User talk:Callanecc

Discretionary sanctions

Hello, Callanecc,
Given the latest case at ARE, I was looking at the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#2014 and a warning Second Quantization was given for issuing a DS warning, saying that it had to be given by an uninvolved administrator. If a warning is issued by a editor (who should be also uninvolved), it should include the parameter |admin=no in the template.
So, I wondered about DS warnings like this, this and this...I'm not focusing on this issue because I have a stake in these topics but last fall, during the hubbub about Rupert Sheldrake, I noticed a number of involved editors issuing DS warnings to those editors they disagreed with and now I see that these warnings were never logged in on the Pseudoscience DS page so I don't know if they were considered "official" and whether unofficial warnings were appropriate to deliver to editors' talk pages. The examples I gave were logged in but I had questions about unofficial ones, too.
I've commented on the DS policy review that I took issue with warnings being used as a weapon to silence those one opposes so that is my interest. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

As far as I am aware there is no general prohibition built into DS about any user notifying people on the other side of a dispute. Having said that, doing so can disruptive, isn't collegial and might suggest a battleground approach. Also as far as I am aware a notification issued to a user from a non-admin is just as enforceable as if it were issued by an admin. In any case in the new draft, issuing an alert to someone is exactly the same as being alerted oneself. If they aren't logged I'll sometimes ignore it and sometimes refer to it as the required notification depending on the circumstances. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so two three questions: 1) Was the warning given to SQ about needing to include that parameter in the template incorrect then? And the remark that the warning, whether given by an admin or nonadmin be "uninvolved"? 2) Should nonadmins log in every warning they give out? It sounds like not having warnings logged in can lead to problems later.

Thanks for your response. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

1) You'd need to ask the admin who gave the warning. 1.5) WP:AC/DS doesn't say it explicitly so it's a matter of interpretation. 2) Depends, there is nothing at WP:AC/DS which states that they need to be logged and really it's just done for ease of checking whether someone has been notified. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I guess this means there is no consensus among admins so it's good that policy regarding DS is currently being discussed elsewhere. Maybe it will bring some clarity here. Thanks, again, Callanecc! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Protection of templates

Just wonder why you are protecting templates which hasnt been vandalized. You edit summary links to Wikipedia:High-risk templates which says "If fully protected, so that they can only be edited by administrators, or template-protected, so that they can only be edited by administrators and template editors, these templates should be changed only after consensus for the change has been established on the template's talk page." Christian75 (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Christian, templates which are considered to be high risk (in the case of my protections because they have a very large number of transclusions are generally either semi or template protected to protect against the risk of vandalism or people accidentally breaking the template. This is one of the few times that the protection policy allows admins to protect pages preemptively, but it does prevent normal vandalism or trolling from going live on a huge number of pages. For example on a template which is semi protected and have 7000 transclusions, all a vandal would need to do is to get autoconfirmed then vandalise a number of templates, which means that we could have tens of thousands of pages showing that vandalism (or libel or image vandalism). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

New SPI

Hi, it turns out there was a reason for the apparent confusion I received from the functionaries mailing list. After filing an SPI, I was told that there are no suppressed edits in the Ralph Abraham article, something which I did not anticipate in the least. Deepak Chopra sent out a tweet complaining about death threats in the Abraham article, and the responses he received all acknowledged the vandalism. But it happened four days prior to Chopra's tweet and was reverted in seconds by ClueBot. Chopra linked to the current article, not a past revision. There were at least two screenshots showing the vandalism, one being of the Google Knowledge Graph info. It's all very peculiar (perhaps there is even a software bug somewhere), but all that is a separate issue at this point.

In any case, the original goal of the SPI -- to checkuser the suppressed edit -- is not longer applicable. The revdeleted (not suppressed) edits from 71.119.92.56 are in fact the threats in question, and the SPI has shifted to a regular IP sockpuppeting case. I don't know where this puts the current state of the SPI; since you handled the last SPI you might want to look at this one (which is an updated version of my original email). Very recently one of Askahrc's edits exposing one of his IP addresses was suppressed, but you have a copy of my email which mentions the IP. vzaak 03:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Looking at what's been presented in the SPI, I'm not convinced enough that there is a link between Askahrc and the IP as coincidence is not really enough to block. If it were an account there might be enough evidence to warrant CU, but since it's only an IP I can't be sure enough that they are the same. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Right, well the SPI was never meant to be a behavior-based analysis of an IP. (Though there's not only the timing and location coincidence, but also motivation and prior behavior, among other things -- not that it really matters now.)

