helping your case, as Jc37 suggested above you need to let it drop. If you'd like to appeal now you can at AE but I won't be considering an appeal from you without at least 3-6 months of positive contributions in other areas. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * While I would very much like my topic ban to be lifted, and I would also like you and others to understand the nature of the editorial conflict I have been involved in, it is not true that I haven't moved on by editing in other areas. I am contributing extensively to it.wiki, where I recently published a new article, it:Paul Laband; here on en.wiki I'm now engaged in the GAN of my article on Hugo Krabbe. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, Callanecc, I wanted to ask you if my topic ban prevents me from making statements at WP:ARC that touch upon Russo-Ukrainian war issues. Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Technically it would, yes. But I'm willing to give you an exemption from it to edit at WP:A/R/C. Just link to this diff in your statement for the avoidance of doubt. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, Callanecc. I was wondering whether the article on Ruslan Kotsaba, which I created a few months ago, falls within the scope of the topic ban. I'd like to update it with some sources that don't relate directly to the war in Ukraine, but which refer to his status as a political prisoner (US Department of State ) or conscience prisoner (Amnesty international ) who was recently granted temporary political asylum in the US (according to Jacobin ). Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes it would be covered by the topic ban. A good rule of thumb to follow is that if you need to ask assume it's covered. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for your patience. I have no experience with this kind of sanction and it's not easy for me to understand its scope - after all I've only been editing on en.wiki for a little over a year. I will try not to bother you any more with these questions and figure out the answer by myself. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not frustrated with you asking or anything like that, I'm just giving you a tool to help work out the scope of the ban. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you for that. I'm sorry, I have another question. Here I read that there's a distinction between "article ban" and "page ban", and that When the word "page" is used in a ban, it means any page on Wikipedia. However, your ban did not use the word "page" - nor the word "article" for that matter. I understant it as a page ban, because you already told me that it also applies to user talk pages and that I cannot talk about the topic area. My question is: does the ban also apply to sandboxes? Am I allowed to make notes on sources that I might use if and when the topic ban is lifted? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this one. It's a topic ban (see WP:TBAN) which means that it applies everywhere on Wikipedia to anything related to the Russo-Ukrainian War. So, yes, it applies to sandboxes and no you can't do anything related to the Russo-Ukrainian War on Wikipedia. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. I just undid this edit of mine  (adding sources on Kotsaba to one of my sandboxes) that was made in good faith a few days ago. I didn't know yet that it was covered by the topic ban - after doing it, I thought it might have been included and asked you about it. Sorry, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello Callanecc, could you please tell me if this edit is OK and based on WP policy and guidelines, e.g. WP:TPO? If so, does this mean that all my contributions to the topic area may be reverted and/or hidden (collapsed) for the sole reason that they were made by a user now "indefinitely banned from topic area"? Incidentally, since I've been blocked for "battleground behaviour", note that edits like this show that the battleground was at least reciprocal: as I explained in the discussion that led to my T-ban, most of the users who requested my removal from the topic area (six out of nine) were users with whom I had had content disputes, and Cambial Yellowing is one of them. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I've reverted it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello Callanecc, am I allowed to reply to Volunteer Marek's recent allegations at ArbCom about wikihounding and battleground behaviour? This would imply sharing diffs about my activities/our interactions in the area covered by the T-ban. Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That'd be covered under the previous exemption I gave to edit the case. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks - I thought it was a one-off. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Sockpuppet???
Hi, sorry for mailing you but Ive been looking for someone to ask about this. So I have this banner on my user page saying I am a sockpuppet account of this person: User:Gwalker69420. I found no reason for them to suspect me and I tried to see the info by seeing the edits. there was no evidence included.

Do you have any way I could this banner off of my user page? Warrior9994 (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it was a mistake. I've deleted it for you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

FYI
I've mentioned a TBAN you administered, here -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Chumchum7 Thanks for the heads up. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Deleting drafts from soccket puppet
Hi i apologize for bother i find drafts from soccket puppet of LSS 2552 that are unused,empty and not really important do you mind deleting them?: Draft:Luang Prabang F.C.,Draft:Bolikhamxay F.C., Draft:Viengchanh F.C.,Draft:Namtha United F.C.,Draft:Champasak Football Club,Draft:Army Stadium KM5 ,Draft:2023 LFF Lao Cup ‎,Draft:Thanongsak Homlatsamee,Draft:2023 Lao League 2 Also do you mind deletinG sandbox of mentioned user:User:LSS 2552/sandbox. DarkHorseMayhem. (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @DarkHorseMayhem, the rule for deleting things like this is that it needs to have been created in violation of a block or ban. In this case it means anything created after Yakuzar123's block on 26 January 2023. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * But all these things are created and only edit by soccer puppet who was blocked and have many account plus all thes pages are almost empty and not really important. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A sockpuppet yes but only because the LSS 2552 account was created (but not blocked) first. The rule to allow deletion only starts from when the first block is placed which in this case was on 26 January 2023. This is because it was only from then that LSS 2552 was breaking the rules by using another account to get around the block. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

He created many of these drafts after that day also his sandbox especilly should be deleted DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The sandbox was created on 25 September 2022‎. Maybe your browser is adjusting times to be in your local timezone rather than UTC? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My guy you get it that these drafts are literly just scarps that are almost that no one will edit especilly a after dude who was soccer puppet got blocked even more reasons to deleted pages. But okay don't want to argue.. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I do, but as an administrator I have to follow the policies that detail what powers the community of editors have delegated to me. If you really feel that they should be deleted there are other reasons that might cover it. See the criteria for speedy deletion and deletion discussions for more information. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ... DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Do we really need to wait six months? DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah. The other way would be to start a deletion discussion but in this circumstance that's more work than it's worth. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * i will start disscussion then cause I want pages to be deleted. Sorry if I sound rude bud but.. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

New alt
￼￼ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:JavaScript3399&redlink=1... LSS made new alt DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've blocked it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail!
-- Shadow  of the  Starlit Sky  17:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's already been looked at by another checkuser so I'll leave it there. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Protection
Hi, I want to write an article about Mashar Hamsa. But, it appears that the requirement of admin's permission prevents it's recreation. Nearly eight years have passed since the article was last deleted, and the subject now passes WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO because he has worked in more than 30 movies. Moreover, he was the winner of the Kerala Film Critics Association Awards 2020 for the best costume designer. Can you please remove the protection so that I can recreate it. Thilsebatti (talk) 06:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Thilsebatti: Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:18, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My regards Thilsebatti (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

New account for blocked user LSS_2552
Hello, saw you blocked LSS_2552, think this is a new account for the very same user if you'd take a look. Appreciate the work!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Interim_Report98

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LSS_2552/Archive Shadess (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Shadess: I've blocked it and another sock. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

