User talk:Callanecc/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

AN Notice

Please see [[1]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Viet Cong attack on Tan Son Nhut Air Base (1966)

Can you please protect Viet Cong attack on Tan Son Nhut Air Base (1966) again as the IP Socks are back vandalizing it again. Thanks Mztourist (talk) 07:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hope you return

I hope you will return because you do a great job for the project. Best wishes. 2402:1980:8251:EA50:36EB:227C:31CD:4EB5 (talk) 08:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sivakarthy/Archive#3 April 2019

Hii, you've tagged the socks but not blocked. Please let me know if i'm missing something. Thanks! -- CptViraj (📧) 10:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Backlog Banzai

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Resignation from the Arbitration Committee

I increased my activity on Wikipedia hoping that I'd have more time but, if anything, I've probably got less time now than I did then. For that reason I am resigning from the Arbitration Committee and have asked that my CU and OS permissions are removed. I've emailed the Arbitration Committee and requested removal of my OS and CU permissions on meta so am posting here to confirm and for any talk page stalkers. Hopefully I'll have more time for Wikipedia later this year or into next year. I also want to confirm that this has absolutely nothing to do with what's happening with the project but solely real life. Thanks everyone, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

This just crossed my watchlist - wishing you well - real life often gets in the way and is always a priority. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

You'll be missed, but RL always takes precedence. Take care and all the best, Miniapolis 13:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Enjoyed working with you the several years before, always a good voice of reason. Best of luck IRL. (PS: Ask for the tools back when your back please :) ) -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Callanecc, thank you so much for all the good work. Drmies (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll just say that I agree with the sentiments above - and that it was great working with you. Doug Weller talk 16:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm one of your fans, too, Callanecc. You were SO helpful to me when I started as an arb clerk. I've taken 2 wikibreaks for different reasons and I returned reenergized both times. I hope you will come back when the time is right for you. You will be missed in the meantime. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I, too, appreciate your work very much, and I wish you all the best. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks and good wishes. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for your service. Real life always takes precedence. Take care, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

developed countries

Hello

Editing Developed Countries, I read:

08:05, 14 May 2014 Callanecc configured pending changes settings for Developed country [Auto-accept: require "autoconfirmed" permission] (Persistent vandalism: and disruptive editing) (hist) The latest accepted version was reviewed on 6 February 2019. There are 14 pending revisions awaiting review.

Please review and accept changes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country#Comparative_Table_%282018%29

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozteller (talk • contribs) 02:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back, Callanecc!

I know you are only editing irregularly but it's nice to see you back, Callanecc! I hope you are having a great holiday season. Good luck to you in 2020! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Liz. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

farid valizadeh

Hi dear friend I did my best to create the best essay for Farid Valizadeh's encyclopedia. I used authentic sources and links. ThanksManiyababaee (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Media reports of persons hospitalized involving the 2019 vaping lung illness outbreak

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Media reports of persons hospitalized involving the 2019 vaping lung illness outbreak. 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. QuackGuru (talk) 11:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

applying for

Hi I did not reply. My friend Farid Valizadeh's article has been removed by you Please come back. This magazine has both credible external sources and links and category sources. Please help and revive this essay on the professor's side so that more resources can be added to the article with your help. Thank You happy New YearManiyababaee (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farid Valizadeh

This AFD discussion was closed due to the topic being "completely non-notable." However, it has come to my attention that Maniyababaee, the original creator of that article, who has attempted to disrupt the deletion discussion, has recreated it in his userspace. Now, I'm sure that that's an acceptable way to "save" a deleted article under other circumstances (for example, to fix WP:MOS violations), but not if an article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines, right? What's more: he wrote this as a draft for Wikipedia! Writing as spammy as this has absolutely no place on Wikipedia, and the chances of it passing the draft review process are exactly zero. WP:NOTHERE violation? ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 12:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villain (album)

I think that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villain (album) needs to be relisted a second time, if it got relisted the first time. If not, can you please explain why? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

It had already been waiting a few days post the 7 day mark following the relist with no further comments. Why relist for a second time when there is a consensus of sorts that had developed and hadn't been opposed. Redirection is an alternative to deletion that would satisfy the original nomination it was also one of the options you suggested. The policy based reason for keep (from DOOMSDAYER520) is that the article has coverage in reliable sources, but given it was weak and the reliability of those sources is in doubt I'm left with a policy-based deletion argument and an argument for keep/redirect that satisfies the vote of two participants (including nom). Effectively a redirect close in this manner is close to a soft delete in that the article history is still there so, if the album gets further coverage in reliable sources in the future that would meet GNG or NALBUM the article can be developed further from its 'current' state. So in summary, it's a why relist again in the hope of more comments (which didn't happen the first time) when a rough consensus has developed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Don't know who you are, but you're a legend for getting this stuff on Kitching happening. All the material on our political leaders needs to be more substantial. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Rahul Jogi Page Deletion

Hi you deleted my page because of you feel that its violating terms and conditions of Wikipedia and mentioned its including promotional content

I just want to clear that my purpose for creating page is not to promote any content, the fact is I was not aware about proper citation and submitted the content without proper formatting

I read out the detail after your message and suggestions, I will try to do more proper editing and also will keep in mind the purpose on this encyclopedia.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mukesh2032 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mukesh2032, the page has been deleted for two different reasons. The first is that it appeared to be mainly an advertisement rather than an encyclopedic article and the second is that the pages didn't show why the subject you were writing about are important and significant (the notability guideline is also important to read]]). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Nice to see you!

Hi, Callanecc,

Just ran across one of your page deletions...it's great to see you back! I hope you and your family are doing okay during these strange days. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Liz. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Counter-argument

The edit I made was to prevent the spread of misinformation to any who may come to this site seeking information to the specific topic I edited. Your reversal of my edit is also disruptive, as it spreads a false narrative. If you plan on undoing my second edit, I would also consider that disruptive action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by No Malarkey (talk • contribs) 02:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the article's talk page with which you can involve yourself if you wish. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

your opinion please...

You closed the AFD on Leul Abate as redirect.

I looked at the AFD after the closure. It concerned me as the inexperienced nominator did not seem to have made a meaningful attempt to comply with WP:BEFORE. CaptainEek based his or her delete opinion on the conclusion that Abate was "only notable for one event". In fact Abate seems to have been the world's only airline pilot to have lived through three separate hijackings. Mccapra's and Gyrofrog's delete opinions merely said "per CaptainEek".

So, if I look for additional references, and find that Abate is, after all, known for more than his role in Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961, do you think a meaningfully expanded version could skip a DRV?

