This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 32 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Got some more questions. First one is about this logged notification [4], it will expire in 12 December 2015 or 3 May 2015? Bladesmulti ( talk) 13:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Just wanted to remind you to restore the previous page revisions after you've completed the move.
16:25, December 15, 2014 DeltaQuad (talk | contribs | block) restored page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Newzealand123 (44 revisions restored)
--
DQ
(ʞlɐʇ) 16:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I want to shut down my WIKIPEDIA Account (Quantumvision/Luischaluisan) I have found the Wikipedia process a bit daunting and confusing. I merely wanted to state my credentials as a USER given my career in Professional Theater, Professional Dance, Professional Journalism, Professional Broadcast Television, Professional Broadcast Radio, Documentary Subject and as a Published Author-Playwright dating back to 1975. I opened the Luis F. Chaluisan account not maliciously and not a "sockpuppet move" but when I could no longer access the Quantumvision/Luischaluisan account (Which I have now resolved and would like to permanently delete.In simple enlish as if you are writing to a fifth grader DHOW CAN I DELETE Quantumvision/Luischaluisan) I would like the Quantumvision/Luischaluisan account closed permanently and Luis F. Chaluisan account maintained as my user profile. I give you my word that I will closely study the way a User bio can be structured by utilizing Wikipedia info and that of other User bios of people I know on Wikipedia. Plus I will not use the same "lines" from other social networking sites I have accounts with on the internet featuring my bio. (Again, this was not an underhanded move on my part but a matter of expediency in trying to create an acceptable profile given my Wikipedia inexperience.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantumvision ( talk • contribs) 19:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
I see that user:DangerousPanda got dragged into some wp:dramah. I am sorry to have to bother you, but it seems you are involved somehow - just curious where a simple-minded and short-of-time wikipedian such as myself can go to bring themselves up to speed on this issue. Thanks in advance for your help. Ottawahitech ( talk) 04:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
One is allowed to notify other user who has been mentioned on WP:AE? Although not directly by name, but with the term like "Indian user" including a link to his talk page and mention of his actions. Thanks OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
HI CALLANEC. Can you delete these edits here made by user lollo12345 and that IP permanently, because all of them were vulgar words written in another language. I think in wikipedia it is called revision deletion. Thnaks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.231.50 ( talk) 21:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, they have written son of the bi... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.231.8 ( talk) 13:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi... I seek guidance from the Arb comm clerk (that's you, right?) about how one can best format a requested for enforcement against an ed who filed a pending AE complaint, or a cross-request for enforcement against other commenters? Thanks in advance. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 06:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that you are considering disciplinary action against user FelixRosch for edit-warring the Sigmund Freud page. I would like to draw your attention to this user's similar behavior on the article Metropolitan (1990 film), where the user has repeatedly deleted a coherent, concise film summary to replace it with his own, poorly written, incomplete summary. The user insists that any changes to his plot summary must first "reach consensus" on talk page, despite the user's not engaging in any actual discussion and failure to offer any criticism of the new summary beyond his not having been consulted on it. 76.31.249.221 ( talk) 16:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I know you're busy, hell, everyone's busy this time of year, but the DP case final decision page doesn't have that template box at the bottom of the page, whatever it's called, yet, and at least a few of the arbs have voted to close. It might make it easier to see what the current status is if the template thingy were added and the current status of the votes indicated. Maybe. John Carter ( talk) 23:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!! | |
Hello Callanecc, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message. |
Can you please direct me to the procedures for requesting attention to BLP violations on an article that has PP? I thought it was included on the article's PP notice, but I can't find it. Does the admin who initiated PP accept the requests, or must it be an uninvolved admin? What are the steps required for such a request? Thank you in advance Atsme☯ Consult 16:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Callanecc, the PP discussion at Griffin needs your attention. A non-neutral admin was summoned over to the article - see diff: [5]. I don't see how his participation can be considered NPOV, especially based on the comments that were made about Griffin. The whole article is nothing more than WP:COATRACK designed to denigrate the subject. It's really sad because it has potential to be a DYK, and possibly even a GA if GF editors were allowed to do their job. Atsme☯ Consult 04:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Dear Admin,i have a question regarding something. Alhanuty ( talk) 03:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Extend PC time? -- George Ho ( talk) 07:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Please familiarise yourself with meta:What is a troll?; particularly the section on "misuse of process". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Can you take a look at this? [6]. He left a sarcastic message at a blocked user's page who was clearly backing off from the actions that got him blocked [7]. Without commenting on the dispute or topic, I left FIM a notification with specific care not to turn it into this and I got a template in return [8]. I left another civil message to clarify [9] and I get the edit summary of "good bye editwarrior" and another sarcastic message with a clear WP:COMPETENCE issue in understanding the alert [10]. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 14:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Callan, I would have indeffed the account as a sock. Any reason why you didn't?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
BerryTime ( talk · contribs) is asking to be unblocked. Background at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Loganrobert96/Archive. He seems penitent, and has stayed away (he says) for five months, which is getting on towards the usual STANDARDOFFER. I am inclined to unblock, but you know the background better. JohnCD ( talk) 22:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
It looks like there is persistent edit warring again since the merge, after the consensus here [11]. I think indefinite semi protection would be better at this situation. The edit warring IP, regardless of being Nangparbat's sock or not, is clearly disruptive. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey, would you mind fixing an error? This section of my evidence has a bare url in the second bullet point, but it belongs in the third bullet point at the beginning.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 09:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for clearing the backlog at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage — xaosflux Talk 13:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC) |
Hello there, Callanecc. Regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jajadelera, there's another sock around that created EuroLines. I've marked the article for speedy deletion, but not added the new sock JDSeriesNew1 ( talk · contribs) to the sockpuppet investigation page because you already marked the current case as closed.-- Jetstreamer Talk 14:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
"... they oppose by default" [12]. I did not know that. I would have guessed default would have been abstain, but if there's a pop-quiz later, now I'll know. :) — Ched : ? 20:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
[13], obviously not relevant to the case. NE Ent 23:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Callanec, since you were the closing admin in TopGuns ARE, I would like to request your feedback here: Talk:Jammu and Kashmir#Indicscripts. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 17:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Alright then in that case, I'll end this here. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 12:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Speaking as the admin who imposed the original sanctions, I have no particular objection to ArmyLine's participation in the arbitration discussion. The sanctions were imposed under BLP, since the GG sanctions were so new, and we were working it out as we went. Other admins have more explicitly extended the sanctions into the formal GG regime. Acroterion (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
You missed this comment by an SPA.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 00:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
In a related inquiry, why haven't the case pages been semi-protected to avoid these kinds of intrusions? The "previously involved IP" editor has disappeared already.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 00:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Another tangent, do you would it be useful to point out the events that happened at Eggslut ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in the workshop?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 00:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to raise this again. Why aren't the pages semi-protected? Errastas85 is now the 3rd account with edits in the single digits trying to pile onto the case after Starke hathaway and ChronoAnon from at least what I've seen.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 02:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!! | |
Hello Callanecc, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of {{U| Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list
Fyi, I noticed that the votes on Landmark discretionary sanctions (1) or future discretionary sanctions (1.1) are actually split 5:5 without Newyorkbrad. Nyb indicated an equal preference, but passing both doesn't make sense. I would probably change this back to neither passing yet, until he makes the call either way.
