User talk:Callanecc

Introduction

Hi - I've noticed that you've become a lot more active recently, and I just wanted to reach out and introduce myself. You cast a long shadow - Mz7 took me through CVUA training in 2018, and I believe the curriculum he used was mostly your work; I then used that curriculum to train quite a lot of new users, and I also believe that you trained RoySmith, who I have worked closely with since I started working SPIs in 2020. Essentially, I just wanted to say hi, but I also wanted to mention that I remain very open to constructive criticism - I'm one of the more active CUs at SPI at the moment, so if you ever find yourself scratching your head at something I've done, please don't hesitate to let me know. I am always grateful for a steer from an old hand. Happy new year, and good to see you back. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Girth Summit Yup, I'm a Callanecc trainee (and good to see that you're active again!). I've been trying to pass on the wisdom to @User:Jack Frost and @MarioGom, although I've drifted away from SPI lately and gone for the deep dive on WP:DYK. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the intro Girth Summit. I was actually looking at the CVUA still in my subpages a couple of days ago wondering if it ended up being helpful. I'm glad has been! Ah yes, the training of Roy, I remember it well, I think that material also ended up being passed around as well. I'll let you know if I notice anything. 😊 Nice to see you around Roy, I hadn't seen your username much as SPI, but the DYK focus explained it. I spent some time working on the queues at some point, always interesting to see, sometimes fascinating. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

SA20 links

Hi. I saw you posted on on of the anon edits on an SA20 site that is adding the fake site. Whoever it is is adding that site to all the SA20 related sites. Anon has also started adding a fake site to the ILT20 sites. I added all the official sites yesterday for all the SA20 teams but anon changed them all back to the fake site this morning. I don't have time to revert them back now so thought I would let at least one other editor know what was happening, especially since the tournament starts today. Looking for info for it was how I found out about the fake sites to begin with ... XinJeisan (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@XinJeisan: I've blocked the IP range that's been used to add the links so that should stop them at least for the next three days. If they come back after the block and keep adding the links let me know and I'll see what else I can do. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. XinJeisan (talk) 08:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you !!

Thank you for your prompt reply regarding the sockpuppet investigation. I have been investigating for the past week and have uncovered a sock farm engaged in UPE. I have also gathered additional evidence outside of Wikipedia. I can mail you if needed. I think you should also have a look at https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Window369. All the articles created by this sock farm are eligible for G5. Could you review this and delete the eligible UPE articles so that I don't need to individually tag all of them with G5. Akevsharma (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I've deleted all except Tharun Moorthy as it has been extensively edited by other editors. Any off-wiki evidence should be sent to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org so that it can be reviewed by the CheckUser team. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Callanecc, I am uncertain if it is appropriate to bring this up here, but I am trying to avoid the hassle of opening another sockpuppet investigation. A new account, KingKIVA has been created a few hours back and their first edit was creating a draft for a non-notable film actor, similar to what the previous sockpuppets of SuhailShaji786 used to do. The previous sockpuppet investigation was closed only a few hours ago. I was wondering if it is necessary to reopen the investigation or if you could take a look into it and take the necessary action. Akevsharma (talk) 08:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

If you could file a new case I'd appreciate it. It's probably worth us requesting a CheckUser take a look this time. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done Akevsharma (talk) 10:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Making true statements about bad behaviour

It's a little unclear, yes, how one is to seek help with egregious behavior if one cannot describe for what is at at ANI when slandered on one's eighth or ninth attempt to draw attention to it. i realize you don't know me and several other people probably recused, so I do not want to give you, personally, a hard time, but seriously, have you read that ANI thread? And please, what am I to do about his aspersions against me? He is, right now, still trying to keep rape by Russian soldiers out of Wikipedia, and boasts that he doesn't read my posts. I am interested in the official answer to this question and don't want to berate you about what I think of this. Thanks. Elinruby (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm assuming that's in relation to Gitz? If so, the same time I warned you I gave them an indefinite topic ban from the Russo-Ukrainian War based on what was in that thread. The way to avoid it in the future is to provide or directly refer to evidence when making accusations about other editors. If Gitz continues to make aspersions about you in the Eastern Europe topic area (or another area covered by discretionary sanctions) report it to WP:AE so that further sanctions can be considered (such as an interaction ban. If it's in another topic area you can report it (succinctly and with evidence) to ANI. Your decision to post a photo of a chicken was pretty poor too - I'd suggest that avoiding incendiary things like that would be a good idea. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah. The cause of truth thanks you for that, then, since as you probably gathered, the problem went far beyond three or four untruths that were about me personally of the many in that thread. Just to tie up some loose ends, yeah, this seems a lot less unfair knowing that. I am not even surprised, really.