@Dflaw4: @Alex-h:

• Philip Baum (2016). "Violence in the Skies: A History of Aircraft Hijacking and Bombing". Summersdale Publishers. ISBN 9781783727902. Retrieved 2020-04-09. Rickards, however, can consider himself relatively fortunate since Captain Leul Abate of Ethiopian Airlines has been skyjacked on at least three different occassions!{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Cheers Geo Swan (talk) 03:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

If you can show that he would meet the GNG separately from Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961, and hence that he is widely known for more than just that event (keep in mind that he would need to more than a trivial mention in relation to the hijackings) I can't see an issue in creating a new article. The new article that you create would need to be substantially different to the previous version. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• • Hi, as I said in the AfD, I would have kept the article. I, too, am aware that Captain Abate had experienced hijackings twice before the accident flight, which would be an extremely rare occurrence. If you were to challenge the decision and ask for another relist, I would offer my support. If you wish to create a new, expanded article, I would support that, too, but I'm not sure if there are any rules you need to follow given the recent "delete". Dflaw4 (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Callanecc. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Doug Weller talk 10:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

George Alenchery

I want to add a Syriac version of his name.... because all of the church add every bishops name in Syriac also Barek777 (talk) 07:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

You can post on the talk page an edit request which asks for your change to be done. But it does need to be in accordance with the manual of style. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Callanecc, WP:LTA is at play here. I've posted on WP:COIN regarding the case. Elizium23 (talk) 08:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Protect

Hello Cal, I left a page semi-protection request for Kyle Allen on the request page and was wondering if you would review and add the protection as it is justified- vandalism- unsourced info and people undoing revisions. Thanks. Happy Holidays Editor940 (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey Callanecc, I actually declined his report because there have only been 3 edits in April and there wasn't enough recent disruption to justify protection. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I left a message at RFPP, but given the stuff in March has continued to now I was happy enough to put pending changes on it for a month. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Question

Could you take a look at Sam Bradford? I am concerned about the recent IP vandalism and request just 1 month semi-protection to prevent further IP damage. I think it's pretty reasonable and there won't be any objections from others because it is justified- thanks. Editor940 (talk) 02:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

There's not enough recent activity on that page to justify a page protection per the protection policy. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

One other

Hello, Callanecc. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

See your talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Sock Puppet reversal at Darwin Talk:Darwin, Northern Territory

I find this rather strange as the explanation link in page history does not appear to work. This was done by user JavaHurricane who has done similar edits on other pages.I can not find any record os such sock puppet investigation. On page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations a user Outlander07 was reported as a possible sock puppet but it was done in the wrong place and then someone advised that user that the edit was done in the wrong place but never seems to have been done in the right place. Are these two things connected?Fleet Lists (talk) 08:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Fleet Lists, if you click on the link to Meme Lord 519's userpage it brings up this sockpuppet investigation which has been archived here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Davefelmer

I was curious, did you do any checks or investigation or just close. Govvy (talk) 09:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

As I said there, I wasn't convinced by the evidence presented in the SPI as it was (in my opinion) not strong enough after considering the rebuttal offered. With only 38 edits I don't believe there is enough evidence, yet, to demonstrate sockpuppetry based on what was presented in the SPI. That might change if there is additional evidence which wasn't presented or of ToeFungii makes further edits that appear related. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why it's so hard to perform some basic checks, clearly KyleJoan saw an issue. A newly created user account goes straight for a conflict and sides with one person. That's not normal. Most new users don't even know how to sign their own posts! I find it amazing how many admins just ignored the whole situation with those two. I miss Bbb23, at least he was straight forward! Govvy (talk) 11:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Conway

It seems fine to unprotect his bio now. Warmly, – SJ + 13:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I've set the semi to expire this time tomorrow and pending changes to expire in a week since there is still a significant amount of editing at the moment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Might as well

If your back, but not requesting CU back, you might as well become a clerk again. Your skills are spot on like normal. ;) -- Amanda (aka DQ) 10:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Amanda, I was sort of on the fence about whether to request CU back again, but I decided I would (and have). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I would support whichever one you want --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Your help at 2018–2019 Haitian protests is much appreciated. :) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 16:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

No worries Sashi. Let me know if it starts again. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Good to see you around :) Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Kevin. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I glad you see you back. By the way, would you take a look at [2], [3] and WP:LTA/Nu metal genre warrior from Texas#Confirmed and suspected accounts. 115.164.222.140 (talk) 08:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

L235, was this response from you? If so, you accidentally edited while logged out and I've suppressed the IP information for you. Please let me know. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Oshwah: That wasn't me Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

L235 - Interesting... the response seemed to fit, as if you accidentally logged out. *Shrug* Thanks for letting me know; I'll restore visibility to the IP information left above. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Changes to CheckUser team

After a request to the committee, the CheckUser permissions of Callanecc (talk · contribs) are restored.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 18:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Changes to CheckUser team

Actually phelanthrophist was my old account

Thanks Maizbhandariya (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Request to unprotect Disaster Movie

Hi I feel like Disaster Movie could finally remain unprotected. In the past year, only 21 edits were not accepted, and of those 21 edits, only 2 edits were pure vandalism, the rest were either good faith edits, or edits that were technically accepted because either the edit that followed was accepted by a reviewer or the following edit was automatically accepted. OcelotCreeper (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

SPI case: another evidence

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CuriousGolden
• Another similarity on Seljuk Empire: [4][5]

Even if they are two individuals, it seems they work together. Both are WP:NOTHERE in my opinion. --Wario-Man (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I've blocked both. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe Cassandrathesceptic and 92.14.216.40 are different users

Grateful thanks for your block on User:81.170.40.71 as a sock of User:92.14.216.40. Having experienced User:Cassandrathesceptic and associated IPs' years-long disruptive campaign though, I would be very surprised to find that 92.14.216.40 etc. and CtS were the same user. Although they appear to have broadly similar and sympathetic views and were evidently in cahoots at periods in the last few months, they have certain highly distinct and distinctive modes of expression (e.g. I've noted some usage of American spellings by 92etc) and, although there is a degree of overlap, their particular POV-campaign hobby-horses are pretty specific and distinct. The two sock-groupings have the same IP service provider but widely separate geolocations, one in Glasgow and nearby Ayrshire, the other almost entirely in neighbouring parts of Yorkshire, Lancashire and Greater Manchester. I am of no doubt that there are trolls with the skill and guile to construct two such distinct identities but for CtS to have done this would necessitate 7 or 8 years of preparation with a show of apparent technical ineptitude, plain just-not-getting-it and characteristic, almost verbatim dogged repetition of the same small handful of points scattergunned across numerous articles to then construct a geopgraphically discrete set of socks repeating a new and distinct set of points using a different idiolect, with some very subtle components. To be convinced of this level of patience, cunning and willingness to often appear dim-witted, I would prefer more evidence than their appreciation of each other views and egging-on of each other. If they are the same person, I'm very impressed.

Unless and until there is stronger evidence, I believe they should be treated as separate users since consolidating their records as one may make keeping track of them and identifying the characteristics of new socks of each more difficult. Thanks and best wishes. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mutt Lunker: I felt that there was a fairly big crossover between them, enough that there two different reports of the most recent IP that I felt was convincing from both masters. However, you have more experience of these users then me so if you're convinced, I'm happy to undo and separate them again? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I fully appreciate why they may initially appear to be from the same source but I'm regrettably steeped in familiarity with their campaigns. I have seen others draw that conclusion in the past and, though still open to the possibility, am as yet unconvinced. Ah, I see @Ostrichyearning3: also filed a report on 81.170.40.71, making a link with CtS. I'll give them a shout to see if they have further evidence. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, let me know how you go. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I haven't heard anything back as yet; Ostrichyearning3 doesn't appear to have been active in the last couple of days. As mentioned, I'm not aware of anything that would come close to clinching it as to them being the same user as CtS and an incorrect supposed association being cited as a justification for their block hands them a reason to feel aggrieved, despite their genuine crimes. Could you separate them again please? Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I've had a reply and there's no further evidence to link them, so could you undo the link please? Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Lost in transmission?