The technical puzzle this leaves behind is interesting. I've made a post about it at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#A_perplexing_puzzle. I don't see how vandalism that was immediately reverted by ClueBot could make its way to Google Knowledge Graph. One explanation would be that Special:Oversight is bugged and that there really are suppressed edits, but I have no explanation that explains all the pieces of the puzzle. vzaak 05:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Or it just happened that the moment the page was duplicated was before ClueBot reverted the vandalism which is infinitely more likely as Oversighters don't use Special:Oversight anymore but rather Special:Delete revision and click the hide from admins box. Plus it's not very likely that the IP will have posted exactly the same edit twice and the Oversighter would have completely missed that there were two sets of edits. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes I mentioned the possibility of extraordinarily unlucky timing in the pump post, but it's just amazing that that could happen, and then, extra extraordinarily, remain for four days. Articles are vandalized often, so one would expect Google to update accordingly; it seems unlikely that we are hitting a patient-zero bug of this sort. The theory also doesn't jive with other data, like Chopra and others apparently behaving as if the vandalism is really there, and one person taking a snapshot of the lower portion of an old diff while seemingly passing it off as the latest version. Whenever I weigh the possibilities I come back to suppressed diffs, an explanation which seems to require less conspiracy than others. But I need to think about it more. vzaak 07:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The pump thread came up with the answer -- a caching glitch, Template:Bug. That's the only thing that jives with all the evidence here. vzaak 15:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

CVU

I was wondering if You would be so kind as to teach me how to clean up vandalism. I just completed the Wikipedia adventure, and would like to learn how to fix the mess immature people make of all our lovely articles. Thanks, The Dracommunist (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello The Dracommunist, I'm quite busy at the moment so I probably don't have time to take on a student. It would be better if you get some more experience with articles before starting on reverting vandalism. Perhaps by doing some copy editing. Please feel free to let me know if you have any concerns for problems. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Repeat sock

If you get a chance, could you take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sportsgamaniacre. It involves the same IP/user combo that you previously blocked for socking in an earlier report in March. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I'm not sure if you saw my comment regarding the IP you added, it was minutes before you closed the case. 187.252.103.226‎‎ has a pretty long history editing basketball articles, with little overlap in articles or style of editing until today's nationality-related changes. I think it's very likely a coincidence. This IP commented in a discussion on the nationality topic before the block, and has some history of even-keeled discussion, whereas Sportsgamaniacre is more combative. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 05:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The one discussion link above was from 187.252.106.177, not 187.252.103.226‎‎. Striking, but still enough differences I believe.—Bagumba (talk) 05:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I've unblocked them based on that, I still think that coincidence is a bit too unlikely given what they were doing. But I think just keeping an eye on them in the future will be worthwhile. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've was recently right on one sock in another case that was initially rejected a couple years ago. I suppose it would balance it for me to be wrong here. I hope not, more for that person's sake as oppose to my silly record. Have a good one.—Bagumba (talk) 05:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Help with listing an SPI

Hello Callanecc, another user created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Javier93h, I fixed it up for them, but can't see a way to list it in the open cases. Can you help? Thanks, Valenciano (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

No need to do that, a bot organises that list and keeps it up to date. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

SPI move

Hi Callanecc! First and foremost, a huge thank-you for all of the work you do clerking at SPI, it is very much appreciated. Could you revisit this move? The oldest account is actually Eli786 which was created in 2011. Thanks, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Don't know how I missed that one. Moved and retagged. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

You probably missed it because there are only a handful of clerks (maybe even a half a handful?) doing all the work at SPI right now. Thanks for updating the master. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 04:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rakesh_biswas01/Archive#Comments_by_other_users_2

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rakesh_biswas01/Archive#Comments_by_other_users_2. I left you a message at the page. I suppose it doesn't really matter since Rakesh biswas01 and all their socks are blocked, but there was a sock that didn't get added before the case was closed. Don't have the experience to tell if it matters any or not. Meteor sandwich yum (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48

Thanks, I've tagged it as a suspected sock as it's already been blocked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Mint Press IP

Can you please have a look at:

• 74.95.142.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Isabellabean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mint Press News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)?

I am not sure if the IP's most recent edit timing is merely unfortunate when compared with Isabellabean's recent topic ban, but comparing this, this, this, and this is making it harder for me believe they are not the same editor. Thoughts? I am thinking 3 month semi-protection might address the problem. Please let me know if you want me to take it to a noticeboard; since you just looked at the situation I thought you might be able to handle it more efficiently. VQuakr (talk) 05:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Whether they are the same or a different user. I've semi'd the page for a couple months to see if that makes a difference, if it's not enough I'll semi it for longer. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

SockPuppet Investigation Immediately closed by an administrator when the accused requested him to close it- Need Immediate attention

Hi User:Callanecc,

I had opened a sock puppet investigation on two users Shriram and Lihaas on India General election page- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shriram. One of them suddently made a request to another Administrator ( RequestMadeHere ) to close the investigation and the page was immediately closed.

Excerpt- User:JamesBWatson, I would think canvassing around for his view is turning disruptive. (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shriram) How about a topic ban?Lihaas (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The immediate closure of topic looks suspicious. Please do the necessary.

Thanks Soorejmg (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Soorejmg has sent this message to six different administrators. See User talk:Soorejmg#Canvassing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Callanecc,

The accused user Lihaas asked another Amdinistrator JamesBWatson to close the SockPuppet INvestigation and he immediately did that. This is supisicios. Please have a look. As the page Indian general election, 2014 is a high profile page in India now due to ongoing election, there is very high chance of paid editing in WIkipedia by political parties in a wide manner to make page look advantage for them. I would request your kind intervention in this case.

Excerpt of request made by the accesed Lihas to JamesBWatson in ( RequestMadeHere )- "User:JamesBWatson, I would think canvassing around for his view is turning disruptive. (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shriram) How about a topic ban?Lihaas (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)"

Thanks Soorej Soorejmg (talk) 06:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

CAT:File mover listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect CAT:File mover. Since you had some involvement with the CAT:File mover redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 17:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)