New alt of LSS2552
￼Hi there i think user Interim Report98 is alt account of LSS2552 could you block user and delete stuffs he upload and create? DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 03:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @DarkHorseMayhem: I've blocked it and another sock. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you Callanecc, do you mind also deleting pages he created and upload with that acc per rules.Special:Log/Interim Report98 DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 12:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit adjustments
Hello Callanecc. Thankyou for adjusting my recent edit at Talk:Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull. It's been a while since I last edited, and the editing experience has changed somewhat. After I posted my edit, I could see it in the talk page history and my contributions, but it wasn't appearing as published text at the bottom of the talk page. Do you know what I did wrong? I can't work it out. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi PaleCloudedWhite, no worries. It wasn't you, there was an unclosed html tag ( <!-- ) further up the page that was hiding iall content below it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, that makes sense. Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Liborbital
Like it happened before, the current report also needs behavioral block. I hope you consider blocking it because this sock is disrupting too much. Thanks Azuredivay (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Good to see you are back. I think this SPI was derailed without actual consideration of facts. War Wounded was added after CU was already done between Oriental Aristocrat and the sock archives. It hasn't been checked recently but when it was last time there was a possibility that these two accounts are related. Things have been a lot worse since with these accounts as ANI report tells. Maybe can you help out with the SPI? These accounts are very disruptive. Thanks Azuredivay (talk) 09:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * SPI reopened. Of all I find account creation date of both suspected socks to be most suspicious together with stated similarities. Thanks Azuredivay (talk) 06:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi
￼Hi there can i ask you something? DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I think that User:MadjarMMA is LSS2552 their edits are very similar as well stuffs they edit etc...Can you check? DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, it looks like that account is ❌. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * How did you confirm ? Did you check IP or something? DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 11:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I used the CheckUser tool. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

ACC
Hi Callanecc, Sorry to pop-in like this, but we have a backlog of requests at ACC, if you have any spare time. Thanx,  -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 17:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's all clear now. :) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

T-ban
I'm sorry, I see that our old thread has been archieved, and I hope this doesn't come across as harassment.

So, I'm writing to you because a few months ago I published this article, Indiscriminate attack. Right now I was ready to request a peer-review - I had already included the appropriate template and written the opening post ("I've listed this article for peer review because the topic is very important and I'd like to make sure that the information we provide is of the best possible quality. If and when it will become of good quality, I'd like it to circulate as much as possible"), when I realised that the final sentence of the article is covered by my T-ban!

Is this really a problem? No one would ever object to the content there published, which I myself have included and which is not contentious. It's simply impossibile that conflicts will arise from this peer-review, and I pledge never to modify in any way that single sentence that touches upon RU stuff. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Your approach sounds good to me. Thanks for checking in. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s great, thank you. --Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Alt account
Hello there i think that user: TestingBoy and HeinzMaster  are same person, Boy is alt account of HeinzMaster and using multiple accounts is not allowed. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Read up on WP:VALIDALT before trying to get people blocked because you have some personal issue with them, like you did with User:MadjarMMA and now me. HeinzMaster (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I dont have personal issue with you. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You immediately came to tattle on me and try to get me banned. Same thing you did with MadjarMMA, that seems to indicate some personal issue. I would recommend also checking on WP:CHECKME to find the policy when Checkme is to be used. HeinzMaster (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Madjar made similiar edits to now blocked LSS2552 and thats why i report them. I report you cause you cleary have same edits as Boy user also i couldnt when anywhere why you have two accounts but anyway if you have good reason to have two accounts thats ok with me DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Just makes me feel very uncomfortable that's all. Seems like just retaliatory action. Thought we were on good terms, but this makes me question that. HeinzMaster (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok smh..I should know by name 'Test' doesn't mean any bad and is just there to help and should check things first. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi is the connection between the two accounts disclosed? I may have missed it but I couldn't see it. Given that TestingBoy is being used in internal discussions in project space the connection needs to be disclosed (WP:PROJSOCK), generally on both userpages. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * i mean its totally obvious that he is owner of two accounts he even took some context from Boy and make page on his Master account. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Alt of LSS2552
Hello can you check if User:Zaidania24 is alt of LSS 2552? DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I think you should give it a chance. No, there will only be blocks. However, the wrong person can give him a chance to improve. Zaidania24 (talk) 23:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What are you even talking about? You just making yourself more suspicious DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not related. The thing that is blocked is something that has created a football page in the first place, not about MMA page. Zaidania24 (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * However, I think you should welcome the blocked back to improve the wiki page. Zaidania24 (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Dont think that i forgot that you made/edit football/soccer pages too, LSS 2552. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What did you forget? I just know that used to do that. Zaidania24 (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I know very well what I've done. Zaidania24 (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Blocked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Callanecc thank you do you mind also deleting all stuffs that User created per rules? DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 08:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Regarding this…
'''Dear Callanecc, here was a conversation we shared earlier. (I am writing in bold to distinguish the resent from the past.)'''

Dear Callanecc,

You banned me for 12 months but may I question if this is the right choice?

Regarding the first incident, I take complete responsibility, It was only of the first things I’ve done on Wikipedia, and though I was unlucky to be ‘caught’ (I’ve seen worse!), I did slow down as another user suggested and mainly for used on small, newcomer copy edits to fix grammar, as you can see on my contributions. I also learnt not to edit a featured page without permission from those on the talk page. This is not something I have done again, thankfully.

However, the second incident was in fact an edit war with another user, something I didn’t know the rules concerning and at that point hadn’t heard of. As far as I was concerned at that point, I had added well-sourced info which hat gained support by a more senior user on the talk page, and looking at that talk page I saw that the person constantly removing the info was also swearing on the talk page. While the page that I added material to is a heavy debate, I added information to both the ‘Support’ and ‘Opposition’ sections, while the other user caught up in the edit war only removed my edits to the ‘Opposition’ section until I pointed it out. Again, I believed I was just protecting the page from vandalism as looking through the second user’s contributions similar things had happened with other pages. The difference was that on other, more protected pages, it was a senior editor who stopped them, and on this one, it was a newcomer – me. This second user was lucky though because I backed down after I was enlightened as to what an edit war was (which I realised I had just done) and their changes were made. Moreover, they got no punishment despite a previous history of being nasty while editing and on talk pages.

I don’t really intend to work on gender-related articles in the future. It’s like stepping into a minefield and whatever you do, there are angry users chasing after you. I’m currently working on pages such as Upper Slaughter and Darwin Núñez (true, they’re not related at all). I only ask you if your could possibly review if you have time the comments I have made and if that changes your opinion over what is to happen to me.

Have a Happy New Year when it comes!

Scientelensia Scientelensia (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * @Scientelensia: I think part of the problem you had, as you mention above, is that you stepped into a really difficult area to edit accurately and within the bounds of policy where the consequences for not doing so are higher than they would be in other less contentious areas. Your plan to edit in other areas for while to gain some more knowledge of how Wikipedia works and what you're expected to do is a good one. To take a point from above, the issue wasn't necessarily about you needing to seek permission to edit featured articles it's more about ensuring that your edits meet the criteria that featured articles need to maintain and if you're not sure asking for second opinion before making changes. Once you have experience in other areas I don't think you'll run into problems in the more contentious areas but you, likely the vast majority of other new editors, need experience before working on those topics. While it's not nice to be on the receiving end of a topic ban, I don't think there's a strong justification for removing it at this stage. Having said that, once you've spent 3-6 months editing well in other areas I've no issue looking at it again to see if it can be removed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you! Scientelensia (talk) 09:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

'''I have now spent the required 6 months without infringing the limits which you set, quite fairly, and have come to see my mistakes. I have been gaining experience, e.g. by contributing to Upper Slaughter and Fabinho. Would you mind, as you’ve said, perhaps looking at it again to see if the ban can be removed?'''