I don't claim the chicken was tactful ;) It seemed necessary at the time and considering that that several admins had unofficially told me pretty much that, possibly I was even correct in that assessment, and seriously, pretty much the same complaint had been getting "no appetite" for months at every noticeboard there is, from most of them several times.

I *can* see that some other editors who agree with him are probably complaining about unfairness even at this, and probably would have howled had I not been warned. I am still deciding whether or not to appeal, as I suspect that saying that "chicken" might possibly have been true is not going to go over well ;) and I mostly hang out at French law where nobody is going to claim that mass rapes are not notable.

Quick followup on Gitz6666 though: I hope you blocked him from the topic area not just the page? Because he kept trying to build a case for Ukrainian war crimes in small spinoff articles. Since I do expect him to sign on with another account, what constitutes proof? Would a proclivity for certain unusual sources be enough? If that's a complicated question, answer it at your leisure, or just point me at a link, if there is one that covers that.

I suspect he will gravitate back to proving Ukrainian war crimes not to messing with me personally, even though he was pretty angry with me. But I am not his mission; he dislikes VM much much more. Thank you for explaining that to me; I came back in to ask about this because I noticed your experience on your user page after my last post. Cheers. Elinruby (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

"The cause of truth thanks you for that" is probably not very helpful too. Yes, Gitz is banned from making any edit about or editing any page about the Russo-Ukrainian War. Regarding using a different account to try and get around the topic ban, that would be sock puppetry. Wikipedia:Signs of sockpuppetry gives some ideas on what to look for but, yes, using similar sources on similar articles to argue similar things would probably be enough evidence. Obviously, it's impossible for me to say that definitively as we're talking in hypotheticals. Hopefully, Gitz will spend 6 months editing positively in other areas and then file an appeal. If you suspect sock puppetry you can make a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations (there are instructions there in the lead section in a collapse box). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

PPS If I decide to appeal I may have more questions about evidence later as I did provide 40-50 links, and I am wondering right now if the problem was that they had been so extensively argued with (?) Right now, though, let's just stick to the question of what a checkuser would need, assuming of course a named a count. I get the part about geolocating an IP, on a basic level anyway. Thanks some more. Elinruby (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, my opinion is that the only successful way to appeal the warning I gave you would be to (1) demonstrate that you were so extensively provoked that you deserve special consideration for everything you said and/or (2) that you had already provided evidence in the ANI thread to support everything you said in ANI thread (especially in the diffs I referred to) that the warning was incorrect.
If I were filing an SPI in this situation, I'd almost certainly be asking a CheckUser to have a look. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Alright alright ;) You're right and I am not going to go out and throw a party. I'll even let the other people I was talking to at the sexual violence page figure it out for themselves as they are all quite competent and capable of doing so. Elinruby (talk) 03:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry out of synch. I hadn't asked for an SPI, but, well, I have imposed enough on your time for now. Since I am not going to name names proving the chicken part would be pretty tough, except for all of the non appetite stuff going around. I personally don't feel at the moment that I strayed very far into hyperbole, if at all, but I'll sit will that a bit then make an organized case.Thanks. Elinruby (talk) 03:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread your post, I thought you were asking (if and when you do file an SPI) if you should ask a CU to take a look and I was saying yes. I now see that you were just asking how much a CU would need, which wouldn't be as much as what I said above but it really depends on the situation. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

T-ban

So eventually it was "battleground behaviour" and "tendentious editing"! It's OK, I don't resent it and I won't hold a grudge. However, I'd like to understand a few things about why the decision was taken. I feel that you could help me understand whether and how to appeal.

