User talk:Callanecc

User's long-term abuse of editing privileges and possible SPI

Hi Callanecc. I wasn't sure if any particular noticeboard was appropriate for this... WP:ANI seemed a bit drastic. If this is better suited to discuss there or elsewhere, please let me know and I'll repost it.

User:Ron Robey has been using Wikipedia for all the wrong reasons, including:

Using his user talk page to...

• post self-penned song lyrics [1]
• rant about how he's been persecuted [2]
• proselytizing [3]
• WP:HOWTO advice [4]
• various self-promotion [5]
• promoting his business, Lighting by Veterans [6]

... as well as ranting about the name of a sports team mixed with claims of religious persecution, posted four times [7], [8], [9], [10].

I reported a related user Lighting By Veterans to WP:UAA, which was blocked as a WP:CORPNAME by Alexf. [11]

As well, the user Tina Matney appears to be a WP:SOCK, as the only contributions are promotional pieces in support of Ron Robey: User:Tina Matney/sandbox, [12] (repost [13]), [14]; and self-awarded praise [15], [16].

Looks to me like a person with delusions of grandeur using Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX and a free web host for his various ravings. Any advice? --Drm310 (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Drm310: I've blocked the account as they there are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Could you please file a sockpuppet case with the three accounts you mentioned plus User:American Veterans Fence Company (from Ron Robey's userpage). Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you beat me to it! Thanks for taking care of that. --Drm310 (talk) 07:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The Mahfouz Foundation / Mahfouz Bin Marei Bin Mahfouz

Moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ctfn

Hi Callanecc,

Thank you for your time and help. For the two articles i have added more information and more reliable sources and references to make the the articles more solid and wealthy with evidences. I do not know which versions of the articles you are comparing against but i can send you these two articles with all information by email if you wish. I have had the initial information of the two articles from my colleague in UK who was working on it but because he has lack of experience with Wikipedia as well as he was travelling a lot so he handed over the information to me and i have managed to gather more information from the Foundation itself and its founders to make the articles more wealthy of information.

Please kindly help me because i have been more than 3 months trying to create them but every time i get very disappointed from lack of support from Wikipedian.

Cheers, AhmadMidoahmad (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Kaldari sockpuppet investigation

Callanecc, per your request, I have added more evidence re the similar opinions and writing style to the SPI of Kaldari. Let me know if you need more evidence, but, per my update at the SPI, the opinions of Kaldari and Kaletony re gamers and misogyny is quite striking. To be satisfactorily resolved one way or the other, I suspect that this case will require a CU. Thanks. Memills (talk) 05:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I need diffs which prove what you're saying. For example, in what edit does Kaldari admit to sockpuppetry, in which diffs do they both say Wikipediocracy is a reliable source? I need quite a bit of evidence to check a well established user. See Template:DiffsNeeded for more information. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I added a link where Kaldari previously admitted to sockpuppetry, but, looks like the case has been closed out now.

A (somewhat related) question for you: Kaletony has been identified as a sock, but why is he/she still able to edit their Talk page? Kaletony is has been using it to taunt me and other editors. Thanks. Memills (talk) 04:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

MIG29VN Sockpuppetry case

Hello, you asked me to contact you if the Hanoi shill starts editing with the "1.55" starting IP's again. Didn't take long, he already has. See here 1.55.56.36. Greetings JamesRussels (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've blocked 1.55.48.0/20. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Quick question regarding a SPI

In regards to the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/E4024 case: E4024 has been socking with other IP's. Please see his former cases. Shall I include those IP's as part of the current report as well? Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The IPs in the archive of that case haven't edited for a while so probably don't need to include them again. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration case request

Hello! Would it be appropriate for you (or another clerk) to tag the editors mentioned in the statements on this case. It seems that if names are being given then those editors should be notified. Thank you for taking a look. Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

PC-protection expiring on or before September 26

Saturday Night Live (season 39), Slugterra: Ghoul from Beyond, List of Bonkers episodes, and Bonkers (TV series)? --George Ho (talk) 05:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Reply