Best wishes,

From Scientelensia (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've had a look through your recent contributions and I'm not going to modify the restriction at this point. I've made this decision based on the number of concerns which have been brought up on your talk page with a range of concerns about your editing. Before I modify the restriction I would need to see a number of months of virtually problem-free editing. That will come with more experience and learning how Wikipedia operates. I know you won't want to hear this but it's important that editing on our more controversial articles remains within the limits and expectations set by our policies and guidelines. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate what you’re saying, but I do believe that the ‘concerns’ on my talk page are not wholly my fault, and that I have been working hard as you can see by my contributions to make constructive edits to this Encyclopedia. Obviously sometimes others are right, but when they are not I must be allowed to stand my ground and make my points – for otherwise what is the point of editing and engaging in discussion? (WP:BOLD) Here is a list of such ‘concerns’ on my talk page (if you want, please digest my responses as they are from the heart and I believe true as well):
 * ‘2022 World Cup’: I added non-Western viewpoints into an article, which another user was confused/angry about. After explaining to them as you can see, we reached an agreement – perfectly civilly, as is how Wikipedia should be used.
 * ‘Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution’: I wrote some text and used it in two relevant articles. A user believed that I had copied off someone else, to which I replied that that wasn’t the case while thanking them for their message.
 * ‘Roberto Firmino’: I enacted edits which, believe me, are very common on other footballing articles, which were reverted by a user seeming to exercise ownership on the page. I believe that I responded with consideration, and after asking many other users for their opinions and discussing with the user we both agreed that a compromise could be reached, with the user admitting that I was right as they had not (in my opinion) replied to my edits with logic but guidelines which as I explained did not apply to my edits. Please read the whole conversation here (Talk:Roberto Firmino), as if you think I am coming across as pretentious I can assure you that I was not so here, I am just defending myself and my innocence.
 * ‘June 2023’: I made an honest mistake on a page to which I had been constructively editing, as can be seen.
 * ‘İlkay Gündoğan’: a user deleted some of my edits for no valid reason in my opinion, promoting me to respond negatively. I should not have done that, and the user in question approached me on my talk page to berate me and discuss with me. I took a while constructing an honest reply (please read if if you want – it will explain things), much of which the user ignored and instead highlighted accidental (I am not lying here, I promise – and please believe me that I have always been telling the truth and would not mislead anyone) mistakes in my editing. We then reached a compromise which was fair.
 * ‘Kane, Benzema, Ancelotti’: me and another user reached a decision together on what to write on a page after discussing civilly.
 * In conclusion, while it may look like I am an inferior editor, the range of concerns over me is quite small. I admit to having disputes with people in the past; however, I did this to protect information on pages, and personally do note believe that I acted for the most part in a way which was morally wrong or simply incorrect. One is always going to find people they disagree with and agree with on such a public platform as this; it’s a part of life on this site. I’d say that I’ve been quite prolific on this site (my user page shows pages where I’ve contributed greatly) and have gained a lot of experience in the last months; and I think that now I can safely navigate my way around gender-related pages of discussions without (causing) problems. (Also, what particularly was a problem in my contributions? – just wondering) I would say I have been acting as per the guidelines of Wikipedia. At first glance, it may not seem so, but for example, see how I rebutted my detractors here (Talk:Roberto Firmino)
 * If you still decide I am not worthy of editing on these pages, I will of course respect your option as one should, though I believe myself to be ready.
 * Thanks for reaching back to me.
 * Best wishes,
 * From Scientelensia (talk) 12:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally also, I don’t quite see why a very new editor was banned for so long on one area (and I am not saying that I did not do wrong) rather than being banned for a shorter period of time as a cautionary punishment – the ban serves little purpose. Indeed, with one specific user pushing for it – obviously not you – I believed that they were doing so as they disagreed with me. I’m not sure if you remember, but I tried to add content in defence of J.K. Rowling to broaden viewpoints and weaken the bias which still heavily exists there (e.g. here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=prev&oldid=1127571788: I was trying to fix the fact that actors who disliked what Rowling said were the only actors whose opinions were provided. It was later claimed that these alternate opinions existed in a footnote, but to my knowledge only one or two actors were spoken of in this footnote, where as many detractors do Rowling were referenced in the actual article)(also, this balanced piece of writing here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=prev&oldid=1127579338 Was reverted for no apparent reason) – but was reverted by a user who did not like Rowling. On the other hand, I am aware that my actions required some punishment, yet this seems a little excessive, and I believe that my recent edits have not been wrong, as I said above.
 * Warm regards,
 * From Scientelensia (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

New sock of LSS 2552
Hi again sorry to bother you user:Special:Contributions/183.182.121.120 is sock of LSS 2552 same case as before it seem that user is tired of creating new accounts so he use IP instead. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like the IP has stopped editing for now. Remember that you can report socks to WP:SPI which may get a quicker response. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay but when i reported here:Sockpuppet investigations/LSS 2552 IP was still editing. Thanks for respond anyway mb for bothering you. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Hunter Biden laptop controversy page restrictions
There's a content dispute at Hunter Biden laptop controversy article. Here's a sample of edits regarding the disputed 13 May edit:
 * 1) 13:39, 13 May 2023 added by Soibangla
 * 2) 15:05, 5 June 2023 challenged by Yodabyte
 * 3) 17:24, 5 June 2023 reinstated by Andrevan
 * 4) 19:50, 6 June 2023 challenged by Yodabyte
 * 5) 21:05, 6 June 2023 reinstated by Soibangla

I.e. the disputed material has been "reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page". There's been a talk page discussion, but consensus to reinstate has never emerged. (As a side note, Andrevan closed discussion as involved editor, which is likely an attempt to game the system. Separately, DonFB, who later supported removal in the talk page was apparently canvassed to the discussion.)

According to Contentious topics, "Edits that breach an editor or page restriction may be reverted." Am I allowed to revert the disputed edit? Thanks, Politrukki (talk) 11:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Given that the paragraph has been in the article for more than a month now and that there doesn't appear to have been further discussion about it consensus would likely be assessed as being in favour of having that paragraph in the article. Therefore a consensus would now be required to remove it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

My TBAN - BLP violation at Ruslan Kotsaba
Hello, Callanecc, I see that you're busy elsewhere. If you cannot reply, never mind, I will wait for a couple of days and then ask another admin. The article Ruslan Kotsaba, which I created, falls squarely into my TBan: he is a Ukrainian pacifist and, according to Amnesty International, a prisoner of conscience, according to others a pro-Russian propagandist, who recently fled the country and found asylum in the USA. I believe that the 21 April edits by IP 2601 are a clear case of BLP violation, especially this one, which is neither neutral nor verifiable. I would revert it immediately but I can't. Can you help? Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Gitz, I've reverted the addition of content in that edit. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * thank you. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 04:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Sock investigation
Hai

Can you take a look at this sockpuppet investigation process? It was closed citing lack of evidence, but I have changed the status now. Since you are the admin that blocked the original account based on behavioural investigation, I was hoping you might be able to take some action.

Sockpuppet investigations/Arjun19990012

I believe the evidence provided there is more than enough.

(141.132.22.19 (talk) 08:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC))

Sockpuppetry investigation
Hai

Can you take a look at this sockpuppet investigation process? It was closed citing lack of evidence, but I have changed the status now. Since you are the admin that blocked the original account based on behavioural investigation, I was hoping you might be able to take some action.

Sockpuppet investigations/Arjun19990012

I believe the evidence provided there is more than enough.

