Callanecc is busy and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
This is Callanecc's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
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, 28Auto-archiving period: 1 month |
If you wish to discuss or inform me of a sensitive or private matter please read User:Callanecc/Emailnotice before emailing me. |
This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages is appreciated. |
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)
Hi. I have a question. Is this revert a violation of the ban: [6]? 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)
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)
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)
That's a sock of MariaJaydHicky ( SPI). Might as well indef them. LilianaUwU ( talk / contributions) 01:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
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. — Amakuru ( talk) 09:49, 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)
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 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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia: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, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
Hi Callanecc,
Could you please remove harassment content on User talk:68.5.56.20? Thanks.
Sincerely, Myrealnamm ( 💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 12:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Changes later this week
Future changes
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
MediaWiki message delivery 20:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Callanecc is busy and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
This is Callanecc's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
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, 28Auto-archiving period: 1 month |
If you wish to discuss or inform me of a sensitive or private matter please read User:Callanecc/Emailnotice before emailing me. |
This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages is appreciated. |
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)
Hi. I have a question. Is this revert a violation of the ban: [6]? 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)
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)
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)
That's a sock of MariaJaydHicky ( SPI). Might as well indef them. LilianaUwU ( talk / contributions) 01:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
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. — Amakuru ( talk) 09:49, 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)
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 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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia: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, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
Hi Callanecc,
Could you please remove harassment content on User talk:68.5.56.20? Thanks.
Sincerely, Myrealnamm ( 💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 12:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Changes later this week
Future changes
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
MediaWiki message delivery 20:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)