User talk:Callanecc

Topic ban question

You can still discuss with the editor about the subject from which they have been topic banned? I wanted to tell you that I had got autopatrolled. Thanks a lot for the advises you had given me about the page moves, I had to avoid them. I like your signature, may I have it? OccultZone (Talk) 17:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: No you can't a topic ban extends too all pages so they aren't allowed to discuss what they've banned from anywhere on Wikipedia. Well done regarding getting autopatrolled. Of course you can :) Callanecc (alt) (talk) 03:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Rim Sim

Appealing user

Rim sim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Rim sim (talk) 06:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Topic banned from everything related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed, anywhere on Wikipedia per this AE request.

Administrator imposing the sanction

Callanecc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Statement by Rim Sim

I appeal to please lift the topic ban on me related to India,Pakistan,Afghanistan as:

• It all started when i called a user named "Darkness shines" as an "extremist" as he was regularly removing references and getting articles on Hindu politics deleted, he got all the articles on Koenraad elst's books deleted (only one is surviving and he proposed merger to it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Saffron_Swastika).

• I understand that it was a terrible mistake to call a user as such but i have done so purely in the Heat of the moment as he was regularly removing references of articles that are about Hindu politics and getting them deleted.

• When i have called him as an extremist ,instead of imposing an Interaction ban with him he cleverly got me banned from all topics related to India,pak,afghan as he sensed i was an Indian and he got all articles on elst book's deleted.

• That user Darkness shines has also recently got banned by you for 2 months from editing anything on Wikipedia.[1] .

• Also prior to interacting with him i have not edited any topic related to India,pak,Afghan, i was only editing about Hinduism and while reading about elst books i have seen that they are being deleted one after another, so i have interacted with him. I haven't edited any articles prior to the ban on those topics.

• I have learnt my lesson to Never Ever ever call any one in wikipedia by derogatory terms, i have understood the implications, please give me one chance as i am a good contributor to wikipedia , whenever i edit a topic i add references to it and only try to enhance them more.

• I'm trying to enhance the articles on Hinduism here,to edit Hinduism without referring to India would be akin to edit Judaism-christianity without referring to Jerusalem/Israel.

• since you have asked me to refrain from editing topics related to my ban and edit other topics for 1 month ,i have edited other topics which are not related to my ban for a month. I wish you lift the ban now.

• I hereby assure that i will never indulge in name calling any one, i'm a better person then what that transaction might have conveyed about me, kindly lift the ban on me.

• I may not have conveyed it in the best of terms but i have tried my best, i hope you understand this situation and lift the ban on me. your's sincerely Rim sim (talk) 06:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion among other editors about the appeal by Rim Sim

In my view, the battleground mentality is clearly visible. OccultZone (Talk) 14:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the user is trying to get better, he probably copied and pasted the last unban request here. I think rim_sim should contribute a little more on non-indian/pakistan/afghanistan pages. Like 200+ more? Then it will be all good. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Rim Sim

I'll have a look at this later on when I have some time. However note, that you are bound by the topic ban until you are notified on your talk page that it has been lifted or changed in another way. Callanecc (alt) (talk) 03:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@Rim sim: You are getting there, however I'd like to see more edits to a wider range of pages especially talk page discussions (which will come in time and more edits). Until then it's also worth noting that edits like this which remove arbitration enforcement templates which aren't explained can be seen as very disruptive. It's good practice to include an edit summary with every edit and while you don't have to I'd ask that you consider doing that whenever you can. Per the discretionary sanctions appeal procedures you can also appeal to WP:AE or WP:AN or to ArbCom. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Vin09

Hi. I am pretty concerned about this user being granted rollback. I don't see any understanding of vandalism in this user even after discussing. Please see [2], [3] and [4]. Maybe we could wait till the user shows a clear understanding. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 17:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Removing the userright requires evidence of abuse generally after they've been warned. So let's see what happens now. If they continue I'll give them a more formal warning that continued misuse will result in removal of the userright. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Another abuse. This is despite explaining to them earlier when to use and when not to. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 13:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

First warning was given last week.[5]. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 13:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

PC-protected pages expiring in June

Extend PC time for Megara, Tim Burton, Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, The Winds of Winter, List of The Looney Tunes Show episodes? --George Ho (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I've semi'd one, and added more time to two of the PC protections. Let's see what happens with the other two. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