Replied on my user talk page. I'm a bit confused as to what you would have me do here? — Cirt (talk) 11:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Translation

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Translation. 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, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

California State Bar

State Bar of California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Extended content

1. A consensus was reached on including a criticisms section on the California State Bar, with most of the commentators saying the section was long over due. Thank you on your advice on that. 2. I'm writing to you about a new issue, which is a recurrence of an old issue: The User SantiLak that you previously warned about edit warring is back it. You will see that he is just reverting edits without discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_Bar_of_California&action=history 3. You were kind enough to previously caution SantiLak on the article and on his SantiLak's talk page: "Callanecc (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (43,108 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Protected State Bar of California: Edit warring / content dispute." 4. The item he is deleting now (regarding the 'Keller' case) -- again without discussion -- has such a strong agreement among editors that it even has its own Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keller_v._State_Bar_of_California I even pointed it out to him on the Talk Page last week before including it; he didn't even reply. 5. What is the Keller case? The U.S. Supreme Court told the State Bar that they were violating the First Amendment rights of its members by demanding mandatory fees and then using those fees to force members to support the political and ideological activities of the State Bar. 6. I've talked to SantiLak, you've warned him. I have written pages and pages of politely worded explanations and discussions, only to be personally attacked. He has written pages and pages of strange things, for example, accusing me of being a "Russian." (I'm not, but what difference could that possibly make?) 7. I just want to be up-front with you: Since I deal with him on a weekly basis, he is playing a game; frequently edit warring without discussion; and when he does respond, it's often in the form of personal attacks. If I take my eye off of that article he will sanitize salient points that many other editors have judged fit to include. I have always followed your advice. You are a good editor. This time around, please do something about SantiLak. Can't you just give him some sort of 'Time Out"? I checked his Talk Page and it looks like dozens of others have had the same problem. Thanks for your time and effort, and I hope you have a great week. 2.177.144.12 (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC) I think I have the right to respond to these allegations again. A consensus has not been reached, all the IP user did to gain a consensus was go to year's old discussions and add responses that said things like "Agreed." I am not reverting any edits again, in fact I didn't remove any of the keller material, I just shifted it to a different section, member fee authorization process because it seemed more relevant there. The IP user claims that I have personally attacked them when it is the other way around. The user went on my talk page after I invited them to continue the state bar discussion as they hadn't responded in nearly a week. What they did was go to each time that a user had been annoyed with me and claim that I had been blocked and that I was an abusive user even after the issue had been resolved. I didn't accuse them of being a russian, I did respond to claims they had said that I removed things from my talk page by reminding them that I had only removed copied and pasted warnings by a Russian IP user who was blocked. They instead went on the state bar talk page and accused me of being an employee of the state bar. I haven't been edit warring without discussion, if you look at the history of the state bar page you can see that up until when I shifted the Keller to a different section, which was only 2 edits, I hadn't edited it in 22 days which was when you admin only protected the page. I didn't attack them personally in any way and I haven't removed any salient information. No other users besides myself have judged the material to be salient. All that has happened is I have stated my concerns, then they have accused me of not citing any specific concerns and then I wrote a very long description with quotations of every one of their additions and why I felt they didn't belong but they didn't respond to my concerns. I am trying to follow wikipedia policy by discussing it but the other user isn't participating and is just going around slandering me on my talk page in irrelevant discussions, reverting my edits to other pages with the only reason being that I was once warned by an admin. I really want to solve this with discussion and all they seem to want to do is accuse me of things and not discuss the issues. SantiLak (talk) 04:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC) What SantiLak says above: "I haven't been edit warring without discussion SantiLak 04:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)" What SantiLak admitted to another editor: "I never said I wasn't edit warring then, I readily admitted it .... SantiLak (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)" What an Admin said to SantiLak: "You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on User talk:Arontrice. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)" Dear friend, I say this with respect for you and your time; he's been going at it like this for weeks now. You warned him, as have other Admins on his Talk Page. Let's not allow good faith editors to be driven out of here from these types of ongoing behaviors. Thank you. 2.177.170.75 (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC) SantiLak's repeated ad hominem attacks on an article about the California Bar! "The 4 separate IP users are you, one of your other IP's that you use, and two sockpuppets of a blocked russian IP. SantiLak (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)" "I didn't remove any of the keller material, I just shifted it to a different section.SantiLak 04:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)" He hasn't written 1 thing about Keller on the article. However, on Sep. 22, he removed (again without discussion) all of the Keller citations in the criticisms section -- precisely what you told him not to do. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_Bar_of_California&action=history If SantiLak has written something about Keller for the article, a quote and a link would prove it. You will never see it because it did not happen. He just reverts edits without discussion. 2.177.170.75 (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC) I don't know how this IP can continue on with these kinds of ridiculous accusations. I said today that I haven't been edit warring or really editing at all without discussion in reference to the accusations they made. I admitted that I had been edit warring by violating 3RR on Arontrice's talk page which is what you warned me about and I stopped then. That response to another editor was to that IP user who had been going around my talk page and adding responses to any time another user was mad at me for a csd template or for removing a rothschild conspiracy from the UN peacekeeping page. If you look in the history of the State bar page you will see that I moved the Keller information from the criticism section to the member fee authorization process section which is where other cases on that had been added. I did discuss it an mentioned that it would most likely be more appropriate in the member fee authorization process but the IP user again ignored me. I cited my change in the keller location in the article and did not revert any edits. I did not commit any ad hominen attacks and when I wrote ""The 4 separate IP users are you, one of your other IP's that you use, and two sockpuppets of a blocked russian IP", I was referencing two IP's used by a Russian user who eventually changed to arontrice who had been vandalizing my talk page and was blocked and the two different IP addresses used by that same user. I wasn't calling them Russian, I was just explaining why I had removed warnings that they claimed were key to the page. SantiLak (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Some general advice for both of you:

• Stop editing the article. 2.177.170.75 if you keep going you will get yourself blocked.
• Take a couple fays and have a break whether off Wikipedia or away from this topic. You both need to calm down and think about something else for a bit then come back with clear minds. Sound airy-fairy but it does help.
• Focus on the content which is in dispute rather than each other.
• After the couple days away put a neutral post on the talk page of the two WikiProjects ask ask for assistance and additional opinions to resolve the content dispute.
• Stop communicating in walls of text, they make it very difficult to come to agreement. Instead focus on bits of the article, section by section (the lead last) or one topic at a time.
• Have a look at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE specifically WP:SEEKHELP can you agree that one of those noticeboards might be able to help.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Likely Andrewbf's sock

Indiaman2223 and Special:Contributions/187.211.100.157 seems likely Andrewbf's pattern, recently disrupting defended Binksternet on house music, Stay the Night (Zedd song) and Clarity (song). Another account is Inidian maninian, named instead of Indian man, he/she posted on talk page for house music, similar with first diff. 183.171.172.96 (talk) 08:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Kuru blocked them. Never mind. 183.171.167.23 (talk) 11:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism

Thanks for intervening on Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism. Do keep on eye on it. Would it be good to add a tag saying that the article's content is undergoing (heated) discussion? This is just a questtion for your consideration, not a request. Esoglou (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

We usually don't as tagging the article in itself can sometimes be one of the things the involved editors are disputing. Though if you can find a neutral tag which says that (and doesn't imply other stuff like {{Disputed}} does) I'll take a look. I imagine it's going to need some admin involvement on the talk page but I'll leave that for later. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. I don't think I could find any tag that you couldn't find much more easily, and so I won't try. Besides, I understand the reasoning behind what you say. Esoglou (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Workshop Page

