User talk:Callanecc

Callanecc is busy and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Some arb cases still contain old language about how to give DS notices

Please see my recent update to WP:ARBAA2. Does this agree with your understanding of the new rules? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. When May comes around I'm thinking it might be worth collapsing or removing the logged notifications so there is no confusion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like WP:ARBPIA has been updated at least partially:

List here editors who have been placed on notice of the remedies in place in this case (including the diff of the notification). For convenience, the template {{subst:Palestine-Israel enforcement}} may be used, or an individual message containing the same information. Under the 2014 revisions to discretionary sanctions, consider using {{subst:alert|a-i}}, in which case the notification does not have to be logged.

We should probably get rid of 'an individual message containing the same information' and 'Consider using...' The current wording of WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts says that the template message has to be placed unmodified on the talk page of the person being alerted. So there is no optional language any more. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed that one and added a sentence to WP:ARBAA2, I'll go through the others and check them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve McFadden

Hello

Can I please ask what is happening with Steve McFadden? It's just that you added on semi protection, however the article already has indefinite pending changes protection and that appears to have been left on?

In all honesty I don't know that semi protecting the article would work. I think I tried that a while back and the sock simply vandalised more articles. 5 albert square (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Pending changes from the Steve McFadden article. I assume that the use of both protections was inadvertent. Please revert if you disagree. EdJohnston (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ed. 5 albert square sent you an email. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the email Calcaneus. Because of what you said I have upgraded the article to indefinite semi protection. I think it's best that way. 5 albert square (talk) 06:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup needed on aisle five

Could you address / remove / collapse the side conversations between Risker & T Canens and Hasteur & Risker at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media_Viewer_RfC/Proposed_decision#Proposed_motion:_Case_suspended ? NE Ent 03:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up NE, leave it with me. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Eliasch

Hi Callanecc, this trashy non notable Amanda Eliasch article has been recreated. I put this under SFD last week @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Eliasch and Orangemike speedy deleted it, the reason CSD G11. Now it's been recreated? Is it normal for the article to be recreated so quickly. I think the Afd outcome would have been delete, based on initial comments. scope_creep talk 22:45 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi scope creep, I've reblocked the IP but the additions by Sionk are significant enough for it not to qualify for CSD§G5 and I don't believe any of the other criteria apply so it will need to go back to AfD if you still think it should have been deleted. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey scope_creep, thanks for calling it trashy ;) I helped rewrite it and re-source it (something I believ could have been easily done without speedy'ing it), therfore hardly think it is "trashy". To be honest, it sounds very much like IDONTLIKEIT argument from a number of editors. If someone is generally notable, the subject of a number of major newspaper articles over a 15 year period, that's generally good enough for me. I've no great affinity with millionaire socialites, but try and take each subject on its merits. Sionk (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!

Congrats! And feel free to ask if you have questions... I would assume Trijnstel has already sent you info about getting on the global stuff. --Rs chen 7754 04:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Trijnstel asked someone to add me to the list and wiki, and got my email address and IRC details. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you know I wish you nothing but the best, but I wish there were a way you could do what you want and not stop clerking at SPI. It's a major loss. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all CUs are clerks, and are still allowed to do clerk stuff... though they usually don't, since we're here to help them :P --Rs chen 7754 05:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, you'll just have to take up the slack, won't you? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 05:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somehow above and below the CUs, so I don't even know what to say here... --Rs chen 7754 05:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use the above part and figure out a way. Seriously, without meaning to embarrass Callan, I've been a fan for quite some time. He's special. Cheers, everyone.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nawww! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sju hav and Lapsed Pacifist

I was quite surprised to see that you found Sju hav to be a sockpuppet of Lapsed Pacifist. I am very familiar with Sju hav and when I compared him to Lapsed Pacifist I didn't find any particular similarities, quite the opposite:

Lapsed Pacifist's prime interest was the Irish/British conflict topic area where they had a clear Irish republican POV. I have never seen Sju hav show any interest for the Irish cause. Likewise, most of Sju hav's edits are related to Norway, an area I don't think Lapsed Pacifist edited in.
Many of Lapsed Pacifist's edits were of the copyediting style, often changing wording to fit their POV. Sju hav has very little of this; his typical edits are to insert new stuff, mostly based on what is in Norwegian news at different times.
Lapsed Pacifist appeared to master the English language at a native level, while Sju hav is Norwegian and has only intermediate English language skills.
Iselilja (talk) 09:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I might leave it you and Berean Hunter to discuss, probably best on the SPI page. I was going with what he was said plus the bit I found. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The VoA template

Hello, Callanecc. You have new messages at 1999sportsfan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

1999sportsfan (talk) 11:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fairyspit

Since it's been confirmed does that mean they can be blocked and the SPI closed? LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep just needs an admin to come by and action it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. 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) 00:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Summichum