What about Vermiform appendix, Tybalt, Juliet, Characters in Romeo and Juliet, and Ink Master (season 4)? --George Ho (talk) 02:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

mint press news

you topic banned me for 3 months from Mint Press News - and recently a single purpose account has scrubbed out mention of the editor specifically saying she wanted to 'correct' American views on Syria and Iran - (MInt press news is just a front for the iran regime views imo and is rabidly pro-Assad regime --

and then the SPA editor added this ' A media adviser for Mint Press is Kate Madonna-Hindes Hindes’ is the business strategist and media relations adviser for MintPress. Hindes is an industry leader, national author and keynote speaker on emotional integrity and authenticity in today’s online media. With 15+ years of combined experience for news media, state government and Fortune 500 businesses. Notably, she sits on the coaching panel for Keith Ferrazzi’s Relationship Academy, alongside Chris Brogan and Tony Hsieh. Hindes is also the founder of beenthererockedthat.org, an HPV education network. Hindes was Recruited by the White House- Public Affairs Office Of Volunteerism for the Director of New Media position and helped augment the current administration’s position on Social Media within Volunteerism and Engagement while assisting with a proposal, allowing the department’s website to become HTML 5 ready, according to Girls Meet Geek.' - is that kind of encyclopedic content? 'emotional integrity and authenticity' ! ffs - and is 'girlmeetsgeek' an RS - the reason I got banned was because I objected to these SPAs using their edits to censor mint press news history of promoting pro-Putin pro-Assad pro-Iran theocracy views and replacing with anodyne waffle and self promotion. I think if you ban editors you have a kind of duty to keep an eye on articles - otherwise the SPAs ad propaganda pushers will find it way too easy to control articles they want to whitewash and deceive people about political and 'theological' loyalties .Sayerslle (talk) 13:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

another editor removed the waffle and self promotion but the Syria and Iran mention has still been excised - it was the editors own words being taken out for no reason imo ( no proper reason I mean, I can see why for a censoring type reason)- maybe the spa pov edits was a sockpuppeteer - but no admin has answered the request yet for that to be looked at - do you keep an eye on articles where you've got involved? Sayerslle (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The reason I ignored it is because (1) I forgot about after I saw the email and (2) it is extremely close to violating your TBAN as it doesn't meet the conditions in WP:BANEX. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

jargon. what is close to violating my Tban? asking if you keep an eye on articles ? - and didn't answer my question if you keep an eye on articles where you've banned other editors, so the article doesn't get skewed and whitewashed by SPAs. which is what will happen if no one keeps an eye on it. and the editor who added the pov stuff and waffle - anther editor has asked if that is checked for being a sockpuppet - will that be looked at? why are some checked quickly and others ignored ? I don't understand[6]Sayerslle (talk) 05:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Padmalakshmisx

Hi there. From what I see in the SPI case, Bioasia2013 is also a sock, but they remain unblocked. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 10:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nangparbat ‎

Callanecc, you should check the reports submitted on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nangparbat. There is no doubt in my opinion that the person is socking big time. Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Rape in Jammu and Kashmir, a page that was apparently created by the sock puppets is being dominated by this IP with unhelpful rant. Along with its talk page, I think that article should be protected, you may want to check the history.[7] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aalaan

Hi, I've filed another case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aalaan. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom Clerk Trainee

Hello, I am Mmddyy28 and I am interested in becoming a ArbCom Clerk Trainee. I have been on Wikipedia for a little while and am currently active in working on an adoption course set to be completed the week of July 20. I am interested in becoming a trainee because the tasks they do and the process of training interests me. Would you consider me? --Mmddyy28 (Contact Me Here) 19:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mmddyy28, thank you for your interest in joining the clerk team. Being an arbitration clerk requires a great deal of experience as we work in one of Wikipedia's most controversial and heated areas. Unfortunately you don't have the level of experience needed, however I'd encourage you to continue on Wikipedia and consider reapplying in 6-12 months when you have at least 1000-2000 more edits and have established yourself as a trusted member of the community. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Are Padmalakshmisx's articles eligible for G5 speedy deletion?