1. What was decisive for your decision: the high number of users in favour of the t-ban (nine users: Volunteer Marek, My very best wishes, GizzyCatBella, TimothyBlue, Elinruby, Cambial Yellowing, Horse Eye's Back, GabberFlasted, Jeppiz) compared to those against (four users excluding myself: Mr Ernie, François Robere, Pincrete, Levivich), or the strength of the arguments used in the discussion (discussion undoubtedly too long)? Or perhaps some comment of mine in particular, or a comment by one of my interlocutors that seemed decisive? Or a mixture of all these things?
2. I'm a bit sorry about the "tendentious editing". Did you check the diffs I provided showing that I edit also for the Ukrainian side? See in particular 02:13, 13 January 2023, but also 08:26, 13 January 2023 and 21:32, 13 January 2023. Do they not prove that I at least tried in good faith to comply with NPOV? My very best wishes himself acknowledged that I made "many valid edits in this subject area" (16:59, 14 January 2023). Furthermore, I mentioned and linked to several threads I opened where my views achieved consensus (at the very least, one or two RfCs and one thread at AN), I mentioned that I wrote nearly 1/3 of War crimes during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, and I mentioned (but didn't ping to avoid WP:CANVASS) that there are editors who often or occasionally agree with me. Isn't achieving consensus at odds with being tendentious?
3. Re battleground, I admit that in my eyes the EE area is kind of a battleground. I believe I found the battleground ready and waiting for me, but who knows, maybe I did my bit to polarise the field and pollute the air. However, I was wondering: was the argument put forward by Mr Ernie, Pincrete, François Robere and myself that it isn't fair to target one editor and leave the others untouched, since the others may have been as much or more responsible than me in creating the battleground, in any way convincing to you? As I said in the discussion, I have the feeling that AN/I isn't the right place to have our policies applied impartially to polarising issues such as the war in Ukraine (at 23:08, 11 January 2023). I also mentioned that El C suggested that perhaps ArbCom was the right forum for this kind of controversy in the EE area (09:53, 13 January 2023). Did you consider the possibility that he was right?
4. At the end, I made a comments that may sound a bit WP:NOTAFORUM-like, but which I think is significant of my take on "battleground behaviour" and "tendentious editing". It's at 19:29, 14 January 2023. Have you read it? What do you think of it? If there is any truth to it, and my view of the EE area regarding the Russo-Ukrainian war is not purely delusional, aren't you afraid that by removing me, and only me, you have unbalanced the area, eaving it prey to warmongering spirits?

I know it's a lot of questions, but there is no hurry: you can answer whenever you want. But I would be very grateful if you would answer all my questions. I promise never to reply, to spare you the waste of time of a long discussion. Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 04:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Re 1: One of the reasons I imposed it as a discretionary sanction rather than a community-imposed sanction was that I wasn't weighing consensus in the discussion. The discretionary sanction was based on a range of evidence and arguments that had been brought up in the ANI thread. For example, your conduct in and referred to in this AN thread from December, this comment from you (cf. the first paragraph of VM's reply).

Re 2: The tendentious editing I was referring to was specifically about the following sections from that page: §2.5, §2.9, §2.17 (since I have them to hand: eg 1 & eg 2 (your last comment in that section). It's not necessarily that you only edit on one side of the dispute (which you don't) it's the approach you take when you are editing.

Re 3: I think seeing it as a battleground is a good reason to take a break from it. Spend 6 months editing positively in other areas then appeal the TBAN and come back with some fresh eyes. Re ArbCom, editors are free to file an arbitration case but since one hasn't been and at least this issue can be resolved with a discretionary sanction I have. If you want to file a case let me know and we can work out a way forward by modifying the TBAN - ArbCom would likely do the same for you.

Re 4: It's good that you're self-reflective and can identify your offwiki point of view, I won't comment on whether that appears to be the way your editing appears onwiki. Whether or not it's being left to "warmongering spirits" (which sounds like more WP:BATTLE) is really separate to whether or not the TBAN is justified. To use a different example, an admin should necessarily consider that when blocking someone who is edit warring against multiple other editors.