Since his return, he is disrupting those pages because of which he was blocked 4 times. Pages include Mufaddal Saifuddin, 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra), etc. I am unsure that why he requested Speedy deletion of Talk:Qutbi Bohra. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You probably need to take this to WP:AN if you believe that sanctions are needed, what I can do on my own authority is limited. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Mousetrap

Hello! I've noticed that you semi-protected the above mentioned page until February of next year. There's just two slight problems with that. First, and most importantly, the level of vandalism lately has been far too low to deserve semi-protection of any length. For the month of August, I see only three unconstructive edits to the page. There are articles which receive more vandalism but are not even given pending changes protection, let alone semi-protection. Secondly, there was a discussion on the talk page about two years ago, and the consensus was to implement PC in place of semi-protection in order to allow constructive editing by IPs.

In light of this, I kindly ask you to remove the semi-protection and re-implement pending changes to the article The Mousetrap. Thank you and happy editing. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at WP:RFPP. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Instantnood

Hello, would you just confirm for me that this diff is intended to say that all of the accounts listed as "confirmed" are operating from the same IP, and that that IP is an exact match for the IP of User:Instantnood who has been banned now for seven years? Or is it your intention to say that the investigation satisfactorily shows the accounts in question to be the actions of User:Instantnood? ~ R.T.G 13:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say much more due to the privacy policy, except that there all linked to each other (as I said in my results) and I'm fairly sure it's Instantnood. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a negative. You can tell me if the IPs match or not. The privacy policy regarding this is explicit. ~ R.T.G 14:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any CU data on Instantnood prior to this, it's all stale (not there anymore) so I can't tell you if they match as I can't see it. I was referring to the IPs listed in the archive I can't link to them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well can you not even say if they are using one IP address? I mean the policy states you should be general so as not to be personally identifying but what you've written is more like vague. I'm not really trying to question your personal conduct, but I may request that the case be reviewed as something other than sockpuppetry, that's the point if you are wondering. ~ R.T.G 14:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you are a busy editor, don't worry about getting into a long debate, I have no personal complaints for you or philosophical debates or anything don't worry. ~ R.T.G 14:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "...I may request that the case be reviewed as something other than sockpuppetry"? --IJBall (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, RTG. What the hell are you going on about regarding this case?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Allen

Hi. Could Ray Allen please be semi-protected again due to vandalism? Two weeks ago it was semi-protected for the same thing and it worked brilliantly as no one edited it in those two weeks. But now, less then 24 hours after protection ceased, vandalism has started up again. Thanks for your time. DaHuzyBru (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month. After one month the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Callanecc. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.
Message added 14:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About those Darkfrog24 editing restrictions...

About a month ago, you unblocked Darkfrog24 for edit-warring in "Oathkeeper", a Game of Thrones-related article. You set up a series of editing restrictions which seemed to imply that, moving forward, she was limited to 1RR in the article where she was edit-warring and waiting 48 hourts after proposing a change in talk. IIRC, she made a point of discussing the minutiae of the restrictions, and it would appear that she was looking for a way around them. Darkfrog24 seems to think that those restrictions expired after a week. Thusly, she has been engaging in precisely the same sort of behavior elsewhere, and has argued that she no longer has to follow those restrictions. Could you confirm that the editing restrictions indeed expired after the week of the block?
I know you meant those instructions to help her adjust the speed with which she edited; I'm suggesting that they have failed to work as you intended. The behavior was not modified, - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they did expire, I don't see in policy where admins can impose indefinite conditions without further authorisation (ArbCom or community). However I would have expected that Darkfrog would have taken it on board and edited more carefully focusing on discussion rather than edit warring, but this incident is pretty stale now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal

I have filed an appeal against the TBAN you imposed here Darkness Shines (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Illegitimate blanking] and [Vandalism] by User:Director

Three days only after being on the verge of being blocked, User:Director removed large sourced sections of text in Istrian Exodus without even discussing. He briefly mentioned in the edit summary he would have rolled back forever. So I had no option and filed an ANI for vandalism [[1]]. I hope this does not account for WP:CANVASSING. It is just that it is astronomically difficult to deal with this user. Silvio1973 (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported Director for 3RR. Silvio1973 (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leadership

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I might leave it without protection and see what happens. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aldota sockpuppet accounts

Hi, I can see you added tags to some of the user pages on blocked sockpuppet accounts from Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Aldota. However, it would appear that one-by-one throwaway IPs are vandalising these user pages by removing or amending the tags so the account no longer appears in the category.