(141.132.22.19 (talk) 08:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC))
 * It was closed by User:GeneralNotability so you'll need to convince him that it should be reopened based on new evidence. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

sock
Hi, after reverting some hoax and adding speedy delete tag to a spam article created by this user and noticing he was also socking, I was surprised he's not actually blocked and saw your decision here: Sockpuppet investigations/Mrshivamrai/Archive

why "Master blocked for 3 days" ? This user is clearly WP:NOTHERE, makes only obvious paid-promotional editing, creating spam, non-notable paid pages, adding fake info to pages etc.. Tehonk (talk) 11:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * SPI is about dealing with sockpuppetry. Block lengths are determined based on the disruption that occurred based on the socking (see WP:SOCKTAG and WP:BLOCKLENGTH). Sometimes we're in a position at SPI to deal with more issues with editing sometimes we're not. Having said that, this SPI was from 6 months ago so if there are continued problems with their editing it needs to be dealt with at the appropriate venue. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Your thoughts?
User:Artasheshian appears to be removing Azerbaijani templates from certain culture articles. They also removed a Turkey template from Hittites, and removed referenced information that called the ASALA a terrorist organization. Not sure if these are an AA2/3 violations or not, but I think this person's editing is well outside the realm of simple warning(s).

It appears that HistoryofIran has given them some warnings. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Kansas Bear, I'm tempted to block now but I've given a contentious topics alert to them and we'll go from there. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Callanecc.--Kansas Bear (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Gokujō!! Mecha Mote Iinchō
Hi Callanecc, could you have a look over this ANI thread regarding the Gokujō!! Mecha Mote Iinchō article that you indefinitely semi-protected?

My whole view of this is that this could have been easily resolved through blocks and partial blocks instead of semi-protection, due to all the disruptive edits coming from certain static IPs and ranges only, rather than all random ones.

Just let me know what are your thoughts on this. I'm not really asking for change of action here, just a review, that's all.

Regards — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  09:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @AP 499D25: Thanks for raising this. Both 2001:2D8:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 and 219.254.113.34 are from different ISPs so in theory different IPs could be assigned. 2001:2D8:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 also has a fairly long history of blocks, partial and full. If (When) a full block is next applied it will override the partial block from the article and once it expires the IP range will be able to edit the article again so we'll be back in the same position. Also, given that there are IPs that are used once and then not used any more it suggests that there is potential for more IPs to be involved. Unfortunately I think the semi is the best option at this stage. Given the lack of 'good' edits from IPs it doesn't appear that it there will be much collaterial impact though. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I see, that makes a lot of sense. I'm going to guess the static IP is their home broadband and the dynamic wide IPv6 range is their mobile. The other IPs might be public computers (from internet cafes maybe). Anyways, that's a reasonable measure. — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  04:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Accidental block?
You seem to have blocked Special:Contribs/S (usurped also) by mistake in 2014. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 23:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm, strange. I've unblocked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Re: Kevo327
Hello, I see you were investigating Kevo327 for the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, and I have another complaint. I edited the Levon Mirzoyan article after seeing edits from Kevo that sanitized the famine/excused Mirzoyan of it using Sarah Cameron's work. I then read Cameron's analysis and added extra details, including his culpability through historical data. Kevo then reverted my work and banned me indefinitely from editing the topic or others due to them being related to "Armenia or Azerbaijan". However, I am concerned primarily with the Kazakh famine of 1930-33, and have extensive edits showing my dedication. The Mirzoyan page does not concern Armenia just because he is Armenian, especially when the content I wrote regards his actions in Soviet Kazakhstan.

The edits I reverted were his, of course, and this feels like clear retaliation. I am unable to change anything back now, and I feel that this is clearly a biased decision. Please feel free to view his message on my talk page, his deletions, my edits, and his additional counteracting of them. He has continually sanitized the famine, removed information that is critical of Mirzoyan, and reverted good edits.

I am not sure how to properly report this, so hopefully giving this information to you is the right move. Thank you for reading. ~ Dsrlisan85 (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why the user keeps discussing an article they're not allowed to edit in after being notified of relevant restriction in a clear manner . Additionally in their revert, they claimed it was "deleted without explanation" when in reality, I left a talk comment for my rationale and linked it in the edit summary . But this is irrelevant since the user isn't allowed to edit the article per WP:GS/AA (the article very much falls under this restriction), yet they not only keep commenting on it breaching gs/aa, but trying to sneakily bring it up on an admin's page? This is baffling. - <b style="color:#d90012">K</b><b style="color:#000000">evo</b><sup style="color:#d90012">3 <sup style="color:#0033a0">2 <sup style="color:#f2a800">7 (talk) 09:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not 'sneakily' doing anything, I am openly communicating my concerns. Please be respectful in tone. You keep deleting relevant and cited information, and have been reported for instances like this multiple times (see here and here)- which seems to denote a pattern of behavior. Levon Mirzoyan is not in the list of sanctions per WP:GS/AA, and again- you do not seem to acknowledge that my edits and concerns have nothing to do with Armenia or Azerbaijan as a topic. While Mirzoyan's page may be interpreted *broadly* as relating to both due to his ethnicity and service in Azerbaijan, neither have anything to do with the content I've contributed. As I've stated multiple times, I just want to write about Soviet Kazakhstan. Also that I "keep commenting on it breaching gs/aa"? I have not done anything to the page since you've banned me. I've messaged here and on my talk page, and any quick view at edit history will confirm. ~ Dsrlisan85 (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Also one more quick note for the admin- and sorry for all the messages, but Kevo has also deleted 5 reputable sources referencing Mirzoyan (see here). One is from Cambridge University Press, two are from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, another is from the Wilson Center, and the last is from Nationalities Papers. There is no reason to have deleted these, and I believe this edits may be politically motivated. ~ Dsrlisan85 (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Levon Mirzoyan falls under WP:GS/AA, broadly and beyond. I think you should familiarize yourself with the restriction before commenting further as what you are saying is just false. I have reverted your edit because A) you're not allowed to edit in the article as it falls under GS/AA, doesn't matter what part of it you edit (again something that you don't seem to understand), and B) You reverted me claiming it wasn't "explained", yet it was explained in the talk discussion I opened and linked in my edit summary (same edit you reverted claiming no explanation was provided).
 * I have no desire to repeat the same things over and over, please reach the needed amount of edits before editing the article again or commenting on it repeatedly. - <b style="color:#d90012">K</b><b style="color:#000000">evo</b><sup style="color:#d90012">3 <sup style="color:#0033a0">2 <sup style="color:#f2a800">7 (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I don't either. You have no refutation of much of my point besides having an explanation on the discussion page, which is all I need to know. I'm disengaging from this as I don't believe it's productive. Dsrlisan85 (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Editing at User talk:M.boli
You currently appear to be engaged in false accusations of edit war&#32; according to the warnings you have posted at talk page of myself and regarding edits at Vivek Ramaswamy. This means that you are perceiving conflicts in in a fairly anodyne editing process where two editors disagreed over something really minor.

Points to note:
 * 1) The other editor saw problems with two of my sources and removed part of my edit. I thought one source was OK, but no matter. I instead simply rewrote the removed part with a better source.
 * 2) My original edit rewrote and added back some material (not my own) which pretty obviously had been dropped due to a time-stamp editing conflict. Those two people were not warring either.

