User talk:Callanecc/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

5th-century Hindu temples category deleted

Kindly reinstate the category Category:5th-century Hindu temples, as now there are temples that fall into this category and are categorised accordingly. -Ambar (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Undeleted. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit notice request

Could you please place an ARBEE edit notice on Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation? As you might imagine, it is a contentious topic that has seen repeated disputes. I think that an edit notice would be beneficial. Much obliged, RGloucester — ☎ 05:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the main problem has been IPs which has been dealt with by the semi. And that the main editors of the article are established users who have already been made aware so I'm not sure how much good a DS edit notice would be? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Given the contentious nature of the article, the edit notice will serve as a reminder, both to new editors and old contributors. That's all. It helps us remember to watch what we're doing. RGloucester — ☎ 15:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 07:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I've indef PC'd it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Behdad Sami Page Protection

Hi Callanecc,

I'd like to request that the semi-protection be placed back onto Behdad Sami: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Behdad_Sami

The reason it was on there this whole time was because of the amount of slander it received. Could you please put it back on there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.100.94 (talk) 04:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

50.53.100.94, you also make your request at WP:RPP where more admins might see your request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi 50.53.100.94, it's been protected for around 4 years and the issue involved doesn't seem to be as contentious now so it's about time that we check if the protection is still needed. Given that it hasn't been edited since (except by a bot) I unprotected, it's probably alright to leave that way. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, that makes sense. So if for whatever reason it does start getting slandered again, should I inform you, or post something with the admin you referenced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.84.117.56 (talk) 05:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Either me or make a request at WP:RFPP as it'll likely get a quicker response there. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Disclosure of paid editing

Hello Callanecc, I assure you that I haven't used any accounts except 'Vasanthsac' and 'Balaji E.M'. Vasanthsac account is used as per my employer order to create a page named 'SAC Vasanth'.Balaji E.M (talk) 05:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Alright I'll take your word for it. Make sure you note that you have both accounts on the userpage of both accounts, see WP:VALIDALT. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Response at AE

Please take note of my response here to this: Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 02:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Tban

Fancy lifting it? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back! I'd rather wait (I'd suggest 3 months) for a while to see how it goes now you're back, which is the norm for people under a sanction who 'return' from a break (whether an voluntary break or not). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

You've still got the exemption for Female infanticide in India if you want to keep working that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to know if DS is still allowed to work on SPIs concerning the socking on those subjects that falls under WP:ARBIPA. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes he is, both exemptions still stand. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Voting on functionary candidates

This is occurring at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. Courcelles (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Outrageous accusations

Please strike your outrageous accusations and personal attacks against me at WP:AE. I will not be smeared in this manner. You've turned an AE request about mass page moves and about ignoring consensus into a page about a non-existent personal dispute, and proposed measures that solve problems that do not exist. This is disgusting. Absolutely disgusting. If you cannot address the evidence raised, I suggest that you are not fit to be commenting on this AE request, and therefore ask for a recusal on your part. RGloucester — ☎ 06:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't make any personal attacks against you, Dicklyon presented the accusation and evidence and, as I said, there does seems to be the appearance of you following him around. And I agree that the short term, limited IBAN I quickly thought of won't solve the underlying problem; but, from my reading of the discretionary sanctions they can't be used to take the action (somewhat like Blueboar suggested) needed. What we can do is prevent the angst between the two of you, however my opinion is that this would be better taken to AN where the more broad restrictions could be applied. Having said that other admins may read the scope of the discretionary sanctions differently. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to pursue Arca clarification of the scope of the sanctions? To me, it seems like this is obviously in scope. RGloucester — ☎ 15:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done it, as I don't like waiting in the mires of bureaucracy. Please consider this the appropriate notification. RGloucester — ☎ 15:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• On the other matter, there is no evidence. Do not repeat baseless allegations. No one shall turn a request about mass page moves against consensus into such a sideshow. RGloucester — ☎ 16:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For taking on even more Wikipedia responsibilities! I don't know how you juggle it all! Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Liz. :) There's a reason I want new clerks! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Callan - what do clerks do? Maybe I can help? Atsme☯^Consult 16:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:AC/C, we're probably not going to take anyone new on for a few months while we train our current trainees. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Congrats for getting permanent checkusership and oversightership. :P Jianhui67 ^T★C 16:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Request

Are you free for analyzing the behavioral evidence of relatively small accounts. Asking because the SPI been mishandled twice and checkuser shown them to be unrelated. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I might have time. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

User:OccultZone/sandbox, case link. The two major accounts had no check though they pass WP:DUCK test. Note that the editor in question had affirmed to have read WP:SOCK#LEGIT in his own words[1] when he was blocked back in 2009 for block evasion, and he has been abusing these accounts since 2010. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Or, the accounts could be unrelated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in. But its only fair that you know of the context of the past SPI and conclusion and ongoing ANI here. And the fact that OccultZone filed the 2nd SPI after getting blocked, accusing me of socking those accounts that got him blocked. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

He already claims one of the sock(DanS76) to be his brother, so how it is unrelated? We don't take the words of suspected socks and misrepresent the policy that he had himself reviewed. I got to know that he retired DanS76 for avoiding suspicion, soon he used other socks for same discussions and edit warring. All of these suspects(4 accounts and 1 IP) have very a low edit count, about 300 edits. He believes that a malformed block led me to file another SPI and continues to bludgeon every single SPI, ANI by claiming that a showing photo of 2 people with each other(of just anyone) is exemption from socking. The reason was no different for creating the first SPI, it was to avoid his disruption. If he is not a sock he should stop caring! But he cares to bludgeon because he is a sock who has abused these accounts since 2010, not only during content dispute, page move, deletion discussions, but also for conduct discussions that eventually led indef block of other editor. I am also amazed that I have to admin shop or ask other admin to review a case of potential long term abuse. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

You make a lot of accusations, OccultZone. But I think it's better to rely on the findings of the SPI than your suspicions. If your suspicions are well-founded, an investigation should be able to find proof to support them. Otherwise, I suggest you should follow your own advice and "stop caring". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• IMO, this has long crossed the treshold into harassment territory by OccultZone. Both me and DoRD have opined that sockpuppetry does not appear to be a problem and OccultZone obstinately refuses to accept that point and basically accuses us of being wild incompetents. Zhanzhao, despite being under no obligation to do so, has provided proof (privately) of his identity as well as his brother's. OccultZone, just fucking drop it and move on. Your instinct seems to have been wrong, which happens to the best of us. But this pissing contest has gone on for far too long. The AN/I thread is 99% back-and-forth comparing of barely circumstancial evidence. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• I will drop if you show that presenting a proof for having a brother in real life gives you exemption from sock puppetry and abuse multiple accounts in 100% same namespaces. Which policy or even an essay supports it? It is not circumstantial evidence because these are relatively small accounts sharing more similarities than we do with each other. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• You don't sound like there is anything I would say that would convince you, so I'll spare us both the waste of time and words. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

:::::: Thanks, Salvidrim!. I didn't expect to see you here (was expecting you to weigh in at ANI) but really appreciate it.

I just want to point out that regarding OccultZone's point about "these are relatively small accounts sharing more similarities than we do with each other.", I already pointed out to OZ that even he made the same similar edits he identified as evidence:

OccultZone doing the exact same thing he used as "similarities" between me and the other alleged socks.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
*Specific identification, "by IP". [2][3][4] OccultZone doing the same *"formatting"[5][6][7] Again Occultzone using "formatting"to his logic. *Capital t of "talk"[8][9][10][11] Addressed earlier, I have used TALK, Talk and talk, basically every possible itteration. Even OccultZone capitalised his first "t" of talk before

Sorry to disturb you on your page, Callanecc. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Talking of 'talk', Zhanzhao has failed to find anyone else on earth who believes in some kind of full form of "TALK".[12][13][14][15]

In above diffs, Zhanzhao shows a comment by Lugnuts and claims that I am one of those who capitalize 't' of talk because Zhanzhao frequently did that his socks.[16][17][18][19]

I had not even written "talk" anywhere in my only comment, "@Lugnuts: No, it was with AWB." Neither Lugnuts used that word. Same with other diff where Zhanzhao claims that I have made specific identification "by IP", though I haven't written that. Zhanzhao came to misrepresent automatic summary of the titles as mine, that were originally created by other editors.