Ignocrates (
talk) 19:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Callan, I've just returned from a brief break over Christmas and looked at the workshop in the Gamergate case. As you saw, I was active briefly on Christmas Eve to reply to messages on my talk page and to comments on my workshop proposals, knowing that the workshop was due to close that evening and that I wouldn't be around for a few days. Having just read through the workshop to see what has changed over the last few days, I have multiple problems with this proposed finding by TDA. It seems to me that it's entirely baseless mud-slinging, and it makes unsubstantiated and outright false allegations. If it were ANI, I'd just let it go, but I feel its presence in the workshop is damaging in itself (which, having seen TDA's interaction with other admins in the area, I strongly suspect was precisely the intention). I did support a proposed siteban for Tutelary, though I didn't "call for" it in the sense of instigating anything, and I was far from alone. Beyond that, the allegation is complete nonsense. Yes, I blocked an obvious troll and probable sock, for which the only criticism I got was from TDA and Tutelary, and noted the block in an ANI thread; I did not "insinuate" anything or in any way suggest that I believed the account belonged to Tutelary. TDA's comment I think it should be clear that HJ has also played a part in the kind of administrative misconduct that has typified this case is a direct attack on my reputation and is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. TDA's allegation of some grand conspiracy of admins is beyond absurd despite his frequent repetition of it.
Normally I wouldn't be bothered, but because I have participated in the workshop as a neutral observer and I have taken admin actions (against editors on both sides) and I may well continue to act in an admin capacity in the area, I feel the need to rigorously defend my reputation so that there is no ambiguity or question surrounding my admin actions. For that reason, please could you or another clerk remove the entire section. It's also worth noting that it was posted in the late evening on Christmas Eve, with just a few hours before the scheduled closure of the workshop, though TDA had ample opportunity to put it up earlier in the proceedings when I could have asked him to withdraw it and sought clerk intervention if necessary. I'd also point out that, unlike the other admins TDA is accusing, I'm not a party, I've never edited the article, never expressed an opinion on the subject, no evidence has been presented against me, and nobody but TDA has questioned my impartiality. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Where can I apply for a job as a conspiracy theorist, or can I major in it as an advanced social studies class at Harvard? I want to make it my career. Atsme☯ Consult 01:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
The editor whose edit your restored has been blocked for "trolling" -- discussion at User_talk:5_albert_square#Note NE Ent 02:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Callan - you recently posted a 2nd Pseudoscience notice on my TP, apparently wanting to divert attention away from the BLP. I'm confused as to why you would want to move away from the BLP issues. Please explain. Also, I just posted an explanation for why I believe the section on Griffin's book or his position on laetrile (amygdalin, B17) should not be considered pseudoscience according to WP:FRINGE. Please see my last post at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#G._Edward_Griffin. I believe it properly dismisses the pseudoscience concept all together. Thank you for all you do on WP. Atsme☯ Consult 03:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
You have linked to the workshop everywhere - not the main case page. Spartaz Humbug! 11:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm contacting you here because the section you commented on is limited to administrators only, which I am not one. Your description of the 1RR or revert rules are incorrect. WP:1RR says that reverts are defined in the WP:3RR section which directly say "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Someone clearly added a section about the Paul Krugman Hoax and Arzel undid it, the section wouldn't exist if it wasn't originally added and here is the diff [14]. There is no restriction regarding a time period when these changes have to be made. So it doesn't have to be something that was recently added, all that matters and is described by the policy is that the removal of someone else's actions whether in whole or in part, counts as a revert. When someone reverted Arzel's revert, Arzel reverted it again. So that's 2 reverts in 2 days. Scoobydunk ( talk) 13:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: American politics/Arzel: 1RR. Thanks. - Mr X 17:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Callanecc,
Have a prosperous, productive and wonderful New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
LADY LOTUS •
TALK 12:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
You both need to drop the stick and disengage. OccultZone - in the future if you believe there has been a violation please report it at WP:AE. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 05:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This revert is clear violation of topic ban? Inserting "India" while misrepresenting the source [15] again. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
|
Callanecc,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Iryna Harpy (
talk) 23:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Callanecc,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
NorthAmerica
1000 11:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Callanecc. No frills - just a quiet ‘’all the best’’ to you for 2015 and I hope you’ll continue to be around on Wikipedia for a long time to come.-- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello Callanecc. Please see User talk:Laser brain#New logging system for DS notices (since 3 May 2014). It seems that 18 entries for DS notices have been added since 3 May 2014. Back in September, User:AGK did a notice cleanup for ARBPIA, saying 'NO FURTHER ALERTS SHOULD BE LOGGED HERE' but it seems that other cases may also need attention. Arbcom should have clearly written down 'don't log notices any more'. AGK's entry in ARBPIA is mostly in hidden text. Still, don't you agree that Arbcom's wishes are clear enough to justify trimming the ARBIPA notice log back to 3 May? Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 17:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for updating the OS/CU stats. [17] However, I think a tweak may be needed - probably changing the headers to match up the months? Since I didn't collect the information myself, I'm hesitant to make any changes. Well, that, and I hate editing tables... Risker ( talk) 22:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Callanecc,
Thanks for the notification. I have no intention to submit evidence, but I noticed that your messages started with "You recently recently offered a statement...". I'm not sure what template you use, but it would be a good idea to fix that. Regards, and happy new year! --
Biblio
worm 00:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Does this mean I cannot communicate with editors on that page with whom I have also worked on non-ISIL/ ISIl-related articles? How does this work? P-123 ( talk) 00:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
This was necessary and I applaud the decision. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 02:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
When I did the Google search, our article came up, and I looked at it and at their website before posting my last comment to the SPI. I'm afraid I still don't get it, but I didn't want to clutter up the SPI anymore with our discussion. Our website says it's a "cloud hosting provider". It never mentions that it provides web hosting (other than a cat). The same is true for their website. Clearly they do provide web hosting based on the IPs and the geolocate, but I still don't see it from looking at either our article or their website or any of the other hits on the Google search. Perhaps I'm just not experienced enough to connect all the dots.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 05:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing the AN/I to a close. I realise that it contained a lot of content and, from comment by PBS, there is perhaps fair implication that some of it was unwarranted. Given this I would like to open up to any guidance that you may or may not see suitable to give.
In your closure you stated that: " GregKaye ( talk · contribs) is warned that any further misconduct in the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant topic area will likely result in a topic ban." If either is easily performed I would appreciate either clarification of topic area or a review of this verdict.