I think you jumped the gun. I'm inclined to remove your misplaced uw-ew accusation (parodied above) from my talk page. It is possible the other editor you warned may want to do likewise. -- M.boli (talk) 11:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, on reflection it probably was a little early. However given that this is a contentious topic and that there's a history of editing warring on the article it's important that all editors are aware and hence reminded that if there isn't a consensus version that is collaboratively developed fairly quickly (like now) discussion needs to occur rather than reverts and partial reverts. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! It is indeed a contentious page, point well-taken. -- M.boli (talk) 11:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Editing at User talk:molochmeditates
You currently appear to be engaged in false accusations of edit war&#x20; according to the warnings you have posted at talk page of myself and regarding edits at Vivek Ramaswamy. This means that you are perceiving conflicts in in a fairly anodyne editing process where two editors disagreed over something really minor.

Points to note:


 * 1) The other editor added a true statement to the biography but used a source that I saw as problematic because it was a press release, which I do not think is appropriate to include as a WP:RS in a WP:BLP. I am afraid spurious or unimportant content might be sneaked into the article if we allow this and historically biographies have had this problem. Based on this, I removed part of the edit that was sourced via the press release.
 * 2) The other editor rewrote this section using a better source (in my opinion). I publicly thanked the other editor for their later edit, before you jumped in with your warnings and threats to block both of us for constructively striving to improve a biography and reaching a consensus quickly.
 * 3) I have removed a couple of sources that fall under WP:FORBESCON. I write detailed edit messages, which you can check in the article's history.
 * 4) I would actually love to see you contribute positively to the discussion here and help us improve this article. For example, what do you think about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vivek_Ramaswamy#Paid_editing_of_Wikipedia_mention_in_the_BLP on the article's talk page? What do you think about using a press release as a source for quotes the candidate made? Do you support using Forbes contributor articles to write biographies on Wikipedia, against the policy in WP:FORBESCON?

I understand this is a contentious page, but please don't try to chill edits on an important page.

--Molochmeditates (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

edits
why did u remove them Triango (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi . Welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately imagery from Google Maps is subject to copyright and so isn't a free image that can used in this way. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * oh Triango (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * sorry Triango (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries . You might be able to use OpenStreetMap for the same purpose. Images from it are free from copyright. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * how do I create a Wikipedia article Triango (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

They have copied your user page to their user page. I wanted to make you aware in case this was anything nefarious? Knitsey (talk) 13:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the FYI . Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Evading already?
Can you give this IP a look, geolocates to the same place as the IPv6 one you just blocked, is editing the same pages: 86.98.36.101. – 2804:F14:80D6:E401:E8B6:1355:28C1:D6AC (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've blocked it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem :). Thanks. – 2804:F14:80D6:E401:E8B6:1355:28C1:D6AC (talk) 08:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Mention notification
Hello. I think you didn't receive my notification here because of this. I'd like to know your opinion on it. NMW03 (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

AHS: Delicate
Watch the trailer perhaps. You'll see Juliana Canfield is in there twice. 2401:7000:DD77:B601:9584:19A0:5716:98FD (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello. Wikipedia requires reliable sources that are verifiable. It is original research to see someone in a video and then credit for them as others cannot confirm the same information. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * So the official trailer for the season released on the verified social media and YouTube platforms of AHS and FX isn't reliable enough? Lol!!
 * The official synopsis on the FX website for the season also has Emma Roberts' character name as Anna Victoria Alcott, which keeps being removed as well. Do better. 2401:7000:DD77:B601:4457:DDEA:1947:22E7 (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

T-Ban appeal
Hi Callanecc, in February you told me "I won't be considering an appeal from you without at least 3-6 months of positive contributions in other areas". Since then, I've moved on to other areas (e.g. I published this article and submitted it to GAN) and I've basically given up on the Russo-Ukraine topic area: I'm not interested in editing there again (with one exception though, my Ruslan Kotsaba article, which I'd like to update with new sources and content). Anyway, having renounced to the topic area, I wasn't even interested in getting my T-ban lifted and sort of forgot about it, which explains why I've just made an involuntary misstep (immediately self-reverted) here. As you can see, I was talking about something else entirely and only mentioned articles from the topic area by way of examples. But being provented from even mentioning the topic is quite annoying, so my question for you is: would you be willing to consider an appeal? I don't want to go through the hassle of a discussion with other admins/users, so if it's not OK for you to just lift it, I'd rather leave things as they are now. Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:35, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, based on your editing since the ban I'm happy to lift it. As you imply, I suggest that you avoid general editing of the area. Since you've received a previous TBAN it is likely that if you do edit problematically in the future a TBAN will be applied fairly automatically. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That's great, thank you. Yes, I will avoid general editing of the area and I'm confident that there will be no more harsh conflicts involving me. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Kizuna AI
Did you look through the history of this one? It was semi'ed for a year, then you did it only for a month? (I also hate how Twinkle doesn't catch when two folks press the protect button fairly simultaneously, like it will with blocks.) Courcelles (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I missed the 2022. I only did a month as that was the length of the rangeblocks I was doing. I've modified it back to three years. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries. I guess you were looking at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2405:8D40:4888:A6F:FC6A:952C:4496:737B as well.  A CU request under that title was unusual, to say the least. Courcelles (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. I stumbled across it while doing normal antivandal work and something didn't smell right. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Definition of revert for 3RR
If I add new content or rephrase content that isn’t reverting. If I return a page to a previous state, whether completely or previously, by undoing, whether completely or partially, another editor’s contribution, that is a reversion. Is this correct? Are the 4 examples in WP:Revert comprehensive? Are there nuances to what is considered a revert? Please let me know. Closetside (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * They are examples yes. But the intial definition of "reversing a prior edit or undoing the effects of one or more edits" is what a revert is. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

A concern/question
Hi, I’m just going to bring this conversation back to your attention as I believe you didn’t see the recent developments, and I wish to have your response:

The issue starts here: '''Dear Callanecc, here was a conversation we shared earlier. (I am writing in bold to distinguish the resent from the past.)''' Dear Callanecc, You banned me for 12 months but may I question if this is the right choice? Regarding the first incident, I take complete responsibility, It was only of the first things I’ve done on Wikipedia, and though I was unlucky to be ‘caught’ (I’ve seen worse!), I did slow down as another user suggested and mainly for used on small, newcomer copy edits to fix grammar, as you can see on my contributions. I also learnt not to edit a featured page without permission from those on the talk page. This is not something I have done again, thankfully. However, the second incident was in fact an edit war with another user, something I didn’t know the rules concerning and at that point hadn’t heard of. As far as I was concerned at that point, I had added well-sourced info which hat gained support by a more senior user on the talk page, and looking at that talk page I saw that the person constantly removing the info was also swearing on the talk page. While the page that I added material to is a heavy debate, I added information to both the ‘Support’ and ‘Opposition’ sections, while the other user caught up in the edit war only removed my edits to the ‘Opposition’ section until I pointed it out. Again, I believed I was just protecting the page from vandalism as looking through the second user’s contributions similar things had happened with other pages. The difference was that on other, more protected pages, it was a senior editor who stopped them, and on this one, it was a newcomer – me. This second user was lucky though because I backed down after I was enlightened as to what an edit war was (which I realised I had just done) and their changes were made. Moreover, they got no punishment despite a previous history of being nasty while editing and on talk pages. I don’t really intend to work on gender-related articles in the future. It’s like stepping into a minefield and whatever you do, there are angry users chasing after you. I’m currently working on pages such as Upper Slaughter and Darwin Núñez (true, they’re not related at all). I only ask you if your could possibly review if you have time the comments I have made and if that changes your opinion over what is to happen to me. Have a Happy New Year when it comes! Scientelensia Scientelensia (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Scientelensia: I think part of the problem you had, as you mention above, is that you stepped into a really difficult area to edit accurately and within the bounds of policy where the consequences for not doing so are higher than they would be in other less contentious areas. Your plan to edit in other areas for while to gain some more knowledge of how Wikipedia works and what you're expected to do is a good one. To take a point from above, the issue wasn't necessarily about you needing to seek permission to edit featured articles it's more about ensuring that your edits meet the criteria that featured articles need to maintain and if you're not sure asking for second opinion before making changes. Once you have experience in other areas I don't think you'll run into problems in the more contentious areas but you, likely the vast majority of other new editors, need experience before working on those topics. While it's not nice to be on the receiving end of a topic ban, I don't think there's a strong justification for removing it at this stage. Having said that, once you've spent 3-6 months editing well in other areas I've no issue looking at it again to see if it can be removed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you! Scientelensia (talk) 09:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