Such desperate attempts to misrepresent diffs and attempts to compare hundreds of other editors with his socks further proves that he is socking. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• You two need to STOP. Everything either of you could say has been said (at the SPI, at AN/I, then here). Neither of you has shown any ability to disengage or convince the other; your incessant quarrelling doesn't serve anyone's best interest. You are now at a point where y'all need to take a step back and shut up and let other uninvolved admins determine the best course of action (and abide by that decision). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I concede the points about the "by IP" and "Talk". I didn't realise it was a copied subject header that appearedin the summery. The point about Talk being common and about "formatting" is still valid though, as are the rest of my points which I already made. I'm sorry I have intruded. Zhanzhao (talk) 05:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Having had a look at the evidence in OZ's sandbox I'm not convinced that they are related. A lot of what is presented is circumstantial (and you could probably link the accounts with fewer edits to any number of established users) and in the absence of confirming checkuser results (note I haven't checked myself) I don't think we can call these DUCKs. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• One moves page,[20], gets reverted[21], then other makes same page move.[22]
• Who would page move war and edit war at the same time?[23][24] Or sign after 58 days[25] for evading 3rr[26][27]

What can be more obvious? Another comparison would include [28] [29][30][31], only the username has been changed, not the POV or even edit summary. How these examples are not passing duck test especially when accounts have got slightly more than 200 of edits? DanS76 and Zhanzhao 'were' never checked. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The users freely admit to editing from the same location. There is nothing more CU can say when the user already admits the results will be between "likely" and "confirmed". You have been told by three admins, including SPI Clerk trainee (myself), and two CUs (DoRD and Callanecc) that you are wrong or at the very least that there is not enough evidence to take action... and yet you refuse to accept that and continue arguing. What will it take for you to stop? A direct message from God almighty written in burning letters across the sky? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• I will answer the above queries later, for now I would tell Salvidrim to save those 21 words "What will it.... across the sky?", for Zhanzhao, after he will be indeffed. I have already updated my sandbox with more evidence of blatant socking. For now I would request Callanecc to provide full protection to Rape in India. Callanecc would you? There is massive sock puppetry, recent edit[32] is not made by a new editor, it is made by an editor who had made 2 edits in 2007 and now he has made another 9 edits for achieving the autoconfirmed right.[33] His edit is potentially favored by Zhanzhao and was recently made by an IP.[34] Thank you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Salvidrim!: It is the first time I've ever seen an "SPI Clerk trainee" taking the words of a previously blocked sock master, who had been socking since before and after his block. It was a mistake that you did, and that's why we are having these bad consequences. How you would define these edits as[35][36][37][38]? I had to ask for rev-del before I would show them here. Yes that IP was Zhanzhao per his own admission.[39][40] Why I have to use this UTP? Because you never replied on your talk page re: your actions.

Salvidrim did you even cared to look at the talk page of the sock? Check this comment. Real talk, no brother in the world would come after 40 days(and sometimes more) to help his brother evade 3rr and participate in 100% same namespaces.

Query to Callanecc: We know that new evidence can always overturn any former decision. In the light of more evidence(comparison:- [41]) where I have provided the numerous evasions of 3rr, participation on ban discussions, etc. that I hadn't provided before you had read, as well as this diff where he is warning about meatpuppetry to others. Even if his unbelievable notion that his brother helped him with other account since 2010 with en.wiki matters has to be taken, it was still an intentional abuse of WP:ILLEGIT. May I know what you think? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• A review of my actions is always welcome. I am open to being overridden by any CU/Clerk if I did err, but DoRD did not think so when I closed the case involving DanS76. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• DoRD had no involvement with DanS76, no one checked DanS76. DoRD just blocked one of these suspected sock yesterday[42] and he share too much similarities with Zhanzhao, not only he has the same POV, but same style of writing, edit summaries, edits, timings, etc. Just say that this sock had made an accidental mistake when he forgot to change the IP/wifi/device when he was socking with this account even for a single edit. Do you to know more about the technical evidence? Just read this latest comment by Risker, mind "how common". Since you are open to being overridden, I guess that Callanecc should run a CU on DanS76 and Zhanzhao, just for more confirmation, we have enough evidences to confirm that a single person was hopping accounts. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• (With apologies to Callanecc for helping to perpetuate this thread) @OccultZone: How do you know who I checked? How do you think that I determined that the three users in the case I worked were unrelated? Of course I checked Zhanzhao, and of course his results matched DanS76, but since it was already admitted that they used the same computer, and since Dan was not on the table this time, I did not mention him. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

With apologies to you DoRD you can see I wasn't aware of it. But thanks a ton for presenting that! OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• There's not much point running a checkuser as they've already admitted that they use the same computer. It looks to me (based on the diffs in your sandbox) that in 2010/2011 there looks to have been text book meatpuppetry (assuming they are different people) going on, but the most recent diffs in the sandbox for these two breaking policy look to be mid 2014 was is too old to consider sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The reverts that I have made on them are usually counted as edit warring by one or two people. I am not getting that which policy suggest that sock puppetry can be blocked only if it has been temporary? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Absent a block which is being evaded it was edit warring, there is no exemption for sockpuppets of not blocked or banned users. What do you mean? I'm saying blocking now would not be preventative and I don't see why 9ish months after the last time there was a problem the other user should be blocked from making their own edits if they wish. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Since we haven't run a CU, how we can be aware of any other socks that he has used? We can only make decision on these. The way he was abusing socks before he made an unconfirmed notion that he has a brother, it could've lead any other being blocked, he was edit warring with multiple editors that day. Why he admitted only when he was caught? Since he had well admitted per this newly discovered diff that he is aware of meat puppetry, we can ditch the previous notion that he wasn't. The new socks are clearly his, but now he has learned not to use same IP, device, and wifi. It is easier to consider that these socks are making the edits that Zhanzhao originally wanted to. Zhanzhao had expressed his intention, "I'll still add a one liner about many of the rape being unreported though."[43] These edits[44][45][46][47] exactly fulfills that criteria, and then having similarities, such as same edit summaries, having same style of making wikilink of URLs([[<small>http://www.example.com<small>]]), never disagreeing with each other, it is just obvious. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Also see the messages on User talk:Ponyo#49.244.239.31 where multiple edits have shown concerns over this IP extension, 49.244, it is used by multiple sock masters. Why one of the account, "Bargolus" signed in after 8 years,[48] just to restore the preferred version of Zhanzhao?[49] Same way DanS76 had signed in after 58 days just for restoring the preferred version of Zhanzhao? This account had self admitted to be 49.244.[50] and then edited his comment with 124.41.243.167.[51] This account pushes some "link to a WSJ article"[52] while Zhanzhao pushed "article from WSJ".[53] There are more evidences that I can mention if you would like to look upon. There is a great likely hood of sock puppetry on going and Zhanzhao has learned how to fool CU results, a process that is being already extensively currently discussed on an RfC of this policy page. It seems to me like sock master is using wide set of IP addresses for that "one liner" that Zhanzhao wants on the lead of the article. So that he cannot be caught. There is no hurry, you can also review in a few hours. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It also seems that these IPs/accounts edit wars at once, and together. More clear example of IP switching can be seen in this edit war : account[54], IP[55], IP.[56] Found it yesterday. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi again Callanecc, since that ANI is closed and has forwarded me to take this all new evidence to a new SPI. Should I consider taking this all there? We can review stuff there. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

You've already presented the evidence here and other places so I'd suggest don't file an SPI unless there is a reason to (that is if we find another related account). For example, I'm still looking into Bargolus but if I find a believable connection then it might be worth filing an SPI, but I'd likely do that or ask a clerk to do it if I find the evidence. I'd suggest that it would be better for you to drop it now that you've taken it through the process and leave it as it, if I think Bargolus is related I'll deal with it, if not then we can just leave it to rest. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

some fish or something

Too lazy to do the template, but yeah, that thing you did was a silly thing, even for April 1st. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah as soon as Fut Perf explained it I found myself a fish. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Competence of clerk trainees?

I simply wish to raise to the attention of the clerks the somewhat obvious I believe arrogance and possible incompetence, or at least ignorance, of one of the current trainees at WP:NPOVN and his and my talk pages. I think the specific name will be, under the circumstances, obvious. I have very serious questions whether anyone who can make such clearly unsupported statements with the apparent full assurance of his absolute correctness will necessarily follow the rules and procedures, or, perhaps, simply declare his opinions as truth by fiat, and I believe there are also legitimate concerns, based on his lack of understanding of some policies, guidelines, and frequently cited essays, whether he in fact has enough familiarity with those policies and guidelines to be able to function adequately in a clerking position. John Carter (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi John, can you send me an email with some more information please? Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Email (please read ASAP)

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

Hi,

I've sent you an email. Feel free to share this email with all Wikimedia departments. Vernon Schieck 16:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah maybe I should have sent it to them instead... Vernon 07:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

YGM

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

Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

PAs at Griffin

I ask that you review the following comments which are quite typical of the behavior for which I've requested your attention. These comments are typical of the pattern that has developed on Griffin TP almost every single time I post something, or when I attempt to edit the article which is almost always reverted. It is clearly harassment and serves no helpful purpose in developing consensus. The post that resulted in the current PAs comprises links and excerpts to various WP policies and guidelines, [57], which I included in an attempt to help clarify some of the questions posed by a new collaborator, [58]. My keyboard was still warm when the following two comments were posted in response to my post rather than in response to the new collaborator's post:

• [59] <--The remark that "This post is pretty silly", is a PA and unwarranted.
• [60] <-- The comment, "it's disruptive to repeat this view, which is incorrect and which has previously been rejected here." is also a PA, no diffs were provided and it was unwarranted. Reciting policy on an article TP is not disruptive, it is not repeating a view, it is not incorrect, and if policy was previously rejected, I didn't know about it, and we should probably advise the Foundation so the policies can be rewritten.