Between here and here? Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 13:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. I think I navigated away from the page halfway through the process. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Mywifiextsolutions

You may wish to revoke TPA.--Cahk (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

You accidentally removed mine. Thanks. Beshogur (talk) 09:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

No I didn't? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ShahabKhanJadoon1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey :)

Nice to see you pop up on my watchlist. Hope you're doing well. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 09:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Origin title problem on Göktürks page

Can you please check Göktürks editing history Nazarbaevax (talk) 04:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what you want me to look at but I'd suggest you look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Edit warring. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

There was an unnecessary detail in the content. There is a source clearly stated in the mentioned period but an editor used simple book written later by as a source and tried to mention the topic as a conflict, I fixed the issue but they kept editing back by claiming that Im vandalist Nazarbaevax (talk) 07:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Please block this sockpuppet

Bradv blocked Iamsayantanhazra indefinitely as a spam/advertising only account. Please block the sockpuppet account Sayantan.2020 per this report.Alexlatham96 (talk) 04:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

With reference to sockpuppet investigation

I have already disclose an another account Phelanthrophist have not abusivly use the Phelanthrophist after also being blocked for 2 days

have a great time

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maizbhandariya (talk • contribs) 16:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Modified your block

Just wanted to let you know that I modified your block on SoniaKaPappu to "indefinite" because I am pretty sure the account is WP:NOTHERE. The username is a WP:BLP violation in itself, to clarify: it refers to the son of the politican Sonia Gandhi, addressing him in a colourful word for "naïve". --qedk (t 愛 c) 13:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@QEDK: Thanks for letting me know. It might be worth changing the template to {{uw-uhblock}} as the one that's currently there is for soft blocks. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah rip, I delivered the correct template but forgot to reset the Twinkle log summary. --qedk (t 愛 c) 13:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Just a quick drive-by

Happy to see you as a CU. 😊 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk page access revocation

Hey Callanecc, hope you are doing well! First off, it was a nice surprise seeing your name over at WP:ACC again. I came across Fabulouers (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) who you CU blocked. After multiple declined unblock requests hey will engage in more sockpuppetry. Not sure if you want to revoke talk page access or just keep an eye out on them. Just wanted to make sure you're aware. -- LuK3 (Talk) 17:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

Oversight changes

HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

• Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for all pages and edits related to COVID-19, to be logged at WP:GS/COVID19.
• Following a recent discussion on Meta-Wiki, the edit filter maintainer global group has been created.
• A request for comment has been proposed to create a new main page editor usergroup.
• A request for comment has been proposed to make the bureaucrat activity requirements more strict.

Technical news

• The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. You can review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.
• Enterprisey created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment closed with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

CU question

I blocked LundaMundaTerminator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a WP:DUCK of Qwertywander. Given that this is LTA, is it worth logging this at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qwertywander? Seems like wasted effort as the first edit summary is pretty close to 100% diagnostic, but knowing that staleness is a thing and it sometimes takes a while for a new sock to become obvious, maybe I should? Not looking to create make-work here. Guy (help!) 10:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

It might be worth filing as a record. You can file it then mark it as closed straightaway. CU isn't super helpful in this case. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

VZW

I was going to reduce the use of wikipedia for advertising purpose. you are a bad admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:184:497F:87C9:4029:E1BF:E07:728C (talk) 06:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

You need to use the dispute resolution process not edit war to get your own way. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Brilliant Idea Barnstar

Hi Callanecc, thank you very much for inventing the CVUA training method described on your task page. I am impressed by the ideas displayed there, and by the amount of editors who gain fundamental knowledge through the graduation process, directly from you, and indirectly from other trainers who tirelessly invest their free time to spread this knowledge. This is so much more helpful, rewarding and encouraging than a link to a list of policies and guidelines. I wasn't aware of the amount of detail, thought and work that happens behind the CVUA scenes until today. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Your help at 2018–2019 Haitian protests is much appreciated. :) -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 16:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

No worries Sashi. Let me know if it starts again. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

It's started again, but on another page. They seem to have the goal of entering as many references to (Prince) Werley Nortreus as possible. After a new account deleted the talk page discussion at the protests page, I checked out their recent edits. Sure enough... two copyvio photos, plenty of unsourced and poorly sourced stuff at 2020_Royal_Chapel_of_Milot_fire. Even mention of Werley Nortreus in the Guardian! (except, no, there's no mention of Nortreus in the Guardian). It is amazing to me that that page was accepted at AFC in the state it was in when accepted, but I guess I don't understand AFC. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 03:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Four template documentation pages in template talk namespace

I've been doing a cleanup of Category:Template documentation pages, and found four files that you appear to have created in the template talk namespace: Template talk:Ds/editnotice/doc, Template talk:Ds/sanction/doc, Template talk:Ds/talk notice/doc, and Template talk:Ds/topics/doc. Are these misplaced, are they historic and being saved for some reason, or do they just need to be cleaned out? Thanks for your help, VanIsaac_WS^cont 04:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I've cleaned them up and requested deletion for the one which isn't being used at the moment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you so much for your help. VanIsaac_WS^cont 21:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

For blocking Alialigalig. I didn’t realise they were a sockpuppet but they were creating some serious rubbish in their new articles. Mccapra (talk) 13:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I was just about to ask about this user. On closer examination, I don't see any promotional edits or subject overlap from Alialigalig, so it is is possible that Alialigalig is not the same person as the others. @User:Mccapra, I just read your comments on their talk page about the quality of their edits; do you feel like there's any reason to give them a second chance? It's also possible that Alialigalig was a paid editor just trying to rack up mainspace edits before doing promotional stuff. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

My guess is the same - just clocking up edits with apparently uncontroversial content as you suggest. The articles he wrote got increasingly odd. They weren’t normal geostubs, they were crammed with phoney refs as if the aim was to get as many edits in per article as possible. I’ve no view on the sockpuppet question but they are definitely one to keep an eye on if unblocked. I’ve never seen anything like it. Mccapra (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Based on CU result (plus the similar behaviour) I'm confident that it's the same operator as the other accounts. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 21:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

SPI

Snap. Thanks for the tagging. Doug Weller talk 12:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I saw your blocks as I was posting the result from my check. :) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

JungerMan Chips Ahoy!

Hi, a few days ago, you wrote on his SPI that it's unlikely that he was a sock ("CheckUser makes this Unlikely and I'm not convinced based on the behavioural evidence.") and closed the SPI. Today he is blocked as a sock and the SPI case is not updated with any new evidence. Can I ask what changed your mind? Also, is it appropriate to continue to run a CheckUser on an editor after that editor has been cleared of being a sock? Thanks. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, I'd rather not say too much publicly per BEANS but basically with some rope the IPs they were using became clearer and I could make a stronger connection to a previous sock. I wouldn't say that they were cleared of being a sock, unlikely doesn't mean they aren't and making that comment at the time had the desired effect. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Callanecc, OK, thanks for your answer. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Could you add any additional information to the long-term abuse page for NoCal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/NoCal100)? It would be helpful when the next sock inevitably pops up. In particular, if NoCal is engaging in some kind of elaborate IP hopping scheme. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Could you add something to this[6] to make sure that other editors know that this editor was ultimately found to be a sockpuppet? Someone who reads that sockpuppet investigation might conclude he wasn't a sock. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there any point at all to looking at Here Comes the Suns? Or totally moot as blocked by Arbcom anyway? nableezy - 04:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd probably say a moot point. I don't remember them coming up anywhere that made me certain enough that there was a connection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

ACC Request

FYI, the requester responded to your question on ACC request #291033. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 21:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakurjiofficial

I note you have re-opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakurjiofficial, following my note at User talk:RoySmith, I have added Educationsarsai (talk · contribs) but the interaction tool doesn't seem to be working - have I done something wrong?
Educationsarsai's edits are to new articles, so they do not correlate with User:Thakurjiofficial, but they almost all correlate to Saurabhgurgaon (talk · contribs) - and "New" editors don't create templates as their eighth edit - Arjayay (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I see this has been resolved in the time it took me to write the above post - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Those links (such as the editor interaction tool only work on accounts listed when the case was created. I've confirmed Educationsarsai to Saurabhgurgaon. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

General sanctions notification

Why I am getting this notice ...all my edits are sourced Editor wikip6 (talk) 10:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

In fact I was the one who complained of vandalism on that particular page Ranvir Sena Editor wikip6 (talk) 10:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Editor wikip6, I placed the notice on your talk page for your awareness not that it implied any wrongdoing in your edits. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank u sir.....there are a lot of pages particularly related to South Asia where persistent vandalism is being done but no attention of administrator is drawn.In fact in some of them the total basic structure of article is changed.