'''I have now spent the required 6 months without infringing the limits which you set, quite fairly, and have come to see my mistakes. I have been gaining experience, e.g. by contributing to Upper Slaughter and Fabinho. Would you mind, as you’ve said, perhaps looking at it again to see if the ban can be removed?''' Best wishes, From Scientelensia (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've had a look through your recent contributions and I'm not going to modify the restriction at this point. I've made this decision based on the number of concerns which have been brought up on your talk page with a range of concerns about your editing. Before I modify the restriction I would need to see a number of months of virtually problem-free editing. That will come with more experience and learning how Wikipedia operates. I know you won't want to hear this but it's important that editing on our more controversial articles remains within the limits and expectations set by our policies and guidelines. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate what you’re saying, but I do believe that the ‘concerns’ on my talk page are not wholly my fault, and that I have been working hard as you can see by my contributions to make constructive edits to this Encyclopedia. Obviously sometimes others are right, but when they are not I must be allowed to stand my ground and make my points – for otherwise what is the point of editing and engaging in discussion? (WP:BOLD) Here is a list of such ‘concerns’ on my talk page (if you want, please digest my responses as they are from the heart and I believe true as well):
 * ‘2022 World Cup’: I added non-Western viewpoints into an article, which another user was confused/angry about. After explaining to them as you can see, we reached an agreement – perfectly civilly, as is how Wikipedia should be used.
 * ‘Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution’: I wrote some text and used it in two relevant articles. A user believed that I had copied off someone else, to which I replied that that wasn’t the case while thanking them for their message.
 * ‘Roberto Firmino’: I enacted edits which, believe me, are very common on other footballing articles, which were reverted by a user seeming to exercise ownership on the page. I believe that I responded with consideration, and after asking many other users for their opinions and discussing with the user we both agreed that a compromise could be reached, with the user admitting that I was right as they had not (in my opinion) replied to my edits with logic but guidelines which as I explained did not apply to my edits. Please read the whole conversation here (Talk:Roberto Firmino), as if you think I am coming across as pretentious I can assure you that I was not so here, I am just defending myself and my innocence.
 * ‘June 2023’: I made an honest mistake on a page to which I had been constructively editing, as can be seen.
 * ‘İlkay Gündoğan’: a user deleted some of my edits for no valid reason in my opinion, promoting me to respond negatively. I should not have done that, and the user in question approached me on my talk page to berate me and discuss with me. I took a while constructing an honest reply (please read if if you want – it will explain things), much of which the user ignored and instead highlighted accidental (I am not lying here, I promise – and please believe me that I have always been telling the truth and would not mislead anyone) mistakes in my editing. We then reached a compromise which was fair.
 * ‘Kane, Benzema, Ancelotti’: me and another user reached a decision together on what to write on a page after discussing civilly.
 * In conclusion, while it may look like I am an inferior editor, the range of concerns over me is quite small. I admit to having disputes with people in the past; however, I did this to protect information on pages, and personally do note believe that I acted for the most part in a way which was morally wrong or simply incorrect. One is always going to find people they disagree with and agree with on such a public platform as this; it’s a part of life on this site. I’d say that I’ve been quite prolific on this site (my user page shows pages where I’ve contributed greatly) and have gained a lot of experience in the last months; and I think that now I can safely navigate my way around gender-related pages of discussions without (causing) problems. (Also, what particularly was a problem in my contributions? – just wondering) I would say I have been acting as per the guidelines of Wikipedia. At first glance, it may not seem so, but for example, see how I rebutted my detractors here (Talk:Roberto Firmino)
 * If you still decide I am not worthy of editing on these pages, I will of course respect your option as one should, though I believe myself to be ready.
 * Thanks for reaching back to me.
 * Best wishes,
 * From Scientelensia (talk) 12:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally also, I don’t quite see why a very new editor was banned for so long on one area (and I am not saying that I did not do wrong) rather than being banned for a shorter period of time as a cautionary punishment – the ban serves little purpose. Indeed, with one specific user pushing for it – obviously not you – I believed that they were doing so as they disagreed with me. I’m not sure if you remember, but I tried to add content in defence of J.K. Rowling to broaden viewpoints and weaken the bias which still heavily exists there (e.g. here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=prev&oldid=1127571788: I was trying to fix the fact that actors who disliked what Rowling said were the only actors whose opinions were provided. It was later claimed that these alternate opinions existed in a footnote, but to my knowledge only one or two actors were spoken of in this footnote, where as many detractors do Rowling were referenced in the actual article)(also, this balanced piece of writing here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=prev&oldid=1127579338 Was reverted for no apparent reason) – but was reverted by a user who did not like Rowling. On the other hand, I am aware that my actions required some punishment, yet this seems a little excessive, and I believe that my recent edits have not been wrong, as I said above.
 * Warm regards,
 * From Scientelensia (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the end of the excerpt. I would like to hear your response, please.
 * Best wishes, Scientelensia (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Trying to relitigate the reasons for the topic ban being applied initially is not going to help your case and really only demonstrates that there is a continued need for the topic ban. Looking at your recent editing you appear to be involved in a dispute at Darwin Núñez, Jude Bellingham and Alexis Mac Allister regarding what should be included in the articles and rather than try and start a discussion about it you continued to revert and/or readd the content. That's edit warring and effectively similar to the behaviour that resulted in the original TBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate what you are saying and respect you, but you can see from my edits that these disputes finished a while ago and that I was simply restoring relevant content. I am sorry if I have made you think I still need to be banned but I was simply trying to explain myself; and thought that you as a clearly experienced user would at least consider or respond to what I say above :(
 * I was simply speculating on the fact that the ban I was given in the first place may be somewhat unjustified. I was also defending myself from the accusations you made of me, and I would very much appreciate your honest thoughts on those matters. Sorry if I made you upset/angry. Scientelensia (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like it's been resolved to me. Your latest edits at Alexis Mac Allister and Darwin Núñez have been been reverted. That suggests to me that you still need to focus more on starting discussions to come to consensus rather than just reverting. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, I may be correct and other users may be wrong. I agree with you, I should utilise talk pages more. Also since your last reply I don’t even believe I have edited the pages you speak of (maybe I have). Finally, perhaps people revering constructive edits need to reach a consensus for that? You only have to look at the page stats for the pages you mention to see how hard I have been working on them in a constructive manner.
 * But this is the third time I am questioning the original ban, and I have not received an answer from you! I repeat:
 * Personally also, I don’t quite see why a very new editor was banned for so long on one area (and I am not saying that I did not do wrong) rather than being banned for a shorter period of time as a cautionary punishment – the ban serves little purpose. Indeed, with one specific user pushing for it – obviously not you – I believed that they were doing so as they disagreed with me. I’m not sure if you remember, but I tried to add content in defence of J.K. Rowling to broaden viewpoints and weaken the bias which still heavily exists there (e.g. here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=prev&oldid=1127571788: I was trying to fix the fact that actors who disliked what Rowling said were the only actors whose opinions were provided. It was later claimed that these alternate opinions existed in a footnote, but to my knowledge only one or two actors were spoken of in this footnote, where as many detractors do Rowling were referenced in the actual article)(also, this balanced piece of writing here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=prev&oldid=1127579338 Was reverted for no apparent reason) – but was reverted by a user who did not like Rowling. On the other hand, I am aware that my actions required some punishment, yet this seems a little excessive, and I believe that my recent edits have not been wrong, as I said above.
 * Warm regards,
 * From Scientelensia (talk) 08:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact that I can point to recent evidence of edit warring, albeit in another topic, demonstrates that the topic ban was originally necessary. There are a large number of administators who work in arbitration enforcement who don't believe that time-limited topic bans are useful as they don't require editors to demonstrate that they've learnt from their mistakes. The reason for your topic ban was that when your edits were reverted you need to stop editing and instead gain consensus on talk pages before continuing to re-add the content. I've shown above how you're continuing to do that. That shows that the topic ban was justified and potentially that it needed to be longer. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, sorry. I will stop asking you things now, although I believe the ban was not originally necessary. Scientelensia (talk) 10:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