If the purpose of DS is to encourage discussion and develop a consensus, then the above two PAs (what appears to be harassment) from the same few editors needs your attention. I am posting it here now because I've let such behavior slide in the past, and look where it got me. One last mention with regards to behavior issues from the same editors. The following appears to be WP:Canvassing. I certainly didn't receive any notice that the 1RR was lifted at Griffin, and neither did any of the other involved editors to my knowledge.

• March 10, 2015 - notification 1RR restriction has ended at Griffin
• March 11, 2015 - notification of 1RR restriction has ended at Griffin
• February 17, 2015 - pinged another editor in an effort to bypass the 1RR you imposed. I added it because it demonstrates tag-teaming as does the above, but you have already made note of such behavior in the recent past.
• [March 11, 2015] SPECIFICO made the following statement: While many established editors can be uncivil or even post personal attacks and accusations under the protection of various WP alliances and social connections, you have no such history or support here.

I find that last diff very disconcerting. Atsme☯^Consult 21:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Just noting that I'm looking into it and have asked for a second opinion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• I took the liberty of reviewing these diffs, and I'm not seeing personal attacks in the first two diffs - the first diff may be mildly uncivil, but certainly not actionable; the second comment is a reasonable statement, although citing policy occasionally is fine - if such repetition does become tendentious or disruptive, then the appropriate place to raise that is on the user talk pages, and follow WP:DR. It can also be a problem to keep repeating that something is disruptive without diffs and in the appropriate venue. I'll comment on the other diffs shortly. Dreadstar ☥ 10:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
• As far as notifying others that the 0RR restriction had ended, it would have been nice for the editor to have notified everyone and placed a note on the article talk page, but there's no requirement to do so and it isn't canvassing. Dreadstar ☥ 10:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
• This does appear to be canvassing designed to game the 0RR restriction; and unless there's a very good explanation otherwise, deserves a warning. Dreadstar ☥ 10:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
• The final diff appears to be a good faith attempt to help the editor, but it is unhelpful to cast aspersions on others. I can't see it being actionable unless it continues or is being said on article talk pages - article talk pages are never the right place to discuss the behavior of others per WP:TPNO, WP:CIV and WP:NPA; instead follow WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. Dreadstar ☥ 11:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Dreadstar. The canvassing issue is quite obvious as you observed, and I agree with your suggestion that it deserves a warning, but there are other behavioral issues that should factor in to any decision.

Callanecc, I thank you for giving this issue your consideration, and for requesting a second opinion.

No. Dreadstar ☥ 21:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As much as I regret having to demonstrate the problems at Griffin, I am concerned they will continue until those who are actually responsible for the disruption are held accountable. In that regard, I feel obligated to provide diffs to demonstrate the TE behavior by SPECIFICO which reveals what is actually taking place, and not what he is trying to lead you to believe, the most recent being his ping to you to review a discussion that includes casting aspersions against me by members of the opposition who have taken my comments out of context, and simply refuse to stop the PAs. SPECIFICO The following truly needs your attention: March 15, 2015 TE re: my response and its relevancy March 15, 2015 TE re: what the RfC concerned - he claims it was about wording when it was actually about contentious labeling being fundamentally noncompliant with NPOV - not a suggestion for improvement of the article March 15, 2015 TE re: my response and what he believes contentious means - not a suggestion for improvement of the article March 15, 2015 TE re: claims I am misrepresenting policy - serves only to discredit me, not help the article March 16, 2015 TE re: claims again that I fundamentally misrepresented policy - casting aspersions March 17, 2015 TE re: false allegations of WP:REHASH and WP:IDHT March 17, 2015 TE re: repeating the above false allegations citing linked policies above. He posted his response to my TP, which I moved to Griffin TP. March 18, 2015 March 19, 2015 TE re: my posts and more groundless allegations March 20, 2015 TE re: calling my post a "straw man argument" March 21, 2015 TE re: repeats his straw man argument March 22, 2015 Pings Callan to review discussion wherein I quoted Mayo Clinic and Cancer.gov, and was again attacked for doing so Callan, you are already aware of the "group activity", the efforts to sway community consensus and make things appear to be something they are not. In overall scheme of things, his actions could also be considered taunting and/or baiting based on their relentless nature. It actually appears as though they are taking turns trying to wear me down. I don't understand this behavior. Also keep in mind that SPECIFICO has not made one edit to the article itself, much less tried to improve article content except to support further discrediting of a BLP with no regard for WP:NPOV, the latter of which was demonstrated by his support to keep a contentious label in the first sentence of the lead per the RfC. It appears he has difficulty recognizing what actually constitutes a violation of BLP and/or our 3 core content policies, and therein the problem lies. Many of his contributions have focused on casting aspersions to discredit me rather than on article content, and he has done so repeatedly without including relevant diffs. Steeletrap June 24, 2014 Steeletrap added a contentious label in the first sentence of the lead which violated policy and created an unstable article as the edit history further demonstrates; The contentious label in the first sentence of the lead was confirmed to be noncompliant with NPOV as per the recent RfC. Contentious material continues to be added and disputed by editors. Some of the editors who have disputed the contentious material are long time editors with years of experience creating and collaborating on biographies, and have had their work promoted to GAs and FAs. WP:FRINGE content guidelines have taken precedence over WP:BLP and our 3 core content policies at Griffin, and that must stop, especially considering parts of the guidelines are even being ignored. Rather than go through months of diffs that will confirm TE by the opposition - most of which you have already been made aware - I will provide the most recent diffs which clearly demonstrate my position regarding the opposition's efforts to maintain Griffin as an attack page: March 11, 2015 Steeletrap responds to SPECIFICO, "I'm here to stir things up and make change." March 19, 2015 Steeletrap accuses me of being disruptive March 19, 2015 Steeletrap specifically uses contentious labels that are defamatory and a clear violation of BLP policy. The above diffs are more than adequate for you to take remedial action against the two named editors per BLP DS. Atsme☯Consult 19:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