Editor wikip6 (talk) 11:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

SPI

Hello Callanecc I have opened a new SPI investigation for a possible sockpuppeteer. Can you check it out? Additionally, the suspected sockmaster has been recently blocked by NinjaRobotPirate per WP:NOTHERE. Regards, KMagz04 (talk) 03:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

SPI

Hi Callanecc, Not sure if you're aware but there are 2 SPI on the same user (1 and 2),
Should these be merged into 1 as the only difference between the 2 is that mine's more detailed but other than that they all list the same people (although MTV Hits could be the earliest account),
Many thanks, Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 10:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Nu metal genre warrior from Texas

Hi. Would you take a look at the LTA casepage? A suspected user has been confirmed in the new section. 115.164.77.153 (talk) 06:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Could you please open an SPI? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

MRY

While the results were "inconclusive", should the account be tagged as a suspected sock of MRY? Also, another possible sock of his left an unusual message on my talk page on tl.wiki saying that he is indeed MRY. I have also requested a global lock for that account. KMagz04 (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I've tagged Hexx.molang. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked

Why did you block me? Thanks

Stanton Lore Dogman1947 Dogman47 (talk) 12:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia tries to be open, but we sometimes we need to prevent IP addresses ranges from editing to prevent abusive editing. These blocks can affect users who have done nothing wrong. As long as you stay logged into your account you will be able to edit. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you add the recently banned sockpuppets to the "mother" account?

Since Ciaociaobellas (talk · contribs) is the same as the one I reported (Matthewmorrison (talk · contribs)) and it's confirmed than all of those are related to eachother, can you add them as well to the list of their "mother" account?

Weathertrustchannel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Weathertrustchannel/Archive#Clerk,_CheckUser,_and/or_patrolling_admin_comments_21

I think it's more than obvious he is the same person! --TechnicianGB (talk) 05:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just saw you did it already. You can delete this if you want. Thanks! I appreciate your hard work!! --TechnicianGB (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Why have I been blocked

Why have I been blocked?   I cannot imagine what I could have done. In fact, I have done very little editing recently. Perhaps I hit the wrong key or made some typo that I was not aware of. If you look at my account you will see that I am a long time contributor to WP and it is very disturbing to not be able to edit anything.

I had some trouble with my computer today and logged in and out several times. Perhaps that has something to do with it.

Even more strangely, I could not even see a reason for the block on my computer. It was not until I investigated from my smart phone that I saw the block "checkuserblock=wide" - whatever that is.

Let us hope that this is just some sort of misunderstanding. You can respond by email or here. Thank you.==Toploftical (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I did some checking and think that this may possibly have been caused by a "range block". Apparently I can continue editing as long as I am not logged in. So until the issue is resolved, I am going to do that. I am still puzzled that I can see the blocking announcement on my smartphone but not on my computer. Also, the announcement on my phone says the block will be lifted in one month but also seems to say it will last until August 1. Toploftical --66.57.87.202 (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Toploftical: The block would be a rangeblock of numerous IP address to try and prevent a disruptive user from editing logged out and from creating new accounts and not of you personally. It's likely affecting your phone and not your computer as they are using different IP address (and probably different internet service providers). You should be able to edit if you stay logged in on your phone and computer. If you can't edit while logged in, could you please send me an email with the IP address that you're trying to use while logged into your account (a copy and paste of the whole block message would be good) and I'll see what I can do. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

STOP THE PRESSES Suddenly I am able to edit again! I was playing around in the editor window and clicked on the pencil icon--and that seemed to fix it. (Or did it?) Perhaps there are features of the WP editor that I do not understand--in spite of many years of experience. Anyway, if it stays working, I am happy. If some ignorance and confusion of mine caused this whole mess, I apologize. On the other hand, if they have added some new confusing features to the WP editor, I am annoyed. I strongly feel that "featuritis" is the bane of software. (There are still some questions I would love to ask you by email if you had the time.)--Toploftical (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Afc Permission Request Guidelines

Hi, I was wondering if you can point me to the actual "Rules" (if they are rules and not guidelines) for AfC Request Permissions since the page itself does not refer them - I had some discussion with Primefac about if someone with 60 days of being registered and more than 10.000 edits automatically has to be denied and treated as being a hat collector just because of "only 60 days"... CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

CommanderWaterford, is the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants what you're after? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Callanecc, no I am aware of this - there must have been some kind of commitment/consens where these rules were decided. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

This looks to be where some of the requirements were agreed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Unanue family

Hi Callanecc, could I get some help with a user block and page protection here? Thank you. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Much appreciated. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

User:2602:304:3231:4EF9:0:0:0:0/64

Hey Callanecc, you blocked that range, but it needs to be extended a little bit, maybe--2602:304:3231:4fd9:a85e:13a4:8459:23c2 is part of their toolkit also. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Spi

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Woozywar Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wacky Wars these were mine - 112.169.13.102 (talk) 04:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Suspected User:Jiren666 sockpuppet

I suspect that user User:SCreditC is sockpuppeting please check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lankavajo (talk • contribs) 14:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hi Lankavajo, please file a sockpuppet investigation case with some evidence so that we can take a look. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

Administrator changes

Red Phoenix

Euryalus • SQL

Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

GB fan

Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

• There is an open request for comment to decide whether to increase the minimum duration a sanction discussion has to remain open (currently 24 hours).
• Speedy deletion criterion T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) has been repealed following a request for comment.
• Speedy deletion criterion X2 (pages created by the content translation tool) has been repealed following a discussion.
• There is a proposal to restrict proposed deletion to confirmed users.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your well judged comments at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Uoiauai/Archive. It appears highly likely that being templated has performed the needed shot across the bows. Fiddle Faddle 13:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For all of your work lately in knocking out the backlog at SPI. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Reporting a sockpuppet you blocked

Hi, I'd like to report 111.125.109.247, a sockpuppet of 111.125.111.153 which you blocked on August 1, for re-adding the honorific prefix "His/Her Excellency" in articles about past or dead Filipino presidents. 112.201.140.140 (talk) 11:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Page Protection

Thank you for resolving this investigation. Since 2013, this user has constantly disruptively edited articles related to the Swaminarayan sect of Hinduism while making all kinds of accusations against other users while believing in a conspiracy (WP:CONSPIRACY). As you mentioned, page protection would be the most effective solution. I was wondering what would be the way to accomplish this? Moksha88 (talk) 03:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Moksha88: Happy for you to give me a list here of the most recently targeted pages (in the last week or so) and I'll see what I can do. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Excellent, here goes the list: Swaminarayan Akshardham (North America); Swaminarayan Sampradaya; Satsangi Jeevan; The Swaminarayan School, Gunatitanand Swami, ‎Bhagatji Maharaj, Shastriji Maharaj, Yogiji Maharaj, Pramukh Swami Maharaj, Mahant Swami Maharaj, Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha, Shikshapatri, Akshar-Purushottam Darshan, Morari Bapu, Kakaji Maharaj. In one of the final posts made by the user, they stated, "I am going to edit the Jay Sadguru Swami arti article next." 1. Will this be indefinite page protection against all unregistered users? Moksha88 (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC) ‎

I ended up only doing one in that list as only one had edits from more than one account/IP demonstrating that there's an issue with socking rather than just a one off. If socking occurs on the other articles let me know and I'll protect them at that stage. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