Hopefully that answers your questions in sufficient detail? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

By all means, thank you - your answers were comprehensive and helpful. I appreciate the time you have taken to untangle the intricate discussions I've been involved it. I was surprised by the reference to my "conduct in and referred to in this AN thread", which I hadn't perceived as problematic. Re filing a request at ArbCom, I don't intend to do this on my own without first receiving input from the community; I thank you for willingness to modify my TBAN in that case. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand that the T-ban applies also to my talk and other user talk discussions, including conversations about the t-ban itself. Is this correct? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the only exemptions to it are at WP:BANEX. You can engage in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution such as clarifying the ban but can't talk about the topic area outside of the limited scope of getting clarification or appealing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, could you please instruct me on how to interpret the scope of my T-ban on "Russo-Ukrainian War". I noticed that the message you left me (here) is missing the "broadly construed" clause. I just received an automatic notification to comment on an RfC about a 19th century Russian-Ukrainian historian: does it fall under the domain of the Russo-Ukrainian War? And what about contemporary Russian and Ukrainian politics not directly related to the Russo-Ukrainian war? Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't include 'broadly construed' primarily because that could effectively prevent you from editing anything that has a connection to the conflict. Technically you probably could contribute to that RfC but you would need to be very careful that you don't talk about the conflict between Russia and Ukraine as a reason for including or not including the content. Also that any sources you refer to that justify your argument also don't talk about the conflict. To me, the conflict seems like an inherent part of the discussion which would be required as part of the RfC so it's probably best not to participate unless the comment you want to make is very clearly not related to the conflict at all. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

If I were to talk about the Russo-Ukrainian war as a reason to include or not include content about a 19th century historian, I would deserve to be blocked for trolling anyway, regardless of the t-ban... I am not eager to contribute to the RfC and I will follow your advice not to participate in that discussion, but there are topics in contemporary Ukrainian politics, not directly related to the war, that I'd rather not abandon, e.g. this article, which I had almost finished translating from the Ukrainian Wikipedia (year "2021" is still missing), and this discussion, which I opened and which seems to be over anyway. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Derussification in Ukraine would definitely be covered by the TBAN. You could potentially still participate in the BLPN discussion but you'd need to be cautious. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I wouldn't have guessed that Derussification in Ukraine was covered by the TBAN - I would have thought it was related to, but not included in, the Russo-Ukrainian war. This mismatch implies that it's very likely that I'll have to ask you again in the coming months and years to clarify the exact scope of the sanction. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello again. Today an RfC I had started in October was closed [1]. The closer addressed me personally and I would like to reply on their talk page to let them know that I have received a topic ban and that therefore their suggestion to start over with a new text is not feasible. Despite the Consensus to add (much of) the information, this information will not be added because the editors who objected to inclusion (the same ones who apparently didn't show a "battleground mentality" and therefore were not topic banned...) will never write such a text. I'm now writing to you because I would like to know if this kind of comment on my part would be a violation of the topic ban. In my opinion, the topic of my comment on the closer's talk page would not be the war in Ukraine as such, but rather the consequences of my topic ban, i.e. the impossibility of enforcing the consensus reached in the RfC. Please let me know. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@Jc37: FYI of the above regarding Gitz's topic ban and their concern that they won't be able to implement it themselves. @Gitz6666: Done for you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Callanecc, and thank you for the ping/note.

I was not aware of the topic ban in question when closing the discussion.

My comment in the close was referring to a couple attempts by Gitz in the discussion, which seemed to me to be good faithed attempts in the discussion to find middle ground and a way forward. I have not looked at any of their editing history.

As for the close itself, if the editor is under a topic ban, then, as I presume we're all aware - per WP:TBAN - regardless of whether others may or may not wish to continue productive discussion about the topic, the editor should just let it go and walk away.

I can understand this might not be the outcome the editor may have hoped for, but things are as they are.

And also, though I presume it could probably have gone without saying, but just for clarity in case anyone else asks in the future, I'm not "wearing my admin hat" for this, and have no problem deferring to your discernment in all of this.

If either of you have any other questions for me, please feel free to ping/leave a note, etc., as appropriate.

I hope you both are having a good day and wish you both well. - jc37 15:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@Jc37. I understand entirely, and I'm aware that it is not up to me to implement that RfC. This is a pity, though, because as you know, with the cooperation of other editors we had already prepared a text that took on board the comments from the discussion while implementing option 3: it is here. It is the result of my good faithed attempts to find a middle ground solution - I thank you for your appreciation in this regard. Despite being T-banned for having a "battleground mentality", I've always tried to mediate and find a consensus. Unfortunately, one can develop a battleground mentality at various times in life, one of which is when one is actually on a battleground... as I have tried many times to explain without success, that battleground was already there and I did not create it: I have always tried to cooperate with good faithed editors and to fully respect our policies and guidelines. Anyway, because of this unfortunate situation the !votes of nearly a dozens Wikipedians will remain without effect. Is there any way to avoid this outcome? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Gitz - The simplest answer to your question is: Let it drop.