I had privately broached matters re an edit privately on an editor's personal talk page. Other issues were raised and conducted away from the article. I responded to contents in two article talk page threads but had not raised contentions. I do not see misconduct. I have tried to argue strongly but fairly in all related forums while attempting to juggle all the issues involved. I collapsed a thread that I took to be a digression within the talk page thread but immediately contacted PBS to check whether this was justified and, with first notification of guidelines based objection, I reverted the collapse. From my perspective that is all and my thought, at this point, is to add a comment to this effect following the collapsed section of the AN/I.
I am also confused as to the guidelines that Wikipedia either does or doesn't enforce. Even though this is clearly my problem any help in showing what is what would be appreciated. Greg Kaye 06:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for closing it -- I would have done so today if other admin had. The ban needs to be recorded in Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant {rather than /as well as} at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions as that is where editors/admins will look for editor bans round and about the ISIL. -- PBS ( talk) 09:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
IBAN violation |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hi Callanecc, I hope that no offence was taken by the above. Looking back there are certainly better ways in which I could have directed and conducted my side of things. I also have to take on board the views of editors regarding failings of my later presentations as well. I appreciate that there were opposing requests presented in proceedings. I am also thankful for your leniency with me. I appreciate that there are things that I could have done better throughout. I considered the above position worth presenting as, from my perspective, a one time (preluded) breaking of the consensus ban. It is not something I plan to do again. Thanks again and, if it's not to late, happy new year. Greg Kaye 15:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Callan - I think the rough consensus had changed to accept the pejorative terminology as opinion rather than statement of fact. Unfortunately, it appears Srich's very generous offer to compromise has been rejected. I also received a couple of mild threats on my TP which I quickly moved to my archives. I do not wish to take any action against that behavior, because my warnings seem to have been effectual but I do find it very disconcerting considering the minor changes necessary for policy compliance. Editors who have far more experience editing BLPs have weighed in and agree that statement of fact labeling of Griffin is a violation of policy. In light of the resistance we are still getting from a few editors despite offers of compromise, and considering the sanctions in place, I think it is time to move the article to a high level of DR where neutral eyes who are familiar with BLPs can settle the issue once and for all. Please help me with regards to the proper steps to take. Atsme☯ Consult 14:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Callanecc - rough consensus is with, not against me, but thank you for the DR information, and your wise advice. Following are the editors who agree the lede needs to be changed:
Thank you for the time you've invested. It was never my intention to create more work for you, only to get the article right so it can be improved and expanded as a DYK, and potential GA. Atsme☯ Consult 04:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking Jqadri.
However it's more than just edit warring. It is BLP violations and making legal threats. I doubt this editor will stop once the block is lifted, so an indef might be more appropriate. Thanks. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
The person who advocated for a party to be banned subsequently imposed sanctions against that party, and then submitted evidence against the party they sanctioned with opinions about the sanction they imposed in the very same comment without intervention from you. If after seeing my comment which pointed this out you had hatted the discussion, that would be one thing, but you collapsed my comment alone. Unless an arbitrator specifically directed you to collapse my comment alone, please remove the collapse box. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 11:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
The Steeletrap case also refers to BLP discretionary sanctions. It is not solely about topic ban violations.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Greetings. I just had an email from you about setting up an account where you gave me the go ahead and here I am! I am however really quite scared that I'll be labelled as a sockpuppet so could you write on my user page that I am in fact no such thing (Because you are obviously an administrator). I cannot be bothered for a pointless and unfounded witchhunt. EverCriticised ( talk) 16:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark_Worldwide still has the "This case is currently open" box. I might have removed it myself, but I don't know if the watch-all links should also be removed, as in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity_of_Jesus. Manul ~ talk 20:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Callanecc. On this user page your name is taken in vain. It's obviously the serial sock-puppeteer LouisPhilippeCharles ( talk · contribs), so I'm curious to know if you have really encouraged him to return. Favonian ( talk) 22:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Appeal of RFPP decline for Douchebag. Thank you. Hasteur ( talk) 06:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | |
It works. Thanks again. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 18:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC) |
User A takes actions that are problematic. User B takes actions that are (identically) problematic. Directly linking the two would require presenting evidence that falls foul of the outing policy. Which of the following is the best option?
Option 1: List evidence of User's A & B separately on evidence page but not directly linking the two and email Arbcom privately with the evidence (that violates outing) indicating they are the same person.
Option 2: Only list evidence of User B, despite the fairly conclusive evidence as per above.
Option 3: Submit everything privately - while offering maximum protection against outing, equally offers minimal amount of transparancy.
Regards. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 00:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Extend PC time? -- George Ho ( talk) 05:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
During the AfD run, the article was moved Igor Radusinovic→ Igor Radusinović. You closed as delete but only deleted the article mentioned in the nom--just the redirect to the moved article. I deleted the actual article. DMacks ( talk) 07:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Supersaiyen312 ( talk) 09:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Given that Silver source is an op-ed and makes an accusation against living persons, why do we not remove such sources when they are little more than attack pieces? WP:IRS and WP:BLP strongly advise against using poor sources about living persons. An accusation against living persons should require more than an op-ed piece to include mere "opinion" of wrongdoing. I hope I am not crossing a line here - but op-ed pieces are clearly not the high-quality reliable sources required and I question whether they should be used at all. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 05:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I recently removed Blackcoin from the cryptocurrency page , and another user(:Greenman) quickly came and undo my editing. Claiming he has 'more experience'. However, his edits lacks credit, and I look further into the matter, I realize he was the same person that previously tried to 'stop Blackcoin's page from deletion', he claims his sources on the blackcoin page are legit as they are from 'Reuters' and 'wall street journal'. However the Reuters one was a press release forward, and the wall street journal release was a blog page. (I have also stated so in the blackcoin talk page now.), Excuse me if I say so, but this looks like a 'clear attempt' to mislead, especially if said user claims to have years of editing experience. This same user also previously tried to added Blackcoin to cryptocurrency and ignored other users asking him to wait, and he just added it anyway. (he cited as blackcoin page valid, he can add blackcoin to the table, but as my above discoveries just shows blackcoin references are all blogs). For my discoveries on blackcoin reference, I am trying to discuss on BlackCoin page, if you have time, I will like you to take a look too. I hope inviting others to take a look as a 3rd party judge is the right thing to do here. Feel free to let me know if you feel I am not doing this right. Thank you. WinterstormRage ( talk) 13:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that you collapsed the discussion of the photo to be used for Mike Brown on BLP grounds. Can you please explain the BLP violation you perceive? Dyrnych ( talk) 01:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
thank you for reconsidering your warning. One clarification from your statement above, FCAYS did not refer to Brown as "pounds of flesh" but "pounds of threat". I disagree with FCAYS's evaluation of the photos, and with his interpretation of consensus/blp, but if there were truly 100 pounds difference visible that would be an issue which would be relevant to the selection of photos (although a NPOV one rather than a BLP one imo). In that context discussing the weight difference perceived between photos and what impact that may have had on the incident does not seem to be a BLP issue (although it could have been worded better). Gaijin42 ( talk) 02:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
