User talk:Callanecc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Notice If you wish to discuss or inform me of a sensitive or private matter please see User:Callanecc/Emailnotice before emailing me.

Sanction review[edit]

As the closing admin, I'd like you to review the topic ban placed on me with this being the appeal of ending it. As per the close, [1], I was not entirely wrong. The word "major" was added due to one of the sources I reviewed (and is also only being kept out due to lack of consensus, I think I had a right to share my deductions in forming that consensus) but most of issues were due to my opposing of blanking the term "victory" in which I was not wrong. As far as the other things such as casting aspirations go, it was recognized in the AE that all of them were not wrong rather I had recently faced enough to get to the conclusions of following based on the diffs I gave then... with that said and leaving the objections aside, my main point is that I have long ended engaging OZ and have not violated my ban. As such this is topic is closed and also [2] reviewed which most probably is going in the closer's way.. I don't mind what sources are used as far as consensus is followed. Furthermore, I've also been banned for a around a month, it can be reduced for being stale as all that contention is stale and the sanction is no more preventive - plus my behaviour in other topics hasn't shown any disruption. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not about whether you were 'right' or not but about who you went about it. However given that the use of sources was involved I can see how you made that connection. Having said that, I'm willing to accept in good faith that you realise what you did wrong and have learnt from it. However I'm not convinced that you will make good, constructive, collaborative edits to Battle of Chawinda, so I'd be willing to replace your current topic ban with a topic ban from Battle of Chawinda until the expiry date of the current TBAN (12:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)). How does that sound? Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 06:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, I see the consensus finalizing that infobox anyway and I can live with that (the article was really not on my top priority, I just went after some old sock master who was reverting to completely opposite statements and fell into this mess). So your offer is fine by me. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
It was not just Battle of Chawinda, but many other articles. On Operation Dwarka he continued to edit war over results and never discussed them. On Inter-Services Intelligence activities in India he edit warred over making a conspiracy theory look clean. On Operation Chengiz Khan he restored the statements that were removed a year ago because they were unsourced since 2012, and his edit summary reads "Restored consensus version.. no intermediate useful edits"[3], misleading indeed because he had never discussed them. And a few others. Even if the topic ban is limited to Battle of Chawinda, I am certain that we will still have a number of unnecessary edit conflicts. Since the topic ban, TopGun has not made even 75 edits to main article space, I doubt that how he proved that he can edit without conflicting. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 06:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
WP:VOLUNTEER is all I have to say to you, I don't have the time to edit that much neither should I be expected to have to satisfy your arbitrary criteria of edit count. About the sanction, I'm not going to debate my reverts to proven socks and other disruptive editors with you. I've said all I had to.. it's for Callanecc to decide. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
OccultZone your conduct on those articles is not great either. In fact having seen the reverts from both of you I'm of the opinion that it might be useful to impose 1RR on both of you for any edit which relates to the India-Pakistan conflict (with the clarification that you may only revert accounts and IPs you believe to be socks without reference to 1RR if you have reported them). Opinions? Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't mind 1-RR for the length of my original TBAN (or a voluntary 1RR if not sanctioned)... but it will only make sense if it is symmetric to OZ or I might be effectively be blocked from making edits by simply being reverted out if OZ chooses to revert me twice every time. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking my original offer for the TBAN (ie just Battle of Chawinda until the original expiry) and 1RR (for the same period of time) for both of you long term 6 months, a year, indef (not sure yet, one of the reasons I asked). Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I have never reverted more than 2 times unless it was a sock(usually Nangparbat). While TopGun usually reverts on the sight without even looking at the sources or the information. There are no instances where he would open a new thread on ATP and explain his edits or he would reply to any older thread that concerns the content. He usually sees what is actually favoring his opinion and that he would create unnecessary edit conflict. It is very hard to return to a stale version because TopGun normally never agrees with others. Not to forget that TopGun had violated his TBAN once[4] and even if he was not aware of it, still that edit misrepresented the source. These articles had no edit conflicts for more than a month between users, which is a good sign. Although there are some instances where some of the editors have socked,[5][6] its not that serious issue. I have never seen anyone actually alleging me of edit warring for ages. Considering that I have made over 170,000 edits, I have not been blocked even once. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 07:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "TopGun usually reverts on the sight without even looking at the sources or the information" is casting aspersions and will likely get you blocked. There are three on Operation Dwarka and that's without looking at anything other than the links you gave me. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Refactored. Thank you for informing. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 07:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I haven't been reverting people even close to 3RR else where since my ban, so why would I editwar in the long term. Priors were related to well known hounding / baiting by a sock. 1RR as such will only slow down collaborative editing. I recently had a DYK approved from the military topics. I don't think I can develop articles that fast under 1RR. It can always be thrown in if an intentional editwar is seen in future though. Don't know why OZ is continuing to focus on me and mention my self reverted possible violation after clarification. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm just talking about since you're ban I'm talking long term (can be seen in OZ's links and in your final warning from last time). You shouldn't be reverting people when you write articles, if you are it means you need to stop and discuss with them. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I've already agreed to an article specific topic ban, and don't mind a 1RR for the same time. I do contend that there's been nothing new that warrants an extended 1RR as the "last time" was proven to be a deliberate socking, following and what not and all those issues are stale. I don't see how this stops an admin from putting me under 1RR when the issue arises as far as "long term" is concerned about the Indo-Pak conflicts. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Ok this is what I'll do:
  • I'll replace TopGun's TBAN with a TBAN from just Battle of Chawinda for the same period of time.
  • I'll log a reminder (not a warning so it doesn't need to be taken as seriously in future AEs) that any edit warring on India/Pakistan related article can be dealt with by 1RR (I'll include my wording above).
How does that sound to both of you (without repeating what you've said above)? Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Fine by me, as before. I would have asked for an IBAN, but from my prior experience, even many of the most experienced admins are not good at enforcing that properly and it wastes the community's time with meta-bickering. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • That's better, considering that we have no consensus for rejecting this appeal, neither there is consensus for increasing the scope of article ban. Good luck TopGun! OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 08:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
This is AE, consensus is not needed. I appealed only to Callanecc, not to you. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking IBAN as well, but given the crossover of your editing interests, it would likely need with a TBAN for one or both of you as well. Ok I'll action my two dot points in a sec. OccultZone regarding "we" as the enforcing admin I don't need consensus to change the sanction I placed. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 08:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Checkuser could had been used[edit]