I understand how it can feel to not be able to engage in a topic that you care about. But at this point, you've been topic banned from the topic. Please just let it drop.

I wish you well. - jc37 08:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, @Callanecc, I just wanted to draw your attention on this essay on "Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust". You will see that some of the editors involved there are the same ones who asked for my topic ban from the Russo-Ukraine war area; you will also see that the patter of behaviours described in the essay is identical to the one I complained about on various occasions (on this, I can provide many diffs). Contrary to Icewhiz, I did not create sockpuppets nor engage in off-wiki doxxing: I reacted to this kind of deeply problematic nationalist editing by opening several (maybe too many) community discussions, where my arguments often achieved consensus. I was always civil and respectful, I had no secret agenda, my behaviour was in line with policies and was inspired by NPOV and V concerns. I'd like you too please reflect on this and possibly reconsider the sanction you applied to me. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

For External link

Recently I add a external link that is very relevant with Bangladesh recipes. Who want to know more about Recipe of Bangladesh. Please add that link again that is more helpful for readers. Wp Umme Habiba (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Wp Umme Habiba: Wikipedia has specific rules on when links to external websites can be added. Have a look at Wikipedia:External links for more information. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I award you the Anti-Vandalism Barnstar!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I award you the Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your numerous and quick actions against vandalism on the Wikipedia platform. Congratulation! ChaseYUL99 (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Private question

Hello and good day to you. Can I send you an email? I have some questions that I'd want to ask in private. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 19:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure can, just note this before you do. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Changes from DS to CT

Hello. Am I allowed to ask a question at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard concerning the change announced, concerning DS to CT? I'm asking due to my current 't-ban', which might be affected by the change. I don't want to ask my question there & have someone yelling that I've breach my t-ban. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Looking at WP:AC/CT#Continuity I don't think there would be any changes to the TBAN. Per WP:BANEX you can ask "for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban". Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

A longer block may be in order

Per the response to your block here [2]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Dallavid

Hi. Do you think it is appropriate for this user to come along and remove an entire sourced section from an article, despite ongoing discussion at talk? [3] This user has recently received a logged warning for edit warring: [4] Thank you. Grandmaster 22:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not ideal but, you and reverting it was also not a great idea. There seems to be agreement in the discussion that the section on Vardanyan needs to be shortened. It's now just a matter of developing a consensus version of text. That takes discussion not edit warring. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree, reverting is never good. I rarely revert anything, I prefer consensus building and dispute resolution, in accordance with the rules. I made 2 proposals on talk on how to better summarize the text, trying to build consensus. But then Dallavid comes along and simply removes the entire section. I don't think it was a constructive approach. Anyway, thanks for the attention to this topic, and placing the article on notice. Much appreciated. Grandmaster 09:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on the discussion as best I can. Now that there's an agreement to shorten the content hopefully it will make the discussion more focused on doing that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Grandmaster 10:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Was it appropriate for you to restore the new section you had just created when there was already a strong consensus against it? --Dallavid (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Speaker Knockerz

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Speaker Knockerz. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Célestin Denis (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Topic ban

Hi, I'm not sure why you think I have been "attacking people" when the people in question have been composing libelous content (which, in and of itself, can be considered to be attacking a person), and I was rightfully calling it out.