With reference to the IP I wrote to you about, I have just discovered this, so please forget my request. My apologies for wasting your time. ~ P-123 ( talk) 08:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Could you elaborate on what led you to block Spud770 as a sock? This is an account that has been editing for more than 5 years, with a clean block record. All Rows4 ( talk) 17:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi there Callanecc! I'm a Twinkle-using recent changes patroller, and am interested in entering the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy. I'm more or less in your time zone (1 hour ahead), so there shouldn't be much trouble on that front. Thanks! -- The one that forgot ( talk) 02:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd reccomend a loinger protection peroid if you look at the article it has a history of sockpuppetry and selkf promotionalism. the other stuff is new but it needs protected for a while longer then a day by my mind. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 03:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
A brand new user who just managed to stumble into one of my topic areas is spoofing my user page, again. Could you take a look?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 12:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Emailed you. Dougweller ( talk) 17:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
As an administrator, I was wandering if you could answer the question I have: if Wikipedia is a non-commercial website, does that mean that when a licencing says "you may use this for your own, non-commercial use", does that mean that it can be uploaded and used on Wikipedia? Andreas11213 ( talk) 07:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Extend PC time? -- George Ho ( talk) 22:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Callanecc, please close Amendment request: Ebionites 3 as withdrawn. Ignocrates ( talk) 15:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Good morning,
I was wondering if you could clarify what this means? "Adding a 6 month PC given the longer term nature of this" I'm new to Wikipedia. :)
Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMachadoKim ( talk • contribs) 18:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, it was the Curtis Lepore page. If you could provide me with some clarification on what that means, that would be so appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMachadoKim ( talk • contribs) 21:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Due to your involvement in Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism article, I invite you to an arbitration request discussion. Please write your statements in your own section, and reply to other people's statements in your own section. -- George Ho ( talk) 01:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Kafkasmurat is under an AE for WP:AA2. Part of his ban states: "if any uninvolved administrator believes Kafkasmurat makes a personal attacks they may block Kafkasmurat pursuant to the standardized enforcement provision." In the past 24 hours, the user has been making several personal attacks towards various users:
Extend PC time? The protecting administrator is inactive at this point. -- George Ho ( talk) 01:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Been many months since it's had any hits. Okay to disable? — MusikAnimal talk 23:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Callanecc. Would you please help me reformat an SPI case which ended up in a wrong please? On 9 August 2014 you blocked Wikirun 20 ( talk · contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite for being the sock-puppet of COD T 3 ( talk · contribs), who was blocked as the sockmaster on 6 August 2014 by Tiptoety. The list of socks of COD T 3 includes new accounts not dealt with and engaging in edit-wars, personal harassment and blatant vandalism more recently. The situation is out of control due to temporary delay regarding the outcome of the Sockpuppet investigation which I filed under the wrong name. My mistake was the result of deceptive tactics by new account E-960 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who is now under investigation. I was tricked by him into believing that he is connected to WKS Śląsk Wrocław ( talk · contribs · logs) and therefore I filed an SPI case under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WKS Śląsk Wrocław, but shortly thereafter I found evidence of mass disruption by E-960 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) which led me back to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/COD T 3. I would like to move my report from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WKS Śląsk Wrocław#06 January 2015 to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/COD T 3#January 2015 where it belongs. Your time and help is greatly appreciated. Poeticbent talk 21:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Callanecc, I just wanted to confirm that per this ArbCom ruling that my 6 month Topic Ban has expired. Lightbreather has gone forward at started in on the Gun show loophole controversy [19] article. I just want to double check before I make similar edits. Best regards and a belated Happy New Year, -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
To never ever be an admin here. - Roxy the dog™ ( resonate) 14:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Callanecc,
Thank you for temporarily protecting the Zeitgeist (film series) page, however, it doesn't look like anyone's behavior has changed or will change, and I don't know what to do about it. The main issue is WP:Disruptive Editing. One user is in his third ANI, but it's not looking good that he'll be topic banned. And even if he is topic banned, he is only part of the problem. In a Request for Comments most editors seem to be openly negatively biased against this topic. The WP:DISRUPTSIGNS of tendentious editing, not engaging in consensus building, and campaigning to drive away productive contributors has no end in sight. Here you can see two editors essentially admit they don't care about building an encyclopedia.
While I am continuously pushing to maintain and encourage civility and neutrality, I only succeed in getting my edits reverted based on accusations of sock puppetry, accused on talk pages of POV-pushing, ban evading, and sock/meat puppetry, and I get stonewalled in my attempts at consensus building. I've even had someone strikeout all my comments and then submit me to SPI. All of this based on ZERO evidence. EVERYTHING I've done has been about neutrality and trying to improve the quality of this article to help build a better encyclopedia.
How am I supposed to respond to these insane disruptive editors? I've been researching wikipedia policies, and I don't think there are guidelines for dealing with a group of crazy disruptive people.—
68.7.95.95 (
talk) 11:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC), edited
68.7.95.95 (
talk) 23:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 2, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Courcelles 09:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
Could you please indefinitely semi-protect Delhi article because it has been vandalized by numerous IPs and its very difficult to monitor.-- ♥ Kkm010 ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 13:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I'm not an expert on how arbitration works, but I thought that it was not the general practice to remove sanction information. I was under the impression that if sanctions were changed, that information was added to the page, and if sanctions expired, they were left on the page, as a record of past events. But you've removed information about sanctions, some expired and some indefinite, here. Why is that? — Mudwater ( Talk) 06:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
How about some more redirects to go to the log? Not everyone may know how to capitalize 'Arbitration Committee', 'Discretionary sanctions' or 'Log'. The first link in the list below is a working link. At the moment the others are red links:
What do you think? Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 22:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you hid my my statement on Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Proposed_decision. I think my wording may not have been as clear as I had hoped. While some of my comments were more general, I was talking about specific arbitrators, specific actions, and specific decisions, all related to the case and proposed decision that I was making a comment on. I would appreciate it if you would unhide my statement, or failing that, allow me to edit it to make the relevance to the proposed decision more clear. Thanks! SodaAnt Talk 16:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I'm here to ask you if you could allow me to edit the page American Horror Story: Freak Show. I'm probably the only user who is contributing to the "Awards and Nominations" section. Yesterday the full list of the Dorian Awards winners was released and no one seems to care enough to update the page.
Hey Callanecc, the editors you warned about edit warring over at American Horror Story: Freak Show have resumed their edit warring. One even removed your warning from their talk page. Are you able to issue the blocks and save me from having to write up an entire spiel over at the 3RR noticeboard? G loss 22:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't know why you're being so rude. I don't like looking like a fool when I get completely ignored on someone's talk page, hence the removal. No worries, I'll gladly leave this here if it means so much to you. G loss 05:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 32 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Got some more questions. First one is about this logged notification [4], it will expire in 12 December 2015 or 3 May 2015? Bladesmulti ( talk) 13:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Just wanted to remind you to restore the previous page revisions after you've completed the move.
