User talk:Callanecc

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for all your good work. Andre🚐 19:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Prague shooting

Hiya Callanecc,

I would just like to ask why you’ve locked editing of the 2023 Prague mass shooting page, as any vandalism has been quickly dealt with to my information. And I believe that I, to the best of my ability, have managed to include reliably sourced information at a consistent rate. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t lock the page, I’m just asking why.

By the way, my username is Getsomehelp1962. 188.231.9.162 (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, unless the name is widely reported in reliable sources we generally don't include it. At this stage there were a number of edits being added with information which is either unsourced or rely on limited sourcing. I'm expecting that the sources will Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Fowler&Fowler

Hi Callanecc. You had closed the last ARE report about User:Fowler&fowler because he had "taken on the advice provided by a number of editors".[1] But right now, Fowler&Fowler is causing even more disruption than what he did at that time.

• See his personal attacks and WP:ASPERSIONS:

• "essentially without content unless some kind of lame parody is their goal.[...] you should take all of them to AN for disruption and ask that they be topic banned. [...] vote yourself and explain your vote and then resist the temptation to engage these disruptive editors."[2]
• "also keep WP:Civil POV pushing in mind. This seems to be the latest tack of India-POV editors."[3]
• "such are the numbers of India-POV editors on Wikipedia these days that very little NPOV content on India survives."[4]

• Bragging how he never gets sanctioned and challenging people to report him,[5] as if he won't stop until he is actually sanctioned.
• Unnecessarily commenting on people's coherent English when they are discussing the content.[6][7]
• Badgering almost every comment.[8][9][10]
• Unnecessarily demanding people to ask them to "list all" their sources[11][12][13] when they have already provided a bunch,[14][15] and the article itself article also offers many of them on "aftermath" section.
• I believe this is clear-cut bigotry because none of my sources were from "Old Delhi" but he is clearly attempting to demean my cited scholarly sources (which are actuallly from Odense University Press,[16] Routledge,[17] and Columbia University Press[18]) by citing an Indian locality as if it is something very bad. Location does not even matter when it comes to identification of reliable sources. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 07:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Word limit extension request

Hi Callanecc. KU removed[1] some of his statements to add an additional reply in AE. I also have very important detail to say, but I don't want to do the same, because it will meaningfully change my initial reply. Can you please provide a few additional words for a reply? Aredoros87 (talk) 09:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Someone who likes train writing

You can't block this user! He's done nothing wrong! 611fan2001 (talk) 16:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@611fan2001: Have a look at the dot point on "Good hand" and "bad hand" accounts at WP:GHBH. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

That's not true. Here's the truth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Larrysteamfan#c-Larrysteamfan-20231226192200-Callanecc-20231225060400 611fan2001 (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately the technical evidence doesn't lie in this case. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

SPI

Hey Callanecc. I hope you're doing well. I am pinging you here as you were in the recently active CU list and the article Dhiman which is currently on AfD is being restored with unsourced content. Do you think there's enough evidence on this SPI to request a CU? Jeraxmoira (talk) 12:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Jeraxmoira, sure is. I've blocked both accounts. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

This will help stop the WP:DE for a while, Thank you. Jeraxmoira (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Chirstmas

~ ~ ~ Merry Christmas! ~ ~ ~

Hello Callanecc: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Spread the love; use {{subst:User:Dustfreeworld/Xmas1}} to send this message.

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_Rsk6400

You stated that my contributions to the mediation demonstrate a WP:BATTLE mentality, linking to Third statement and Fourth statement. May I ask that you clarify which part(s) of those constituted holding grudges, importing personal conflicts, carrying on ideological battles, or nurturing prejudice, hatred, or fear. Crash48 (talk) 12:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Noting that you've only quoted the first sentence of WP:BATTLE, it also says Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. Those two statements demonstrate that you (and Rsk6400) did that, see for example the section Robert McClenon collapsed. Additionally your eleventh statement also quite clearly demonstrates a battleground mentality, for example "I bring against Rsk6400 the specific accusations...", "I suggest to Rsk6400 to use his last chance to engage in a discussion...". Engaging in discussion where you have a focus on 'winning' and instead of discussing content you focus on the conduct of other editors isn't compatitible with the collaborative nature of the project. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

