Jump to content

User talk:Callanecc/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28

Multiple undos of page

Hi

Thanks for messaging me. There is one user who keeps pushing forward false propaganda on the page which is why I undo their changes. They should be getting the warning to stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amo247 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

They did. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Mirza Masroor Ahmad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirza_Masroor_Ahmad

This message is related to the article Mirza Masroor Ahmad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirza_Masroor_Ahmad. Mirza Masroor Ahmad is not an "Official Khalifa of Islam" and is not even a muslim. Exactly 41 years ago, on September 7, 1974, Pakistani parliament voted overwhelmingly to declare the Ahmedis as non-muslim and that is the reason they are declared non muslim.

My request you please remove the incorrect and inappropriate information "Official Khalifa of Islam Website" mentioned in the "EXTERNAL LINK" section and change the link text to "Official Ahmedis Community Caliph Website"Muhemmedasfandyar (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Muhemmedasfandyar, 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) 08:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Sikh music

Dear Callanecc,

Just wanted to inform you that it was not me that started the Edit war but the person named "Amo"

Have you blocked him, because he needs to be blocked.

Srsseehra — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srsseehra (talk • contribs) 09:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't matter who started it, you're both blocked for edit warring. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


Protect article

HI Callanecc. As the article Bharathi Kanamma has been editing by Anonymous users ([1]) and they adding unsourced and poorly sourced content. So can you please protect the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kboomika33 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Reoccurring Vandalism and edit wars of previously Tbanned User.

Hello User:Callanecc, A few weeks ago you were the admin who t-banned User:Kami2018 for his disruptive and extreme edit warring on the article of the Khalji dynasty. Since then his behavior did not improve, he does the exact same edits on the Khalji Dynasty[2] and does not engage in any talk for his edits either. Furthermore he vandalizes articles related to the Pashtun people with the sole purpose of removing the terms "Afghan" from the article[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. This is very disruptive, the list goes on and on but I thought this was enough, you can further look into his edits, since his account was created the vast majoirty of his edits are simply removing the term "Afghan" from articles. The term "Afghan" is the historic term for the Pashtun people and used as a synonym, this should be the most basic knowledge for someone who thinks he has the right to edit war his non-historical POV on articles by vandalizing them. I would appreciate an intervention of you regarding this issue, its simply going way too far. Best regards --Xerxes931 (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

My suggestion would be that you file an arbitration enforcement request at WP:AE so that you can explain the full context and admins can discuss the most appropriate response (under the discretionary sanctions in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan arbitration case). It's important to note that I didn't topic ban Kami2018, it was a partial block only from that article. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Mirza Masroor Ahmad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirza_Masroor_Ahmad

External Link: "Official Khalifa of Islam website" please replace this text to "Official Ahmadi Community Caliph Website". 41 yrs ago, on September 07/1974, Pakistani parliament voted overwhelmingly to declare the Ahmadis/Quadiani as non-muslim. Check the source: this is the Pakistan govt official website, click on the pdf file link to read the constitution (page 166) section B) non-muslim means http://www.na.gov.pk/uploads/documents/1333523681_951.pdf#page=166 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhemmedasfandyar (talk • contribs) 11:38, 18 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) 00:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

A third sock

You blocked Fei111 (talk · contribs) and Beran111 (talk · contribs) as abusing multiple accounts. It seems very likely that Realistonly (talk · contribs) is another iteration of the same user. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

SPI

Hello Callanecc. Since you are dealing with SPIs at this moment can you also check out Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TerentiusNew? Thanks! Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 09:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Reverting at 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war

Hi Callanecc, if you are referring to this edit [16] I made only the one revert regarding the number of killed so the number is now according to the cited reference. The edit I reverted, which was made by Solavirum, was unsourced and left the information contradictory to the cited source. I was not aware there was a discussion at the talk page and would gladly engage in it. However, I think there is no need to make threats regarding blocks, especially since I was not even close to violating 3RR. Thank you for pointing out the discussion and cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 12:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi EkoGraf, thank you. Just a note that 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war has 1RR in place under discretionary sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing that out for me Callanecc. I was not aware. Once again, thank you for the info! EkoGraf (talk) 12:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Engaged at the talk page, made a compromise proposal that I think would be satisfactory to both sides, and already made an update to the article for the sake of the compromise proposal. You can check it out for yourself. EkoGraf (talk) 12:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

IP-hopping socking?

Hey, Callanecc! Sorry if that report was a time-waster for folks at SPI, I don't have a lot of experience with SPI or with IP-hopping to sock. What should I have done instead? —valereee (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

No worries. It was worth a go to see if anything came of it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Reverting at 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war

Hi Callanecc, if you are referring to this edit [17] I made only the one revert regarding the number of killed so the number is now according to the cited reference. The edit I reverted, which was made by Solavirum, was unsourced and left the information contradictory to the cited source. I was not aware there was a discussion at the talk page and would gladly engage in it. However, I think there is no need to make threats regarding blocks, especially since I was not even close to violating 3RR. Thank you for pointing out the discussion and cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 12:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi EkoGraf, thank you. Just a note that 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war has 1RR in place under discretionary sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing that out for me Callanecc. I was not aware. Once again, thank you for the info! EkoGraf (talk) 12:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Engaged at the talk page, made a compromise proposal that I think would be satisfactory to both sides, and already made an update to the article for the sake of the compromise proposal. You can check it out for yourself. EkoGraf (talk) 12:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

IP-hopping socking?

Hey, Callanecc! Sorry if that report was a time-waster for folks at SPI, I don't have a lot of experience with SPI or with IP-hopping to sock. What should I have done instead? —valereee (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

No worries. It was worth a go to see if anything came of it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Han-bin editing reversions

I’m unsure as to why the page is locked in a state that purposefully leaves information out. Note that the person who made the last revision to remove information has previously been banned by you for repetitive vandalism and sock puppetry. Their argument that the deleted individual is not relevant enough to be featured is contradicted by the existence of his own wiki page; additionally, other name pages list both birth names, pseudonyms, and stage names. (See Do-young listing Doyoung (Singer) which is the stage name of Kim Dongyoung, also Dong-hyuk listing Lee Dong-hyuck, stage name Haechan).

All attempts to resolve on the article’s talk page by other editors have seemingly been ignored by the specific individual and their sock accounts, or a small group thereof. I would like to personally request the information be replaced where it belongs, better to list someone than have such a glaring omission. S.r.z15 (talk) 07:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I've changed it back to semi protection. Be very cautious that you don't give the impression that you are editing on behalf of someone else. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Resolution on the Han-Bin page

Hey! You locked the page Han-Bin. If you look, I have reached out to those reverting edits multiple times over the past few weeks, which have all been ignored. I have also discussed and come to an agreement with two other editors on the page, and tried to reach out on other peoples talk pages and was consistently ignored.

As of right now, several of us have agreed that Han-bin I edited belongs on the page, and any attempts to reach a resolution with the user editing him out have been totally ignored. (As well as making multiple sockpuppets to remove info from the page) Is there a way to revert their edit until they can engage in the talk page in any way? As of right now, the only one thats been discussed and agreed upon is keeping him on the page, and they have not engaged in the discussion prior to removing him. Jayb.rd98 (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I've changed it back to semi protection. If Beran111 continues reverting without engaging in discussion, let me know. I'd also suggest that you be cautious that you don't give the impression that you are asking other people to edit on your behalf. There's also a new section at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea that you might like to participate in. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. Likely they will, as they have been doing it for weeks without engaging in other editors. And do not worry, user S.r.z15 is just someone who has reached out to me to begin bulking up and cleaning up the Korean Given name pages, as theres quite a few names that don’t have pages yet! Thank you for the warning though, I’ll be sure to pass it along. Jayb.rd98 (talk) 01:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Continued editing without discussion

The page Han-Bin has once again been edited without discussion (By an account I suspect to be a sockpuppet, in all honesty). I reverted the removal and requested them to engage in the talk page before further edits are made. I will keep you updated if they engage in the discussion or continue to ignore. I have also precious reached out to this user on their talk page multiple times to no avail. Jayb.rd98 (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I've protected the page for two weeks to hopefully force some discussion. I see that it looks like this may now be happening on the talk page which is a good sign. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

User:The z queen

How is it that The z queen is not blocked yet, even with an SPI filed against them? Please take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HarveyTeenager, where the current SPI has been open since December 30 with no administrator action taken. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 02:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Because there are around 80 other SPIs. I've blocked and tagged this account. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

2401:4900:4B30:F072:3CB2:A3DE:54AD:56F

A more general block might be in order, as they've started vandalizing other pages, such as Antigua Hawksbills. - Sumanuil (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks like the page has been protected now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I-ban

Hi Callanecc, just picking on you since you were the last admin (I think) to be involved in this sanction.