DR
Hi. Sorry for bothering you, but I would like to ask for your advice. We have a dispute about street rename reports that involves multiple users on both sides of the argument. I would like to take it to a dispute resolution. What do you think would be the best way to do it in this particular situation? Grand master  09:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You could potentially start an RFC (as effectively the next step at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE) but it seems that negotiation towards a consensus is already taking place so you might not need to start one and instead just allow discussion to continue. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, new sources became available, and there is some progress on that one. But we have 2 more disputes on that same page. I took one to WP:BLPN, but we don't get any third party comments. So I will probably take your advice and start RFCs on those two issues. Grand  master  08:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

0RR appeal
Hi, I would like to ask you to remove the 0RR imposed on me. I received 0RR on March 7, 2023, this restriction was reduced to 1RR on July 3, 2023 , for appreciating my trouble-free editing history. On September 27, however, after my 2nd revert, I received 0RR again for edits in the Povilas Plechavičius article. .

I have since tried to continue editing Wikipedia without making reverts. Basically, it seems to me that given my entire editing history since March of this year, I have proven myself to be a user who tries to avoid conflicts, and if they arise resolve them on the talk page. I understand that the issue of the revert on Povilas Plechavičius casts a shadow over my track record. But given that it was an isolated incident I hope it doesn't completely cross it out. Marcelus (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Marceles, after only a month I'm not comfortable reducing 0RR to 1RR given that it was imposed by a fairly strong admin consensus. If we were a couple months into the future that might be different. Having said that, I've absolutely no issue with you appealing it at AE or AN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will probably do that Marcelus (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Now at AN. -- Tamzin  &#91;<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>&#93; (they&#124;xe&#124;she) 23:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, saw that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Always precious
Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

RFC
Hi. I followed your advice and did an RFC on whether the UN information on violence against civilians during the recent hostilities should be included or not in the Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians. The overwhelming community consensus was that the UN information should be included, and it was restored to the article. Now we have the same argument in the related article 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh. Should I do another RFC on pretty much the same thing? To me it looks like a waste of community time to do repeated RFCs on the same topic in related articles. Grand master  10:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, given the consensus was in favour of inclusion and it's a similar article it would make sense for there to be an assumption to include it. Other editors might have concerns about including it in that particular article or concerns that aren't the same as those discussed originally. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It is clear that the vast majority of users did not agree with any objections to inclusion of this information. So even if objections are made on different grounds this time, I don't think this can override the overall community consensus that this information is relevant to the articles on this topic. Grand  master  11:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Prague shooting
Hiya Callanecc,

I would just like to ask why you’ve locked editing of the 2023 Prague mass shooting page, as any vandalism has been quickly dealt with to my information. And I believe that I, to the best of my ability, have managed to include reliably sourced information at a consistent rate. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t lock the page, I’m just asking why.

By the way, my username is Getsomehelp1962. 188.231.9.162 (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, unless the name is widely reported in reliable sources we generally don't include it. At this stage there were a number of edits being added with information which is either unsourced or rely on limited sourcing. I'm expecting that the sources will Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Fowler&Fowler
Hi Callanecc. You had closed the last ARE report about User:Fowler%26fowler because he had "taken on the advice provided by a number of editors". But right now, Fowler&Fowler is causing even more disruption than what he did at that time.
 * See his personal attacks and WP:ASPERSIONS:
 * "essentially without content unless some kind of lame parody is their goal.[...] you should take all of them to AN for disruption and ask that they be topic banned. [...] vote yourself and explain your vote and then resist the temptation to engage these disruptive editors."
 * "also keep WP:Civil POV pushing in mind. This seems to be the latest tack of India-POV editors."
 * "such are the numbers of India-POV editors on Wikipedia these days that very little NPOV content on India survives."


 * Bragging how he never gets sanctioned and challenging people to report him, as if he won't stop until he is actually sanctioned.
 * Unnecessarily commenting on people's coherent English when they are discussing the content.
 * Badgering almost every comment.
 * Unnecessarily demanding people to ask them to "list all" their sources when they have already provided a bunch, and the article itself article also offers many of them on "aftermath" section.
 * I believe this is clear-cut bigotry because none of my sources were from "Old Delhi" but he is clearly attempting to demean my cited scholarly sources (which are actuallly from Odense University Press, Routledge, and Columbia University Press) by citing an Indian locality as if it is something very bad. Location does not even matter when it comes to identification of reliable sources. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 07:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Word limit extension request
Hi Callanecc. KU removed[1 ] some of his statements to add an additional reply in AE. I also have very important detail to say, but I don't want to do the same, because it will meaningfully change my initial reply. Can you please provide a few additional words for a reply?  Aredoros87  (talk) 09:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Someone who likes train writing
You can't block this user! He's done nothing wrong! 611fan2001 (talk) 16:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the dot point on "Good hand" and "bad hand" accounts at WP:GHBH. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not true. Here's the truth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Larrysteamfan#c-Larrysteamfan-20231226192200-Callanecc-20231225060400 611fan2001 (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the technical evidence doesn't lie in this case. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

SPI
Hey Callanecc. I hope you're doing well. I am pinging you here as you were in the recently active CU list and the article Dhiman which is currently on AfD is being restored with unsourced content. Do you think there's enough evidence on this SPI to request a CU? Jeraxmoira (talk) 12:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, sure is. I've blocked both accounts. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This will help stop the WP:DE for a while, Thank you. Jeraxmoira (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Chirstmas
<div class="center" style="background:darkgreen;border:no;padding:0.2em 0em;"> ~ ~ ~ Merry Christmas! ~ ~ ~