SPI

Hello Callanecc. Thank you for reviewing this spi. Newbie question, If ever I suspect additional users showing possible signs of sockpuppetry previously mentioned (similar username pattern, editing identical articles, similar writing/editing styles/edit summary), can I resubmit a new SPI since the old one was closed? And can I include the names of the users even though some of them were blocked (for a different reason) already? Thank you. - SUBWAY 15:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Nevermind, it looks like someone already submitted an SPI. Thanks! - SUBWAY 00:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Subwaymuncher, yes you need to submit a new SPI report if the previous one has already been closed and yes you can include accounts which have already been blocked for other reasons. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Manzarene

I think you forgot to block Manzarene despite your note here. Though, I believe he should be indeffed and unblocked only after WP:SO, since the socking by an years old account like him was deliberate. Zakaria1978 (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Done for a month. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Unblock of User:Ravindravijay

Please unblock this user as identity has been confirmed in OTRS. Thanks, Sam-2727 (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Suppression

I had an idea recently about the suppression templates and wanted to bring it to your attention because you've helped create those templates. My discussion is here. I posted there at first, not realizing that {{Uw-selfinfo}} and others also used the same image. I have already changed the image on the {{suppressed}} template but I am interested to see if there are other ideas, as I think the original yellow smiley face does a much better job of getting young users' attention than the blue letter "i" that just looks like every other message they've seen. Thanks, —Soap— 14:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Hey, Callanecc. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day, Callanecc, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2020

• News and notes: The high road and the low road

• In the media: Storytelling large and small

• Featured content: Going for the goal

• Special report: Wikipedia's not so little sister is finding its own way

• Op-Ed: The longest-running hoax

• Traffic report: Heart, soul, umbrellas, and politics

• News from the WMF: Fourteen things we’ve learned by moving Polish Wikimedia conference online

• Recent research: Detecting spam, and pages to protect; non-anonymous editors signal their intelligence with high-quality articles

• Arbitration report: A slow couple of months

• From the archives: Wikipedia for promotional purposes?

• Obituaries: Marcus Sherman, Jerome West, and Pauline van Till

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

Eddie891

Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
• A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors must or should use the articles for creation process.
• A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
• An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Abortion 1RR ARCA

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Abortion and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Hoggardhigh

Per your block of this IP on the 8th, would you be happy to go straight for a block on this IP, in the same range and with characteristic edits? Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

They are also evidently using User talk:190.167.54.62. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mutt Lunker: I would have, but it looks like they've stopped using both IPs now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

No worries, thanks. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

They're back again: User:179.53.140.60. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks!. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Motion at Clarification request: Abortion

A motion was posted 8 September regarding the clarification request you are a party to. It can be viewed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Motion: Abortion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Abortion

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The one-revert restriction on all articles related to abortion, authorized by the community here and modified by the Arbitration Committee in the Abortion arbitration case, is formally taken over by the committee and vacated. Discretionary sanctions remain authorized for all pages related to abortion, broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Abortion

Re: Sockpuppet accusation

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

Nomination for merging of Template:Suppressed

Template:Suppressed has been nominated for merging with Template:Uw-selfinfo. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Interstellarity (talk) 11:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Page Protection

In July, this article was subject to vandalism by a user who you blocked for sockpuppeting. You graciously enacted page protection on the articles which received the most disruption 1. Just 2 days ago, the same article in question was subject to more disruptive editing by an unregistered user, requiring multiple reverts 12345. Given that it's the 3rd instance of disruptive editing/vandalism on this article since July, I was wondering if you would consider protecting this article. Thank you. Moksha88 (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I've put pending changes on it for a year. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Excellent, I appreciate your fast response. Moksha88 (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Help request: IP blocked

Callanecc you blocked my IP address? The message is reprinted below. Can you help me unblock my IP address and recover my password? Thanks. jacobst

For 136.2.32.185 talk block log logs filter log Jump to navigationJump to search This IP address is currently partially blocked. The latest block log entry is provided below for reference:

09:48, 1 August 2020 Callanecc talk contribs blocked 136.2.0.0/18 talk from editing the pages BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir Houston, Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha, Swaminarayan Sampradaya, Pramukh Swami Maharaj and Mahant Swami Maharaj with an expiration time of 6 months (anon. only, account creation blocked) (Block evasion: Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Swamifraud) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.2.32.185 (talk) " It's written extremely poorly and has nothing to do with the article. Vallee01 (talk) 12:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Per the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines sections are not blanked from article talk pages except in very specific circumstances such as obvious vandalism. Instead, on Wikipedia, we archive these talk pages. When and how to archive decisions are decided by consensus rather than individual editors so it will need a discussion on the article talk page. Given that there are already a couple discussions happening at the moment it's better to wait until that's finalised before proposed conditions for archiving so you can all focus on the content of the article. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Khalji Dynasty

Hello, you were the admin who blocked the people committing vandalism on the Khalji dynasty article,you asked me to notify you when something else happens. There is another person (or perhaps it’s a sock ?) who does almost the same reverts and removed all the sourced information, his name is User:CrashLandingNew he has already done more than 6 reverts in less than 24hrs I believe. Please also protect the article so only people with 500+ edits can edit it. Best regards Xerxes931 (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I have also placed a comment on the talk page and i would appreciate if you could explain the sources that you have used in the first and second paragraphs in the origin section. Also User:W28394 has reverted the article again here [[7]] and [[8]] . He and you are accusing me of having another account which is very serious without proof.

Also referenced information has been removed and i will surely challenge your words in relation to the origin section of the article. ThankyouKami2018 (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

If you have evidence of sockpuppetry please file a sockpuppet investigation report. It looks more like a normal content dispute for which dispute resolution should be considered. CrashLandingNew has made two reverts in 24 hours, successive reverts without someone else in between only counts once. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Concerns in relation to the Block

I have a concern here in relation to the block that has been applied against my account for the article Jalal-ud-din Khalji, Khalji dynasty etc. I have not written even a single line in the article without reference. I strongly disagree to the block and would request the article to be reverted to the original referenced information. You have to look at the history of the article and edit warring performed by User:W28394 who is being supported by User:Xerxes931 to portray khiljis as Afghans when they were Turkic. Please read the detail below

CONCERNS: Lets look at the introduction here: Information before changes made by User:Xerxes931:

The Khalji or Khilji dynasty was a Muslim dynasty which ruled on the Delhi sultanate, covering large parts of the Indian subcontinent for nearly three decades between 1290 and 1320. References entirely ignored or removed by User:Xerxes931 :

Information written by user: The Khalji or Khilji dynasty was a Turko-Afghan dynasty which ruled on the Delhi sultanate, covering large parts of the Indian subcontinent for nearly three decades between 1290 and 1320. Completely ignored the original content of the references.

Now coming to the origins section here : [[9]]

First Paragraph: Statement added by User:Xerxes931:"They were treated entirely as Afghans by the Turkic nobles of the Delhi Sultanate during the reign of the Khalji Sultanate."

1st Reference states: They were, therefore, wrongly looked upon as Afghans by the Turkish nobles in India

2nd Reference states: But they had settled in Afghanistan long before the Turkish rule was established there, and had over the centuries adopted Afghan customs and practices, intermarried with the local people, and were therefore looked down on as non-Turks by pure-bred Turks."

3rd Reference states: The Khaljis were a Turkish tribe but having been long domiciled in Afghanistan, had adopted some Afghan habits and customs. They were treated as Afghans in Delhi Court.