I don't know much of the history except seeing Koyla's name at admin boards a lot recently at a glance, but after their behavior was brought up as an example at a recent policy discussion, it looks like they've had issues with their end of the interaction ban. In short, some of Koyla's interaction with Specifico was brought up there before Koyla chimed in, and now Koyla is complaining (Please do not characterize my behavior as "potshots"; that feels like a potshot.)[18] about some of my comments related to their interaction with Specifico before they joined in.

From my reading, that was a behavior they were already criticized for on their side of the sanction, but it seems like Koyla just doesn't get that they cannot be involving themselves even with a brief comment in discussions about Specifico or the interactions of those two outside of narrow circumstances for appealing the ban. I'm not sure if this is just something needing an admin reminder (my assumption right now) or if there's other history where they're in last straw territory, but it definitely looks like something I don't want to get involved in further and would rather someone more familiar with it check it out. Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the concern but I don't think that Koyla's comments on that page would breach the IBAN. They're talking generally rather than about SPECIFICO. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hitler's cult of personality

Hi.

You deleted this article as the work of English Patriot Man, a blocked (de facto banned per WP:3X) editor and prolific puppetmaster, as you should have. I'm thinking that I would like to rework it, if possible. Could you possibly undelete it into my user space so I can see if I can do so from scratch, so there are no copyright issues?

Thanks,

Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Done to User:Beyond My Ken/Hitler's cult of personality. You'll need to create the redirect again at Hitler's cult of personality, I forgot to delete it first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks very much. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Something, seems to have gone wrong, User:Beyond My Ken/Hitler's cult of personality was the redirect, which you then blanked Or maybe I did something wrong? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I moved the first redirect you created with the version created by the English Patriot Man sock. So the first redirect plus the version from the sock are in the page history of User:Beyond My Ken/Hitler's cult of personality). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Of course! Thank you, sorry for having been so dense. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Kallar

Hello callanecc. In Kallar (caste) The Ip address is also using another ip 94.57... The Ip 83.110.204.103 has many accounts like Thanjavr siva (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and விக்னேஷ்வர் பா மாளுசுத்தியார் (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). All three added non neutral caste pride content and i restored it to a neutral version by other editors and all these accounts are also edit war one after another without explanation that is why I edit war. The content is full of dangerous caste pride. It may lead to violence against other caste under stand. 2409:4072:6C8A:C8A5:7F09:EF7B:213A:F26 (talk) 06:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

He also restored the content with Thanjavur siva 2409:4072:6C8A:C8A5:7F09:EF7B:213A:F26 (talk) 06:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I've blocked the two accounts for sock puppetry. I encourage you to propose and explain the changes you want to make on the article's talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you callanecc. Thanjavur siva has restored the content. Look at the article the accounts made a section called "Zamindars" which has no context to promote caste pride. The accounts have also modified content for caste pride. I used to edit years back but I came to this page yesterday. These caste pride is causing violence against lower caste people. The accounts also used deprecated unreliable source. Kindly undo it to your last revision which is the neutral. 2409:4072:6C8A:C8A5:4727:D291:7523:5EFE (talk) 07:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-04

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

Problems

Changes later this week

  • Bracket matching will be added to the CodeMirror syntax highlighter on the first wikis. The first wikis are German and Catalan Wikipedia and maybe other Wikimedia wikis. This will happen on 27 January. [21]
  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 26 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 27 January. It will be on all wikis from 28 January (calendar).

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

18:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you can save me from an ANI

Callanecc, I'm frustrated. I was putting together an ANI and my browser crashed (curse you Opera!). Perhaps you could help so I don't have to do this (or can you recover a crashed browser?). My concern relates to an editor you tried to nudge.[[22]] Sadly I don't think the message from you or other editors was received. The obvious edit warring has stopped but that may have more to do with other editors not engaging in it rather than any lesson learned. The inappropriate talk page comments that disparage editors rather than argue the points have continued [[23]], [[24]], [[25]], [[26]]. The editor has also bludgeoned this RSN discussion and seems to show a case of IDHT when ever it is suggested that consensus hasn't been reached.[[27]] To that end they have decided to start a third noticeboard discussion related to the same topic. [[28]].

I was trying to catalog all this and take it to an ANI. Would you mind taking a look. Perhaps an intervention is all that is needed. As I noted here [[29]] I don't have anything against this editor. I simply think many of their edits are poorly sourced or problematic in other ways. Disagreement is fine but this editor is hardly a month old yet has already shown a high level of combativeness when others object. Suggestions/help would be greatly appreciated. Springee (talk) 05:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Re-Creation of Mathukutty Xavier

Hello Callanecc, can i create an article of Mathukutty Xavier?? i can see it was deleted by you previously. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=104553600 Manujanardhanan (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Consensus_required_on_COVID?. Thank you. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

When you have a moment

When you have a moment, could you stop by ACC please? 3 pending in the CU queue for you right now. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC) ibe or unsubscribe]].

23:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-13

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

  • Some very old web browsers don’t work well with the Wikimedia wikis. Some old code for browsers that used to be supported is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. [30]
  • Advanced item IRC recent changes feeds have been moved to a new server. Make sure all tools automatically reconnect to irc.wikimedia.org and not to the name of any specific server. Users should also consider switching to the more modern EventStreams. [31]

Problems

  • When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split. It might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. [32]
  • Some translatable pages on Meta could not be edited. This was because of a bug in the translation tool. The new MediaWiki version was delayed because of problems like this. [33][34]

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 30 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 31 March. It will be on all wikis from 1 April (calendar).

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

17:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).

Administrator changes

removed Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
  • Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

Technical news

  • When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
  • Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Welcome back

Toddy1 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Question

Hi Callanecc, I saw your name on the list of active admins and thought I'd ask you since you are also a checkuser. Are these accounts: AHC300 and Female bodybuilder enthusiast too stale to do a CU on? Their last edits were made on 3 January 2021 and EC1810 showed up 3 months later on 4 April 2021 to add a bunch of unsourced content to the Legality of bestiality by country or territory article [35], an article which those socks frequently edited. The EC1810 account was also created on 10 January 2017, but their first (visible) edit was made on 12 June 2017, which is also suspicious. Some1 (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

For the purposes of an SPI they are likely stale yes. Behavioural evidence would need to be the deciding factor. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply; will the CU logs have any additional information? The 17 Sept 2014 archive might be relevant: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Latitude0116/Archive#17_September_2014 Some1 (talk) 05:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I had a brief look but there's nothing there which would narrow down the technical result to anything more specific than  Possible. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for checking, Callanecc; does it mean User:EC1810 is in the same general area (same state or city) as the previous socks? Some1 (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Same big country, I can't get much more specific than that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
A lot can change in almost 7 years I guess; if only I had known about the CU logs back then when I requested CU for AHC300 (which was declined due to the archive being stale). It would've possibly caught EC1810 since their previous edit was 21:22, 17 November 2020, so within the 90 day frame of the report being made.
AHC300's last edit was on 3 January and 91 days later, EC1810 shows up. I'm assuming a check was ran on EC1810; does that mean there are no other accounts such as sleeper accounts currently found for the user? Some1 (talk) 01:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I didn't see anything obvious but from memory I didn't really have much to compare to so I could make sure there there weren't any sleepers. So there could be, but I didn't see any obvious sleepers. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into this, I appreciate it. One last question hopefully; the EC1810 account was created on 19:56, 10 January 2017 but made their first edit five months later on 03:56, 12 June 2017. Could you let me know when this edit [36] was made? Some1 (talk) 02:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
It was at 20:00, 10 January 2017. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Was the deleted edit to Legality of bestiality in the United States, which was G5 deleted back in January? Some1 (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi there! I'm EC1810, and I can explain what happened at least from my end. I went to edit the page because there was a lot of data missing in the United States section. I found an archive of the old data that I had, and went to go put it in. However, yea, I did forget to link sources because copy/paste didn't work for the sources and I forgot to add them (my fault). I managed to work around 3 hours just recently and actually add the information and the proper sources. As for those other two accounts, I've never heard of them. Also, regarding the age of my account and the time it took to edit an article, the articles I edited in that time got deleted, and are actually related to the article I just edited. It kind of got merged into this one, which is why it was deleted. My apologies for any inconveniences this might have caused you guys. EC1810 (talk) 02:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
And yes, the deleted edit was for that article. EC1810 (talk) 02:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Return of sockpuppet?

