User talk:Callanecc

Deleting a sanction notice

Hello, your sanction notice was removed.[1] Per WP:BLANKING, notices "regarding an active sanction" may not be removed by the user.

The user continues to spread misinformation about the SPIs. I am still perplexed that my AE statements were ignored -- would you please advise regarding the last thread? vzaak 04:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I've left them a message about the removal.

I've had a look through their contribs but I haven't seen anything in their recent contribs which would be sanctionable. As I've said before if you believe that Askahrc's behavior please post an AE request. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, Callanecc, I reverted my clean up to restore the notification. I wasn't aware of the WP:BLANKING policy; I'll be sure to leave it there when I clean up my Talk Page in the future.

@Vzaak, I've already left you a message asking you to please either file an AE or stop making these claims. I corrected an editor who stated I had been sanctioned for multiple SPI's by telling them I was only sanctioned for one of the two brought against me, and the only significant conversation you and I had was a civil discussion about not needing to monitor enthusiasm for WP:FRINGE, merely observance of it. These interactions do not constitute "misinformation", "defamation," "disruption" or "attacks." I don't want to waste the community's or my time with any more vitriol, so let's bury the hatchet, yes? The Cap'n (talk) 06:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc, there seems to be some miscommunication. You asked for diffs in the last thread and I gave some; you didn't mention submitting an AE request. I waited for your response, but there was none. The issue is: What is going on with AE? Why are my statements seemingly ignored? Per his own admission, this person has been targeting me since the first ANI he brought (the "revolver", as he called it). From just the sample evidence I gave, per your request, why is this not actionable? Could you be specific? Why is Askahrc permitted to engage in evidence-free defamation? Before submitting an AE request, I need to know why this statement (for example) was ignored. vzaak 21:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Or we can keep wasting time going over the same months-old material over and over and over... Clarification, I've never admitted to "targeting you." I'm not, and have been trying to get you to leave me alone for some time. As for the rest, this has all been addressed more times than I can count, and I for one am not going to clutter up Callanecc's Talk Page doing so again. If Callanecc wants my feedback or you bring an AE I'll be happy to give it then, yet again. The Cap'n (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Askahrc, this is more of the same strategy I outlined in the last thread. You are saying so many things that are not true -- it's impossible to keep up. Responding to them all would create a menacing wall of text.

Hipocrite didn't say that you were sanctioned for "multiple SPIs".[2] Your attack came out of the blue; you said the SPIs I filed "were part of a pattern by a specific editor of accusing me (and numerous others) of socking over and over until the latest round was finally dismissed".[3] You are suggesting that there is misconduct on my part for filing the SPIs, in continuation of your campaign against me, e.g., 'high number of editors who have been accused and blocked by vzaak for being "socks"',[4] "vzaak has an inappropriate tendency to accuse people who disagree with them of sockpuppetry".[5] Moreover, it's absolutely not true that "numerous editors" or "high numbers of editors" had SPIs brought against them, as you claim. As Callanecc knows, the evidence of Tumbleman's sockpuppetry is quite solid. I wish you would look at the evidence instead of blindly believing the assertions of someone who has a reputation for being an Internet troll, a view also held by Wikipedia admins.

The problem, Askahrc, is that you believe so many things that just aren't true, such as that Barleybannocks and Alfozo Green were blocked as Tumbleman socks[6] (they weren't blocked, and they were never suspected socks). It was that unique idea that contributed to your getting nailed for sockpuppetry yourself, since you are the only one on the planet who has conceived it.