Second Paragraph The user has intentionally removed the referenced information to fit his agenda :

Statement written by user which is actually an opinion not fact: The modern Pashto-speaking Ghilji Pashtuns are also descendants of the Khalaj people

Reference States: According to Ahmad Hasan Dani, the modern Pashto-speaking Ghilji Pashtuns are also descendants of Khalaj people; their transformation into an ethnic Pashtun group can be dated to earlier than the 16th century. After a number of ethnic transformations, the Pashtun Khalaj became the Ghilji tribe of Pashtuns.

Statement written by user: Habib theorizes that the earlier Persian chroniclers misread the name "Khalchi" as "Khalji" . He also argues that no 13th century source refers to the Turkish background of the Khalji.

Reference states: Habib theorizes that the earlier Persian chroniclers misread the name "Khalchi" as "Khalji", but this is unlikely, as this would mean that every Persian chronicler writing between the 13th and 17th centuries made the same mistake. Habib also argues that no 13th century source refers to the Turkish background of the Khaljis, but this assertion is wrong, as Muhammad ibn Najib Bakran's Jahan-nama explicitly describes the Khalaj people as a "tribe of Turks" that had been going through a language shift.

He has removed the following last statement which is referenced:

The accounts describing the Khaljis' rise to power in India indicate that they were regarded as a race quite distinct from the Turks in late 13th century Delhi.Over the centuries, the Khaljis had intermarried with the local Pashtuns and adopted their manners, culture, customs, and practices.They were looked down as non-Turks by Turks. Therefore, in the Delhi Court, the Turkish nobles wrongly looked upon them as Afghan (Pashtuns).

Please look at the references and the information that this user has tried to input is entirely misleading. Same goes for Hindkowans and Jalal-ud-din Khalji which has been reverted by the User:W28394 and he was blocked for edit warring on the pages before.

References

• Whether or not you were correct in your edits and whether the version of the article is the version you prefer is largely irrelevant in this instance. The issue, and the reason for your block, is that you were edit warring rather than discussing on the talk pages and getting consensus for the changes you wanted to make

Ok but please see below by the User:Xerxes931 here ? [[10]] [[11]] [[12]] [[13]] here [[14]] he was warned by the user for his non-constructive edits.

and few by the [[User:W28394]] below [[15]] [[16]] [[17]] [[18]] [[19]] [[20]] [[21]] [[22]]

here [[23]] [[24]] [[25]] this user was warned and asked not to revert the article as most people agreed to the previous version.

here [[26]] this user was blocked and he started seeking help from User:Xerxes931 here he reverted the article again even though he was blocked [[27]] [[28]].

here [[29]] i sent him a warning to not engage and i provided all the references.

Clearly, these users were involved in edit wars and they kept on reverting the changes if you look at the article history. This can be verified by users such as User:Editorkamran, User:Fylindfotberserk, User:NavjotSR, User:Anupam whom he has been involved in edit war with. ThankyouKami2018 (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Before complaining about other editors reverting you, you need to have be actively involved in discussion of the issues on the talk pages of affected articles especially when the other editors have been involved. For example at Talk:Jalal-ud-din Khalji, W28394 responded to your comment in August and you haven't responded. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, but if you look at the talk page here [[30]] you would see how big of an issue this discussion was and not once but the whole talk page is about the origin of the Khilji dynasty and still these two users ignored all the concensus achieved earlier and added the wrong information. here[[31]] he provided the argument with his own beliefs whereas i was writing everything from the references. So now how can i win an argument or even continue arguing if the person is not willing to change his opinion according to the references. He has reverted the changes again here today [[32]]. Can this user be blocked or how do i move forward on this ? Kami2018 (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• You need to get consensus for the changes you want to be made on the talk page of the article. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Return of 3Oh Hexelon sock

Looks like there’s a fourth sock: user:SturdyNotebook. Within hours of me reverting 3Oh Hexelon on the page 2017 Iraqi–Kurdish conflict, User:SturdyNotebook makes an account and the only edits he makes are on that page. Thepharoah17 (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you protect that page too. There’s a lot of sockpuppetry on that page. Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

CU says they're not related but I've semi protected the article for a few months. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Peter Dutton

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Peter Dutton, you may be blocked from editing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Typing this up would be so much less frustrating if you were new here. Firstly, you accused me of vandalising Wikipedia - please consult vandalism types to confirm you are incorrect. Perhaps if you read the disruptive editing link you provided you would have found in the first paragraph:

If an editor treats situations that are not clearly vandalism as such, that editor may harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors.

If you are unaware of what constitutes disruptive editing you can look at disruptive editing, I wouldn't say this comes close. if it were disruptive editing your approach is very different from the guide for dealing with disruptive editors.

You have also threatened me with a block on the first warning, convention dictates this should accompany the third warning (Vandalism on Wikipedia). Again, this would only apply if it were actually vandalism.

You chose to use the level 3 template for blatant vandalism, how is that anything but disingenuous?

As per policy found on the vandalism page I am now meant to warn the mistaken user of their/your incorrect usage with a detailed message on the talk page, as I have done. Here's the corresponding template, not hard to do properly as that's quite literally the point of templates:

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you.

Let's be clear: I made an edit and it was reverted about a month later by a third party with the edit summary 'not appropriate for the lede', assumedly for the controversial nature. Well, from the BLP style guide:

Reliably sourced material about encyclopedically relevant controversies is neither suppressed in the lead nor allowed to overwhelm.

This is then clearly suppression unless a state funded public service broadcaster is an unreliable source. As for encyclopaedically relevant, this is arguably the most symbolic, deliberate, outgoing and widespread interaction constituents have had with this politician. It even goes beyond the incident itself and efficiently summarises what is a widely reported and ongoing point of national interest and discussion. He has been called 'Potato Head' by MP's in parliament, Indigenous art has been made to that effect from recycled electrical wire, local Chinese media refers to him as 'Potato Brother' and there was even a charitable campaign sending potatoes to Dutton in exchange for a donation used to support refugees. This is not a passing remark or an old nickname, it is a key part of the story.

So I undid the revision and then you did the same and sent me this warning, again breaking with convention by failing to be specific about your reasons in the edit summary. FYI, disruptive editing and vandalism are not the same and this is neither.

I don't use a single IP or an account because I don't care for the internet points and I am not alone in feeling this way. Please consult the following:

Wikipedia:Don't be trigger happy

Wikipedia:IPs are human too

Wikipedia:Not every IP is a vandal

(14.200.147.190 (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC))

• You obviously know enough about how Wikipedia works to know what is and what is not encyclopedic and what is and is not vandalism so I don't believe any further comment on this is useful or necessary. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Hoggardhigh sock

User:JoinOnIn, one of the socks of User:Hoggardhigh mentioned in this SPI has resumed activities, the signature forcing of the Oxford comma being the most characteristic trait. Would you be happy to block them? Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Already been done by someone else. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 21:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to get back to you, to that effect. That said, they have resumed activity under their latest IP, User:179.53.1.202, from the expected geolocation for the sockmaster. Could you extend the block to the IP please? Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:00, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

No worries and done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Popped up now at User:201.229.238.196. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

...User:200.88.239.42 Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:17, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Could you extend the block please: User:179.53.1.202? Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Wacky Wars

User:Wacky Wars, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wacky Wars and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Wacky Wars during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 01:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Sock accounts/IPs

About your close here, the IP range 27.34.0.0/17 is only blocked for certain articles. Please see if it can be wholly blocked for some time; a lot of socking is coming from the range (from different masters no less) and doesn't seem to be stopping anytime soon. While it maybe somewhat damaging for some legitimate IP uses, the amount of disruption and continuous socking ever since the pandemic is too much.