16:25, December 15, 2014 DeltaQuad (talk | contribs | block) restored page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Newzealand123 (44 revisions restored)
--
DQ
(ʞlɐʇ) 16:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I want to shut down my WIKIPEDIA Account (Quantumvision/Luischaluisan) I have found the Wikipedia process a bit daunting and confusing. I merely wanted to state my credentials as a USER given my career in Professional Theater, Professional Dance, Professional Journalism, Professional Broadcast Television, Professional Broadcast Radio, Documentary Subject and as a Published Author-Playwright dating back to 1975. I opened the Luis F. Chaluisan account not maliciously and not a "sockpuppet move" but when I could no longer access the Quantumvision/Luischaluisan account (Which I have now resolved and would like to permanently delete.In simple enlish as if you are writing to a fifth grader DHOW CAN I DELETE Quantumvision/Luischaluisan) I would like the Quantumvision/Luischaluisan account closed permanently and Luis F. Chaluisan account maintained as my user profile. I give you my word that I will closely study the way a User bio can be structured by utilizing Wikipedia info and that of other User bios of people I know on Wikipedia. Plus I will not use the same "lines" from other social networking sites I have accounts with on the internet featuring my bio. (Again, this was not an underhanded move on my part but a matter of expediency in trying to create an acceptable profile given my Wikipedia inexperience.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantumvision ( talk • contribs) 19:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
I see that user:DangerousPanda got dragged into some wp:dramah. I am sorry to have to bother you, but it seems you are involved somehow - just curious where a simple-minded and short-of-time wikipedian such as myself can go to bring themselves up to speed on this issue. Thanks in advance for your help. Ottawahitech ( talk) 04:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
One is allowed to notify other user who has been mentioned on WP:AE? Although not directly by name, but with the term like "Indian user" including a link to his talk page and mention of his actions. Thanks OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
HI CALLANEC. Can you delete these edits here made by user lollo12345 and that IP permanently, because all of them were vulgar words written in another language. I think in wikipedia it is called revision deletion. Thnaks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.231.50 ( talk) 21:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, they have written son of the bi... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.231.8 ( talk) 13:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi... I seek guidance from the Arb comm clerk (that's you, right?) about how one can best format a requested for enforcement against an ed who filed a pending AE complaint, or a cross-request for enforcement against other commenters? Thanks in advance. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 06:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that you are considering disciplinary action against user FelixRosch for edit-warring the Sigmund Freud page. I would like to draw your attention to this user's similar behavior on the article Metropolitan (1990 film), where the user has repeatedly deleted a coherent, concise film summary to replace it with his own, poorly written, incomplete summary. The user insists that any changes to his plot summary must first "reach consensus" on talk page, despite the user's not engaging in any actual discussion and failure to offer any criticism of the new summary beyond his not having been consulted on it. 76.31.249.221 ( talk) 16:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I know you're busy, hell, everyone's busy this time of year, but the DP case final decision page doesn't have that template box at the bottom of the page, whatever it's called, yet, and at least a few of the arbs have voted to close. It might make it easier to see what the current status is if the template thingy were added and the current status of the votes indicated. Maybe. John Carter ( talk) 23:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!! | |
Hello Callanecc, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message. |
Can you please direct me to the procedures for requesting attention to BLP violations on an article that has PP? I thought it was included on the article's PP notice, but I can't find it. Does the admin who initiated PP accept the requests, or must it be an uninvolved admin? What are the steps required for such a request? Thank you in advance Atsme☯ Consult 16:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Callanecc, the PP discussion at Griffin needs your attention. A non-neutral admin was summoned over to the article - see diff: [5]. I don't see how his participation can be considered NPOV, especially based on the comments that were made about Griffin. The whole article is nothing more than WP:COATRACK designed to denigrate the subject. It's really sad because it has potential to be a DYK, and possibly even a GA if GF editors were allowed to do their job. Atsme☯ Consult 04:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Dear Admin,i have a question regarding something. Alhanuty ( talk) 03:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Extend PC time? -- George Ho ( talk) 07:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Please familiarise yourself with meta:What is a troll?; particularly the section on "misuse of process". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Can you take a look at this? [6]. He left a sarcastic message at a blocked user's page who was clearly backing off from the actions that got him blocked [7]. Without commenting on the dispute or topic, I left FIM a notification with specific care not to turn it into this and I got a template in return [8]. I left another civil message to clarify [9] and I get the edit summary of "good bye editwarrior" and another sarcastic message with a clear WP:COMPETENCE issue in understanding the alert [10]. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 14:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Callan, I would have indeffed the account as a sock. Any reason why you didn't?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
BerryTime ( talk · contribs) is asking to be unblocked. Background at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Loganrobert96/Archive. He seems penitent, and has stayed away (he says) for five months, which is getting on towards the usual STANDARDOFFER. I am inclined to unblock, but you know the background better. JohnCD ( talk) 22:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
It looks like there is persistent edit warring again since the merge, after the consensus here [11]. I think indefinite semi protection would be better at this situation. The edit warring IP, regardless of being Nangparbat's sock or not, is clearly disruptive. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey, would you mind fixing an error? This section of my evidence has a bare url in the second bullet point, but it belongs in the third bullet point at the beginning.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 09:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for clearing the backlog at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage — xaosflux Talk 13:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC) |
Hello there, Callanecc. Regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jajadelera, there's another sock around that created EuroLines. I've marked the article for speedy deletion, but not added the new sock JDSeriesNew1 ( talk · contribs) to the sockpuppet investigation page because you already marked the current case as closed.-- Jetstreamer Talk 14:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
"... they oppose by default" [12]. I did not know that. I would have guessed default would have been abstain, but if there's a pop-quiz later, now I'll know. :) — Ched : ? 20:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
[13], obviously not relevant to the case. NE Ent 23:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Callanec, since you were the closing admin in TopGuns ARE, I would like to request your feedback here: Talk:Jammu and Kashmir#Indicscripts. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 17:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Alright then in that case, I'll end this here. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 12:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Speaking as the admin who imposed the original sanctions, I have no particular objection to ArmyLine's participation in the arbitration discussion. The sanctions were imposed under BLP, since the GG sanctions were so new, and we were working it out as we went. Other admins have more explicitly extended the sanctions into the formal GG regime. Acroterion (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
You missed this comment by an SPA.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 00:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
In a related inquiry, why haven't the case pages been semi-protected to avoid these kinds of intrusions? The "previously involved IP" editor has disappeared already.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 00:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Another tangent, do you would it be useful to point out the events that happened at Eggslut ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in the workshop?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 00:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to raise this again. Why aren't the pages semi-protected? Errastas85 is now the 3rd account with edits in the single digits trying to pile onto the case after Starke hathaway and ChronoAnon from at least what I've seen.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 02:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!! | |
Hello Callanecc, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of {{U| Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list
Fyi, I noticed that the votes on Landmark discretionary sanctions (1) or future discretionary sanctions (1.1) are actually split 5:5 without Newyorkbrad. Nyb indicated an equal preference, but passing both doesn't make sense. I would probably change this back to neither passing yet, until he makes the call either way.