See my comment at the bottom. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sorry Callanecc, I tried to help but apparently failed miserably. I'll keep an eye on the talk page of the article and try to keep it on the straight and narrow, but helping with the above editor is beyond my ability. Dreadstar ☥ 03:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC) I shall keep pottering on, but any help on the talk page would be appreciated - especially when discussions get off track or comments are made about other editors not the article (etc). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC) How do you think the above comments make me feel? Callan, I was wrongfully accused of SYNTH and OR violations on Griffin Talk because of accusations made by another editor who Dreadstar responded to thinking it was the correct action. I pinged you a couple of times, and what do I find when I arrive at Griffin Talk? You hatted my response to Dreadstar with a note that it was casting aspersions (which I respectfully request that you please remove since I was responding to comments directly above mine which shouldn't require diffs). I told Dreadstar that I wasn't going to initiate an AN, and addressed what Guy said about me, specifically that I was "trying to assert a lede which whistles and points in the opposite direction", and then he ended further discussion of it by stating "And that's enough of this discussion, since Atsme's draft is going nowhere." What do you suppose is the opposite direction, Callan, and what do you make of his comment about ending discussion because my draft is going nowhere? The comments you hatted weren't aspersions, they were truth. [61] [62]. I find it curious that you said nothing about the incivility towards me, or the false accusations, or the fact Guy is demonstrating WP:OWN. Perhaps you can reassure me somehow that I am not being treated unfairly because it certainly appears that way. I'm a big girl, but you know what? It still hurts to even think the possibility exists. Atsme☯Consult 06:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Callanecc PS: Regarding the aspersions, what do you consider the following: [63]? His statements are an absolute misrepresentation of my work and my intentions, and that doesn't even begin to address the potential of WP:LIBEL regarding the BLP in question. I am also in the process of requesting a review of the AfD close which I disagree with based on WP:AUTHOR. [64] I would very much appreciate a response because it appears, and I hope I'm wrong, that you may not be understanding the full scope of such defamatory statements made against a living person. Atsme☯Consult 14:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC) You urgently need to stop bandying the word "libel" around, since the text you so vehemently object to is protected speech under the US First Amendment, and also, now, is protected by an absolute defence of truth in the UK, so that covers the Wikimedia Foundation's jurisdiction and the place where I live. The intent of repeatedly invoking libel appears to be a chilling effect. It is inappropriate in the context of this particular article, where your claims in respect of the text have been robustly rebutted. If you dislike my reading of your agenda, then I invite you to consider what you might have said and done that might give me that impression. I think you are a nice person, you can be confident it's not malice or personal animus of any kind. Guy (Help!) 16:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Guy, with all due respect, it isn't about what I'm saying, it's about your misinterpretation of it, and the statements you've made about me that simply are not true. I presented a proposal, you slammed it and closed the discussion, period the end. See the diffs above. How is that not WP:OWN? Other editors have noticed the problems re:NPOV, or contentious labels, or behavior and a few have commented about it, [65]. In addition to shooting down the opposition at Griffin Talk, you have gone to editor TPs to criticize and discredit me even further. [66] Your arguments rarely if ever include diffs to support your position. I am relieved to know your agenda is not rooted in malice or personal animus but it doesn't make your comments any less hurtful. Please don't forget there is a real person with real feelings at the other end of our discussions, and you should at least try to exert a little more effort into softening your tone. Re: your impression of "protected speech" - I'm not an attorney, and my intention is not to wikilawyer, but it is common knowledge that certain aspects of defamation in the U.S., Canada, UK, Germany, Holland and Belgium are actually not protected speech. You also mentioned above "absolute defense of truth in the UK", but that is cherrypicking the sweet parts of the law. The Defamation Act 2013 lists quite a few qualifiers to that argument, and I certainly wouldn't dismiss BLP policy as a result of what I think might hold true. Truth: It is a defence for defamation to show the imputation in the statement complained of is substantially true. and Honest opinion: It is a defence for defamation, to show the statement complained of was a statement of opinion. There you have two big uh-ohs. The lead uses contentious material as statement of fact in Wiki voice and it is not reliably sourced - therefore it is not opinion. I consider refusal to modify passages for policy compliance as taking unnecessary risks, especially after editors challenged the material for being potentially libelous and violative of policy. I realize the "honest opinion" defense is a good one, but where courts have not protected terms like “quack,” they were used in a context specifically suggesting untrue facts. See, e.g., Nasr v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, 632 F.Supp.1024 (E.D. IL 1986) (though calling a doctor a “quack” has been found to be protected opinion, when used in manner suggesting false underlying facts, it was actionable). [67] I wouldn't totally dismiss Moss' book because it does play a role, even if it's minor. It supports some of what Griffin claims in his book. Our job is to present RS material with strict adherence to NPOV in a dispassionate tone, and that's what I've been trying to do. Also see the following updated material as an FYI: [68]. Times, they are a changing. I disagree with your position based on my own RL experiences, and the potential and variables we sometimes overlook, or simply cannot predict as absolute. When in doubt, leave it out. BLP policy also supports avoiding such risk per the words, especially if potentially libelous. Per WP:BLP - If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. Our dispute isn't about content, it's about compliance with BLP policy. The sources you claim as RS clearly fail the acid test, including Media Matters which is a partisan progressive non-profit website whose mission is to discredit their opponents (conservatives and libertarians) and what they believe is "conservative misinformation". Griffin's history with JBS, and his advocacy in the libertarian/conservative political arenas automatically create the COI, therefore MM is an unreliable source for the addition of contentious material per WP:V. You call my attempts to make the article policy compliant "whitewashing" - I call it strict adherence to BLP policy. Atsme☯Consult 19:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Uninvolved editor commenting on an incorrect claim (which is somewhat tangential) made by Guy: The First Amendment to the US Constitution protects you only from prosecution by the U.S. federal government (and also the U.S. states via incorporation). The 1st Amendment does not protect you from someone accusing or suing you for slander or libel. So you are actually wrong that the 1st Amendment protects you from the things that you say which may or are claimed to be slander or libel. United States defamation law may protect you, but you need to show proof that what you said about another person is a true statement, among meeting several other criteria (which I don't know off the top of my head). I want to make sure you understand that. @Atsme: You should be careful tossing those words regarding another editor per WP:LEGAL, as they can (and sometimes are) construed as legal threats. --Izno (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Atsme, you flatly refuse to accept the consensus that the laetrile scam promoted in Griffin's book World Without Cancer is quackery, despite abundant evidence that it is exactly that - you have also repeatedly proposed primary research showing a quite different use of amygdalin as if it in some way validates the scam promoted in Griffin's book even though your error has been pointed out probably a dozen times by now you have explained your reasoning many times, consistently unpersuasively, you've proposed farcically unreliable sources such as "geoengineeringwatch", a chemtrail conspiracy site, and you've had several experienced editors reject your proposed edits as violating WP:SYN. How many people have to tell you that characterising probably the worst fraud ever perpetrated on American cancer victims as "quackery" is not a violation of WP:BLP, before you finally accept it? Seriously, will you ever accept it, however many people tell you? Griffin's book promotes a quack cancer cure, and he erects a conspiracy theory around its failure to achieve acceptance. As a Bircher, he is taking part in the John Birch Society's defence of one of its own, the quack John Richardson, prosecuted for selling the laetrile fraud. His book was an apologia for quackery because that's what it was supposed to be. He never intended to write a neutral book, he set out to write a book in support of a fellow Bircher. History judges this scam harshly: this is not Wikipedia's problem to fix. Despite this you keep asserting BLP violations and "libel", apparently as a way of suppressing opposition to changes that only you seem to want, despite numeorus debates on the Talk page concluding that the content you hate so much violates BLP or constitutes libel. And you continually assert that everybody else is the problem. You won't accept contrary views, you won't start RfCs to settle the questions, and you won't drop the WP:STICK. And then you assert that the increasingly frustrated response you're getting form several other editors, is nothing to do with your obduracy. It's more than a little annoying. Guy (Help!) 23:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Atsme, I understand where you're coming from I really do. Dreadstar has explained their reasoning for calling it OR and SYNTH so I'm not going to delve into that.

I agree that some of the words Guy uses could be picked better, however what he says is supported by sources and consensus.

You also need to stop accusing people of libel, continuing to do so is becoming disruptive and may be considered a personal attack as it has already discussed and decided that it is not.

Go back to article content, leave the accusations of libel out and work on fixing the article that way. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

1. Callanecc, we need to be clear on the fact that I did not accuse anyone of libel, and I would appreciate it if you would strike your allegation. My mention of the term came after the following comments by a tenured editor with 10 years invested, and is ranked #96 on the Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_article_count, March 12, 2015, March 13, 2015. My post followed a few days later: March 15, 2015.
2. I also asked you to strike your allegation that I was casting aspersions when you hatted my post to Dreadstar re: my decision to not initiate an AN against him for his wrongful accusations of OR and SYNTH on Griffin Talk. It appears you took his side when you made the decision to "not delve into that". No reason to now: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Arbitration_motion:_Dreadstar_desysopped
3. You said I was casting aspersions but you didn't identify what statement you felt was problematic. However, you quickly wrote-off Guy's words as "could be picked better" and that "what he says is supported by sources and consensus." While I've actually grown accustomed to Guy's remarks, I just want to make sure you don't take them seriously since you believe what he says is supported by sources and consensus. He said, "Atsme, you flatly refuse to accept the consensus that the laetrile scam promoted in Griffin's book World Without Cancer is quackery," [69]? Of course there are no diffs to support his statement, but I can certainly provide a diff with a quote from the actual passage I wrote (and was quickly reverted) that negates his claim: In the 1970s, Griffin authored World Without Cancer (1974), a book he wrote after the "persistent hammering away on the significance of vitamin therapy" by his friend John A. Richardson, a physician from San Francisco, CA. The book is about the drug Laetrile, a chemically modified form of amygdalin (Vitamin B17) which was once used in combination with other alternative therapies in the treatment of cancer but subsequently banned in the US as it is scientifically unsupported and not approved by the FDA. Griffin includes a disclaimer in his book that states "This story is not approved by orthodox medicine. The FDA, the AMA, and The American Cancer Society have labeled it fraud and quackery." February 9, 2015
4. With the most recent changes to the article, I did suggest using updated terminology to coincide with what ACS and NIH have indicated. As other editors have pointed out, the term quackery is potentially libelous depending on how it is used. Do you trust Guy or any other editor to make such a determination for WP, or do you think it's best to follow policy which states the following on BLP TPs: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. The way I originally used the terminology was cited with an inline text attribution from Griffin's own book which was in complete compliance with policy. That isn't the case for the contentious material in the lead now, some of which is cited to questionable and outdated sources, such as Media Matters, and sources over 30+ years old, not to mention those passages that are not supported by the sources cited, or are poorly sourced. But then, you believe what Guy says is supported by sources and consensus, and that I am accusing people of libel. I do hope you will take some time to reevaluate your position. Atsme☯^Consult 06:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Callanecc, please read No. 1 - 4, and if you cannot confirm with my exact statements and a diff, the allegations against me for (a) casting aspersions, and (b) making accusations of libel, please strike them. You are obliged to respond to my request. If I have done as you alleged, I want to apologize and strike my comments so I will not inadvertently repeat them. Thank you in advance. Atsme☯^Consult 23:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding 1 - you just proved the point I was making. Saying someone else said it first doesn't excuse the fact that you've been says leaving it there, and hence anyone who added it is (being) libelous.