Please see if you can also speedy delete the Valmiki Ashram article, it was somehow accepted through AfC but has mostly been edited by socks or IP socks of the master (primarily using the article to self-promote and POVPUSH throughout wiki). Gotitbro (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I've modified the block on the /17 given the socking. The article isn't eligible for speedy deletion so will need to be nominated through AfD. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Reporting of vandalism

180.247.192.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) this user's been changing reliable references provided. This user's adding some untrusted sources of info. For instance, regarding Rabiya Mateo's birthdate. I provided a reliable reference which is an article from PEP. PEP stands for Philippine Entertainment Portal, Inc. It is a joint venture of Summit Media and GMA New Media, a subsidiary of GMA Network Inc. (one of Philippines' largest network) which makes my reference reliable. and yet, this user keeps on removing this reference and changing it with unreliable references. He should be suspended. Shawntheshipper (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Support. 180.247.192.254 user has been DISRUPTIVE! Ianpaulguerrero (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Shawntheshipper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) & Ianpaulguerrero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This 2 users are both SOCKED-PUPPETRY accounts
Shawntheshipper You're being annoying by reverting and deleting legitimate references there and you're currently on edit warring with so many users. As you did here, you're reverting everyone edits HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and many more... Stop reverting everyone's edit, you're being non-sense and content removal by deleting reliable sources is inappropriate Arabiya Sundall page isn't even your own page, everyone has the right to edits but yours are too disruptive and changing newly updated legitimate sources with an small local TV channel blog isn't accepted, even CNA article aren't legitimate sources sometimes you should also check the actual date released of the news.180.247.192.254 (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

socked puppet account: Shawntheshipper also involved in socked puppet account with Ianpaulguerrero based on your edit comment on Rabiya Sundall Mateo this 2 user are identical and came from the same IP Address that suspected with vandalism acts on Rabiya Sundall Mateo history page. HERE & HERE their edits comment using CAPSLOCK which is very inappropriate and impolite behavior, also using identical attacking words. Which came from the same IP Address, are totally suspicious.

socked puppet facts: This 2 accounts (Shawntheshipper & Ianpaulguerrero) are both commenting at the same concern and it happens at the same times to the Callanecc, I Nyoman Gede Anila, Materialscientist talk pages!! and reverting all the edits made by other users, this 2 users (Shawntheshipper & User:Ianpaulguerrero) are totally suspicious. 180.247.192.254 (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Looks like this has been dealt with. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Serene Reel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) & Reality04 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This 2 users are both SOCKED-PUPPETRY accounts of Shawntheshipper

@Callanecc: & @Oswah: I think not just this 2 users>>(Shawntheshipper & Ianpaulguerrero) who came from the same IP Address, But this user Serene Reel & Reality04 also has the same behavior, acting like a different people but they has the same attitude in terms of editing, Both have used all caps edit summaries (HERE), (HERE), (HERE), (HERE), (HERE), (HERE), (HERE) also using identical attacking words with exclamation marks while editing Miss Universe Philippines 2020 & Rabiya Sundall Mateo. Both accounts are in the same IP address that suspected on vandalism. They both appear to be primarily focused on beauty pageants and regularly misuse the minor edit tag. 36.74.49.57 (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Another fact; HERE & HERE How come this Reality04 newly created user, came at the same time and commenting at the same concern, and they are also from the same IP address and suddenly supporting this 2 socked puppet account (Shawntheshipper & Ianpaulguerrero). after all this 4 newly created users (Shawntheshipper, Ianpaulguerrero, Serene Reel & Reality04) that created less than 3 weeks old is came from the same IP address, has the same concern, gang up commenting at the same spot, they're loves to reverting edits from other users edit on Miss Universe Philippines 2020 & Rabiya Sundall Mateo and their identical CAPSLOCK edits summary is really suspicious. 36.74.49.57 (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Could you please create a sockpuppet investigation report by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations so that we can look into it in more detail. Thank you, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Callanecc: please kindly checking Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shawntheshipper for a newly report I made just now, I think it's getting very toxic here, the person behind those account are kept on creating other new users just for the sake of vandalizing, just now I'm checking there is 3 other newly created users (User:Tayzarswifsson, User:XPD154Raven, User:Greenzircon) who is also a socked puppeters of Shawntheshipper, they came with the same thing of intentions. ---I Nyoman Gede Anila {talk} :? 17:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Aaron Schock (2020)

Now that the acceptable info about this living person is included, do you believe that the PC-protection is still necessary? The last revert on the IP edit was March, i.e. eight months ago. --George Ho (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Removed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-48

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• Timestamps in Special:Log are now links. They go to Special:Log for only that entry. This is how timestamps work on for example the history page. [33]

Changes later this week

• There is no new MediaWiki version this week.

Future changes

• The Wikimedia Cloud VPS hosts technical projects for the Wikimedia movement. Developers need to claim projects they use. This is because old and unused projects are removed once a year. Unclaimed projects can be shut down from 1 December. Unclaimed projects can be deleted from 1 January. [34]

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

17:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

A brownie of gratitude for your efforts and keeping folks informed regarding Emily W. Murphy. Thank you for editing Wikipedia - even if it can be quite a challenge sometimes! Missvain (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2020

• News and notes: Jimmy Wales "shouldn't be kicked out before he's ready"

• Op-Ed: Re-righting Wikipedia

• Opinion: How billionaires re-write Wikipedia

• In the media: Relying on Wikipedia: voters, scientists, and a Canadian border guard

• Featured content: Frontonia sp. is thankful for delicious cyanobacteria

• Traffic report: 007 with Borat, the Queen, and an election

• News from Wiki Education: An assignment that changed a life: Kasey Baker

• GLAM plus: West Coast New Zealand's Wikipedian at Large

• Wikicup report: Lee Vilenski wins the 2020 WikiCup

• Recent research: Wikipedia's Shoah coverage succeeds where libraries fail

• Essay: Writing about women

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-49

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 1 December. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 2 December. It will be on all wikis from 3 December (calendar).

Future changes

• The iOS Wikipedia app will show readers more of the article history. They can see new updates and easier see how the article has changed over time. This is an experiment. It will first be shown only to some iOS app users as a test. [35][36]
• The Wiki Replicas can be used for SQL queries. You can use Quarry, PAWS or other ways to do this. To make the Wiki Replicas stable there will be two changes. Cross-database JOINS will no longer work. You can also only query a database if you connect to it directly. This will happen in February 2021. If you think this affects you and you need help you can post on Phabricator or on Wikitech. [37]

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

17:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).

Administrator changes

Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

Izno

Guideline and policy news

• There is a request for comment in progress to either remove T3 (duplicated and hardcoded instances) as a speedy deletion criterion or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.

Technical news

• Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hoggardhigh latest sock

Per the latest block you applied here, User:Hoggardhigh has resumed activities as User:107.134.16.11. New geolocation but unmistakeable, they have re- targetted Megan McDonald and Mary Jane Auch, per their last two socks. Further characteristic edits and targets, such as Oxford comma obsession and an aircraft-related article. Could you swat this one please? Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm told but @BilCat: that Wilmington was their original location. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC) Now at User:Trainbeau. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Seven years!