Hi, since I saw that you were involved in the sockpuppet case of 'Kurdiyate352', I write to tell you that I think this new user 68.AleemcaseyToby smells like a sockpuppet of Kurdiyate352. First page edited by AleemcaseyToby is the same subject and type of edits done by the other accounts. --Semsûrî (talk) 10:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Yep, blocked and tagged. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I AM NEFERTITI's unblock request

Hi, Callanecc! I hope you are well. I AM NEFERTITI made an unblock request and is anxious to know what the answer will be (she wants to edit pages on vegetarianism mainly). She is my friend and it may be a complicated case, I don't know. Thank you very much. MathKeduor7 (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Block

I'm here to talk about the edit war, for which's prevention, you've blocked me. I know the use of blocking is not for punitive purposes, instead it's for preventing such edit wars. I'm also thankful you considered me for blocking, as you believe in me that the block will not cuse opposite effects on me. But I would suggest you should consider points such as the person who is just reverting, without discussing it on talk page. I'm not nominating anyone's name, neither I'm asking for silly things such as, you blocked me not the other.

There reason also don't fit properly. Also they're not discussing. There POV is that Hinduism should be primary.For that, they are reoving,some images,info and sources. You can also check the changes made by comparing the revisions. They nominated me for vandalism, although there was notthing vandalism. After blocking me for preventing Edit war, they again reverted it without talking further or anything on talk page. I've also asked them many times to go to admin noticeboard for dispute resolution, but no one responded. It was me to start discussion, me want to discuss with them, but no one discuss or anything do to dispute resolution. Instead they were reverting the edits to stop till consensus, but they were not discussing at all. As you suggested me to have discussion, this is what which I think you should go through the talk page, you will find, I've tried to discuss many times. Instead of discussion, they always revert and go to Vndaliam board for nominating me, sometimes there nomination for me was rejected, but this time you accept, but you should have consider looking this points.

I don't know why, the other two editor is saying I've removed the information, even though I really don't, I've many times told them this. Instead, they are the one who are removing existing sources and images and the sources which I added. Earlier there was one, then he called his friend to discuss, Assuming good faith, I suppose, it was not for putting more pressure on me, which seems to be sockpuppetry. Their demand is to set Hinduism primary(not my assumption, but there own statements) on the page(which seems to be POV pushing than mine, as they said, what I demanding is having equal status to both). They are also of the view that Hindu comes first before Buddhism, I've many times adviced them that this is not also generqalisation or any guideline, as they did in first para. And now, why I don't know, but saying that I've removed the information, in fact I'm not removing a single sentence, as I've cleared,instead they are removing stuff and other things. I've just rearranged the section as per other similar broad-concept article, where, the sections of different views comes at last. That's what I edited now, but they are reverting it and deleting the souces images and other sources, even after asking for reason they said, you deleted information and just reverting again and again, with no one of them properly discussing on talk page. In one earlier discussion in Disambiguation talk page of Wikipedia, it was the conclusion to add more Buddhist information to the page, to make it more broad concept looking article, which I added, but they think there's already an different Buddhist article why are you adding Budddhist information here. But it was broadconcept article, not only for Hindu views, From this point of their's I also suggested them that if they wish to have special Hindu article, they can make one another Hindu article then, but they didn't agree. They are also deleting images, information and delete some information because it was unsourced, instead of adding source, though for that information there were many sources available, which they can also add, I'm assuming good faith,so I assume it was not deleted only because the information and images were Buddhist. when I sourced it , they also removed the source. When I ask tthem for reasons for reverting, they just say that it's not their favor. One editor is just reverting discussing nothing on talk page on discussion which I had to start, even thoughthey were the one who disagrees. The other one is just saying Make Hinduism Primary. I've also suggested them many times to let's resolve the disputes on Administrators noticeboard, but no one is responding. I ask you to go through the revision history and talk page and earlier discussion on Wikipedia disambiguation talk page and please guide me what I can do more to deal in such cases. You can also give your independent view in the resolution or please guide me for dealing with such cases. Thank You So Much. JaMongKut (talk) 05:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, Please. Let me know so that I can understand. Please response. JaMongKut (talk) 08:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@JaMongKut: See my response on article talk page and stop your POV pushing of Buddhism. The article focuses on the origins of Asura and of course the concept came from Hinduism, which is sourced and you can see the references in the article. So don't try to place Buddhism section in the start. Also there is already a page on Asura (Buddhism). Further, try to gain consensus on the talk page and please don't edit war. Wait for some other editors to agree with you, otherwise don't change the scholarly sourced content. Repeated edit warring may lead to an extension of your block. Thanks. JRDkg (talk) 09:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
@JRDkg: Please tell What POV pushing I'm doing and how I'm doing it? A broad-concept article should give equal staus to both describing the both views properly. Isn't this an POV pushing, to give higher status to Hinduism, what do you think? Whatever, this was previous dispute of making Hindu primary(by you) or giving equal status(by me), but this was previous, when I added more info about Buddhism. But the edits you're reverting, it has to do nothing with Hinduism primary at all. So this reason that Hinduism should be primary doesn't fit with the edits you made, so I think, it is not the reason.
Instead I've rearranged the sections as per normalizationfrom other artilces to have sections of different views below other section. Please tell what's wrong with that rearrangement, how can it degrade article? Please give reason of this. lso, you have not given the reason of removing Pali, some sources, some images and rearrangement of Asurendra. Please try to justify your image removing, source removing and Pali, etc. Also, please tell what I;ve removed which you always mentions in reverting edit summary as your reason for revert, which I've asked ffor many times to explain, what I removed, But no aresponse about it given ever.JaMongKut (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Callanecc: I doubt if JaMongKut understands the basic pillars of Wikipedia, let alone all this. JRDkg (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@JRDkg: Sorry, but may I know, which of the basic pillars of Wikipedia I don't understand? And also please discuss on the topic, please don't divert and give reasons for your reverts, please. I've asked you for the reasons many times please tell. JaMongKut (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
@JRDkg: Please respond in order to discuss. JaMongKut (talk) 11:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Callanecc: Please look at the matter now. They are not discussing at all. Also, when asked for reason firstly gives the reason, which seems completely not related with the disputed edits. And now not giving any response. Will ithe edits be as it is, even if they are not responding. I've tried to catch their attention by pinging them, and leaving a message on their talk page, but no response at all. Also, they were also seen active after my asking. Will the edit be remained as it is or can I change, as there was no disagreement message by them for long time now. Even they again disagree later, they can surely firstly post a new discusiion on respective talk page before reverting.

Reoccurring Vandalism and edit wars of a previously banned User.

Hello User:Callanecc, I wasnt checking WP in a long time, but coming back I saw User:Kami2018 doing the exact same reverts and edits eh was previously banned for again[37][38]. He is not learning from his mistakes, instead of coming back and enganging in any sort of talk, he blatantly does the same reverts and removes sourced categories like "Afghan" or "Pashtun" from articles. The wording he changed in the second revert is not even in line with the sources as he implies. This behavior is extremely disruptive and intervention is needed --Xerxes931 (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Your intervention is seriously needed, since my last message here the user has done at least 2 more reverts on the exact same topic without trying to use the talk page or anything[39][40]. He is completely ignoring all the sources that already have been provided and stonewalling on purpose. Furthermore he started to continue again with the edits which I have previously reported him for as well, removing the term "Afghan" from every article that comes into his way[41][42]. Besides that I saw him Edit-warring with other users on other pages as well[43][44]. As you see its not only me who has a hard time with him. Since you are the only admin who knows his backstory and all the reports against him that have already been done I am asking you to please intervene in the situation, its getting too far and it is impossible to improve articles where he keeps edit warring. --Xerxes931 (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Another account

Hi Callanec. In relation to the Moskerhus SPI. You blocked the Khorler account, but he/she was eventually unblocked by Rosguill (not here to discuss the reasons). Now, today, an account with only two edits in total,[45] appeared on the scene to reinstate another one of Moskerhus's controversial edits, word for word verbatim, on the Gutians page.[46] Earlier, Khorler denied any connections with Moskerhus. There's something fishy going on here, so I'm wondering what your gentlemans take is on the matter. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Oshwah as well as he ran a CU at the time. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
@LouisAragon: From what I can see in the CU info, it's Red X Unrelated to Moskerhus & Khorler. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Sandesh9822

Since you used checkuser last time on  Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sandesh9822, can you check it again this time? Apparently you had more details about the master at that time too. Srijanx22 (talk) 05:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Invitation for Functionary consultation 2021

Greetings,

I'm letting you know in advance about a meeting I'd like to invite you to regarding the Universal Code of Conduct and the community's ownership of its future enforcement. I'm still in the process of putting together the details, but I wanted to share the date with you: 27 June, 2021. I do not have a time on this date yet, but I will let you soon. We have created a meta page with basic information. Please take a look at the meta page and sign up your name under the appropriate section.