Ignocrates (
talk) 19:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Callan, I've just returned from a brief break over Christmas and looked at the workshop in the Gamergate case. As you saw, I was active briefly on Christmas Eve to reply to messages on my talk page and to comments on my workshop proposals, knowing that the workshop was due to close that evening and that I wouldn't be around for a few days. Having just read through the workshop to see what has changed over the last few days, I have multiple problems with this proposed finding by TDA. It seems to me that it's entirely baseless mud-slinging, and it makes unsubstantiated and outright false allegations. If it were ANI, I'd just let it go, but I feel its presence in the workshop is damaging in itself (which, having seen TDA's interaction with other admins in the area, I strongly suspect was precisely the intention). I did support a proposed siteban for Tutelary, though I didn't "call for" it in the sense of instigating anything, and I was far from alone. Beyond that, the allegation is complete nonsense. Yes, I blocked an obvious troll and probable sock, for which the only criticism I got was from TDA and Tutelary, and noted the block in an ANI thread; I did not "insinuate" anything or in any way suggest that I believed the account belonged to Tutelary. TDA's comment I think it should be clear that HJ has also played a part in the kind of administrative misconduct that has typified this case is a direct attack on my reputation and is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. TDA's allegation of some grand conspiracy of admins is beyond absurd despite his frequent repetition of it.
Normally I wouldn't be bothered, but because I have participated in the workshop as a neutral observer and I have taken admin actions (against editors on both sides) and I may well continue to act in an admin capacity in the area, I feel the need to rigorously defend my reputation so that there is no ambiguity or question surrounding my admin actions. For that reason, please could you or another clerk remove the entire section. It's also worth noting that it was posted in the late evening on Christmas Eve, with just a few hours before the scheduled closure of the workshop, though TDA had ample opportunity to put it up earlier in the proceedings when I could have asked him to withdraw it and sought clerk intervention if necessary. I'd also point out that, unlike the other admins TDA is accusing, I'm not a party, I've never edited the article, never expressed an opinion on the subject, no evidence has been presented against me, and nobody but TDA has questioned my impartiality. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Where can I apply for a job as a conspiracy theorist, or can I major in it as an advanced social studies class at Harvard? I want to make it my career. Atsme☯ Consult 01:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
The editor whose edit your restored has been blocked for "trolling" -- discussion at User_talk:5_albert_square#Note NE Ent 02:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Callan - you recently posted a 2nd Pseudoscience notice on my TP, apparently wanting to divert attention away from the BLP. I'm confused as to why you would want to move away from the BLP issues. Please explain. Also, I just posted an explanation for why I believe the section on Griffin's book or his position on laetrile (amygdalin, B17) should not be considered pseudoscience according to WP:FRINGE. Please see my last post at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#G._Edward_Griffin. I believe it properly dismisses the pseudoscience concept all together. Thank you for all you do on WP. Atsme☯ Consult 03:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
You have linked to the workshop everywhere - not the main case page. Spartaz Humbug! 11:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm contacting you here because the section you commented on is limited to administrators only, which I am not one. Your description of the 1RR or revert rules are incorrect. WP:1RR says that reverts are defined in the WP:3RR section which directly say "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Someone clearly added a section about the Paul Krugman Hoax and Arzel undid it, the section wouldn't exist if it wasn't originally added and here is the diff [14]. There is no restriction regarding a time period when these changes have to be made. So it doesn't have to be something that was recently added, all that matters and is described by the policy is that the removal of someone else's actions whether in whole or in part, counts as a revert. When someone reverted Arzel's revert, Arzel reverted it again. So that's 2 reverts in 2 days. Scoobydunk ( talk) 13:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: American politics/Arzel: 1RR. Thanks. - Mr X 17:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Callanecc,
Have a prosperous, productive and wonderful New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
LADY LOTUS •
TALK 12:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
You both need to drop the stick and disengage. OccultZone - in the future if you believe there has been a violation please report it at WP:AE. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 05:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This revert is clear violation of topic ban? Inserting "India" while misrepresenting the source [15] again. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
|
Callanecc,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Iryna Harpy (
talk) 23:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Callanecc,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
NorthAmerica
1000 11:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Callanecc. No frills - just a quiet ‘’all the best’’ to you for 2015 and I hope you’ll continue to be around on Wikipedia for a long time to come.-- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello Callanecc. Please see User talk:Laser brain#New logging system for DS notices (since 3 May 2014). It seems that 18 entries for DS notices have been added since 3 May 2014. Back in September, User:AGK did a notice cleanup for ARBPIA, saying 'NO FURTHER ALERTS SHOULD BE LOGGED HERE' but it seems that other cases may also need attention. Arbcom should have clearly written down 'don't log notices any more'. AGK's entry in ARBPIA is mostly in hidden text. Still, don't you agree that Arbcom's wishes are clear enough to justify trimming the ARBIPA notice log back to 3 May? Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 17:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for updating the OS/CU stats. [17] However, I think a tweak may be needed - probably changing the headers to match up the months? Since I didn't collect the information myself, I'm hesitant to make any changes. Well, that, and I hate editing tables... Risker ( talk) 22:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Callanecc,
Thanks for the notification. I have no intention to submit evidence, but I noticed that your messages started with "You recently recently offered a statement...". I'm not sure what template you use, but it would be a good idea to fix that. Regards, and happy new year! --
Biblio
worm 00:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Does this mean I cannot communicate with editors on that page with whom I have also worked on non-ISIL/ ISIl-related articles? How does this work? P-123 ( talk) 00:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
This was necessary and I applaud the decision. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 02:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
When I did the Google search, our article came up, and I looked at it and at their website before posting my last comment to the SPI. I'm afraid I still don't get it, but I didn't want to clutter up the SPI anymore with our discussion. Our website says it's a "cloud hosting provider". It never mentions that it provides web hosting (other than a cat). The same is true for their website. Clearly they do provide web hosting based on the IPs and the geolocate, but I still don't see it from looking at either our article or their website or any of the other hits on the Google search. Perhaps I'm just not experienced enough to connect all the dots.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 05:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing the AN/I to a close. I realise that it contained a lot of content and, from comment by PBS, there is perhaps fair implication that some of it was unwarranted. Given this I would like to open up to any guidance that you may or may not see suitable to give.
In your closure you stated that: " GregKaye ( talk · contribs) is warned that any further misconduct in the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant topic area will likely result in a topic ban." If either is easily performed I would appreciate either clarification of topic area or a review of this verdict.