I just read our exchange 7 years ago with amusement. My questions to the arb canditates was much shorter in 2020 than then ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/3Oh Hexelon/Archive

You did a series of SPI moves recently and I'm very confused. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/3Oh Hexelon redirects to a different page. So where should Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/3Oh Hexelon/Archive point to? Sro23 (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I believe I've fixed it now. I initially merged them to King kong92 but then did some more digging and found the more likely master. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

User: 3Oh Hexelon

Hi Calenecc. I just wanted to alert you that 3Oh Hexelon was actually global ban evading, hence I put a locked template. May be worth extending the block indefinitely. (Of course it doesn't matter). Thanks, HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi HurricaneTracker495, I'm hesitant to change the block at this stage given that it's a ban by the WMF. If and when the Foundation decides to unban them they can, in theory, return to enwiki if their current block has expired. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Hello. It would be helpful to know which WMF banned editor it is, since they are likely blocked on enwiki and he is likely block evading himself. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Callanecc: We've got a new account (Abodiyar) editing the same pages as 3Oh Hexelon and reinstating the same type of problematic OR claims. It should definitely be investigated. --Semsûrî (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked Abodiyar and some other accounts confirmed to it. This is User:King kong92 who is WMF banned as User:Meganesia. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but it may be worth taking them to m: SRG to get them globally locked. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I've done it on the CheckUser mailing list with some additional information for stewards. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Callnecc, We have a new editor (وزظزو) with the same interest and same problematic edits. Please have a look. Perhaps the relevant pages should be protected. --Semsûrî (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Mai Kadra massacre page

Hello,

I don't know the ins & outs of Wikipedia, but i saw you 'protected' the page. Under perpetrators, Ethiopian Defense Forces, and Amhara special forces are wrongly added, using Financial Times source. There's no citation, sentence anything in the article that implicates the Ethiopian Army & Amhara special forces. I believe this is done by trolls to twist the evidence provided by Amnesty and EHRC, could you adress this?

Thank you Dawit 86.89.46.70 (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

If you try to edit the page an option will come up for you to submit an edit request. If you click on that link it will talk you to the talk page to make the request. Make sure that you explain what change you want made and why. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Mirza Masroor Ahmad is not current khalifa of islam

This is wrong information about this man.They are not Muslims .so their fore I request you to please remove this information because he is not the current khalifa of Islam. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.53.234.96 (talk) 12:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

If you try to edit the page a link will appear allowing your to submit an edit request. Click the link, explain the change you want made and include a reliable source. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Correction Regarding Mirza Masroor Ahmad

Hello, I have a very important correction regarding Mirza Masrror Ahmad. He and his followers arw not recognized as muslims by the goverment of Pakistan and any other muslim community because they don't even follow the basic element of faith which is to witnes Prophet Mohammad (Peace be upon him) as the last prophet of Allah, They have a prophet of their own and that's why considered non-Muslims. Please remove the word "Muslim" as they don't relate to muslims. The reason why I'm sending you this message is because his name pops up at the top of the google search "present caliph of islam" which is extremely blasphemous and painful to certain groups. Thanks in advance.

If you try to edit the page a link will appear allowing your to submit an edit request. Click the link, explain the change you want made and include a reliable source. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Mistake in your article

The word amir ul momineen is high standard quality. All race aside, but Mirza Masroor Ahmed is not the caliph of Islam. Let me increase your knowledge by telling you that Islam has no current caliph. So, I hope that you will change the keywords of the article. One more thing this is a very critical issue that you just wrote in your article. Caliph is the leader of all Muslims and almost 90% of Muslims have not even heard about Mirza Masroor Umer Sameer (talk) 12:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

If you try to edit the page a link will appear allowing your to submit an edit request. Click the link, explain the change you want made and include a reliable source. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Wrong mentioned caliphate of Islam

Hi,

I would like to request you to please add that he is the calpiha of ahmdiyat not of Islam and please do not mis guide people by spreading such false statements.

Best regards, Sheraz Tariq — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.134.224.246 (talk) 12:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

If you try to edit the page a link will appear allowing your to submit an edit request. Click the link, explain the change you want made and include a reliable source. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

There are only 4 caliphs till Qayamah

I would not say anything but delete this note as soon as possible otherwise it would be a grand conflict among Firqa's. I am still talking kindly and if this didn't stop, you'll soon be receiving death threats because every Muslim is so deeply in love with Their last Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) and his companions especially 4 Khalifas. So stop this discrimination and delete this post as soon as possible. ☺️ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.88.65.29 (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

If you try to edit the page a link will appear allowing your to submit an edit request. Click the link, explain the change you want made and include a reliable source. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Misleading information

Hello Callanecc. You editted the Ahmadiyya page a couple of minutes ago. When people search who is the present Caliph of islam, google shows a name Mian Masroor as present Caliph with reference to Wikipedia. It is not true as this person is Caliph of the people of his own community named as Ahmadiyya. If possible please correct this info because we, as Muslims, have to face deficulties people asking about our Caliph which is no one at present.

Kind Regards, Zekomo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zekomo (talk • contribs) 12:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Asfi Zekomo (talk) 12:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

While we appreciate your opinion, this matter is Google's error, and there's nothing we can do about what they decide to take from our website, even if it is portrayed in a misleading matter. Google's algorithms are so flawed that they show the caliph of the Amadiyya sect as the caliph of all of Islam. Acroterion (talk) 13:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Present caliphate of islam

Mirza masroor Ahmad is not even a Muslim. How he can be caliphate of islam. Information shown by google is totally wrong Muhammad Yasir Ghaffar (talk) 12:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

While we appreciate your opinion, this matter is Google's error, and there's nothing we can do about what they decide to take from our website, even if it is portrayed in a misleading matter. Google's algorithms are so flawed that they show the caliph of the Amadiyya sect as the caliph of all of Islam. Acroterion (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Wrong Info about Muslims Caliph - Amir al-Mu'minin

Hello Callance, you have written wrong info about Muslims Caliph. There is no any Caliph this time. This person Mirza Masroor Ahmad and his followers are not muslims. Their religion is different. They don't represent any branch/sectarian. Please remove this page or change the info. Thanks. Abbasi Sahib (talk) 12:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree Hamza126296 (talk) 13:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

While we appreciate your opinion, this matter is Google's error, and there's nothing we can do about what they decide to take from our website, even if it is portrayed in a misleading matter. Google's algorithms are so flawed that they show the caliph of the Amadiyya sect as the caliph of all of Islam. Acroterion (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Current calip of islam

Mirza masroor ahmad is not current calip of islam even he is not muslim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.111.130.83 (talk) 12:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

While we appreciate your opinion, this matter is Google's error, and there's nothing we can do about what they decide to take from our website, even if it is portrayed in a misleading matter. Google's algorithms are so flawed that they show the caliph of the Amadiyya sect as the caliph of all of Islam. Acroterion (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect information

This is incorrect information you uploaded as present caliph of islam. Please change or remove this. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamza126296 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

While we appreciate your opinion, this matter is Google's error, and there's nothing we can do about what they decide to take from our website, even if it is portrayed in a misleading matter. Google's algorithms are so flawed that they show the caliph of the Amadiyya sect as the caliph of all of Islam. Acroterion (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect information

Please remove the present caliph post. Even he is not a Muslim Hamza126296 (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

While we appreciate your opinion, this matter is Google's error, and there's nothing we can do about what they decide to take from our website, even if it is portrayed in a misleading matter. Google's algorithms are so flawed that they show the caliph of the Amadiyya sect as the caliph of all of Islam. Acroterion (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't mislead muslim community.

Please remove the misleading page of "The current/last caliph of Islam". I am humble request for you. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.111.135.116 (talk) 13:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

While we appreciate your opinion, this matter is Google's error, and there's nothing we can do about what they decide to take from our website, even if it is portrayed in a misleading matter. Google's algorithms are so flawed that they show the caliph of the Amadiyya sect as the caliph of all of Islam. Acroterion (talk) 13:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Islamic callifah

Present info about islam that the kalifah is mirza masroor is totally wrong, Ahmedhaxaan (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

While we appreciate your opinion, this matter is Google's error, and there's nothing we can do about what they decide to take from our website, even if it is portrayed in a misleading matter. Google's algorithms are so flawed that they show the caliph of the Amadiyya sect as the caliph of all of Islam. Acroterion (talk) 13:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)