Thank you for your time.--BAnand (WMF) 15:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Complicated SPI

I believe this is a WP:MEATPUPPET case with undisclosed paid editing. It appears User:Suryabeej is here to promote the subject in question. They registered account two months ago and since then shows great interest in Draft:Vivek Verma.

The current revision [47] looks rewritten by an experienced editor (maybe UPE editor).

Previous revision [48].

Promotional and bad caps draft was rewritten between 16:52, 21 June 2021[49] to 17:06, 21 June 2021[50] (within 14 minutes)

I am not sure if I should refer this case to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vivek.k.Verma/Archive#14 May 2021. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
  • An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.

Technical news

  • IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

sayed dynasty -dehli sutanate.

Hi I really need your help. I have been trying to improve and do the obvious thing editing sayed dynasty page for weeks, but this user is preventing me. I presented him all sources primary and secondary but he refuses to cooperate. All i am saying is the mention of afghan in origins where it is obvious. I think he is using his wiki position dis honestly. I tried to talk with him in talk page but he is simply not listening. I ask you to see sayed dynasty page, edit history and talk page, and then decide what to be done ,thank you84.211.44.191 (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Dispute to my recent edit for Augustana...

Hi there. I tried to make an accuracy edit on a band page for Augustana, and you responded with: "I wanted to let you know that one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Augustana (band)—has been undone because it appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)"

The edit I made was not for promotional means. It was fact. The current URL on the Augustana Wikipedia page is listed as www.augustanamusic.com, which actually takes the viewer to https://www.danlayus.com/, which is a real estate page. This is clearly not the band's website. The lead singer, Daniel Layus, who is also on Wikipedia, is clearly stated as the lead, and solo, singer of the band Augustana: [[51]]. His website listed for his music is https://danlayusmusic.com/, which is correct.

So my original edit had nothing to do with beingi promotional or using Wikipedia as a soapbox. It had only to do with aligning one Wikipedia accuracy to another that it was linked to. Can you please re-do my edit? Or let me know how it actually violates any rule.

Thanks, Hpnashville (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC) hpnashville

Hi Hpnashville, I think I left you the message accidentally as I didn't actually revert the change you made. Sorry for the confusion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks like block evasion

Of the NH population vandal: GrannyDsRevenge (talk · contribs). 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Didn't realize I wasn't signed in. And uh, no I am not a "vandal", just the guy updating 2020 Census info to NH State Senate districts ahead of redistricting. My sources just weren't saving for whatever reason. No cause for alarm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrannyDsRevenge (talk • contribs) 03:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

My Talk Page

Thanks for removing foul language comment from my talk page. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 04:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Golden Rice Article Editing

Hi, I made the changes based on the requirements of the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI). It is important to deliver them the content as instructed. Proper citations was given and the contents were original. I request you to let me keep the article as given by the IRRI. If you feel necessary, I can provide the contract paper also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrezoan (talk • contribs) 07:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nrezoan, the content you added has been removed because it is not relevant to the article you're adding it to. Based on your comment above I now believe that you might be engaging in paid editing. I've left a message about that and edit warring on your talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Read-only reminder

A maintenance operation will be performed on Wednesday August 25 06:00 UTC. It should only last for a few minutes.

Also during this time, operations on the CentralAuth will not be possible (GlobalRenames, changing/confirming e-mail addresses, logging into new wikis, password changes).

For more details about the operation and on all impacted services, please check on Phabricator.

A banner will be displayed 30 minutes before the operation.

Please help your community to be aware of this maintenance operation. Thank you!

20:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Full-protection at 2024 United States presidential election

Hi, I'm kinda confused as to your rationale for fully protecting 2024 United States presidential election. Thomascampbell123 removed some state polls to move them to individual state articles (such as 2024 United States presidential election in Florida. Admittedly, they did not indicate where they moved the polls in their edit summary. Sthubertliege undid this, seemingly due to not knowing where the polls went. They then self-reverted, considering moving the polls to a different article.

I fail to see how in any way this is a content dispute worthy of full protection. This could've easily been resolved on the article's talk-page - I don't even see a dispute here, just a misunderstanding. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I moved those polls to the state presidential election articles. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
I've reverted it back to semi since it appears that the issue is resolved. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Golden rice page editing

Hello, I have added my employer and client information on my user page, as you mentioned. Please let me know if I need to do something more before further editing on the "Golden rice" page.

Firstly, when you post on talk pages you should 'sign' your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) after your post that will put in your username and the date and time.

Regarding the edits you want to add, as you have a conflict of interest you need to follow the conflict of interest guideline which states that those with a conflict of interest, including paid editors, are very strongly discouraged from directly editing affected articles, but should post content proposals on the talk pages of existing articles. Given that your edits to the page have been reverted as they are believed to be irrelevant advertising you should not add the content to that Wikipedia article and it's unlikely that others will add it for you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Changes to Jonathan Crombie article

Hiya! I'd like to discuss the Personal Life section of the Jonathan Crombie article and the temporary lock that's been put on the article.

From what I understand, footnote 12, which was cited for the sentence, "Crombie never married and had no children," was expanded by a user the other day to include a quote from Crombie's sister confirming that Crombie was gay but did not come out until his 40s. The headline of the article cited in footnote 12 reads, "Jonathan Crombie Was Gay Says Sister Robin. Posted on 7 July, 2015" and links to https://web.archive.org/web/20180414014250/http://eatbloganddie.tumblr.com/post/123474812185/jonathan-crombie-was-gay-says-sister-robin.

Earlier today, you protected this article for "Violations of the biographies of living persons policy" and changed protection status on the page for "Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content."

Could you help me understand how these changes represent "violations of the biographies of living persons policy" when Jonathan Crombie has been deceased for six years? And was the change for "addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content" related to the edit that simply reiterated the headline of the linked source?

If the fact that the cited source is an archived Tumblr post, and doesn't pass a quality standard, I'd like to propose citing this source, a 2015 tweet by Steve Paikin, instead: https://twitter.com/spaikin/status/610232878216159232

My understanding is that these changes were meant to improve the quality of this section of the article, which before the edit, represented the He never married journalistic trope that has erased public figures' homosexual identities for decades.

Thank you!

Wonderlode (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wonderlode I've removed the semi protection and the 'quote' from the subject's sister as it's from a self-published source as you indicated. The Tweet you referred to is also not a reliable source for this content for the same reason. If it was from his sister herself there'd be a stronger reliability argument in favour of allowing it but a hearsay quote is not sufficient. I've removed the semi protection but unless there is a reliable source that can be provided it shouldn't be added to the article (nor should anything that suggests Crombie's sister says he's gay since we don't have a reliable source for that either. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi Callanecc Thank you for explaining. It's obviously disappointing to those of us who looked up to Jonathan as a queer mentor later in his life, to see that part of his life erased here, but I also understand the need for a rigorous citation. · Wonderlode (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
With respect, journalist-of-record Steve Paikin livetweeting a memorial isn't the same as "just a tweet". I'd suggest a journalist described as "the Queen's Park journalist with the most Twitter influence" is arguably reliable on his Twitter feed. Tweeting bullshit would be no less damaging to his career than saying it on-air and being forced to retract. 
Also, WP:BLP is hardly relevant to someone who died 6 years ago. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Re BLP, that's why I changed the reason, I hit the wrong button. There's probably enough scope in WP:SPS and at WP:RSPTWITTER (for the reason you said) to have a discussion about it in this specific situation, the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is probably the best place. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Augustus

On the wikipedia page of Augustus, the first Emperor of Rome, it says that he was born on 23 Sept 63 B.C. and died on 19 Aug 14 A.D. It also says that he was aged 75 at the time of his death. He was 76. Please can you change that or find someone to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hfw420 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Hfw420, if you try to edit a protected page (click on "View source") an information screen will appear that gives you the option to submit an edit request. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Warnings issued on my account.