Callanecc, thanks for your efforts on the Padmalakshmisx case. I'm wondering if the articles he's created (for eg, these) are eligible for speedy deletion per G5, "Creations by banned or blocked users"?—indopug (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

 Deleted Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Russavia

[8] Are you not going to nuke those socks contributions? See,s to me that if the edits are left to stand then we just encourage him. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The only created pages I can find are Bell HTL-1 which is a redirect and Talk:Druk Air/Rewrite which is at MFD so it wouldn't be appropriate to speedy. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Dan Wagner Page

Callanecc, I wanted to write and thank you for locking the Dan Wagner page as there is a disgruntled ex-employee who has been vandalizing this page for the last few weeks since he/she and others were let go as a result of the Znap acquisition (which is referenced on the page). The reference 'Wagners management style has generated some controversy, with a number of current and former employees appraising it on independent sites very negatively [35]' relates to a site where he/she and others has sought to create negative sentiment. It is untrue to characterize the statement as being present on 'on independent sites' when only one site carries such propaganda. It would be appropriate therefore to remove this statement and link.

I work for the company and would be grateful if the page remained locked for the foreseeable future as we would prefer this page to remain unedited from now on and for the foreseeable future. Would that be possible?

Andy Muldoon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bothyventures (talk • contribs) 10:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bothyventures, I've left a couple messages on your talk page which might help. If the company wishes to make contact regarding the content of the article the best think to do is to contact our volunteer response team. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Callanecc, the underlying issues with the page have not been resolved. A number of valid points, independently sourced have been removed. For instance, all references to 'dial-a-dog' in relation to Dialog, have been removed despite being widely known and in numourous articles. The recent telegraph piece relating to a number of redundancies was also removed. This piece makes reference to an incident in which Dan Wagner wiped 10p of the share value of MAID by wearing a Donald Duck waistcoat to a press conference. This should also be represented in the article and yet is deemes vandalism by Powa employees. The page reads as a pr piece and clearly lacks balance and neutrality. I tried to raise this point with bothyventures to which he blanked his talk page and refused to engage in constructive discussion. Please can you comment and advice?66.249.93.141 (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The company is looking to launch an Initial Public Offering sooner rather than later and is removing all negative traces from the page, with regards to the Powa platform's history as an ex-Venda platform, and with regards to some of Wagner's failed acquisitions. These are appropriate to include in the page if the content is referenced and free from emotive content, which it is for the most part. Efforts should be made to tidy that content up, rather than rewriting the page to read as a PR piece for Wagner and Powa Technologies. Andy Muldoon who works at Powa and who has previously worked with Wagner at Venda stands to profit massively from a successful IPO, and should not be dictating what can and cannot be posted on the page. 89.242.91.197 (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that Bothyventures is giving warnings to users for 'vandalising' the pages. Those edits are adding references. He is directly attempting to compromise Wikipedia's integrity for his own benefit. 89.242.91.197 (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc, this user 66.249.93.141 and 89.242.91.197 and Ol King Col is the same disgruntled former employee I referenced in my previous post to you. I have had no such engagement from this user on my talk page so I have no idea why he/she is saying that I refused to engage. The users' comments about the company looking to launch an Initial Public Offering is incorrect and no comments have been posted on the page that were negative until this user started his/her vandalistic campaign. The page hasn't been re-written, just reverted to what has been on Wikipedia for years and years. I have no material interest in this other than trying to prevent malicious and deliberate vandalism on a otherwise fair and independent page on Wikipedia. I believe this user who has yet to identify himself/herself, should be barred from Wikipedia and prevented from acting in this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bothyventures (talk • contribs) 16:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

One more thing Callanecc, if you see the talk page for 66.249.93.141 you will see multiple abuses from this contributor and multiple references to vandalism. Please blacklist him/her to prevent further abuse. The same user masquerading under 89.242.91.197 has ONLY made negative contributions to the Dan Wagner page and Ol King Col has done the same. This use is malicious and deliberate in his/her attempts to undermine the independence of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bothyventures (talk • contribs) 16:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The wonderful thing about Mediawiki software is that it preserves a pages edit history. The edit that 66.249.93.141 is referring to, and that Bothyventures is denying knowledge of is this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bothyventures&oldid=612903892 The subsequent edit by Bothyventures was to blank the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bothyventures&oldid=612904438 Both of these are clearly visible in the pages edit history, and it's disingenuous for Bothyventures to deny knowledge of it. Dan Wagner has been quoted numerous times with regards to floating Powa Technologies, here's an article from Bloomberg http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-14/square-s-london-rival-targets-ipo-with-wallet-for-europe.html on the subject.