You made an accusation based on an assumption, I simply expressed a concern per policy. You did not provide a diff demonstrating that I accused anyone of libel, and now you refuse to strike your accusation. Your response is noted.

Regarding 2 - from "Guy steadfastly refuses" onward is casting aspersions.

I disagree. Your response is noted.

Regarding 3 - see above. I'm not talking about other editor's conduct here at the moment.

That's your choice. I don't want or expect any action to be taken against anyone. I just expect to be treated fairly. Your response is noted.

Regarding 4 - you've been told more than once that others (and from what I've seen the consensus at the moment) doesn't see it as a BLP issue so I don't accept that argument. And again you throw around libelous, it's time to stop. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Callan, I'm on the record as having expressed my concerns, I explained my position and provided the diffs. Thank you for your time. Atsme☯^Consult 21:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Treaty of Paris (1783)

Extend pc time? --George Ho (talk) 06:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

List of gangs in the United States

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 05:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Undeletion Igor Radusinovic

He was plays in the Indonesia Super League see soccerway, in history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.215.64.223 (talk) 04:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi 112.215.64.223, I'd rather not undelete it at this stage. Instead could you please submit a WP:Deletion review. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Callanecc. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 15:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Kharkiv07^Talk 15:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Happy Easter! Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Medical disclaimer

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Medical disclaimer. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

AE question

Hi, I'm not to familiar with the Pakistan/India arbitration regime. Am I correct that there is no general 1RR restriction there? Reply here is ok. Thanks. Zero^talk 11:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

That's correct, it's just normal discretionary sanctions (but which have been enforced pretty vigorously in the past). From memory only Israel/Pakistan has a general 1RR at the moment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Israel/Palestine? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Arab-Israeli. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

My experience is that the 1RR was a great thing for the Arab-Israeli section. It doesn't stop edit-warring, but it makes people pause before reverting again. It also helps to get rid of fly-by-night political activists. I suspect that a similar restriction on the Pakistan/India area would be good there too, though it ought to be discussed more widely first. How would you feel about imposing it now on a few articles, such as the BJP article? Zero^talk 05:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a good idea in principle, but I don't think they'd be consensus (not that that's technically needed) for imposing it generally across the whole topic. That said it can be really helpful if placed on a case by case basis.

I'm not sure it would have too much effect on Bharatiya Janata Party. Editors there seems to have gone back to discussing. Added to that the conflicts seems to be drawn out so 1RR wouldn't be too effective.

What do you think? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion it will be useful. Vanamonde always revert first and then discusses. If Calypso or someone adds something he doesn't like, it is reverted (multiple times) and the other is forced to go to talk page, and if something he adds is removed it is placed repeatedly and again the other person is forced to go to talk page. 1RR will restrict his ownership. --AmritasyaPutra^T 04:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

AP would like to make it seem like I'm the only one who reverts frequently, when I have never been blocked for edit-warring in the topic area, and he has, twice. I'm also fairly certain that this is not the venue for discussing my behavior, unless of course Callanecc wants to. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

No, this is not the place, if evidence is asked I can easily give more than three cases of you reverting more than three times. You get away because it is usually a new editor and doesn't even know the rules. You had baited me on both occasions along with your buddy, I was inexperienced. You have been blocked for edit war too. Anyway think this: if that's not your nature then you have nothing to worry if 1RR is imposed, right? --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-15

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

• You can join a new email list for important news about Wikimedia Labs. [70]
• You can read the last monthly report. In the future you can read team reports every three months. You can see current work on the roadmap. [71] [72]
• The number of articles in Special:Statistics is now updated once a month. [73]
• You can use a new version of the Wikipedia app for Android. Using the app, you can now share a fact with your friends. [74]

Problems

• The import tool was broken for a few days. Imports didn't add log entries. You can delete and import pages again if necessary. [75]
• Labs was broken several times this week. [76] [77] [78] [79]

Changes this week

• The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since April 1. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from April 7. It will be on all Wikipedias from April 8 (calendar).
• You can now add the same special characters with VisualEditor as with the wikitext editor. [80]
• Many bugs around copy-paste in VisualEditor are now fixed. [81] [82]
• You can now use basic tools of VisualEditor in the new talk tool. You can add links, bold and italics. You can also mention people. [83]

Meetings

• You can join the next weekly meeting with the Editing team. During the meetings you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on April 8 at 18:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• You can again comment on how you want to see Wikidata edits in your watchlist on other wikis. [84]

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

15:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Igor Radusinovic

Hi Callanecc, I want to ask you kindly to restore the article Igor Radusinovic since now he have played in Indonesia Super League, thus making him notable. Source here. Cheers! MbahGondrong (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi MbahGondrong, I'd rather not undelete myself it at this stage. Instead could you please submit a WP:Deletion review. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I have made a WP:UNDELETE instead, here. MbahGondrong (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Re: Page protection

Can you please impose semi-protection on Little India (location)? You had blocked Basdrhnrnz who was the biggest contributor of this article in terms of adding more bytes to it.[85] Now he seems to be restoring to his version through IPs. Content is copyvio, and these edits[86] are disruptive at best. I had already requested this at RFPP, but they really don't understand.[87] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

AE Archiving

Callannecc, the bot keeps archiving the AE section I opened. I've reverted it twice; any more, and I'm beginning to look incredibly pushy. Even if that thing is to be closed no action, could you please formally close it, so that I know I can move on? Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Aaron Schock

Lower to pending changes? This person already resigned as a district representative. Also, people might cool down for a while. --George Ho (talk) 05:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It's still pretty controversial as far as I can tell so I'd rather leave it semi protected for now at least. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

20 March?

Resolved

You mean 20 March 2016 or 20 April of this year? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case request clarification closed

Hi Callanecc, the Arbitration Committee has closed the Clarification request: Article titles and capitalisation, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, -- Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Violation?

Resolved

 – Socks blocked by Elockid. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Greetings Callanecc. Worm is not online for nearly 5 days. Thus I would like to know from you if the creation of this SPI was any violation of my restriction. Although I don't consider it as violation because I hadn't referred to the particular article anywhere, and only named the editors who have contributed there. If I am correct, can I also refer to this filing over there? Thank you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

OccultZone, this being the third time you've tried to find a way to connect these accounts, it appears that you're just throwing things at the wall, hoping for something to stick. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Let me make this crystal clear, you need to step away from these editors! If you continue accusing them of sockpuppetry it is likely to be consider harassment. You need to step away from this topic area and from these editors (and those you think are related to them) right now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I would rather wait for him, or just make an appeal. Thanks anyway. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

No I'm saying stop or you're risking being blocked for harassment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry I will be back here and do nothing until you allow. That would be fine? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

No, just drop it completely. If there is something to be found, let someone else deal with it and don't get involved. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with Callanecc, and it occurs to me, OccultZone, that I did warn you that further accusations of sockpuppetry against these users would be considered to be personal attacks. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I assure both of you, that I have taken everything in account that has been said above. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Panty & Stocking with Garterbelt episodes

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Panty & Stocking with Garterbelt episodes. Legobot (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-16

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

• You can read the latest news about VisualEditor.
• You can now use the new translation tool on 22 Wikipedias. You now see the tool the first time you create a new page. [88]
• The list of bad user names on your wiki no longer works. The global list replaces it. You can ask to add rules for bad user names on Meta. [89] [90]

Problems

• Some wikis had issues on Wednesday. [91] [92]

Changes this week

• The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since April 8. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from April 14. It will be on all Wikipedias from April 15 (calendar).
• Developers will start to rename 1.5 million accounts on Wednesday. After that all accounts will be unique and will work on all wikis. [93] [94]
• All users can now test link previews ("Hovercards") on several Wikipedias. [95]

Meetings

• You can join the next weekly meeting with the Editing team. During the meetings you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on April 15 at 18:00 (UTC). See how to join.

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

16:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

One month later

It's been over a month since this and things have been fine since then. I was hoping we could go with the 1RR rule now, and if things go fine for three months as you proposed, go back to the usual 3RR. --Steverci (talk) 02:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Leave it with me. I'll have a look through your recent contribs and get back to you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

List of Girl Meets World episodes - should the page be created now that the series has aired?