In my fourth statement, I don't see anything at all related to the conduct of other editors, and I stated on Dec 6th that I don't understand why it was collapsed. I still don't. Crash48 (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I saw in the fourth statement. Potentially I was looking at one of the others and thought it was the fourth one. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that you don't see a demonstration of battleground mentality in my fourth statement. Now, regarding my eleventh statement that you mentioned above: do you mean that desperately urging an editor to engage in a discussion of the content (left out from your quote above) goes against the policy telling us to engage in a discussion of the content? What, in your opinion, would be proper conduct when a party joining a mediation refuses, over the course of a month, to engage in the discussion of the disputed content? Crash48 (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd point out that the other party also receieved a sanction for their conduct. Mediation isn't mandatory, editors can choose not to participate. Having that battleground approach is really just going to dissuade them from doing so. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

It is clear to me that mediation isn't mandatory, and that you consider my conduct during the mediation inappropriate. You didn't answer either of the two questions that I asked, though. Crash48 (talk) 10:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

"I bring against Rsk6400 the specific accusations..." during moderation (which is about content not contributors as explained at the start) and "use his last chance to engage in a discussion" or I'll "go straight to WP:ANI" is indicative of a battleground approach. You can ask someone to engage but bringing accusations and threatening them with ANI if they don't participate shows a battleground approach. There are two separate pathways to resolving content and conduct issues as explained at WP:DR. One is to resolve content issues, for example mediation and RfCs, and the other is to reolve conduct issues, like ANI or AE. After trying mediation you can continue to try and resolve content issues with an RfC. At any point if there is a conduct issue you can seek assistance with that especially if they are preventing the content issue being resolved. However, whenever you seek assistance with conduct issues every editor's conduct will be looked at not just the one who is complained about. So in answer to your second question, it depends. You can either continue trying to resolve it with an RfC (or another noticeboard like RSN) and/or you can report conduct issues separately. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the more detailed explanation. You may notice that I did exactly as you suggest: posted an RfC regarding the content issues, as well as reported the conduct issues separately, immediately after the mediation failed. If I understand the terms of my TBAN correctly, it makes my own RfC off-limits to me, meaning that the course of action you suggest doesn't help advance the content issues towards a resolution. Crash48 (talk) 13:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

You are correct that you cannot edit the RfC. Effectively, you've blown your chance at solving the content issue due to the conduct issue which resulted the TBAN. You can go back to the article either when the TBAN expires or it's removed. 3-6 months of problem-free editing in other areas is usually enough to demonstrate that a (first) TBAN isn't necessary so that would be my suggestion to you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 21:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Questions

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)

Yeah you can. Here are a couple examples which will hopefully help, the second one is that instance:

• You add a sentence to an article, another editor reverts it. You can't add that sentence back until there is a consensus.
• An editor adds something to an article. You revert/change what they added. An editor reverts you. You can't revert their edit without a consensus.

Does that help? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes those are helpful, thank you. Can I ask for your suggestions on how to proceed with some specific situations?

• Someone reverted a minor change I made, which I discussed with them until they just stopped replying.
• I reverted a minor change someone made and opened a talk page discussion. They reverted me back and apparently consider the discussion unnecessary even though they removed something supported by a previous consensus.
• And there is the Ruben Darbinyan article, mentioned in the AE thread. There was never a consensus version for the "Criticism" section, which contains lots of questionable sources, including one saying Hitler committed the Holocaust because Armenians told him to. Could I revert to the last stable version?

--KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi KhndzorUtogh:

• I'd suggest pinging them to the talk page or leaving them a talk page message to remind them about the conversation.
• Similar thing to the above, ping them back to the article and ask to discuss it further. If they don't respond I'm okay with you saying that if you don't hear anything after a reasonable period (like a week) you'll revert.
• The talk page discussion needs to continue. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

For the Darbinyan article, Aredoros restored their additions four times after two different editors (Revolution Saga and I) reverted them. There was never any consensus for these editions, which are very contentious. Isn't letting them remain technically rewarding edit warring? --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Your consensus restriction prevents you from reverting it but other editors can as per normal. That they have chosen not to might be informative. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I have tried thoroughly explaining to a user what original research is and what a reliable source is and is not, but they still don't seem to comprehend it. They are not even an extended confirmed user and are technically violating WP:GS/AA. What should I do next? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

RFC

Hi. Just want to let you know that I started another RFC. I hope this will resolve the dispute. Grandmaster 09:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Question regarding to sanction

Hello. Does this restoration of a deleted content violate interaction ban and consensus ban you gave ~3 weeks ago? Aredoros87 (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Probably technically breaches the consensus restriction but given that the article content wasn't readded just the source I don't see an issue with it. Given this is within the area of your topic ban you are breaching it by commenting here but I'm ignoring that this time as well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2024

• From the editor: NINETEEN MORE YEARS! NINETEEN MORE YEARS!

• Special report: Public Domain Day 2024

• Technology report: Wikipedia: A Multigenerational Pursuit

• News and notes: In other news ... see ya in court!

• In focus: The long road of a featured article candidate

• In the media: What is plagiarism? Oklahoma Disneyland? Reaching a human being at Wikipedia?

• WikiProject report: WikiProjects Israel and Palestine

• Obituary: Anthony Bradbury

• Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2023

• Crossword: everybody gangsta till the style sheets start cascading

• Comix: Conflict resolution

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Tech News: 2024-03

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

• Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. [19]
• Gadgets and personal user scripts may now use JavaScript syntax introduced in ES6 (also known as "ES2015") and ES7 ("ES2016"). MediaWiki validates the source code to protect other site functionality from syntax errors, and to ensure scripts are valid in all supported browsers. Previously, Gadgets could use the requiresES6 option. This option is no longer needed and will be removed in the future. [20]
• Bot passwords and owner-only OAuth consumers can now be restricted to allow editing only specific pages. [21]
• You can now thank edits made by bots. [22]
• An update on the status of the Community Wishlist Survey for 2024 has been published. Please read and give your feedback.

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 16 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 17 January. It will be on all wikis from 18 January (calendar). [23][24]
• Starting on January 17, it will not be possible to login to Wikimedia wikis from some specific old versions of the Chrome browser (versions 51–66, released between 2016 and 2018). Additionally, users of iOS 12, or Safari on Mac OS 10.14, may need to login to each wiki separately. [25]
• The jquery.cookie module was deprecated and replaced with the mediawiki.cookie module last year. A script has now been run to replace any remaining uses, and this week the temporary alias will be removed. [26]

Future changes

• Wikimedia Deutschland is working to make reusing references easier. They are looking for people who are interested in participating in individual video calls for user research in January and February.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 00:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

ARBPIA tagging of loosely topic related articles

Hi, I noticed that you tagged the article Operation Prosperity Guardian as an ARBPIA sanctioned article. However... Israel is not included in the coalition or somehow involved in the operation, so this is at best very loosely related to the Israeli-Palestinian topic (or Arab-Israeli broadly)? I see a lot of articles in the Middle East being quickly tagged as ARBPIA 1RR for edit-warring reasons without putting much attention on relevance of ARBPIA. In Syrian Civil War & ISIL case we had a special santions regime installed so editors don't try to extend ARBPIA to very far-fetched directions. It seems that in the Red Sea crisis case, the relevance of Israeli-Palestinian conflict is rather marginal with Houthi stance being largely sourced in the ongoing Iran-Israel proxy conflict and not the past Arab-Israeli conflict, thus we can either use Iran politics sanctions tool or create a similar tool for the Iran-related conflict topics to reflect it like we did for the Syrian Civil War. Thanks.GreyShark (dibra) 20:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)