Good day! My account has been warned by you that I shouldn't violate Wikipedia's neutrality, and introduced unsourced or poorly-sourced content. I would like an explanation on how my revisions were such in any manner. I would like to think that "Is terrorist" is more biased then "Is accused of being terrorist".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danrayu (talk • contribs) 13:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Hopefully the message left by Bishonen on your talk page clarifies the issue. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanklulutherat63 ‎

Like prior socks, the same pattern of a new user adding music genres [53][54][55][56] compare to others. 183.171.115.143 (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, please file an SPI. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

changes to functionary team

Following a request to the committee, the Oversight permissions of Callanecc are restored.

Katietalk 13:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § changes to functionary team

Dear Admin pls look into it

There is repeated changing of words on the page "Krishnaut". I have edited it again as per the source, but certain caste supremacist just want to promote their community. Kindly pls lock the page, so that unnecessarily changes are not made

Regards RS6784 (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Taimoorahmed11

Just had a look that you had reduced block of this user to 1 week which will expire on 14 Sept. However, after revelation of sock puppetry I don't think it would be a good decision to allow him to edit as this user another account's talk page show he was making personal attack against all users who interacted him and was already warned of possible indef block by Bbb23.[57] I don't see chances of constructive editing but continuation of disruption after the expiration of block. TolWol56 (talk) 07:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but the block on that account was only for 3 days. I've effectively doubled that block due to the socking. If any of the disruption reoccurs I can't see a reason that it won't be dealt with robustly. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

www.wikipedia.org

No worries. I had forgotten that issue from several years ago even existed, so I obviously can't say I have strong feelings about it either way now. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bearcat: Thanks, I've dropped it to semi. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Recent closure

Hey Callanecc, hope you're doing well. Can you please explain more thoroughly why this SPI was closed? Not only did Mukvani16 edit-war exclusively in the page where SonofJacob was going to breach 3RR [58] (and they did breach 3RR previosly in Gugark), but also the user SonofJacob has history of edit warring in multiple pages, and this new account seemed to be a clear case of WP:DUCK and an attempt to avoid 3RR in Zakarid Armenia. I'll also ping @El C one of the involved admins in this AN case also regarding SonofJacob. I'm kindly asking to reopen the SPI case, that user not only was/is disruptive and breached multiple guidlines previously, buy they also created a sock account to avoid 3RR in a very WP:DUCK case if you ask me (and I'm not the only one). Best regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with everything you've said and there was probably enough to push towards a sock block but I wasn't convinced enough based only on two edits and a possible CU result that it was justifiable to block SonofJacob for socking. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the fast response. With respect, multiple editors agreed of them socking [59]. I'm not sure if you checked the AN (and you didn't have to), but some of the things SonofJacob (talk · contribs · count), a new WP:SPA acount with mostly POV edits did so far:
1) Breached 3RR in Gugark [60], [61], [62], [63].
2) Edit-warred and breached 3RR in other pages like Chechil
3) Multiple WP:CIR and WP:JDLI issues here and [64] (removing actual AfD tags from their recently created article, which is still being discussed btw [65])
4) And now creating a new account, Mukavi16 to avoid 3RR
How all of this doesn't warrant an SPI, especially when we have a clear case of WP:DUCK case? A) user breached 3RR in different pages; B) User was shown his breaches of 3RR; C) User creates a new account to avoid 3RR and reopen a closed AfD [66], [67] that they carelessly nominated in the past as SonofJacob.
Please Callanecc, reconsider your decision. With best, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree that there are issues with their editing. Hopefully, the AN discussion and this edit warring block will encourage them to adjust their editing. If not, they can be reblocked very easily. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the AN encouraged them tho in the wrong way. They were told about breaching 3RR and created a sock to circumvent yet another breach. If I've ever seen someone that is clearly WP:NOTHERE, it's SonofJacob. Now please, could you let the SPI happen? Do we really need to being this to ANI? As I already said, I have immense respect for Wikipedia admins/clerks and the work you guys do is underappreciated, and bringing this to ANI just because of a WP:SPA POV account that is clearly WP:NOTHERE would be the last thing I would want to do, that wouldn't even cross my mind. Reopening the SPI when we have a clear case of WP:DUCK and all the previous red flags would be the correct and logical thing to do, in my honest opinion and also according to other editors. I can't even count how many issues they caused in Zakarid Armenia page alone, just have a look at edit history. Other users and admins had to step in just to clean up after them. And now we have a sock account by them to avoid 3RR, and what they were edit-warring for you might ask? Restoring their careless AfD nomination of a well sourced article, which was closed due to all votes being 'Keep'. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
@ZaniGiovanni: To clarify, SPI is designed to investigate sockpuppetry not to investigate and handle any other issues which may be happening (such as NOTHERE). Consider reporting an editor to WP:UAA when they are edit warring about something totally unrelated. The username issue will be dealt with and the admin may or may not deal with what else is happening. Given the backlog at SPI at the moment, the socking tends be dealt with and any other issues left for other venues.

In this specific instance, while it is likely that these two accounts are operated by the same person the technical evidence is makes it less certain (possible is as low as we go before becoming unlikely). To me, the technical evidence suggested that this could be someone else who was aware of what was happening or someone unrelated. In this case, experience tells me to 'play it safe', block the likely sock account (which is effectively NOTHERE) and then leave the other account for further action elsewhere (in the AN discussion for example). Keep in mind also, that the SPI convention in this instance is a short block for the master for edit warring and socking, at least initially. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Callanecc firstly I very much appreciate your time and explanation. Regarding your assumption that it could be another user: If you look at the edit history of Zakarid Armenia, the new user specifically restored the closed AfD, which SonofJacob desperately wanted to restore themselves. Both indicate same new account behavior, both aren’t aware that you shouldn’t open a closed AfD, both edit-warred in the same timeframe in a low watched article (new account came in just after 20 minutes), and SonofJacob was aware of 3rr already (because of the AN case and talk notices) and more indication that the new account was him to avoid yet another 3rr breach. All of these indicates a clear Wp:Duck case.
I now understand that other issues aren’t related to SPI, but given all of these patterns I just showed (strictly SPI related), do you still think that an investigation isn’t warranted? Best regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
That explanation has pushed me over the line so I've modified Mukvani16's block and noted on their userpage that it's a suspected sock. Given it's been a couple days and SonofJacob hasn't edited recently (possibly other reasons involved) I've left them a warning about sockpuppetry. If they do it again now they've been warned, any block will likely be indefinite. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Most of the editors would agree that you did the right thing, but there are a couple of issues: SonofJacob just commented and said Mukavi16 was his "friend" (self admitting of meat puppetry?) and put his edit-war in quotations marks, saying you made the “wrong choice”:
Hello Mr.Callanecc, I know you are very busy as it seems but I have to talk to you about the stuff I've been going through. Basically, with due all respect, you've made a wrong choice. Both about banning Mukvani16, an user which is actually a friend of mine, and also, about blocking me for "edit-warring" in Zakarid Armenia now If you do not mind, I will shift my talk in here.[68]
Given their previous edit-warring and 3RR breach, their continual disregard for wrong doing (putting edit-war in quotation marks) and most likely lying about the account being their "friend" (which is meatpuppetry itself, and I'll eat my words if the SPI investigation showed otherwise), don't you think a block is already warranted, at the very least as a preventative measure? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


First of all, I've been making several edits which caused an "edit-war" as it seems to be said, but I want you to hear me out. Let's take a look at Mr.ZaniGiovanni's claims:

Hey Callanecc, hope you're doing well. Can you please explain more thoroughly why this SPI was closed? Not only did Mukvani16 edit-war exclusively in the page where SonofJacob was going to breach 3RR [12] (and they did breach 3RR previosly in Gugark), but also the user SonofJacob has history of edit warring in multiple pages, and this new account seemed to be a clear case of WP:DUCK and an attempt to avoid 3RR in Zakarid Armenia. I'll also ping @El C one of the involved admins in this AN case also regarding SonofJacob. I'm kindly asking to reopen the SPI case, that user not only was/is disruptive and breached multiple guidlines previously, buy they also created a sock account to avoid 3RR in a very WP:DUCK case if you ask me (and I'm not the only one). Best regards, 1) This account does not belong to me. It belongs to a really good friend of mine, so let's just not even try to push this since if you ask for proof I can get you proof of me relatively speaking with this person teaching him how to create a wikipedia article in sight of fighting (what, in our eyes seemed as) obvious corruption. Now, as I've noted "corruption" I do not want anyone to feel offended, nor do I claim it is neccessarily this way but after I will get you every single fact checked, then I am pretty sure you will make good of a conclusion yourself. So:

As I've stated before, still due to the respect I hold for Wikipedia Administrators for the work they are contributing, sometimes, you guys can be wrong too. In this case, having no legitimate reason for blocking me and banning my friend.