On , and seem like they are the same person. They are both also mobile edits and around the same time. Just saying. They both are blocked now too.Bobherry talk 21:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

What are you referring to, an SPI? Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 11:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah that's what I meant. Bobherry talk 18:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
What's the name of the SPI? Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 00:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Quick Question[edit]

Is my signature ok? It took 15 mins to edit. <mark style="background:red">[[User:Bobherry|<font color="gold">Bobherry Userspace</font>]] [[User talk:Bobherry|<font color="silver">Talk to me!</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Bobherry|<font color="gold">Stuff I have done</font>]] </mark> Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 20:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Not really my area of expertise, but I think a couple of those tags have been depreciated, Technical 13 can you help? Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 00:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Puppetry accusation[edit]


With this edit, an editor is accusing me of sock puppetry and says that you confirmed it. I absolutely deny any such accusation, and I request that you address it appropriately. I edit with one account only, and I do not ever edit logged out.

The editor is also making accusations of COI. I have read and am completely familiar with COI, and no such conflict exists. To place public accusations, such as the editor did at my talk page and on Talk:Landmark Worldwide, without regard for the previous discussions that have occurred and the previous review that occurred (and found no conflict), is a personal attack. I request that it and the puppetry accusation be oversighted.

Thank you, Tgeairn (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I think your input might be useful at the current AE regarding this general subject as well. John Carter (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
@Tgeairn: Sent you an email. @John Carter: Hopefully I'll get a chance next week. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Concerning the recent successful CheckUser on Tirgil34[edit]

Hi. I noticed that during the recent successful CheckUser on Tirgil34 (talk · contribs), you discovered two other probably related accounts. I have some experience with this user and was the one who provided evidence against Kervani (talk · contribs) and LazarozI (talk · contribs), who you were able to confirm were socks. Could you tell who these other accounts are so that i could investigate them, or would that be against policy? Krakkos (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Krakkos, there weren't enough edits (I think one had none and the other had 1) for me to do much with so it probably wouldn't help even if I did give you the usernames and it would be against policy as well. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for your reply. Krakkos (talk) 11:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe[edit]

At this case page, there is a section called "amendments". One of the amendments is the recent motion passed at ARCA to rescind the DS status of the block of Russian editor1996. I find this confusing. That motion was not an "amendment" to the case in the same way that the other things listed there are. Should it not be listed separately as a motion? I cannot see how that can be considered an amendment to the case given that the case itself was not amended. RGloucester 18:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Because the sanctions were authorised as a remedy in the case any sanctions issued pursuant to that case are considered as being issued under the authority of the case therefore that's where the amendment goes. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)