I have restored all the tags on all the account I have found, however, you may wish to add the userpages to your watchlist to monitor any potential future vandalism or protect the pages, thanks take care. Tanbircdq (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up Tanbircdq, I've had a look and watchlisted some of them. It be good if you could watchlist all pages in a category. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Belated congrats

I wander back from a three week holiday and find that you've garnered yet another shiny hat! Congrats on the CU appointment - now I have another person to pester on my list of people-who-can-see-way-more-useful-stuff-than-I-can. DoRD and Reaper will no doubt breathe a sigh of releif... Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) And this one as well, though it's an appointment to AUSC so only for a year and I imagine a good few months at least will be learning. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes - both well-deserved. It couldn't have happened to a nicer ~~hopeless masochist~~ ...er, person. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Serendipity abounds; straight after leaving this message for you I wandered straight into this unblock request. What's a checkuser-alto when it's at home? And would you mind giving your CU opinion on the best course of action for this user? Cheers, Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without doing a CU check it'll be best to ask Tim about it first or just send the user straight to ACC. Plus that sort of thing is a bit beyond me at the moment and the block is recent enough that it's still very likely to be necessary. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ACC sounds good to me; Timotheus seems to have gone to bed already. Also found Template:Checkuser-alto, which suggests ACC as well. In fact, I might just drop the template there; it explains things pretty well. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They can see it everytime they click the edit button, so just referring to ACC in your answer should do the job. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ACC request #125280

Sent you an email per your note. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Elockid, I've replied. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Labor Day

It used to be a rule that we wouldn't protect things while they were linked from the front page. Has this changed? Samsara (FA • FP) 16:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of that rule, the only one I knew regarding the main page is that we don't preemptively protect [ages linked from there (except full move protection) but wait instead. In this case it's much more likely that the vandals are getting there from Google or direct search on WP than through the main page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The templates here make me think it's been abandoned. In a nutshell, the idea used to be that people coming through the main page should be allowed to get a flavour of Wikipedia, and so the main page linked articles should be editable. This used to tie up scores of people in mopping up after the vandals coming from the main page, and was presumably discontinued for this reason as soon as changes in leadership allowed doing so. Thanks for being the starting point of this clarification - good to know for the future. Cheers, Samsara (FA • FP) 16:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Callanecc. You have new messages at SantiLak's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank You and Request

First thank you for giving http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SantiLak a warning. I am glad Admins like you are paying attention. This same user is edit warring on many other pages, and he just deletes requests to discuss the articles. In one article he erased entire sections 9 times in less than 12 hours without discussing it once. If possible, could you take whatever steps are appropriate? I thought I'd ask since you already noticed the issue yourself: I.e., he's done this before and you have admonished him. Many thanks in advance and you have a great page! Cheers.2.177.205.239 (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have a right to respond to these accusations. This is the second IP that this user has utilized. They first posted on the State bar page and I reverted it suggesting that they move it lower in the article and provide reliable sources. They moved it to the top section and kept the same sources. I then researched criticism of the state bar and found reliable sources that weren't taken out of context and created a criticism section. The IP user then reverted my changes and started posting on my talk page. They claim that I am deleting requests to discuss articles but I have responded to all of their claims on my talk page, their talk page, and the article's talk page in an attempt to discuss it but they haven't responded at all. All they do is revert the edits and post copied and pasted warnings from different parts of the page. In fact they copied and pasted a legitimate warning that you gave me about Arontrice's talk page and I acknowledged it. They then went about reverting my removal of copied and pasted warnings from one of Arontrice's sock puppets who had been posting them on my user page and my talk page. I don't delete their concerns, I just delete the copied and pasted warnings that they add to my talk page but not the actual accusations they have and I respond to all of them. For the future I will not revert their edits to the state bar page so that I don't technically edit war but that does not excuse their behavior in editing that page and refusing to discuss anything while accusing me of refusing to discuss anything. SantiLak (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Sorry about that. I wasn't paying attention to what I forwarded earlier. Sent the right one this time.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I've blocked them now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked user and DYK

Hi Callenecc, I saw that you blocked Papajeckloy recently. I just noticed that he has passed the nomination of my DYK nom, which initially I did not notice. After a little looking around, I saw that he did the same to another one, except this was not even reviewed. The second one, I can understand is invalid, but will this affect my DYK nom as well? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was only promoted by Papajeckloy not reviewed by them. The only problem would have been if one of their socks were involved which it doesn't look like they were. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Callanecc. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 13:42, 2 September 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are a very good Admin, Very Professional

Many thanks for your professionalism in stopping edit warring on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Bar_of_California Many thanks for your fair-mindedness in allowing a section on Public Criticisms of a Public Entity: They are critiques by the courts, magazines, and even the Public Entity itself. It says a lot that you respect journalist;s and the public's freedom of conscience to allow it to be said that, "This is a public entity and there have been some journalistic criticisms of it." Cheers and have a great day! 2.177.205.239 (talk) 16:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]