Back to mr.ZaniGiovanni's claims:

1) Breached 3RR in Gugark [14], [15], [16], [17]. 1) I agree with this person, and really do apologize for the lack of knowledge of my wikipedia skills since I really did not know what 3RR meant, also the Wikipedia banner told me to "make a change manually" and not by "reverting" I thought it would be completely normal to do so. I also want to make a quick addition that the source I've added to the very same article was sources from OXFORD. So accordingly, after other people started to revert me I said to them that my sources from were from Oxford and nothing was "unreliable" about them. But they still asked for reaching "consensus". Which I read by Wikipedia's policy IS NOT ALWAYS NECCESSARY. After I read this, I also thought that it would be okay to just not argue with them because my sources were obviously reliable (Oxford) and they were just being biased about deleting it. This is where other mistake by making 3RR comes in hand. Not by my intention, but for my lack of knowledge for which I apologize.

Another good claim of our kind friend ZaniGiovanni says that: 2) Edit-warred and breached 3RR in other pages like Chechil 2)This here, is actually the most favorite one I could tell you about. Also because of my lack of knowledge I reached 3RR. But the weirdest thing is that I hold at least ten times more reliable sources and arguments in the Talk page of Chechil so please, with my biggest respect, you decide who is right in this matter of reaching consensus, because even though I am 100% right, there are at least 3 times more people than me who want to go against my version of the article (which I dare to say makes more sense and is more reliable) being outnumbered, it obviously makes it hard for me to "reach a consensus" since all of the people who I am discussing with are biased against me. You may see the talk page of it HERE.

3) Multiple WP:CIR and WP:JDLI issues here and [18] (removing actual AfD tags from their recently created article, which is still being discussed btw [19])

3)It might sound crazy, I do not know if it does, but most of these "crossed lines" come from my lack of knowledge. Basically, me not knowing Wikipedia well, I applied a "Speedy deletion" for article Zakarid Armenia due to obvious biased information. (which is whole another case that I am gonna discuss later) (and which is also matter of debate under me and Mr.ZaniGiovanni) I removed the Afd tag ON MY ARTICLE because of them removing my speedy deletion. Thinking we would be even. Now, I want to get to the most interesting part of the story.

As you see, for the most part I am innocent. Well, I wouldn't say innocent but it is for you to judge not me. But hear me out:

answer to 4) I have already said that he is a friend of mine. I have told him the story that I have been going through with several people like Mr.Zani and he felt unjust about my situation and decided to help me out.

Now, I want you to take a look at the history of Zakarid Armenia Which can be seen HERE now please, tell me. Was it ME who started "edit-warring"? was it ME who reached the 3RR at this very article or was it another good friend of ours @lazyges? The funniest part is, that he closed an Afd which had tons of arguments about why the article should've been deleted. All of my arguments, ALL OF THEM. Have been ignored and the Afd request had been deleted. Do you want to know the reason WHY it was deleted?

According to the user lazyges, (who is not an administrator) the Afd was closed for "overwhelming speedy keep" comments.

The most hilarious part is not even the fact that in accordance to the Wikipedia Policies, Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments.

His claim of the "speedy keep" being overwhelmingly high, was not even true. THERE WAS ONLY ONE. A SINGLE. Person who wrote "Speedy keep" and even that comment had an unbelievably illogical comment AS it was not a counter-argument to what I have written.

After we see @lazyges BREAKING 3RR in these cases: [69] [70] [71] [72] (I am sorry if I linked them wrong, as I said I am new to Wikipedia but you can see him breaking it HERE as well.)

I do not know if you can view Afd which was illegally deleted by @:lazyges but, if you can please PLEASE take a look at it because I am completely right against them and have valid arguments. So please, block the user lazyges and renew Afd for Zakarid Armenia. Because I was blocked unfairly, (and not only blocked unfairly, the person who ACTUALLY breached 3RR and deleted Afd for an illegitimate reason is still not blocked.) a friend of mine (Mukvani16) was Banned for absolutely no reason as well. What I want to ask in return is Unbanning my friend, blocking lazyges for breaching 3RR and deleting Afd for an illegitimate reason, and renewal of Afd of Zakarid Armenia WHICH I TOTALLY DESERVE. Thank you very very much for reading this. SonofJacob (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

You aren't helping anyone with this disruptive essay, and you were already confirmed for sockpuppetry. When you're falsely accusing fellow editors of "3RR", at the very least ping them correctly. Looking at Zakarid Armenia, @Iazyges in fact did not breach 3RR which you incorrectly said above. Matter of fact, so far only you are the one breaching multiple guidlines, creating socks etc. Actual facts: you breached 3RR in Gugark [73], [74], [75], [76]. You were shown all the relevant notices in your talk page, yet you went and did the same in Zakarid Armenia, only this time to avoid 3RR, you created a sock account. You're still saying that the account belongs to your "friend". Compelling evidence shows otherwise, and even if Mukavi16 is your friend, it is a clear case of meatpuppetry (which I don't belive btw, and an SPI will show that it is in fact your account).
Summing up everything so far and your comments / accusatory and denying essay, I'm more inclined to think that you're not here to build an encyclopedia. Callanecc and Iazyges, what do you think? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
It may generally help his case if he spelled my name correctly, and had a more firm understanding of AFD and Non-admin close policies, which he has been linked to. Additionally, I struggle to understand how I could be above 3RR with exactly three reversions unless he thinks removing the tag was a reversion, which simply isn't true. The close can be contested, certainly, and there is a forum for that which he seems to have ignored, but unless I've done something particularly heinous to an admin's mother, I really don't see how you could even argue in favor of a block. He must also be aware that his aggravating discussion tactics (I can't speak for the whole world, but from when I first gained consciousness to now, constantly smiling during an argument has summoned within me a deep desire to punch that person in the face.) Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

From what I can see you arguments aren't really a strong side of yours. "You were confirmed to sockpuppetry" is one of the most hilarious sentences I've ever heard when my friend Mukvani16 is literally another person who I talk to via Discord. Also, doesn't that make you, and your haykakan friends also bunch of "meatpuppets" to each other as well? I actually have fallen in love with you (with what you do;)) and your friends and, even though we have quite the different stances to each other. I know I will get labeled as something and even get a warn or a block, but I find it amazing when you guys are having fun time being majority. (which obviously gives you power) Basically, if I try to prove to my hay axperner that the Carrot is Orange in color, they will just ask for a "consensus" and I will be denied no matter how right I am. SonofJacob (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@SonofJacob: First of all, bringing in a person off-wiki solely to help your argument is pretty clear-cut meat puppetry. (High-profile disputes on Wikipedia often bring new editors to the site. Some individuals may promote their causes by bringing like-minded editors into the dispute, including enlisting assistance off-Wiki. These editors are sometimes referred to as meatpuppets, following a common Internet usage. While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited. from the Meatpuppetry subsection. Arguing endlessly on user talk pages is helpful to none. Feel free to take this to deletion review or, loathe as I am to venture to the accursed lands, WP:ANI. I don't think you'll be particularly happy with either outcome. Perhaps that's why you haven't. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
You understand you've been reverted, probably by like 10 editors because of your repetaed disruptions such as breaching 3RR, sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, opening closed AfDs by reverts, WP:TENDENTIOUS edits, and so on. You understand that most of them were not even Armenian, lol (or "haykakan / Armenian" as you say, weirdly bringing up ethnicity again). You understand that meatpuppetry is still prohibited, and you just self-admitted to it. You understand that you can't throw baseless accusations on fellow editors because baseless accusations qualify as personal attacks (I lost count how many times I have to tell this [77]). You understand the only reason you're still able to edit is because many admins (rightfully) don't want to be engaged in the toxic AA area because of editors like you.
@El C would you mind weighing in since you already gave them a warning previously [78]? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
@ZaniGiovanni: no thanks. I'd rather sit this one out. El_C 15:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Noting that I've blocked SonofJacob indefinitely for tendentious editing among other things. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Page deletion re Mike J. Brooks