I had privately broached matters re an edit privately on an editor's personal talk page. Other issues were raised and conducted away from the article. I responded to contents in two article talk page threads but had not raised contentions. I do not see misconduct. I have tried to argue strongly but fairly in all related forums while attempting to juggle all the issues involved. I collapsed a thread that I took to be a digression within the talk page thread but immediately contacted PBS to check whether this was justified and, with first notification of guidelines based objection, I reverted the collapse. From my perspective that is all and my thought, at this point, is to add a comment to this effect following the collapsed section of the AN/I.
I am also confused as to the guidelines that Wikipedia either does or doesn't enforce. Even though this is clearly my problem any help in showing what is what would be appreciated. Greg Kaye 06:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for closing it -- I would have done so today if other admin had. The ban needs to be recorded in Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant {rather than /as well as} at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions as that is where editors/admins will look for editor bans round and about the ISIL. -- PBS ( talk) 09:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
IBAN violation |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hi Callanecc, I hope that no offence was taken by the above. Looking back there are certainly better ways in which I could have directed and conducted my side of things. I also have to take on board the views of editors regarding failings of my later presentations as well. I appreciate that there were opposing requests presented in proceedings. I am also thankful for your leniency with me. I appreciate that there are things that I could have done better throughout. I considered the above position worth presenting as, from my perspective, a one time (preluded) breaking of the consensus ban. It is not something I plan to do again. Thanks again and, if it's not to late, happy new year. Greg Kaye 15:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Callan - I think the rough consensus had changed to accept the pejorative terminology as opinion rather than statement of fact. Unfortunately, it appears Srich's very generous offer to compromise has been rejected. I also received a couple of mild threats on my TP which I quickly moved to my archives. I do not wish to take any action against that behavior, because my warnings seem to have been effectual but I do find it very disconcerting considering the minor changes necessary for policy compliance. Editors who have far more experience editing BLPs have weighed in and agree that statement of fact labeling of Griffin is a violation of policy. In light of the resistance we are still getting from a few editors despite offers of compromise, and considering the sanctions in place, I think it is time to move the article to a high level of DR where neutral eyes who are familiar with BLPs can settle the issue once and for all. Please help me with regards to the proper steps to take. Atsme☯ Consult 14:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Callanecc - rough consensus is with, not against me, but thank you for the DR information, and your wise advice. Following are the editors who agree the lede needs to be changed:
Thank you for the time you've invested. It was never my intention to create more work for you, only to get the article right so it can be improved and expanded as a DYK, and potential GA. Atsme☯ Consult 04:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking Jqadri.
However it's more than just edit warring. It is BLP violations and making legal threats. I doubt this editor will stop once the block is lifted, so an indef might be more appropriate. Thanks. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
The person who advocated for a party to be banned subsequently imposed sanctions against that party, and then submitted evidence against the party they sanctioned with opinions about the sanction they imposed in the very same comment without intervention from you. If after seeing my comment which pointed this out you had hatted the discussion, that would be one thing, but you collapsed my comment alone. Unless an arbitrator specifically directed you to collapse my comment alone, please remove the collapse box. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 11:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
The Steeletrap case also refers to BLP discretionary sanctions. It is not solely about topic ban violations.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Greetings. I just had an email from you about setting up an account where you gave me the go ahead and here I am! I am however really quite scared that I'll be labelled as a sockpuppet so could you write on my user page that I am in fact no such thing (Because you are obviously an administrator). I cannot be bothered for a pointless and unfounded witchhunt. EverCriticised ( talk) 16:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark_Worldwide still has the "This case is currently open" box. I might have removed it myself, but I don't know if the watch-all links should also be removed, as in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity_of_Jesus. Manul ~ talk 20:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Callanecc. On this user page your name is taken in vain. It's obviously the serial sock-puppeteer LouisPhilippeCharles ( talk · contribs), so I'm curious to know if you have really encouraged him to return. Favonian ( talk) 22:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Appeal of RFPP decline for Douchebag. Thank you. Hasteur ( talk) 06:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | |
It works. Thanks again. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 18:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC) |
User A takes actions that are problematic. User B takes actions that are (identically) problematic. Directly linking the two would require presenting evidence that falls foul of the outing policy. Which of the following is the best option?
Option 1: List evidence of User's A & B separately on evidence page but not directly linking the two and email Arbcom privately with the evidence (that violates outing) indicating they are the same person.
Option 2: Only list evidence of User B, despite the fairly conclusive evidence as per above.
Option 3: Submit everything privately - while offering maximum protection against outing, equally offers minimal amount of transparancy.
Regards. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 00:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Extend PC time? -- George Ho ( talk) 05:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
During the AfD run, the article was moved Igor Radusinovic→ Igor Radusinović. You closed as delete but only deleted the article mentioned in the nom--just the redirect to the moved article. I deleted the actual article. DMacks ( talk) 07:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Supersaiyen312 ( talk) 09:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Given that Silver source is an op-ed and makes an accusation against living persons, why do we not remove such sources when they are little more than attack pieces? WP:IRS and WP:BLP strongly advise against using poor sources about living persons. An accusation against living persons should require more than an op-ed piece to include mere "opinion" of wrongdoing. I hope I am not crossing a line here - but op-ed pieces are clearly not the high-quality reliable sources required and I question whether they should be used at all. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 05:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I recently removed Blackcoin from the cryptocurrency page , and another user(:Greenman) quickly came and undo my editing. Claiming he has 'more experience'. However, his edits lacks credit, and I look further into the matter, I realize he was the same person that previously tried to 'stop Blackcoin's page from deletion', he claims his sources on the blackcoin page are legit as they are from 'Reuters' and 'wall street journal'. However the Reuters one was a press release forward, and the wall street journal release was a blog page. (I have also stated so in the blackcoin talk page now.), Excuse me if I say so, but this looks like a 'clear attempt' to mislead, especially if said user claims to have years of editing experience. This same user also previously tried to added Blackcoin to cryptocurrency and ignored other users asking him to wait, and he just added it anyway. (he cited as blackcoin page valid, he can add blackcoin to the table, but as my above discoveries just shows blackcoin references are all blogs). For my discoveries on blackcoin reference, I am trying to discuss on BlackCoin page, if you have time, I will like you to take a look too. I hope inviting others to take a look as a 3rd party judge is the right thing to do here. Feel free to let me know if you feel I am not doing this right. Thank you. WinterstormRage ( talk) 13:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that you collapsed the discussion of the photo to be used for Mike Brown on BLP grounds. Can you please explain the BLP violation you perceive? Dyrnych ( talk) 01:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
thank you for reconsidering your warning. One clarification from your statement above, FCAYS did not refer to Brown as "pounds of flesh" but "pounds of threat". I disagree with FCAYS's evaluation of the photos, and with his interpretation of consensus/blp, but if there were truly 100 pounds difference visible that would be an issue which would be relevant to the selection of photos (although a NPOV one rather than a BLP one imo). In that context discussing the weight difference perceived between photos and what impact that may have had on the incident does not seem to be a BLP issue (although it could have been worded better). Gaijin42 ( talk) 02:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