The discussion with regards to my Russia/Ukraine-related activities on Wikipedia has very little in common with my activities regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh region. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Note: I originally edited the Artsakh blockade article in order to make it easier to read. I did several copy-edits to the lead and to the various subsections. Subsequently, I became involved in the dispute over the "Arrival of Ruben Vardanyan", because this section had suddenly appeared in the article, and it seemed questionable. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I linked some revisions in particular in the notice I left on your talk page which demonstrate the behaviour I was referring to. I can give you specific quotes if you need? Given that similar issues have presented in the topic area discussed in the AE thread and in relation to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict they seem, in fact, to be linked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Did you agree with the allegations made against me recently at my talk page? Because, I did not. The user Grandmaster had written an entire section in which he accused Ruben Vardanyan of being a Russian puppet, and I pointed out that some of the wording, such as "if Vardanyan was its man", seemed like it was personally attacking Vardanyan. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

As I referred to in the TBAN notice, yes, you made personal remarks about the behavior of other editors on the talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree that my "personal vendetta" comment was a personal attack. I was pointing to specific policies, and I provided legitimate reasons/evidence for my assessment. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

It was. The fact that you can't see that it was suggests that you need a break from that topic area. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by the "it was" argument. Some reasoning would be helpful. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

You were making an accusation about the contributor, not the content. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

But the content was entirely written by the contributor? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I will also point out that I said "Grandmaster's paragraph is a personal vendetta against Vardanyan", which does mean that I was specifically addressing the paragraph (i.e. the paragraph about Vardanyan inside of the article itself, not on the talk page). The paragraph just happened to be written by Grandmaster. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Article talk pages are not the place to discuss conduct issues, there are noticeboards for that. The purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of the articles not the people who put the content into the article, the second sentence in the no personal attacks policy explicitly states comment on content, not on the contributor. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

But as I pointed out, I wasn't really attacking the person. In this context, the term "personal vendetta" serves as a synonym for "hit piece". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

In the specific comment about "personal vendetta", I was leading directly into my argument that the section qualified as libel. So, in that respect, I don't think it was really a personal attack against Grandmaster, and it was instead a criticism of the section that Grandmaster had written. Please take note of the clause "This is not an encyclopaedic way to frame the allegations...". As you can see, I was primarily discussing the content within the article at that point in time, and Grandmaster's name was only mentioned because he's the person who wrote the bulk of that content. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni's talk page

• Hi Callanecc, hope you're doing well. Just wanted to leave a small comment regarding this: I was happy to see Jargo being self-critical on my talk page [5], [6] – I believe it's a good quality to have especially for Wikipedia. I also wanted to ask whether their comments should've been entirely removed by a different editor? Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry to bother you again Callanecc, please just revert if you're not interested (I'll completely understand), but this was the blpn comment and the whole purpose of the non-issue discussion opened on my talk (with follow-up WP:HUSH even when I asked the user to stop). ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what you're asking me to do here? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps a warning to the user to stop bothering and borderline harassing my talk with pseudo-lectures that I didn't ask for? If I did anything wrong with that comment, I'll gladly take criticism. But I don't think that simply providing the WP:undue context regarding an issue highly (almost entirely) challenged/discussed as undue on the talk (especially when it's the first time of it appearing outside the talk) is "wrong" in any way. In fact, OP themselves [7] and a third-party [8] (from Abrvagl's own thread) have commented the same undue, which I also don't think is wrong in any way.

  I just don't fathom how Abrvagl thought this was an issue at all, no less "educating" me in blpn, coming to my talk with the same lecture, and then commenting this gaslighting reply again when I kindly asked them to stop the non-issue discussion on my talk. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

  You've explicitly made a request for Abrvagl not to comment on your talk page per WP:USERTALKSTOP now. If they ignore WP:USERTALKSTOP you can make a report at WP:ANI if you feel it necessary. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the help. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

2022–2023 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh

One question. Is it Ok to remove all the sourced information from the article, when the discussion is still ongoing? [9] I suggested to take the issue to WP:BLPN, if Jargo Nautilus thought it was libelous, but he simply deleted everything. I took it to BLPN myself, but I don't think it is Ok to simply delete everything in the absence of a clear consensus. Grandmaster 10:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