Dear Callanecc I believe you recently deleted a page describing my career because it was apparently posted by an unauthorised editor. I have no knowledge of the unauthorised person or the process. Could I please get a copy of the deleted page? And are you please able to advise how I might seek to have the page appear legitimately as I believe I have an appropriately significant record. Many thanks, Mike Brooks https://researchers.adelaide.edu.au/profile/michael.brooks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yatesbury (talk • contribs) 11:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Yatesbury, the Mike J. Brooks article was deleted because we have a policy to revert and delete the contributions of people who have been blocked or banned from editing Wikipedia so they aren't encouraged to continue. We also have a policy against editing for payment without clearly disclosing this conflict. For this reason I won't undelete the article. There is are specific notability requirements to qualify for a Wikipedia article, see Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for more information. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello admin: abusive comments by User:2409:4053:487:2689:0:0:1BD8:B8B0

Hello admin

Abusive comments have been posted by user User:2409:4053:487:2689:0:0:1BD8:B8B0 against me on my talk page. He is engaged in Editing war, repeatedly undoing things without giving reason on " Krishnaut page" and Devryat Bodar". Please see the abusive comments by this IP address on my talk page I need your help RS6784 (talk) 09:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

RS6784 It is working only for one rajput caste, erasing the history of other castes without knowing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4053:487:2689:0:0:1BD8:B8B0 (talk) 20:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
You need to use reliable sources to support the content you are adding to articles. I have reverted the additions you have made to the articles as they are unsourced. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

The person has written abusive things on my talk page, he needs an instant ban. RS6784 (talk) 10:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Can you translate for me please? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
He is saying he will kill me, it is a case of threatening message along with abusive a community. I just wanted to remove unsourced substance. RS6784 (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
I've blocked the IP and revision deleted the comments on your talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear Callenac, 

User:2409:4053:211:4A47:0:0:F6C:10A1 ( probably a sock puppet of the above banned account) is continuously engaged in disruptive editing by adding fake website sources along with misquoting other references on "Krishnaut Page" without giving proper reason on talk page.

Kindly pls look into it.

Regards RS6784 RS6784 (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Pls find the link [79] This is a case of repeated disruption to push particular pov.

As you were active on the page in the past, kindly pls take necessary action here Regards RS6784 RS6784 (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I've semi protected the article. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Bran488

Hi, you might like to take a look at editor User:Holcroft1982. No sooner had you blocked Bran488, than Holcroft1982 appears after six months and continues the same edit war. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 10:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks WWGB. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bgtips1001. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Appeal

Hi Callanecc, I'd like to appeal the TBAN that I've been given - directing the appeal at you personally before I raise a formal appeal because it is no way my intention to once again waste the time of numerous WP administrators. I'm not denying that I violated 1RR. I edited too boldly in a contentious area and, by my own hand, left myself open to sanctions. I also understand that the second complaint against me on the back of an existing AE does not make a very good impression.

However, I also think I have got a bit of a raw deal and that 11Fox11, who raised the complaint, did so in a particularly inappropriate manner. I was given no warning that my edit was considered an 1RR breach and no self-revert request was made prior to the second AE being raised, which I believe is contrary to custom, and indeed, I see editors making numerous self-revert requests for far more trivial reasons on this platform for the likes of 1RR. In fact, 11Fox11 never even commented on the talk page discussion I raised about the edit, before or after the edit, which would have been an obvious place to ask me to self-revert or at least to register their objection to the material. Instead, 11Fox11 has not engaged, and also did not revert the material themselves, which they could have done, if they had found it highly objectionable.

At the time the AE was raised, the first AE (to which 11Fox11 was already party) was still unconcluded, and this evidence could have also been brought up there. It is fairly clear from this approach that 11Fox11's priority was not getting me to self-revert or to reach a consensus on content, but to maximally escalate the disciplinary proceedings against me. I could have simply been asked to revert and complied. Instead, 11Fox11 elected to tie up the valuable time and energy of administrators.

I am not an unreasonable editor, and it was obviously not my intention to perform edits that would be seen as a revert amid a standing AE for reverting - how stupid would that be? There is a lot of talk on Wikipedia about not doubting (or assuming) the good faith of editors, but I think the result of these AEs assumes bad faith from me. The TBAN falls a week after it had been accepted that I was a new and slightly inexperienced editor. Learning involves mistakes, and I'm obviously not going to make an 1RR mistake of any type again in a while. I also would have learnt the lesson if I had been simply told what I had done was considered a 1RR rule breach.

The second AE was largely unnecessary, and even if this does not give cause for a rethink, I would ask: why not 6 months, as suggested, and why not a page ban? Is there significant evidence of me being particularly disruptive in the conflict area outside of this page? I may have edited boldly in instances, but not disruptively I would suggest. The first AE was in the conflict area, true, but on a page with no edit notice, and at a time when I did not understand that the conflict area extending to pages without edit notices. As a final point, there are pages that I have built that, broadly construed, could be considered part of the conflict area, such as Beer_in_Palestine. If this TBAN stands (and for 12 months), it will completely stop my work on this page and others that I have created. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Contrary to the above ("11Fox11 never even commented on the talk page discussion I raised about the edit, before or after the edit"), I commented on the talk page in sections Iskandar323 started both before the AE (10:48 21 September) and during (17:56, 22 September 2021) the AE, after the 1RR breach. Iskandar323 is correct that I "did not revert the material themselves" as I chose not to edit war with a disruptive editor.
Iskandar323 should be blocked for the meritless attack above (that goes beyond what is allowed in an appeal, and has been proven false), and for this post which violates the TBAN from 07:01, 26 September 2021, made after the TBAN was imposed. 11Fox11 (talk) 09:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
This rather proves my point that 11Fox11 is engaging in hounding and going through my contributions every day in the search for things that they dislike in a form of targeted WP:HA harassment. Since 22 September, 11Fox11 seems to have done little else. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
On which note: where do I need to go to request a no-fault two-way interaction ban? I'd love to disengage from this. Are you able to grant one? Iskandar323 (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @Iskandar323:, taking aim at the user who reported your disruptive editing isn't going to convince anyone that the TBAN isn't necessary. The fact that the first AE request didn't clue you in to the need to follow and be cautious of the one revert rule suggests that the topic ban is actually necessary. Then, during the second AE request, you performed a second revert just after 24 hours of an initial one. This is edit warring and looks as if you're trying to game the one revert rule. The diff that 11Fox11 posted above is a breach of your topic ban. You need to avoid this topic area completely. My recommendation is that you edit constructively in other areas for at least 6 months then consider appealing the TBAN based on that constructive editing.

    @11Fox11: Now that the topic ban is in place, I'd suggest you avoid commenting on Iskandar323's editing where possible. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Very well Callanecc, I shall do as you suggest. But with a view to "asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban" with the imposer of the ban, as per WP:BANEX, am I not even allowed to point out inappropriate editing behaviors to administrators? In the example above, I just drew an administrator's attention to a user who was blocked previously by that same administrator for a certain pattern of edits but then resumed the same pattern of edits after a brief hiatus. Shouldn't administrators be made aware of where they have been explicitly ignored or where rules are being broken? With a similar view to seeking clarification, what should I do if I see an edit like this, where a user with only 16 contributions makes an edit on a page that could reasonably be construed to be conflict-area related, when such edits should be restricted to extended confirmed users? Am I not allowed to report it to an administrator? Iskandar323 (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
    No you aren't, you shouldn't do anything in or regarding this topic area. You can't have anything do to with the Arab-Israeli conflict area at all. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Iskander323 topic ban

Hello Callanecc. You recently topic-banned Iskander323 from the Arab Israeli conflict. Please see list of edits below that are either outright violations of the topic ban or are very close around the edges of the topic ban.

[80]: referring to Israel and the apartheid analogy which is conflict related.

[81]: ccommenting in section that begins with “The infobox lists place of origin as Israel, but the text of the article states that Bourekas were created by Sephardic Jews living throughout Ottoman lands, then brought to Israel during the Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries. Many food pages have the "place of origin" and/or "region or state" in the infobox.” The expulsion of Jews from the Arab countries after 1948 is conflict relatd.