In your message on my talk page, you used quotes around "persistent harassment", suggesting that I said that, but I have not. You derogatorily passed off your attacks as "imagined slights" on my behalf. You made the same misrepresentations there as you did here.[7] vzaak 01:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I thought it was you I said that to. A lot of the diffs are more than a month old (and were when you posted them) so it's difficult to justify taking action. Maybe the best thing would to do moving forward is to either file an AE request (which probably would result in anything other than possibly an IBAN) or just avoid each other. If they make comments which are clearly about you from now (given their comment above) then let me know and I'll deal with it (either with a warning or sanctions). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Taking one example, it was nine days between the attack and my AE statement.[8][9] (My comment above explains the context of the attack.) It seems more likely that my statement was simply ignored than silently discarded as stale. Regardless, I don't understand why timing should be a factor in stopping a long line of personal attacks. What does one have to do with the other? vzaak 01:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Whilst I see where you're coming from with that diff, I can also see the explanation/excuse for it. That is I could have looked like you were trying to get him blocked or otherwise sanctioned (as that is a very common outcome from SPI and AE) and he was also replying to a comment from someone else about his history. Whilst it would have been better to make a comment like, "yes I did I'm sorry won't happen again" he didn't which is slightly a problem. The reason they need to be recent is that we (enforcing admins) need to see that 1 there is a pattern (and I don't disagree that there has been) and 2 that the user is currently disruptive etc. As I said before the likely sanction to be imposed in that case will be a standard mutual IBAN between the two of you. If you both agree then you can have at as a more informal agreement then if it's breached we (or I) can impose it as a formal discretionary sanctions IBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. "Attacking" Vzaak is of no interest to me, an IBAN would be an ideal way to go our separate ways (something I've been trying to do for quite awhile) and spend our time constructively. The Cap'n (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc, Askahrc can reply to a comment without continuing his pattern of promulgating untruths in his attempt to discredit me.

If you don't mind, I am still trying to understand what is going on with AE. Consider for instance the WP:POLEMICs on Akahrc's talk page, to which I brought attention in the first AE request months ago. To this day, the page continues to host conspiracies and attacks against me.[10] For instance:

• It contains the untruth that Barleybannocks and Alfonzo Green were blocked for being Tumbleman sockpuppets, which makes no sense and serves no purpose except to further Askahrc's idea that there have been "collateral losses" regarding Tumbleman sockpuppets. This is connected to the untruths that Askahrc has been telling about me, e.g., 'high number of editors who have been accused and blocked by vzaak for being "socks"' (explained above).
• The page contains evidence-free aspersions from a blocked user.
• In one polemic, Askahrc links a statement I made to the phrase "bad neighborhoods" in reference to another readily-debunked conspiracy.
• Askahrc calls me "disgruntled". (I was/am not.)
• "You're one thorough sneak, Vzaak."

I don't understand why Askahrc was not directed to remove the untruths and personal attacks per my AE request. Hipocrite was able to get Askahrc's untruth against him removed -- why am I unable to do the same? An IBAN would not solve this problem, and indeed would prevent the problem from being solved.

This is not just about me. Askahrc has proclaimed his motivations off-wiki where he has called editors "scoundrels" and "pisspoor bastards". The untruths that Askahrc has promulgated, both on-wiki and off-wiki, have been picked up by conspiracy bloggers and even Deepak Chopra himself. Incoming editors have been inflamed by these conspiracies.

Callanecc, since Askahrc denies your conclusion about this SPI, perhaps you could explain to him why you were right. (Since I am one of the "pisspoor bastards", Askahrc is unlikely to take correction from me.) It is normally best to ignore conspiracies, but considering that Chopra himself has now bought into them, I think they should be addressed. vzaak 20:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

1. At first you said your problem was my supposed harassment, but when I agree to an IBAN so you could never be bothered by me again, you now say that I need to be stopped from apparently inflaming massive conspiracies (I've said I don't endorse conspiracy theories about a dozen times now) and Deepak Chopra, presumably resulting in WP:APOCALYPSE. I'm flattered you think I'm so important, but I spend my time editing history articles and addressing BLP issues, not riding pale horses and waving flaming swords.
2. I respect the decision of the admins who sanctioned me and have said so numerous times. What I've complained about is your continued SPI's, AE's and behavior against me since then.
3. The "scoundrels & pisspoor bastards" you're so fond of quoting was off-wiki, was not directed at anyone specific (by name or implication), and was part of an obviously farcical pirate speech.
4. The height of my so-called attacks are calling you disgruntled and sneaky (whereas you've persistently implied that I've issued criminal death threats against people, despite admins telling you that you're wrong)

I'm offering again to partake in a voluntary IBAN. Either take up Callanecc's reasonable solution or give up these claims that I'm harassing you, because I'm the one trying to walk away here. Save us and WP hours of wasted time; make the right decision and agree to the IBAN. The Cap'n (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Respectively:

1. Askahrc added "massive" to "massive conspiracies" while citing WP:APOCALYPSE. It is wrong to build that strawman. It is wrong for Askahrc to promote blatant untruths both off-wiki and on his talk page while falsely disparaging me. His untrue statements have been cited by conspiracy bloggers, and there is no question that he has contributed to the conspiracies which have inflamed incoming editors.
2. Askahrc said "continued SPI's", but there was only one other SPI. It is wrong to imply that there were more.
3. In the non-pirate text Askahrc called editors "unethical" and "bullies", among other things. It is wrong to try to pass off the pirate text as being farcical; it was a translation, which is exactly how Askahrc characterized it.
4. Askahrc's many attacks have been shown in this thread and the last, and that is only a sample. It is wrong to suggest that this is merely a matter of the "disgruntled" and "sneak" remarks. Because there is strong evidence linking Askahrc to the Ralph Abraham article, I filed a checkuser request, nothing more. It is untrue that any admin said I was "wrong". If anything, by running a checkuser the admin was saying that I was right: the admin agreed that there was sufficient evidence for checkuser. A checkuser result alone does not exonerate or condemn -- accompanying evidence is always needed. In this case the accompanying evidence is very much against Askahrc.

My conversation with Callanecc keeps getting interrupted. I am still seeking clarification: I don't understand why Askahrc was not directed to remove the untruths and personal attacks per my AE request -- or per my direct request here. By all indications Askahrc is expected to continue his off-wiki bullying campaign, but co-opting his Wikipedia user talk page for that purpose is unacceptable. vzaak 02:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

For crying out loud, it's getting interrupted because you won't listen to anyone who's saying anything other than what you want to hear. Leaving aside the apparently incendiary use of words like "massive" and "continuing" to mean "extensive" and "repeated", the simple fact is that I am not bullying you, I'm asking you to leave me alone. Saying (half a year ago) that there have been editors (with no names listed) who have behaved in an inappropriate manner is not bullying, Vzaak, especially considering the fact that numerous editors on all sides have been sanctioned for inappropriate behavior. For the record, I have no interest in chasing you down, bullying you, silencing your valid opinions or otherwise causing you problems. I just want you to leave me alone. I again agree to an IBAN as proposed by Callanecc. This would resolve any fears you have about me "attacking" you.

One last thing, and one that is indicative of why I want you to leave me alone: you have persistently misrepresented the 2nd SPI you brought against me, something that is very serious considering that inherent in it is the accusation that I threatened a man's life. You keep saying that no admins told you that you were wrong:

"This case needs to be dealt with, so checking per comments above. I can say that Askahrc (talk · contribs) is Unrelated to the IP mentioned above and is geographically located elsewhere - Alison ❤ 19:06, 4 April 2014" (UTC) & "...the user agent that this editor uses is pretty consistent across locations, yet is radically different to the one used for the vandalistic edits. I don't want to say more than that, but it's not as clear as you portray above - Alison ❤ 19:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)"

Claiming that A) the evidence came out against me, and B) simply having a CheckUser run against me (at your request) means that you were right is disingenuous at best. A man's life was threatened, of course admin's were going to run a CheckUser on anyone who was accused, as Deskana referenced when he said "...I have extraordinarily tagged this request as requiring checkuser attention in spite of the fact that it doesn't require a checkuser." Continuing to insist that the evidence shows my involvement in a threat to murder Ralph Abraham, despite the fact that the SPI showed no connection and the admin involved told you there were multiple factors showing my lack of connection, is bordering on WP:ASPERSIONS.

I don't make it a policy to make the lives of other editors difficult, but I also don't want other editors talking to everyone they can find about trying to sanction me for old, imagined slights until they find someone who will. Seeing accusations against me pop up in other editors AE's and on admin's pages is not why I come to WP. Yet again, I endorse the IBAN. Just leave me alone, Vzaak. The Cap'n (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

{{Ds/alert}}

Is it acceptable for non-admins to use {{Ds/alert}} or is that something we should leave to you all? Didn't know about this template until I saw your edits and it looks quite useful. Ping me in reply. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) 04:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: See WP:AC/DS#Alerts, any editor can notify another editor however it needs to be done with {{Ds/alert}}. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! EvergreenFir (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

General debate of the sixty-ninth session of the United Nations General Assembly

I think G6 would fit. Iits needless at the moment and can easily be created come September (3 months away)Lihaas (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