'' Hello Callanecc: Enjoy the  holiday season &#32;and  winter solstice  if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Spread the love; use to send this message. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC) ''

RFC
Hi. Just want to let you know that I started another RFC. I hope this will resolve the dispute. Grand master  09:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Question regarding to sanction
Hello. Does this restoration of a deleted content violate interaction ban and consensus ban you gave ~3 weeks ago?  Aredoros87  (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Probably technically breaches the consensus restriction but given that the article content wasn't readded just the source I don't see an issue with it. Given this is within the area of your topic ban you are breaching it by commenting here but I'm ignoring that this time as well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

ARBPIA tagging of loosely topic related articles
Hi, I noticed that you tagged the article Operation Prosperity Guardian as an ARBPIA sanctioned article. However... Israel is not included in the coalition or somehow involved in the operation, so this is at best very loosely related to the Israeli-Palestinian topic (or Arab-Israeli broadly)? I see a lot of articles in the Middle East being quickly tagged as ARBPIA 1RR for edit-warring reasons without putting much attention on relevance of ARBPIA. In Syrian Civil War & ISIL case we had a special santions regime installed so editors don't try to extend ARBPIA to very far-fetched directions. It seems that in the Red Sea crisis case, the relevance of Israeli-Palestinian conflict is rather marginal, with Houthi stance being largely sourced in the ongoing Iran-Israel proxy conflict and not the past Arab-Israeli conflict. Thus, we can better use Iran politics sanctions tool or create a similar tool for the Iran-related conflict topics to reflect it like we did for the Syrian Civil War. Thanks.GreyShark (dibra) 20:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm comfortable that this article is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict even without using 'broadly interpreted'. The Israel–Hamas war is mentioned in the second paragraph of the lead as one of the key antecedents to the situation that lead to Operation Prosperity Guardian. Based only on what's in the article at the moment I'd say that that link to Iranian politics is more tenous than ARBPIA. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

the same blocked user is here
You have to see this, as you blocked those guys 3-4 years ago. https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Cassandra%20Grim/all#118 this blocked user and this SPI Sockpuppet investigations/Cassandra Grim/Archive case allow to state that G5 Entertainment is a paid recreation by a previously blocked sock farm. If you need more evidence, I may try to email you. I am the owner of one of the blocked accounts as I worked previously for this firm. 89.151.38.106 (talk) 07:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * GuarantCo the same is with this page. I know the guys and one of the previous creators is blocked Special:Contributions/Morpho achilles. Here is the full log of attempts to create GuarantCo - firstly IP address and in an hour the blocked sock Morpho - renames from Draft to main space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=&user=&page=Draft%3AGuarantCo&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype=&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist 89.151.38.106 (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
You stated that my contributions to the mediation demonstrate a WP:BATTLE mentality, linking to Third statement and Fourth statement. May I ask that you clarify which part(s) of those constituted holding grudges, importing personal conflicts, carrying on ideological battles, or nurturing prejudice, hatred, or fear. Crash48 (talk) 12:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Noting that you've only quoted the first sentence of WP:BATTLE, it also says Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. Those two statements demonstrate that you (and Rsk6400) did that, see for example the section Robert McClenon collapsed. Additionally your eleventh statement also quite clearly demonstrates a battleground mentality, for example "I bring against Rsk6400 the specific accusations...", "I suggest to Rsk6400 to use his last chance to engage in a discussion...". Engaging in discussion where you have a focus on 'winning' and instead of discussing content you focus on the conduct of other editors isn't compatitible with the collaborative nature of the project. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In my fourth statement, I don't see anything at all related to the conduct of other editors, and I stated on Dec 6th that I don't understand why it was collapsed. I still don't. Crash48 (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what I saw in the fourth statement. Potentially I was looking at one of the others and thought it was the fourth one. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying that you don't see a demonstration of battleground mentality in my fourth statement. Now, regarding my eleventh statement that you mentioned above: do you mean that desperately urging an editor to engage in a discussion of the content (left out from your quote above) goes against the policy telling us to engage in a discussion of the content? What, in your opinion, would be proper conduct when a party joining a mediation refuses, over the course of a month, to engage in the discussion of the disputed content? Crash48 (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd point out that the other party also receieved a sanction for their conduct. Mediation isn't mandatory, editors can choose not to participate. Having that battleground approach is really just going to dissuade them from doing so. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It is clear to me that mediation isn't mandatory, and that you consider my conduct during the mediation inappropriate. You didn't answer either of the two questions that I asked, though. Crash48 (talk) 10:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "I bring against Rsk6400 the specific accusations..." during moderation (which is about content not contributors as explained at the start) and "use his last chance to engage in a discussion" or I'll "go straight to WP:ANI" is indicative of a battleground approach. You can ask someone to engage but bringing accusations and threatening them with ANI if they don't participate shows a battleground approach. There are two separate pathways to resolving content and conduct issues as explained at WP:DR. One is to resolve content issues, for example mediation and RfCs, and the other is to reolve conduct issues, like ANI or AE. After trying mediation you can continue to try and resolve content issues with an RfC. At any point if there is a conduct issue you can seek assistance with that especially if they are preventing the content issue being resolved. However, whenever you seek assistance with conduct issues every editor's conduct will be looked at not just the one who is complained about. So in answer to your second question, it depends. You can either continue trying to resolve it with an RfC (or another noticeboard like RSN) and/or you can report conduct issues separately. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the more detailed explanation. You may notice that I did exactly as you suggest: posted an RfC regarding the content issues, as well as reported the conduct issues separately, immediately after the mediation failed. If I understand the terms of my TBAN correctly, it makes my own RfC off-limits to me, meaning that the course of action you suggest doesn't help advance the content issues towards a resolution. Crash48 (talk) 13:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You are correct that you cannot edit the RfC. Effectively, you've blown your chance at solving the content issue due to the conduct issue which resulted the TBAN. You can go back to the article either when the TBAN expires or it's removed. 3-6 months of problem-free editing in other areas is usually enough to demonstrate that a (first) TBAN isn't necessary so that would be my suggestion to you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 21:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Appealing the TBAN at WP:AN --Crash48 (talk) 11:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Sarikamish Restored revision 1193834881
I saw that you reverted my last change. I had already explained that why old article contained wrong information and source of my change. That's why I am copy pasting my last explanation for the change.

"...Older source was originated from interpretation of one Author. We can find hundreds supporting arguments to this author or opposing arguments from different authors. Modern authors can't be absolute source of truth. However, I inspected declarations, writings and statements of Enver Pasha and I couldn't find any quote from Enver Pasha that he blamed Armenians for the defeat against Russians. This idea comes from retrospective viewpoint to history and contradict with statements and views of Enver Pasha. I understand that we should write articles considering politics, ethnic relations and conflicts today. However, distorting facts just sake of modern political situation isn't correct way to approach history. I think my edits should be re-added." Tartridrad (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi I reverted your change only because Wikipedia has a rule in place that editors with less than 500 edits or an account that is less than 30 days old cannot make any edits relating to the politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both. I've left a message on your talk page with some more information. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.TheNewMinistry (talk) 11:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding a topic ban appeal with which you may have been involved. The thread is Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Rim sim. Thank you. — Rim sim (talk) 12:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

1RR appeal
Hi, I would like to inform you about my 1RR appeal (Administrators' noticeboard); since you were the one who imposed a 0RR on me back in the day. Marcelus (talk) 08:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)