[82]: Edit related to talk section above.

[83]: removing Israeli.

[84]: also discussion on cultural identity and whether it is Israel.

[85]: adding State of Palestine. The very short lead has “here is at least one Israeli-operated brewery in an illegal Israeli settlement in the West Bank”

[86]: Commenting on Israeli section removal

[87]: page has an ARBCOM ARBPIA notice on the talk. The edit moved things around “Pita falafel was popularized after Israel's independence and in the 1950s by Jewish Yemeni immigrants”. I would not report this by itself, but it is on the edges here.

Thank you for your time. Free1Soul (talk) 06:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

It should be clear that these are food articles, not conflict articles. They do not pertain to the conflict, but pre-1948 culinary traditions with origins deep in the Ottoman-era Middle East. I have an IP conflict ban, not a Middle East ban, and certainly not a food ban. Food definitions are not central to the conflict. I would appreciate it if you could also direct this editor to worry more about their own edits, and less about mine. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know Free1Soul. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

ANI

I'm sure you didn't intend this edit to revert ANI to a 2009 version, so I've reverted it & will leave you to do whatever you intended. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Oops. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Got a new Doppelgänger?

This you? Ks0stm (T•C•G•E)  If you reply here, please ping me by using {{re|Ks0stm}} in your reply.  11:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ks0stm: Nope not me. Thanks for blocking. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Adamdaniel864...

...appears to have resurfaced at Teahouse as User:548asiaslavia. Asking again to be unblocked at Ukranian Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Never block me. This time, I'm focusing on different topics, which are related to Nela the Little Reporter (Нела Маленька Репортерка) and the Hadith Qudsi (Хадис Кудсі). I'm indeed more different from my past. So, I seek to you not to block me as I'm indeed more different from the past. But, just ignore all my past. 548asiaslavia (talk)

FTR, I have asked for a global lock for 548asiaslavia and another Adamdaniel sock (that is already blocked here and at three other projects). Not sure how long it takes for the stewards to check and handle it, but the disclosure above might help. --bonadea contributions talk 18:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Block evasion

Hello,

You blocked 120.29.109.137 on September 20. The IP, while still blocked, appears to have registered the user name Alpharts Tod and is now editing again, including the IP's draft and other articles. See also Berig's talk page where I went with this first before seeing you are the blocking admin.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi. If they rule is that a user should be blocked, because they are capable of being abusive at some point in the future, why are you not blocked? Why are not all users blocked? All users have the potential to be abusive. Which brings up a n interesting point. For what reason are the most abusive people on Wikipedia admins? Could you cite for me the actual wikipedia rule of blocking users for "potential" abuse? Becuase I think you are really just being abusive by blocking someone for no reason. No one is challenging my edits. I am not contributing to anything even remotely controversial. Only obscure topics. I have not been involved in edit wars. Just randomly banning someone for a vague rule, but not banning others, is surely abusive. 188.172.108.26 (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
You’re a globally blocked sock puppeteer. That doesn’t happen for no reason.—Ermenrich (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Pretty sure insults will get you banned. I never said there was no reason. I said the reason that applies to me, should apply to all users. Why should it only apply to me if it is a universal rule? Are you capable of having an intelligent conversation? Or is the only thing you can do is ban everyone and insult and abuse people? How is this productive to Wikipedia?188.172.108.26 (talk) 10:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Re-evaluating sockpuppet-led AE

Hi Callanecc: I was wondering whether you would consider re-evaluating the TBAN [88] imposed on me on the basis of the AE raised by 11Fox11, a now condemned Icewhiz sock (and serial offender [89]), and supported by Geshem Bracha, another Icewhiz sock. Clearly Icewhiz had no right to raise the AE itself, and, in hindsight, I was being pursued by a banned user experienced at gaming the system [90]. In light of the SPI [91], it seems like the fact that the raising of the AE about me, without any issue or request to revert being raised about the offending edits, can no longer be assumed to have been done in the good faith at the time assumed of the account 11Fox11. As was stated by Ymblanter at the time, the AE was also raised technically before I received as logged warning in an outstanding AE about me [92] (in which 11Fox11 also testified) - an issue of timing which I also think can no longer be read in so innocent a light. I am fully aware of the mistakes I have made, but it is hard not to believe that the system gaming by the comparatively knowledgeable Icewhiz with respect to the AE platform relative to myself did not play a role in proceedings. I would also note that, even without these fresh considerations, none of the administrators involved in the AE ever recommended a 12-month TBAN - the most any of them recommended was 6 months. Finally, as testament to the fact that I am an asset and not a liability (as presented via AE by a notorious sockpuppet) to Wikipedia, I present the SPI case [93] that I myself brought to bear against a user in an unrelated subject area. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Incidentally, aside from the other considerations, as an indicator of my earnest desire to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia, I have made close to 200 edits to the page Whaling in the Faroe Islands to bring it up (from this monstrosity) to, what I optimistically hope, might be good enough for success as a good article nominee, or perhaps I have more work to do. Either way, it's the thought that counts: honest-to-God stable mucking. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

The sanctions was in response to another breach of 1RR quickly following the previous report. While the report was filed by a sock the revert was yours and was in the context of the previous AE discussion. Since I imposed the ban, I've also blocked you for breaching it. Additionally, relitigating the technicalities of whether or not the ban should have been imposed given that the logged warning was actually delivered isn't going to help with appealing. Instead you need to focus on how your editing, especially collaborative editing, has improved since the ban was imposed. That's exactly what you're doing with using Whaling in the Faroe Islands as example. So do more of that and focus less on the technicalities of the ban itself.
Given the involvement of a sock in the AE discussion and your recent constructive editing I am very happy for you to appeal the ban to me as no longer necessary (based on constructive editing) after 3 months from when it was imposed (so towards the end of December). I want to see you editing constructively for more than a couple weeks before I consider lifting it. Having said that, you are still free to appeal to the others venues linked in the notice I originally placed on your talk page if you wish. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
FYI, Free1Soul, the user who subsequently brought a complaint to you, is also under an SPI [94], based on their odd editing pattern up to the 500/30 mark prior to launching into the IP conflict, raising AEs, etc., although the CU looks inconclusive. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-43

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

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 26 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 27 October. It will be on all wikis from 28 October (calendar).

Future changes

  • Diff pages will have an improved copy and pasting experience. The changes will allow the text in the diff for before and after to be treated as separate columns and will remove any unwanted syntax. [95]
  • The version of the Liberation fonts used in SVG files will be upgraded. Only new thumbnails will be affected. Liberation Sans Narrow will not change. [96]

Meetings

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

20:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-44

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

  • There is a limit on the amount of emails a user can send each day. This limit is now global instead of per-wiki. This change is to prevent abuse. [97]

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 2 November. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 3 November. It will be on all wikis from 4 November (calendar).

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

20:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Sayed dynasty -Dehli sutanate.

Hi hope you are doing well. I (a few weeks back) wrote to you about Sayed dynasty. The mention of Afghan, in the origin section (as i said you can see in history and talk page)is very necessary as per various important reasons. I provided both primary and secondary sources that out-weigh the other 2 theories- specially the second one which have no support at all. But for "various reasons" it gets deleted by a specific user. I have seen you contributing and solving issues like this. I really hope this time you come with a solution. It may be in the form of inviting third party, making Wikipedia to intervene or something else ,which you might know better. Thank you and have a good day 84.211.44.103 (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC).

Tech News: 2021-45

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

  • Mobile IP editors are now able to receive warning notices indicating they have a talk page message on the mobile website (similar to the orange banners available on desktop). These notices will be displayed on every page outside of the main namespace and every time the user attempts to edit. The notice on desktop now has a slightly different colour. [98][99]

Changes later this week

Future changes

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

20:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-46

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

Problems

  • Sometimes, edits made on iOS using the visual editor save groups of numbers as telephone number links, because of a feature in the operating system. This problem is under investigation. [101]
  • There was a problem with search last week. Many search requests did not work for 2 hours because of a configuration error. [102]

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 16 November. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 17 November. It will be on all wikis from 18 November (calendar).

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

22:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-47

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

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

20:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-48

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

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 30 November. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 1 December. It will be on all wikis from 2 December (calendar).

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

21:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Callanecc/Archive_26&oldid=1060228780"