There's no harm in having it not there while a consensus (shortened) wording is established. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I made 3 different proposals on the wording at talk. And I hope BLPN discussion will lead to third party opinions on the subject, in particular as to whether there are BLP and UNDUE issues with the sources that discuss Vardanyan. Grandmaster 13:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi. It appears that the BLPN request did not result in any third party opinions. And as you can see, some users object to the inclusion of the information about Vardanyan in the article even in the shortened form. But I don't think that publications in mainstream international media and opinions of top experts could be considered fringe or undue. What do you think would be appropriate as further steps for the dispute resolution? Grandmaster 11:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Most WP:RS consider Azerbaijan's desire to speed up the resolution of the Karabakh conflict and other contentious issues in its favor as the reasons for 2022–2023 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh (just a couple of RS, more in the article: [97], [98], [99]). Even the so-called "activists" claimed (and highly doubted) version is allegations of "illegal" gold mining [14]. Just because 1-2 sources mention Vardanyan doesn't mean he's a reason or factor for the blockade, and to add him as such in the article would indeed be WP:undue considering the majority of WP:RS don't even mention him in context of blockade or that he's a reason/factor for it – just wanted to clarify this part. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

A request for comment that suggests the options (e.g. long/status quo version, shortened (paragraph or two) version, very short (a sentence or two), no mention) would be the next step in the dispute resolution procedure to assist in gaining third party options. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Alright, thanks very much. Will do. Grandmaster 16:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

A small question: Is the status quo version in this case the "no mention" option as the information was added very recently and challenged on talk almost immediately? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah probably. I've struck "status quo" in my commment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Callanecc. The RfC has been launched, but I feel like "with all the relevant details" part in the long version text should be removed as it's not neutral and seems to be OP's own opinion injected into one of the RfC options. Thoughts?

The OP also links their own sandbox in the RfC which only includes sources presumably aimed at supporting inclusion. I believe the sandbox link in RfC should also be removed as something like that should be argued in one's own vote and it makes the RfC non-neutral. I also think someone with the experience of Grandmaster should've been lot more diligent on this matter overall. Can you please take a look? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I changed "relevant" to "more". You could have discussed that with me, I would have fixed that. As for sources, I think the voter should be informed which particular sources are being discussed. I did not want to waste space at RFC, and created a separate page for that purpose. If Callanecc considers that inappropriate, I can move it to my own vote. Grandmaster 21:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I changed "relevant" to "more". You could have discussed that with me, I would have fixed that. - Could you please just keep it as "long version"? As it doesn't make sense to me, are we going to add next to Shortened version "with less details" now? See, just keeping it simple makes most sense. Also I wanted to ask a neutral third-party and an admin's thoughts that's why I came here.

As for sources, I think the voter should be informed which particular sources are being discussed. I did not want to waste space at RFC, and created a separate page for that purpose. - Grandmaster, the RfC template isn't designed for your own sandbox with couple sources you cherry-picked/included that specifically are aimed at supporting (supposedly) your own voted option, while you seem to have omitted any other sources that don't even mention Vardanyan (which happen to be overwhelming majority). If you want to argue with those four sources, please add that sandbox link to your own vote, how would that "waste space at RFC"? You literally would have to move the cherry-picked sources' link from the RfC to your own vote comment, that's it. Also do you not understand that by your own problematic logic, everyone can add their sources' link to the RfC and it'll become a non-neutral farse? There are individual votes for a reason, RfC template should always be kept neutral. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

But the whole point of the RFC is to ask the community whether to use these particular sources or not. If we don't link them to the RFC text, how would the voter know which exactly sources are being discussed? And I changed it to "long version". I hope this part is resolved now. Grandmaster 21:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

But the whole point of the RFC is to ask the community whether to use or not these particular sources. – How is that the reason for the RfC when Vardanyan's info you've added was mostly challenged as WP:undue? To prove something is undue, someone like me (who voted Option 4 – no mention) by virtue has no choice but to provide the overwhelming majority of sources that would demonstrate actual blockade reasons/factors and that Vardanyan relation to blockade happening is highly undue. Do you not see that this makes your highly cherry-picked sandbox link in the RfC statement itself non-neutral? Not only it's cherry-picked (by yourself as the OP) with four sources that support a specific option of RfC, it omits the vast majority of WP:RS that could be used to easily argue for Option 4 as an example. Then this creates the issue of every editor adding their own sources/sandbox in the RFC template, which'll make it a farse. That's why you need to link your sandbox (which includes couple specific sources) in your vote itself. Do I really need to explain the second time that an RfC template should be kept neutral of any viewpoint or sources cherry-picked by OP no less considering there is a highly challenged WP:undue factor here?