Dear Callanecc: 16 months ago you protected the above page to prevent anyone from creating a list of Girl Meets World episodes. Apparently fans kept trying to create the list when the episodes had not aired. Now such a list has been created as a Draft and has been accepted. It's at List of Girl Meets World Episodes. Is it time for the protection to come off? I don't follow this series, but I have been asked to move the page to the proper title.—Anne Delong (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

FTR, I accidentally dropped a note to Redrose64 when I thought he was the one who had protected that page. In any case, I agree with Anne Delong above that the new List of Girl Meets World Episodes should just be moved to replace the page that was protected back in 2013. Thanks! --IJBall (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Callanecc, since it seems that you are away right now, I polled the editors who were involved in the original discussion about this page, and all those who responded agreed that the protection could be removed, so I intend to do this and split out the episode list. I hope that you will be okay with that. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

No worries, thank for letting me know! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Griffin

Hello Callanecc. I was disappointed to see this post [96] on the Griffin talk page. I'm concerned there will be more IDHT, forumshopping and edit-warring if the full protection is allowed to expire. I hope you'll consider extending the protection so as to avoid another mess there. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Callan, perhaps you already know why he singled out my post to demonstrate his disappointment rather than mention any of the three that came before mine. March 22, 2015, April 11, 2015, April 12, 2015, which were in line with what followed, April 15, 2015. I also can't help but wonder why he was disappointed based on his failure to expand the prose, update RS, and his opinion regarding the status of the article which is nothing more than a coatrack: [97]. Oh, and I am still being targeted as I've demonstrated to you previously but did nothing to correct. This time Guy went over the edge with his WP:SUICIDE comment: [98], and my response to his biting a newcomer and his attack on me: April 15, 2015. I await your response. Atsme☯^Consult 01:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I would like to pose the question, Is page protection helping to end the disruption or is it ultimately extending it? I have had a limited involvement there and honestly can't offer a position on this. The reason the question comes to my mind is due to some of the responses. I'm just honestly posing the question.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree somewhat regarding the page protection, which is why I haven't reprotected it. But I am going to be taking a much harder line from now regarding anything remotely close to conduct policy violations (which is going to include STICK and accusations on the talk page). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Please do. And if you can find someone to close the RfCs so we can move on from the stale debate about laetrile, that would be great. Guy (Help!) 07:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll probably do the first one. But the second one I'm not sure on. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back, Callanecc! I hope you enjoyed your wikiBreak while it lasted! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd close it as no consensus myself, and then put on my editing boots and be disappointed that I wrote such a poorly structured RfC, so we'll have to discuss each link individually if they are proposed again. The main thing is, if the first one can be closed with a solid result, we will find out if this approach actually puts the argument to bed, and if it does, we will all know we're not wasting our time even trying to engage Atsme. Guy (Help!) 15:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Financial Union Tirana

Sock it is. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Your aquisitions are absurde! Did you even read the site which was referenced? It was in albanian and the text was chnaged and was referenced so it does not break any copyright issues. Secondly, what is promotional about the infomation posted? It explains the hisotry of the insitution just like any other financial serivce. There was absolutely no reference to any achievements just simple statistical data which was again (referenced). Please stop deleting my infomation pages for nothing because if I wanted to make a ad it would be talking about the services which this comapny offers. Something which I am not doing. Please return the page because I spent a lot of time building!! Lastly if you wanted to remove something in specific which apprarntly bothered the community you could of done so without removing the whole page as each person in entitled to read about a company! Wikifakes1996 (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC) Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifakes1996 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC) No it wasn't, it was a copy of the English version of the website. Also, I find it highly likely that the user who posted this is a sockpuppet of the user who created the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC) Is this Financial Union Tirana we're referring to? If so, Wikifakes1996, why ask me? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC) I am talking about the source from monitor.al which was a magazine which was weitten in albanian and the editor wrote it in english. The rest were Inagree from the companies website but under no copyright so i dont see why he cant use them. He is not going to make up the companies history!!my point is that some of it was copied why did you not simply delete the part and leave the rest of the post? Wikifakes1996 (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC) What is the page on Wikipedia that you're talking about? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC) Because Inreceived a notification that you would block me if I edited that lost again?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifakes1996 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC) They've only edited Financial Union Tirana, which was a copyright vio, so I figure they must be talking about that. Also, I think they're asking about the copyvio issue plus also your message on their talkpage. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm new on wikipedia.

I couldn't figure what was problem with my post. the explanation is vandalism? how was vandalism claiming there were false claims, which eventually became recognised as truth, about someones's identity. i was just bringing up false claim and shown documents about some of tesla's that considered themselves as croats (even though i could name much more) from that time. people recognise tesla's as serbs nowadays because they were orthodox, they eventually became serbs. at that time when tesla was born and alive, every other tesla from croatia expressed himself as Croat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavrilo123 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Gavrilo123: Suggest you read WP:TRUTH and WP:TALKNO, and understand them before contributing again. You are on the verge of being blocked from editing. Brianhe (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks For Your Understanding! National Names 2000 (talk) 07:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

Hi, I'm sorry to bother you but can you look at this edit request: Talk:Phoenix_Global#Protected_edit_request_on_22_April_2015. It was made five days ago but no admin has reacted. I think you can see by the explanation and "support" comments that it's a non-controversial edit. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 08:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

No worries,  Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

tban

Can I choose a different article to work on please, as fpas has hounded me to the female infanticide one and is picking a fight, no doubt in the hope of getting me blocked. I will not be able to edit the article with him causing trouble. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Cal, please hold off on responding to this; there's a discussion going on via the ArbCom list regarding this topic ban. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

No worries, will do. Let me know if you need an enforcing admin opinion on anything. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Purely re: this ↑ (no comment on the discussion below): the Committee has decided to take no action regarding this issue, so you should feel free to address DS's request in whatever way you see fit. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Callanecc, can you please do something about FPaS constantly hounding me? Three articles created since my unblock, and he has turned up at each and every one of them. Any non admin editor carrying on like this would be given an IBAN, why the hell won`t someone stop this harassment? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Forum-shopping, much? [99] DS has raised this specious complaint periodically ever since 2012 and has been told, time and time again, that it is invalid [100]AE[101] How many more times is he going to try it? The answer is always the same: Disruptive editors need to get their edits monitored from time to time, to clean up their policy violations and poor-quality edits; that's what we have edit histories for. This constantly repeated accusation is itself crossing the line into a sanctionable personal attack now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it'd be a bad idea for both of you to leave each other alone. But there's nothing sanctionable in either of your conduct towards each other at this stage. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I can understand your administrative gut reaction ("oh no, them again, just leave me alone"), but sorry, it doesn't work that way. DS has been systematically treating any edit of mine on articles he "owns" as quasi-vandalism, using multiple hostile blanket reverts against pretty much anything I try to do there (article 1: [102], article 2: [103][104][105], article 3: [106][107][108] article 4: [109][110]). In several of these cases, these were made with no explanation at all and no talkpage participation. So, which is it: either the preceding edits of mine he was reverting actually were quasi-vandalism, in which case I should be blocked, or his editing was hostile edit-warring, in which case he should be blocked, or at least clearly told to stop. I, for one, am not voluntarily going to stop trying to clean up bad edits on articles I have taken a legitimate editorial interest in. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Darkness Shines's edits in the diffs you provided do seem quite aggressive, especially on Female infanticide in India and Melkin (in that one given he hasn't gone to the talk page to discuss it with you). Given DS is being discussed by ArbCom I think it'd probably be best for you to send your concerns (and that evidence) to them and see what they make of it, especially as they are discussing the exception for Female infanticide in India. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record, it goes on and on [111][112][113]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

As the ARBS have decided to drop this matter I ask again if I may try to bring another article to GA status. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Why not abide by the initial agreement in the first place? This "lets-add-another-clause" is unnecessary to say the least. --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd have to oppose this. If DS is currently at an impasse over Female infanticide in India, it's because his actions there have displayed the same pattern of disruptive behaviour that caused the topic ban in the first place and have been at the root of all his other prior troubles and sanctions too: (a) poor writing and sloppy (mis)use of sources; (b) inability or unwillingness to engage constructively with editors challenging these problems; (c) as a result, resorting to incivility and edit-warring. It's the same story over and over again.

Moreover, even ignoring the current conflict, it's not as if his actions on this article had been particularly promising in terms of GA quality. The article is no closer to GA status now than it was last September, when DS gained this exemption. It's still riddled with errors and poor writing [114]. This [115] is the sum total of edits he made to it during that time, before nominating it for GA in October. Several of the glaring grammar errors, as well as the misused image, were introduced afresh during those edits. Since his unblock last month, DS has done virtually nothing more for it (despite finding plenty of time for edit-warring over it); of the constructive suggestions and issues pointed out by the GA reviewer on 29 March [116], not a single one has been acted upon by DS so far.