With reference to the IP I wrote to you about, I have just discovered this, so please forget my request. My apologies for wasting your time. ~ P-123 ( talk) 08:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Could you elaborate on what led you to block Spud770 as a sock? This is an account that has been editing for more than 5 years, with a clean block record. All Rows4 ( talk) 17:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi there Callanecc! I'm a Twinkle-using recent changes patroller, and am interested in entering the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy. I'm more or less in your time zone (1 hour ahead), so there shouldn't be much trouble on that front. Thanks! -- The one that forgot ( talk) 02:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd reccomend a loinger protection peroid if you look at the article it has a history of sockpuppetry and selkf promotionalism. the other stuff is new but it needs protected for a while longer then a day by my mind. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 03:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
A brand new user who just managed to stumble into one of my topic areas is spoofing my user page, again. Could you take a look?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 12:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Emailed you. Dougweller ( talk) 17:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
As an administrator, I was wandering if you could answer the question I have: if Wikipedia is a non-commercial website, does that mean that when a licencing says "you may use this for your own, non-commercial use", does that mean that it can be uploaded and used on Wikipedia? Andreas11213 ( talk) 07:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Extend PC time? -- George Ho ( talk) 22:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Callanecc, please close Amendment request: Ebionites 3 as withdrawn. Ignocrates ( talk) 15:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Good morning,
I was wondering if you could clarify what this means? "Adding a 6 month PC given the longer term nature of this" I'm new to Wikipedia. :)
Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMachadoKim ( talk • contribs) 18:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, it was the Curtis Lepore page. If you could provide me with some clarification on what that means, that would be so appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMachadoKim ( talk • contribs) 21:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Due to your involvement in Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism article, I invite you to an arbitration request discussion. Please write your statements in your own section, and reply to other people's statements in your own section. -- George Ho ( talk) 01:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Kafkasmurat is under an AE for WP:AA2. Part of his ban states: "if any uninvolved administrator believes Kafkasmurat makes a personal attacks they may block Kafkasmurat pursuant to the standardized enforcement provision." In the past 24 hours, the user has been making several personal attacks towards various users:
Extend PC time? The protecting administrator is inactive at this point. -- George Ho ( talk) 01:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Been many months since it's had any hits. Okay to disable? — MusikAnimal talk 23:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Callanecc. Would you please help me reformat an SPI case which ended up in a wrong please? On 9 August 2014 you blocked Wikirun 20 ( talk · contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite for being the sock-puppet of COD T 3 ( talk · contribs), who was blocked as the sockmaster on 6 August 2014 by Tiptoety. The list of socks of COD T 3 includes new accounts not dealt with and engaging in edit-wars, personal harassment and blatant vandalism more recently. The situation is out of control due to temporary delay regarding the outcome of the Sockpuppet investigation which I filed under the wrong name. My mistake was the result of deceptive tactics by new account E-960 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who is now under investigation. I was tricked by him into believing that he is connected to WKS Śląsk Wrocław ( talk · contribs · logs) and therefore I filed an SPI case under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WKS Śląsk Wrocław, but shortly thereafter I found evidence of mass disruption by E-960 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) which led me back to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/COD T 3. I would like to move my report from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WKS Śląsk Wrocław#06 January 2015 to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/COD T 3#January 2015 where it belongs. Your time and help is greatly appreciated. Poeticbent talk 21:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Callanecc, I just wanted to confirm that per this ArbCom ruling that my 6 month Topic Ban has expired. Lightbreather has gone forward at started in on the Gun show loophole controversy [19] article. I just want to double check before I make similar edits. Best regards and a belated Happy New Year, -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
To never ever be an admin here. - Roxy the dog™ ( resonate) 14:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Callanecc,
Thank you for temporarily protecting the Zeitgeist (film series) page, however, it doesn't look like anyone's behavior has changed or will change, and I don't know what to do about it. The main issue is WP:Disruptive Editing. One user is in his third ANI, but it's not looking good that he'll be topic banned. And even if he is topic banned, he is only part of the problem. In a Request for Comments most editors seem to be openly negatively biased against this topic. The WP:DISRUPTSIGNS of tendentious editing, not engaging in consensus building, and campaigning to drive away productive contributors has no end in sight. Here you can see two editors essentially admit they don't care about building an encyclopedia.
While I am continuously pushing to maintain and encourage civility and neutrality, I only succeed in getting my edits reverted based on accusations of sock puppetry, accused on talk pages of POV-pushing, ban evading, and sock/meat puppetry, and I get stonewalled in my attempts at consensus building. I've even had someone strikeout all my comments and then submit me to SPI. All of this based on ZERO evidence. EVERYTHING I've done has been about neutrality and trying to improve the quality of this article to help build a better encyclopedia.
How am I supposed to respond to these insane disruptive editors? I've been researching wikipedia policies, and I don't think there are guidelines for dealing with a group of crazy disruptive people.—
68.7.95.95 (
talk) 11:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC), edited
68.7.95.95 (
talk) 23:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 2, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Courcelles 09:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
Could you please indefinitely semi-protect Delhi article because it has been vandalized by numerous IPs and its very difficult to monitor.-- ♥ Kkm010 ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 13:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I'm not an expert on how arbitration works, but I thought that it was not the general practice to remove sanction information. I was under the impression that if sanctions were changed, that information was added to the page, and if sanctions expired, they were left on the page, as a record of past events. But you've removed information about sanctions, some expired and some indefinite, here. Why is that? — Mudwater ( Talk) 06:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
How about some more redirects to go to the log? Not everyone may know how to capitalize 'Arbitration Committee', 'Discretionary sanctions' or 'Log'. The first link in the list below is a working link. At the moment the others are red links:
What do you think? Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 22:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you hid my my statement on Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Proposed_decision. I think my wording may not have been as clear as I had hoped. While some of my comments were more general, I was talking about specific arbitrators, specific actions, and specific decisions, all related to the case and proposed decision that I was making a comment on. I would appreciate it if you would unhide my statement, or failing that, allow me to edit it to make the relevance to the proposed decision more clear. Thanks! SodaAnt Talk 16:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I'm here to ask you if you could allow me to edit the page American Horror Story: Freak Show. I'm probably the only user who is contributing to the "Awards and Nominations" section. Yesterday the full list of the Dorian Awards winners was released and no one seems to care enough to update the page.
Hey Callanecc, the editors you warned about edit warring over at American Horror Story: Freak Show have resumed their edit warring. One even removed your warning from their talk page. Are you able to issue the blocks and save me from having to write up an entire spiel over at the 3RR noticeboard? G loss 22:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't know why you're being so rude. I don't like looking like a fool when I get completely ignored on someone's talk page, hence the removal. No worries, I'll gladly leave this here if it means so much to you. G loss 05:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)