User talk:Callanecc/Archive 28

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:


 * Proposal 2, initiated by, provides for the addition of a text box at Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
 * Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by and, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
 * Proposal 5, initiated by, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
 * Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
 * Proposal 7, initiated by, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
 * Proposal 9b, initiated by, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
 * Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by, , and , respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
 * Proposal 13, initiated by, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
 * Proposal 14, initiated by, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
 * Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by and, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
 * Proposal 16e, initiated by, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
 * Proposal 17, initiated by, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
 * Proposal 18, initiated by, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
 * Proposal 24, initiated by, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
 * Proposal 25, initiated by, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
 * Proposal 27, initiated by, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
 * Proposal 28, initiated by, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

RnB-Hip-hop soul
That's a sock of MariaJaydHicky (SPI). Might as well indef them.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 01:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just blocked them and a couple others. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Venezuelan politics opened
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/Venezuelan politics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 23:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Questions
Would it be alright if I ask for your advice here on how best to handle situations as relates to the arbitration enforcement?

And am I still able to make a single revert in the WP:BRD steps? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah you can. Here are a couple examples which will hopefully help, the second one is that instance:
 * You add a sentence to an article, another editor reverts it. You can't add that sentence back until there is a consensus.
 * An editor adds something to an article. You revert/change what they added. An editor reverts you. You can't revert their edit without a consensus.
 * Does that help? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes those are helpful, thank you. Can I ask for your suggestions on how to proceed with some specific situations?
 * Someone reverted a minor change I made, which I discussed with them until they just stopped replying.
 * I reverted a minor change someone made and opened a talk page discussion. They reverted me back and apparently consider the discussion unnecessary even though they removed something supported by a previous consensus.
 * And there is the Ruben Darbinyan article, mentioned in the AE thread. There was never a consensus version for the "Criticism" section, which contains lots of questionable sources, including one saying Hitler committed the Holocaust because Armenians told him to. Could I revert to the last stable version?
 * --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi :
 * I'd suggest pinging them to the talk page or leaving them a talk page message to remind them about the conversation.
 * Similar thing to the above, ping them back to the article and ask to discuss it further. If they don't respond I'm okay with you saying that if you don't hear anything after a reasonable period (like a week) you'll revert.
 * The talk page discussion needs to continue. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * For the Darbinyan article, Aredoros restored their additions four times after two different editors (Revolution Saga and I) reverted them. There was never any consensus for these editions, which are very contentious. Isn't letting them remain technically rewarding edit warring? --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Your consensus restriction prevents you from reverting it but other editors can as per normal. That they have chosen not to might be informative. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I have tried thoroughly explaining to a user what original research is and what a reliable source is and is not, but they still don't seem to comprehend it. They are not even an extended confirmed user and are technically violating WP:GS/AA. What should I do next? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think you need to do anything more here. You've explained the siutation and that they can't edit in this topic area. #3 in the list of exemptions allows you to revert ban editors which applies in this case as the editor is banned from editing this topic due to WP:GS/AA. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * On this discussion about whether the conflict is over or not, sources have been provided by myself and other users that it is not, but other users have been changing the article to be over based on their own opinion. The other "not over" users and I have asked them for sources several times, but they have failed to provide them. This has been going on for over three weeks now. MarcusTraianus, the user who originally changed the article to past tense, apparently lost interest in discussing this because they aren't being reverted (while still reverting other users). And Death Editor 2, who I think is editing in good faith, but really doesn't understand they need a source. The situation was explained several times and they have had well over 7 days, but since they don't have WP:GS/AA restrictions, I wasn't sure if it would be okay to revert the conflict back to being ongoing. I figured that probably wouldn't be okay (for me at least) because a consensus hasn't been obtained on the talk page yet, but there was no consensus to change it from ongoing in the first place, we just haven't reverted them yet to avoid an edit war. And again, there are sources in support of ongoing, but not against it. Could I revert the article now or is there something else I should do? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * If this is too much for you to review, could you at least confirm if I can make another revert by now? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * From what I can see, the status of the conflict has been previously reverted so you can't change it back without there being a consensus. Follow the usual dispute resolution procedures. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I have a question. Is this revert a violation of the ban: ? Can KhndzorUtogh restore content added and removed by other users? Or he cannot only readd the content that he previously added himself? There was no consensus at talk on restoration of this content when this revert was made. And if it is a violation, should I first ask him to rv himself? Grand master  08:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would be. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand that it is a breach of the sanction. What is the best way to proceed here? Grand  master  09:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think any action is required at this point. As seen in this section, KU is trying to engage positively with the sanction and work with it. Given that I don't see a need to impose further sanctions. Obviously KU should note this breach and ensure that they take more efforts to comply with the sanction. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you. Grand  master  09:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you Callanecc, I really appreciate my efforts going noticed.
 * My understanding was that the revert fell under 1RR, which I am still allowed to do. The content Parishan removed had been part of the stable version of the article for a long time, until one day Parishan removed it without any consensus (the talk page discussion was initially about something else) and then I reverted them once. Could you please clarify how this is a breach? --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

On the Republic of Artsakh article, I waited for three weeks instead of one on the talk discussion, but Beshogur reverted again without even bothering to reply on the talk again, even though they are the ones trying to push a change. Is Beshogur edit warring and what should I do next? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As we've talked about before you need to following the process at WP:DR, specifically WP:SEEKHELP. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Is this user allowed to be editing this article after I alerted them of GS/AA and you personally reverted them? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I've extended confirmed protected the page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Your close of the NoonIcarus ANI report
Hi Callanecc