Under these circumstances, the obvious rational response is to acknowledge that the reasons for the topic ban are still valid, that the experiment "GA exemption" has failed, and that it should be revoked rather than extended to yet another article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

And the hounding continues How long do I have to put up with this shite? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

There is very little, I, as a single admin can do, if you have a problem with it then you need to take it to ANI or if that doesn't work ArbCom. Given the issues which have been raised here and ANI (including the TBAN vio) I'm hesitant to allow you to edit another article. My suggestion would be to avoid the topic area, and things close to it for at least a few (maybe 6) months then come back with a normal appeal showing 'good' and improved behaviour. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

He has since I said I would no longer edit the Female Infanticide article gone to three articles I created, and you still say he is not fucking hounding me? As an admin you can impose an IBAN, but of course you won`t will you. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Unblock conditions

Callanecc, you once unblocked DS last year under the condition of a restriction on the use of rollback and Twinkle reverts ("explain all uses of Wikipedia:Rollback or Twinkle rollback functions notwithstanding the normal rules (which will apply to Twinkle rollbacks as well)") [117]. This restriction is still logged at WP:AC/DSL. Is it still in force? If yes, would you consider [118][119][120][121][122][123] as breaches of it? (Note that the last two of these diffs are from the very first 24 hours after his recent Arbcom unblock.)

I'm not the only person DS has been using these kinds of reverts against, but he certainly has developed a pattern of meeting every single edit of mine with them. These are immediate, repeated, hostile blanket reverts, often made immediately without even waiting for my explanation on talk (let alone providing his own), and particularly aggravating because they often affect multiple distinct matters without explaining which of them he is actually objecting to, and when it would be extremely easy to address them separately if necessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Fut.Perf., as I said when I imposed them they weren't discretionary sanctions. Given that there is no policy basis for unblock conditions, my opinion on them is that they are blocked indef (or the same block which led to the sanctions is imposed) following the conditions being placed then the conditions have been superseded by the new block or any new conditions. Also that the unblock conditions only apply for the original duration of the block from which they were unblocked. Therefore since DS has been reblocked my conditions, and any previous conditions, no longer apply (that is assuming that they were only normal mutually agreed upon conditions). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Disappointing. Given the fact this person has been blocked 31 times, has managed to talk admins into lifting his blocks at least 10 times out of those 31, and was back to getting himself blocked within one month of the unblock 8 times out of those 10, one would have thought admins might have learned to impose conditions with actual teeth by now. Oh well. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem with unblock conditions is that there is no policy basis for them so they have no teeth to begin with. And in this case I couldn't have imposed as a discretionary sanction anyway. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't see why you couldn't (or even re-impose them now, for that matter). Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Because I could only use them to impose sanction in specific areas of editing, that is the current areas of conflict where there is a problem and that is a pretty small number of articles. The broader sanction would need to come from ArbCom or the community. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Immediate, blanket, repeated reverts are hostile. The concern is genuine. I echo it in the face of 'getting involved' and 'inviting the wrath upon me'. This is not helping the community, rather actively hurting it. --AmritasyaPutra^T 05:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Could you give me some advise?

Hi, I want to re-open a sockpuppet investigation case for the editor Jytdog, I opened it back then because i noticed that both users pursue exactly the same changes, sound the same when discussing, use reflists within talk pages, have the same writing style and are active at the same hours (a detailed explanation and diffs can be seen here [124]), I considered that enough evidence to conduct an investigation but apparently wasn't convincing enough back then.

What happened a week ago is that I was gathering diffs to open an ANI case regarding the behavoir of Alon12 (which has been very uncivil), but I found something that rang a bell. Before the start of the edit war in late December, there was an IP that was pursuing exactly the same changes that Alon12 pursues, here are the IP's edits [125] and Alon12's edits [126] for comparison. In fact, it was after the edits of said IP were reverted that the account Alon12 was created and given all the obvious similarities in these edits is a no brainer that the IP was Alon12 before creating his account (and he didn't even try to make it look otherwise). If we use a IP tracking website we find that the IP is located in a public library within New Jersey just some blocks away from New York City [127], why is this important? So, not only Alon12 and Jytdog have the same editing style, the same discussing style, want the same changes, use reflists in talkpages and are active at the same hours, now we know that the two editors . I believe all this justifies a checkuser investigation, and a geolocation using an IP tracing website might be necessary, to determine wheter both users are using the same IP, or if the suspect in question switches IPs when switching accounts. Thanks for your time.

Additionaly I think I've identified another Sockpuppet: The editor TexanAzteca, as seen on this diff [128] he pursues the same edits Alon12 and Jytdog do, and uses the same sources and arguments that Alon12 have used in the talk page for the article of Mexicans of European descent [129].

All this convinces me that re-opening the case is necessary, I ask you here for advise on how to do so: Do I just need to write all the new information down or is the assistance of a clerk needed in order to declare it as re-opened? Aergas (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this bit of evidence makes the case any stronger to be honest, there are a lot of people in that general geographic area. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Well besides both editors being in the same geographical location and the similarities detailed on my previous case [130] such as both wanting the same changes, using reflists in the talk page, having the same writing and formating style and both being simultaneously active at 5:00 A.M. on various instances there's the fact that Alon12 is an obvoius single purpose account: He has around 100 edits, of these, 80 are talk page and noticeboard responses with only 20 being article edits, and of these 20 article edits, 17 have been done in the Mexican of European descent article, with most being reverts, maybe Jytdog being an stablished editor makes my case harder to believe, but Alon12 definitely is a sockpuppet of a more experienced editor. What do you think? Aergas (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Reminder

I wanted to wait for you to reply because I know you're busy and I don't want to bother you, but just a reminder about the 1RR request because my previous section got archived and I was afraid you forgot. --Steverci (talk) 02:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. --Steverci (talk) 21:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Email

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

Seen, I'm looking into it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Keith Haring redux

I have no idea why this page attracts IP vandalism, but the repeated vandalism starts up every time the semi-protection ends. Could we have a permanent (or at least more permanent) semi-protection? Babysitting it is getting tiresome. Anyway, if so, thanks. Softlavender (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

How's that? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Semi = good, thanks. Not sure pending necessary, because all of the vandalism seems to be via IPs. :-) Spoke in haste. Thanks for both! Softlavender (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

hello

Respectfully, I don't see that as meaningfully personalizing the conversation. The point being was that the user keeps moving the goal post. The focus wasn't directly on the user but on the users malleable application of policy and guidelines. Strict adherence is currently very important to them. Before in the conversation it was not. Before that it was. The position changes based on the the position they are promoting at the time. I don't really see that your suggestion here that we do not discuss the content of someone's argument. Is there any issue with what I said other than, "Because you want to get your way."

Honestly with the review of my comments I have to ask about the acceptability of other comments there. We have a user who would, "Personally, I would sue the living F out of WP if it hosted a bio like this about me." While this isn't a legal threat, they obviously lack standing, it is rather uncivil. While it is directed at no one specific, it really shoots at everyone that hasn't sided with them. You have Atsme asking how many GA's, FA's, and ect that I have worked on because of what I said at the start of Talk:G._Edward_Griffin#GA_Status.3F. This very line of questioning is personalizing. Actually you can dig thru the page and find issues with Atsme personalising the discussion. Atsme inability to overall drop the stick is also present. I'm not interested in using the sanctions here as a weapon, but I do think that those who are need to be held to those standards.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