Can you please go and review the accusations Neotarf is making on this page, literally most of it is completely unrelated to this case and damn near all of it is without any diffs and is accusing people not even involved with this case of misconduct. I feel the need to defend myself but I also think it's something that is going to cloud the issue too. Can you please review and moderate, I'm going to log out a while because I really don't want to pop off but a lot of the shit they are posting is so misrepresented it's not funny. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you also close this down [[17]] there are no diffs, no one has linked to naked women, called anyone any names, etc. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

202.137.22.114

Why was not it indef blocked? It has been vandalising since 2010 and it's obvious they can't be trusted. Luxure (talk) 07:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

See WP:IPBLENGTH. As IPs are used by various users and can be reassigned to completely different people we almost never block them indefinitely. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks anyway. Luxure (talk) 08:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Banning Policy case

This should be ready to unhat. Let me know if there's anything more I need to do. Thank you for your patience. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 09:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Reopened SPI?

I noticed you reopened the PiCo SPI. Thanks for doing that, but I'm not sure if/how to proceed. I do think there is a good chance someone is socking right now on WP:DRN. "First century" is too vague.... (PiCo) -- I agree with PiCo - "first century" is far too vague. (StAnselm) However it's hard to show conclusive evidence for long-time contributors -- simply agreeing with each other on something oddly specific. Since the IP activity was stale, do I have a path forward here? Andrevan@ 20:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging, warned for edit warring, using specious analysis to block rebuttal to imbalanced article POV

Hello. You warned this person for his/her behavior in the Dreamcast topic in February, and I feel this person, with the backing of two others, is blocking the addition of useful content in the Atari Jaguar page. Moreover, an editor in 2011 found fault with the same thing I have been trying to correct, as is indicated in Talk.

TheTimesAreAChanging created an entry in Talk called "Recent IP edit" just recently. The convolution of demands now includes that a directly relevant appraisal of the worst video game console controllers ever made specifically include the Atari Jaguar in order to be cited, even though, by not being included, it is clear that other designs were considered worse by the article's author, a fact that is directly relevant as a rebuttal to the complaint included in the Wikipedia Atari Jaguar article. Moreover, the article also supports the rebuttal that the phone keypad design feature was used on other prior systems, which casts doubt upon relying heavily upon the Jaguar controller's inclusion of that feature as evidence of it being "the worst ever".

Three editors seem intent on maintaining the current imbalance on the page, characterized by the inclusion of three separate criticisms of the controller (one of which is a photo of a controller with a critical caption). The IGN editor's analysis is simply faulty. There have been worse designs, such as the controller of the Mattel Intellivision and the controller of the Atari 5200, both of which are included in the critical article "The Worst Video Game Controllers Ever Designed" that I cited and which TheTimesAreAChanging and others are refusing to allow, after I removed three other sources that received other complaints.

The other article is by Ronald Diemicke and one of the three editors said the source, due to it being MobyGames can't be used. Despite that, the article does include the Jaguar controller (thus satisfying the three editors' -- in my view obstructionist -- objection to the Gerry article) and yet ranks three other controllers higher in the list of "worst ever" designs. His choice for the worst controller ever is a very logical one.

I fail to see why so much energy is being put into blocking even the smallest attempt to correct the imbalance in the Jaguar's controller criticism, but I suspect it is a similar case vis-a-vis the aforementioned Dreamcast edit war. Comments critical of the controller criticism imbalance from 2012 on the Talk page were on the flaming side. However, an editor named Andrew1718 removed the IGN editor's complaint about the controller in 2011, arguing that the analysis was not well-supported ("I removed the bunk about the Jaguar having the 'worst controller' ever". So, I am hardly the only person who has found fault with the exaggerated criticism of the controller. The inclusion of the flawed appraisal of the IGN editor with no counterpoint is bad enough, but then there are two more criticisms of the controller in the same Wikipedia article!

Thank you for reading this. I am sorry to both you with what should not be something that has taken so many hours of time already. I really would appreciate it if you could look into this, since it is a longstanding unresolved problem with a Wikipedia page. Thank you.