It should also be noted that the initial request for page protection by Template:U:Techtrek should be reconsidered. His edit history makes it clear that he is personally involved in putting a positive spin on Dan Wagner's online presence and is quite probably someone working for a PR agency hired by Powa Technologies.

With regards to accusations of vandalism, it is worth looking into who the users are who are removing content which is well referenced, regardless on whether that content is positive or negative. 89.242.91.197 (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I have created a COI case with regards to this incident. 89.242.91.197 (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you.

ARR on talk pages

Resolved

I just added one.[9] I hope nothing is wrong, I have a doubt if only admin can ARBcom admin can add. But if the move was improper, you can re add yourself. Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Your edit to India-Pakistan-Afghanistan sanctions seems to be related to Israel-Palestine. Or maybe I am mistaking. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Roll back revoke

On two pages I have used rollback for revert, only in a hurry to revert certain edit. At present, I'm not fully fit for using rollback unless I get familiarize with it. So, as if now please remove my rollback rights, I will contribute to wiki like I did before. Thank you.--Vin09 (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Benjamin Wey

Yes, it was intentional! (Though thanks for the heads-up as I often make mistakes.) If you check out the subject of the article, you'll see he's a highly controversial figure. Several of the people who've been editing it - assuming they are not all the same individual - clearly have a conflict of interest - and one of them actually left a threatening comment on DGG's user page. So I don't want to lift the protection until such time as we can be sure they are not coming back. Deb (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Deb. My opinion is that semi protecting an article (especially a new one) as the first protection is a bit heavy handed as there is no way to know whether the users will return in a week or will give up. The other issue with indef protections is that they are often forgotten about (based on my experience at RFPP) and end up being permanent. The issue I see with is how will you know if they are going to come back if the page remains protected, hence it doesn't expire so we never know if they return. Indefinite semi protection (per WP:PP) should only be used for heavy and persistent problems. Would you consider setting an expiry date in a couple months or a year to see if they return? Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I could do that, but then I will have to watch the page to find out (although I'm doing that anyway). I just think, bearing in mind the history of this topic, that there is a lot of potential for the article to return to its bad original form at some stage, even if it's a couple of years in the future, as this subject is going to be around for a long time. The protection I've put on it only prevents users who aren't autoconfirmed from editing it and that means the huge majority of bona fide users won't have any problem doing so. Only those with an ulterior motive for changing the wording will have a problem. Do you agree with that assessment of the situation? Maybe I'm missing something. Deb (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, however one of the 5 pillars is that anyone can edit so articles should be available to be edited at all times except where we need to protect them (first para in WP:PP). So in your example the page should be protected now and in a couple years in the future, not the time in between. The other thing is that IPs are bona fide users too and there are many reasons some don't create accounts so they shouldn't unnecessarily be prevented from editing. Also there is always the option of semi for a short period of time and pending changes as a more long term option. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, you've convinced me. I've now put it in pending changes mode, which means I need you to approve my latest amendment to the article! :-) Deb (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, actually, maybe I don't. See the latest developments on the article's talk page. Deb (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Only non-autoconfirmed accounts and IPs need their edits to be reviewed everyone else's edits are automatically accepted unless there are unaccepted edits still waiting. The IP hasn't moved to the article yet so it still might work, plus one IP or only a few can still be dealt with by rejecting edits. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Deleting a sanction notice

Hello, your sanction notice was removed.[10] Per WP:BLANKING, notices "regarding an active sanction" may not be removed by the user.

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

I've left them a message about the removal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hipocrite didn't say that you were sanctioned for "multiple SPIs".[11] Your attack came out of the blue; you said the SPIs I filed "were part of a pattern by a specific editor of accusing me (and numerous others) of socking over and over until the latest round was finally dismissed".[12] You are suggesting that there is misconduct on my part for filing the SPIs, in continuation of your campaign against me, e.g., 'high number of editors who have been accused and blocked by vzaak for being "socks"',[13] "vzaak has an inappropriate tendency to accuse people who disagree with them of sockpuppetry".[14] Moreover, it's absolutely not true that "numerous editors" or "high numbers of editors" had SPIs brought against them, as you claim. As Callanecc knows, the evidence of Tumbleman's sockpuppetry is quite solid. I wish you would look at the evidence instead of blindly believing the assertions of someone who has a reputation for being an Internet troll, a view also held by Wikipedia admins.