"the users malleable application of policy and guidelines" is about the user not article content. Complaints about user longer term conduct are best at WP:AE (ie dropping the stick). But I am keeping an eye on personalising, I honestly didn't see the how many GAs one the first time which is why I didn't react to it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Callan, what is wrong with asking that question and how is it personalizing? When you mouse over a sig, it tells you how many edits you've made since a certain date, and it tells you other things about an editor. Why doesn't it tell you about GAs and FAs. It's not like it's an embarrassment to have articles promoted. Atsme☯^Consult 06:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Why does it matter how many GAs and FAs they've had? By asking the question you are implying that their opinion matters less or more, which is where the civility issue comes in as it doesn't matter. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Well in that same vein, Callan, what does it matter how long one has been an editor, or how many edits they've made since they began? None of it matters, does it? What I've learned since I started editing Griffin is that it really doesn't matter what I say or do because you're going to find fault with it anyway, just like you did with the emojis. No more smileys for me, Callan, and no more Griffin. That BLP can stay just like it is - I don't care - and all the happy little editors who have done everything in their power to prevent its improvement can celebrate their victory. They all get a blue ribbon. WP has yet another starter article to add to its growing collection of encyclopedic content. Instead of the green symbols for GA and bronze stars for FAs, WP should be awarding little coatrack graphics that can be added to the top right corner of an article page. There's a greater demand for it. Atsme☯^Consult 07:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Just to offer, I don't see that honestly as a violation of wp:npa. I'd honestly not considered their argument disruptive, just poor argumentation. They don't seem to be aware of this. But I suppose at this point in time it would be better to take it to ANI, even if they don't seem to be aware of this stick behavior. Your advice is noted here. And please don't get me wrong, I do not take of issue that you have missed something. I don't see Admins as great gods of wikipedia. You missed something. That happens. I don't see it as possible for you to catch everything. You have dedicated yourself to a number of things beyond just adminship, all of which can be time consuming. Honestly I couldn't see someone who is only an admin catching everything. Y'all aren't superhuman and unless things have changed since there's a shortage. The issue here is that they have brought this to you with unclean hands. They pinged you to bring your attention to a conduct issue with unclean hands. To me such an attempt borders on gaming the system. I wasn't saying above, "well you missed something."-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I'd suggest AE rather than ANI, as AE tends to be better at dealing with longer term issues (and this article is covered by discretionary sanctions x3. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Aspersions. Thanks for opening that flood gate, Callan. Atsme☯^Consult 17:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, involving yourself here is not helpful at this stage. If you want to make the accusation of following you around there's WP:AE and WP:ANI. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Honestly? Ok, let's be honest. I'll start with your stated intent and purpose for me which has not ceased in nearly a year: Thank you for your irrelevant comments here. My intent and purpose for you? I have none other than to stop your POV pushing agenda to accomplish your previously stated goal of whitewashing wikipedia of all mention of Islamophobia. Quit POV Pushing and I don't see an issue. I'm unsure of my most edited page. I rather don't care. Grief? To whom? You? It's justifiable. Like the "grief" I give you for removing the Islamophobia template when there is a consensus to keep it. Why would I put more energy in Roku achieving GA status? It has the same completion date as any other article. Eventually. Of course it's telling to you. You literally have grasp at straws to have anything to say. You know little of Wikimedian philosophy. Metapedianism for instance. We've actually discussed that. July 5, 2014 Re: the consensus you mentioned about the Islamophobia template? It was removed as a BLP violation. [131] But you kept on - called an RfC-U against me while you continued your WP:OWN behavior at IPT and Emerson. I did my best to get along with you but apparently to no avail. I was hoping you had changed. I've run out of olive branches. And now here you are at Griffin. [132]. I tried to avoid you but that obviously didn't work. I also tried to avoid you at Singer, but you couldn't resist that either. [133]. Please, just leave me alone. Atsme☯Consult 01:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC) To me it's blatantly obvious that the article is biased, and the Lede is a good example of that. Wikipedians must be able to make comments about the neutrality of articles without those comments being taken as a personal insult. But since the "I would sue" comment is considered particularly bothersome, I would be happy to strike it. petrarchan47คุก 02:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC) There was a consensus to keep the template Atsme. It being removed as a BLP violation doesn't actually change this. There's even a policy that explains this. wp:CCC Consensus can change. It was removed as a BLP violation based on the rough consensus that it was a BLP violation. This new consensus overrode the prior. The consensus had to be overridden to remove it. It was at a BLPN I opened. Prior to which almost every effort on your part was simply tendentious. In that BLPN you tried to forumshop and issue that was already resolved in an AfD. Yes I opened a RFCU against you that I also closed as incomplete because of your unwillingness to take part. You did your best to what? Here's an olive branch if you would like to offer one, stop your tendentious editing. You have offered no Olive Branch. What about my comments at Griffin? I shouldn't post there simply because you are there. This is because everyone else is the problem Atsme. Me, Guy, ect. Your continual incivility is acceptable, it's everyone else's that's an issue. This all seems like deja moo.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Courtesy blanking made the 1RR on the Armenian Genocide disappear

Hello Callanecc. Under the new WP:DSLOG system, the old sanctions have been reorganized. But I recently had to figure out who imposed the 1RR on Armenian Genocide. It turns out it was User:Moreschi on 27 January, 2008. But this is no longer searchable in the logs, since 2008 is blanked. Per your edit here. Is there any way to fix this? How about a collapse box instead of blanking. Collapse boxes don't interfere with searching. Or perhaps no blanking at all, because unless you click on '2008' you won't see any of this. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Hm, it looks like Arbcom specifically asked for the blanking in one of their motions. Maybe as a workaround we could make a section for article-level restrictions imposed under AC/DS that could be included in WP:RESTRICT? EdJohnston (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Roger Davies: This might be something to look at in the upcoming housekeeping motion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

ARC

Hey Callanecc. Sometimes it takes more than 140 diffs to prove an editor to be a sock.[134] Although this case is a far bigger scope, it took more over 106 diffs just to get this case accepted.[135] Is there any provision that I can get more than just 100 diffs? I would request for about 300 diffs and 3000 words. Thank you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

You can make a request on the evidence talk pages and the drafting arbitrators will review and make a decision. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Confused about iban

You instituted an iban on WarKosign an myself. WarKosign reverted my edit on the Israel article. When I complained on the admin notice board, WarKosign self reverted his possible iban violation with the comment "Self-reverting possible violation of an iban. Someone else should apply this change." His self revert with the message to other editors is here: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Israel&diff=657360828&oldid=657331946 After other editors responded to his message and reverted to his revert of my edits, I tried to discuss the revert of my edits on the Israel article talk page by creating a new section titled ""The borders of the new state were not specified.", not a NPOV". I found it impossible as WarKosign continued to comment on every aspect of the revert of my edits. WarKosign also continued to modify the revert of my edits in the article. I am confused as to how to respond to this, can you explain it to me? Thanks, Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion in that section seems to have ended with a consensus so nothing more seems to be needed there. And I've left WarKosign a note. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Filing at AE

Hey Callanecc, I would like to file two cases to AE, but I need some clarification for the first one, whether I should go for it or not. I had originally filed it on WP:AN,[136] and I had been told by someone that it is better to file such cases to WP:AE. There is clear violation of topic ban, his 3rd last edit on his last day (29 March) clearly violates the topic ban.[137] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

There are no recent violations (ie last week or two) so it would be very quickly thrown out and may very well end up with a boomerang. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes that's why I thought of asking first, and in the light of a recent AE that we are aware of. Anyways what you have to say about Mar4d though there are a number of articles, I would recommend this one. Yes he was aware of relevant DS.[138] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

What do you think the problem is and what evidence do you have to support it? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Scholarly sources support that it was an Indian victory,[139][140][141] still as a compromise, to end edit conflicts, we have stated "Pakistani military retreat from Kargil", not even as main result, but below the main result. I know that there were similar edit conflicts on Soviet–Afghan War before, but Kargil War is under D/S, you must be also thinking that why no one reverted after my edit, it is because Bbb23 had made it clear that any more reverts concerning the disputed parameter for next 7 days would lead to block, I liked that decision. We have to observe that how many times this editor in question has been engaged in such unnecessary edit conflicts. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

There might, maybe, be enough. But you probably need to demonstrate a longer term pattern for action to be taken at this stage (other than maybe a reminder). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

HRC panel

My understanding is that you, Euryalus, and Mdann52 have volunteered to serve as a panel to close the HRC move discussion. I suggest that you begin to coordinate on how you're going to manage this closure. It might be useful to look at last year's closure, and how that was done. It was very thorough, including the likes of this large sheet of analysis by TParis. There has been a flurry of confusion about the closure, so firming this up would be useful on your part. RGloucester — ☎ 03:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Broken link

This is a bit odd, and I might be able to fix it myself, but probably you would want to look at it anyway and be better placed to fix it. here you add a note about the latest Arb request but the link Special:PermanentLink/Special:Permalink/654877135#Brews_ohare goes nowhere, and gives no clue where it should go. I've not used these perma-links myself so don't know how they are supposed to work. I could probably find it easily with a search but you might have more success and anyway would want to know why it doesn't work now.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

That URL has 'Special:PermanentLink' included twice. It's trying to point to the result of an AE complaint opened on 31 March 2015. The archived version of the complaint is now at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive170#Brews ohare. EdJohnston (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, how did I not notice that obvious-now-you-mention-it problem. Special:Permalink/654877135#Brews_ohare works pretty much; it goes to the diff before the decision rather than the one of the decision as you would expect. But as it looks like it was meant to be that link, and the problem is now clear, I'll replace it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Need1521

It would be appreciated if you could keep an eye on the Dmitry Medvedev page as Need1521 is quite a prolific user of socks. Incidentally, this one, which has just chipped into the section on Jimbo's talk page with their first edit is almost certainly another of his socks. Valenciano (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Page has been protected and I've blocked the sock. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Maurice07 at AN3

Please see WP:AN3#User:Maurice Flesier reported by User:Anastan (Result: ). User:Maurice Flesier was previously User:Maurice07. Since you made the entry about him in WP:RESTRICT back in 2014 you might be interested in the new AN3 complaint. If a block is appropriate here, then per the prior discussion an indef might be considered. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the FYI. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Brews O'Hare

You've been involved with the above before. I wonder if you have the time to take a quick look here and provide any advice? ----Snowded ^TALK 18:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest taking the issue regarding Brews to WP:ANI with evidence. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I think there is little alternative other than just giving up. He has just driven a second experienced editor away from the article ----Snowded ^TALK 23:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Nice slam

I reverted a nice, subtle slam against you. See the revert. Very creative. I haven't seen that type before. Bgwhite (talk) 05:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah that's pretty inventive. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Callanecc. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— PaleAqua (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)