If you still want to argue, I'd kindly urge waiting for Callanecc's third-party input instead. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I moved the link to sources on Vardanyan to my own comment, to address ZaniGiovanni's concerns. But I would appreciate if Callanecc could advise if those sources are better linked to the RFC question, or my personal comment. Thanks. Grandmaster 22:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I may be able to give a thorough answer to you (if Callanecc doesn't mind), as someone involved in the discussion: the info you've added was challenged to be removed by at least four editors on talk, and edited-out/cut by three [10], [11], [12], another three editors suggested shortening it. I would call this the definition of something being disputed hence WP:ONUS applies: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content – meaning you. Until then as you mentioned, there is no consensus for its inclusion. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

BLPN

Hi Callanecc, hope you're doing well.

I removed rather large and irrelevant material since, in my experience, the larger a thread becomes, the less likely it is that someone would respond. I was referring to WP:TALKOFFTOPIC and WP:NOTFORUM, as well as my prior observations of editors removing irrelevant comments.

However, I think you are right, although my intention was to aid the dispute resolution, from side it may be misinterpreted considering that I am "part of the dispute". As such, may I ask that you, as an uninvolved party, review the aforementioned comment and decide whether keeping it will be beneficial to the discussion? Because the aforementioned comment literally describes a story that has absolutely nothing to do with the BLPN topic. For example: In the South Caucasus region, part of the former USSR, there is a territorial conflict between two countries, Armenia and Azerbaijan...; In 2020, Azerbaijan successfully launched an invasion of Artsakh...; In the next two years, Azerbaijan economically developed the territories.. I'm not sure how literally copying and pasting the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict article's content is relevant to and beneficial to the BLPN.

Thanks in advance! A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 09:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I've collapsed part of it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't copy-paste content. All of that info was written in my own words? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, the discrepancy which had to be mentioned is that this is a "BLPN" case that applies to an article that isn't actually the main article of the person in question. So, obviously, it has to be explained what the article actually is, where the dispute is occurring, and how the situation might qualify as BLPN in the first place. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration case Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 opened

Hello Callanecc,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 10, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Error?

Your post at Z's talk page and your entry at the log have the p ban ending January 18. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 07:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like I'm still working a month behind. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

A quick question

Dear Callanecc,

I was wondering if my ban, which concerns “gender-related disputes”, relates to sexual violence or anything concerning sex. I would assume not as the first is about culture wars whereas the second is not, but just thought to check. For instance, I added some information to an article about someone not so good (to say the least), Andrew Tate. I added some details about recent news about his trafficking but it was reverted to err on the side of caution. The information has been added by someone else now but I thought to add at first it as it was not to do with a gender related dispute. However, this led me to think that this might require enquiry with you.

Thank you,

Scientelensia (talk) 07:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it would definitely cover sexual violence. I'd imagine that most if not all edits relating to Andrew Tate would be convered by the topic ban. Whether it would include everything related to sex, I'd say no, but you'd need to be careful. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thank you! Scientelensia (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 update: Parties added, evidence phase extended

Hello Callanecc,

Three parties have been added to the Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 arbitration case. The evidence phase has been extended and will close on February 21, 2023.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 21, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek

Hey Callanecc,

Last month you closed a case involving Volunteer Marek. You found that he had "a history of personal attacks and/or casting aspersions", but did not believe that "a TBAN or block would be appropriate at this stage", and instead issued an "enhanced warning" in the form of an "indefinite civility restriction in the ARBEE topic area".[13], [14] In the same discussion, Synotia was blocked for 72h for a single derogatory comment, [15] and Michael60634 - "a fairly new account" - was T-banned for six months.

Since this "civility restriction" was issues=d, the following has happened:

1. 04:51, 25 January 2023 Suggesting Cukrakalnis is abusing a noticeboard.
2. 00:26, 2 February 2023 Accusing PilotSheng of WP:POINT and WP:EDITWAR
3. 20:14, 4 February 2023 Accusing Alaexis of "cherry-picking"
4. 03:52, 10 February 2023, 06:36, 10 February 2023 Accusing a BLP, who's also an editor, of serving as the mouth-piece of an indef-banned editor. A similar comment by another editor was seen as "beyond the pale".[16]
5. 05:22, 12 February 2023 Accusing me of the same.

Please act on your warning. François Robere (talk) 11:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)