I hope you're well. Just querying your close of the NoonIcarus thread, I don't think that declaring a consensus for a topic ban was at all an accurate summary of the discussion. There were numerous issues raised about the entire arena of Venezuelan politics, which far exceeded the scope of the original request and which has led to an arbcom case being opened to properly drill down into the entire matter. As such, I think the ANI thread had to be closed as no action. There was a lot of objection to the one sided topic ban, and I don't think anyone was expecting the few votes for a topic ban made before the arbcom case was opened would be enacted after the case had been moved on to arbcom. This isn't to say NoonIcarus is right or wrong, just that there's a lot more to this than meets the eye. And Certainly I and others would have opposed the tban measure had I known such a closure was on the cards, as it misses half the picture. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There were definitely a range of issues brought up in the thread from a range of editors. Having said that though, there was a strong consensus that there are issues in the topic area and a consensus that NoonIcarus's conduct isn't appropriate regardless of the other issues in the topic area (not just in the sub-section in which the TBAN was proposed). From what I read in the thread one of the issues raised in the thread and at the case was there was some hesitation in the community from acting due to the complexity of the topic and conduct. Closing it as no action effectively ignores the consensus that had developed throughout the (level 2) thread that NoonIcarus's conduct wasn't acceptable. There is more to be done in this topic area, and that should happen in the case which NoonIcarus will be able to participate in. Effectively this TBAN is really more of a suspension from the topic area for the duration of the case, given the consensus that NoonIcarus's conduct isn't appropriate, as ArbCom will decide whether to keep or vacate the topic ban as part of the normal case process. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah I see, thanks for the response and when put like that, that sounds fair enough. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

If I may. The way I see it, the thread dealt with two main points: the failed verification edits and POV. I provided a response refuting WMrapids accusations that I was intentionally ignoring sourced content, and the second point was a lot less supported by diffs or evidence. As SandyGeorgia put it at ARBCOM, I'm concerned that most of the allegations at ANI that involve more than citation tagging are without diffs, so a sledge hammer is being applied.

Without considering the !votes, there was still noticeable opposition to the ban, and from what I understand said bar is higher when applying community sanctions (and even more if they're indefinite). The close also doesn't consider the overlapping issues that other editors mentioned, which fortunately should be addressed at ARBCOM. Knowing how controversial the sanction is, how further evidence is needed and that at any rate the Arbitration Committee and should be able to decide whether to uphold or to recint the decision, could you reconsider the close? Thank you kindly, --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi NoonIcarus, I am comfortable that the close is an accurate assessment of the consensus in that thread. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I understand, that's alright. In that case, and just to make sure: I gather that the restrictions are extended to the related article talk pages, is that correct? --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, topic bans apply everywhere on Wikipedia including articles, article talk page, Wikipedia: pages, files and so on. The exception in your case is for pages directly relevant to the Venezuelan politics arbitration case. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course. Many thanks once again. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

By the way: I'd like to translate several articles about Venezuelan films in the following weeks, and I naturally want them to be as unrelated to politics as possible. I wanted to give you the heads up and if there's anything else I should consider, or if you'd like to know which ones are them in advance. Best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You don't need to give me a list of them. It's up to you to manage the sanction avoid making any edit about or related to Venezuelan politics. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'll let you know if I have any other questions. Cheers, --NoonIcarus (talk) 07:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Remove Harassment
Hi Callanecc,

Could you please remove harassment content on User talk:68.5.56.20? Thanks.

Sincerely, My real namm  (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 12:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's already been done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Question about sanction
Hi there. I have a question for you. Few months ago there was a dispute over this article. Shortly, after the sanction my last edit was reverted[1 ] by an IP with 0 edit count. A content with 7 sources was deleted without any discussion. My question is would it break any sanction rule if I revert it? Thanks  Aredoros87  (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You would be able to revert it as the IP edit is in violation of the extended-confirmed restriction. You'd need to make that reason clear in your edit summary and be confident that the article and edit is covered by the restriction. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A similar case happened to this article too. A new user made an edit here and got warned on his/her talk page. Shortly, after the same user made another edit (removal of a sourced content). May you make that article protected?  Aredoros87  (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think extended-confirmed protection of this article is appropriate given that a significant part of the article isn't about the A-A topic area. Your revert was appropriate though. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry for bothering, but another sourced content removal made by another non-EC user. Vardanyan's relation to Russia is being deleted time by time from the article. I don't want to make any accusations, but considering article contains information from an editor with COI (it's written in talk page), I believe it's worth to lock it. Cheers,  Aredoros87  (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to make sure. As far as I know, I'm can revert this particular edit. And it won't violate any rule. Am I right?  Aredoros87  (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yet another non-EC user deleted lot's of reliable sources including BBC, Forbes, Washington Post etc.[1 ][2 ] The most concerning part is that the user initially deletes 4 sources under the edit name WP:REFMOB[3 ] and then after 5 minutes, deletes the content saying "any such claims should have multiple sources".[4 ].  Aredoros87  (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes that's correct, you can revert non-EC editors. Just ensure that you make that clear in your edit summary. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)