G6 is for completely uncontroversial housekeeping not deleting articles per WP:CRYSTAL. It's been redirected tp General debate of the sixty-ninth session of the United Nations General Assembly which seems appropriate. If you want it to be deleted you're going to need to take it to WP:RFD. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Callanecc. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Callanecc. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

You may be interested in,

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AmirSurfLera, I included one of the socks you included in your SPI report yesterday. Sepsis II (talk) 07:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/82.51.155.9

Sorry for interrupt, can you please block him/her for three months, he/she added unsourced genre recently, like this. 183.171.162.92 (talk) 02:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like this particular IP has stopped, let me know if they start up again. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

But most recent two edits are What the Hell and California King Bed. (Although I reverted) 183.171.164.9 (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Stephaniemuee

This relentless vandal-only editor, about whom I warned that a 36 hour block would not be sufficient, nor was a subsequent longer block by another admin, has returned and is causing trouble (see [11], [12]). Quis separabit? 16:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)  Done

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you for blocking IP 73.182.225.223 a while ago. That user is a big ol' sock puppet, I've been tracing its vandalism history and awarding barnstars to everybody who took part in the fight against it. O Great Britannia (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Nitishkumartn

Resolved

SPI is backlogged these days, so I wanted to update here, check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nitishkumartn. It maybe enough to just block and close, but this editor usually got multiple accounts. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Just saw you have removed a sock edit from this talk page. Can you tag? I don't even know who's sock it was. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Callanecc. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom

I saw that you were an active clerk for ARBCOM. I was going to open a clarification but it's not about a case. It's about discretionary sanctions. Specifically 1RR. I'm not sure that the clarification section is the appropriate forum. So I thought I would ask a clerk which forum I should go to.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Serialjoepsycho, it depends on what you're asking for. I might be able to help or ask the enforcing administrator. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

wp:an3 and wp:are you can take 1RR violations from articles that are under discretionary sanctions from an active arbitration case. It seems to me from some of the language on both pages that wp:are may be under a higher amount of scrutiny. To me these discretionary sanctions are intended to end disruption not silence (for a lack of a better term) your opponents. There's a pretty big potential for abuse. I'd like to see either 1RR's taken care of in wp:are or have the standards of wp:are to apply in wp:an3 in 1RR situations.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

1RR violations are pretty clear and are generally pretty quickly dealt with by a block, as a 3RR violation would be. If there is longer term disruption or 1RR (etc) violation the admin might impose a ban or ask for further comments. In any case the banned user can always appeal the sanction and it will receive further input from others. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

While I agree they are pretty well straight forward, I don't feel they should be treated as such. My concerns are not really the person who receives the ban as much as the person who seeks that ban. I'll also note that wp:ARE is set up in a way that limit the involvement of some admins. Some of the Admins that might get involved in the scenario you mention above may not get involved in wp:ARE. Some of the Admins that may get involved in wp:AN3 may also not get involved in wp:ARE. I'd be more inclined to think. wp:AN3 is very well suited revert violations. But is it suited for checking "clean hands"? If a violator of wp:ARBPIA brings a 1RR complaint what are the chances they get caught on their violation at wp:AN3? This really could be easily exploited if it currently already isn't. Anyway that's the nail on the head but honestly it's not really much of an issue unless it is happening.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Dan Nainan

The user Desibabe has done a lot of vandalism and won't comment on the talk page to resolve the issue. More so it seems Desibabe does not like Dan Nainan b/c that the only page you has done any editing on and he has not created any pages. More so his account was created around the same time as Dan Nainan article

He has posted irrelevant and poorly sourced material and has undid other edits by other writers.

Nerdypunkkid (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion. 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) 00:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Request due process

Hello,

I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but you closed the WP:AE case against me before the reviewing administrators even read my response and were able to assess it. (I was not able to reply until after three administrator's made their preliminary verdict). This violates the basic principles of jurisprudence.

All three mentioned the claims by Nishidani and Pluto2012, however both contained serious distortions that they were not aware of. Furthermore Pluto2012's complaint was in a topic area unrelated the ARBPIA discussion and therefore should not be considered as a basis for ARBPIA sanctions.

Judging by his brief statement which did not take into account my explanation, it is likely that the fourth administrator may not have seen my response to Nishidani too which I added later.

I request that you allow time for the administrator's to review my response and respond accordingly.

Thank you. Wikieditorpro (talk) 10:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)