The problem, Askahrc, is that you believe so many things that just aren't true, such as that Barleybannocks and Alfozo Green were blocked as Tumbleman socks[15] (they weren't blocked, and they were never suspected socks). It was that unique idea that contributed to your getting nailed for sockpuppetry yourself, since you are the only one on the planet who has conceived it.

In your message on my talk page, you used quotes around "persistent harassment", suggesting that I said that, but I have not. You derogatorily passed off your attacks as "imagined slights" on my behalf. You made the same misrepresentations there as you did here.[16] vzaak 01:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Taking one example, it was nine days between the attack and my AE statement.[17][18] (My comment above explains the context of the attack.) It seems more likely that my statement was simply ignored than silently discarded as stale. Regardless, I don't understand why timing should be a factor in stopping a long line of personal attacks. What does one have to do with the other? vzaak 01:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Nitishkumartn

New reports have been submitted on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nitishkumartn. I know you had recently banned one of the sock, but I think that there are many socks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Abbott / Andreas

At last someone with the permissions has done something! Good!! Thanks!!!
(I find it frustrating how difficult it is to get any action from an admin in a reasonable timeframe. The fact that you've executed the actions appropriate to the situation has given me a nice warm feeling of confidence that the system can, and occasionally does, work.)
Sincere thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for those comments, very much appreciated. I'm glad my actions are appreciated. Kind regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Not wanting to labor the point, but: "Credit where credit is due". Pdfpdf (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Question Re TBAN

I am currently working on an article in user space. I need to know if I add this from one of my sources, would it be a violation of the TBAN? "The trafficking of women and girls in the form of abduction and sexual enslavement by military and/or rebel groups has also been well-documented and is reported to have continued in more recent conflicts across numerous countries including Angola, the former Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone, Liberia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Indonesia, Colombia, Burma, Afghanistan and Sudan" Obviously I would be paraphrasing it, but it does mention Afghanistan, so should I just drop that from what I write? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, including Afghanistan would be a violation of your TBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Dan Wagner Page Unlock

Hi, could the Dan Wagner page please be unlocked? The user who asked for the page to be locked down in the first place is an employee of the PR agency Dan Wagner employs to look after his online interests. Another employee of Dan Wagner has since been blocked as he had a clear conflict of interest in getting involved in this situation. The users involved in the edit war should have been dealt with rather than the page being locked down, as it's still in dire need of some sanity checks and for emotive language (both positive and negative) to be removed. The PR agency is involved in edit wars with ex-Powa employees across multiple sites, for example, two very obviously fake positive reviews were added to Powa's Glassdoor page on the 14th, which coincides with the time the edit war was occurring. All this lock down is doing is ensuring that Dan Wagner is able to use Wikipedia to project his own corporate interests, rather than in telling the real story behind the many companies he has run. Boomboombangbang (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary it's preventing them from editing and allowing more established editors (such as those who monitor WP:COIN to edit and fix the article. You can always request edits on the article's talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Palestine-Israel enforcement

Hello Callanecc. This is a template which I think should be marked as deprecated in line with your recent change to Uw-balkans.

Going through Category:Wikipedia arbitration enforcement templates there are a total of four templates which are used for DS notices that aren't yet marked as deprecated:

• Template:Palestine-Israel enforcement
• Template:Digwuren enforcement
• Template:Uw-9/11
• Template:Uw-9/112

Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I've depreciated all but Palestine-Israel enforcement, which also includes a mention of 1RR being in effect. When I've got some more time I'll add the depreciation format I've used with the others along with a message stating that 1RR is also in effect. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

 All done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

mint press news

hello Callanecc, if you wont look at this sockpuppet investigation[19], and are leaving a monstrously pov version of this article Mint Press News in place could I atleast tag the article without changing it until my 3 month block expires, as it is very poor at the moment and has excised all criticism , even ake sellstrom's , chemical weapons expert of the U.N , and adds reams of self congratulation and self promotion, really crappy,- if admins don't do anything to keep an eye on quality and aptness for an encyclopedia of content at least I should be allowed to tag the article, no? - as I have found you rude and unhelpful and negligent over the sockpuppet investigation relating to this page where you inserted your adminship I have written of my disagreeable and alienating interaction with you here [20]Sayerslle (talk) 11:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)