Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:56, 11 March 2014

Callanecc is busy and may not respond swiftly to queries.

User talk:Callanecc/Header

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/62.44.135.196

Hi Callanecc. I don't think the IP 62.44.135.196 and its IP sock are Vgleer puppets. The named account is, but imo, the page Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/62.44.135.196 when referring to the two IPs should be separate from the Vgleer SPI. Δρ.Κ.  18:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure, there were definitely behavioural similarities between the IPs and the account reported with them and with the account and Vgleer. It doesn't really matter a great deal now that they've been dealt with, so I don't really see a need to unarchive and refile and archive in a different place. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Callanecc. No problem. Best regards. Δρ.Κ.  05:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:ARBEE: Who can give notice of discretionary sanctions on a page?

Hi Callanecc, the articles 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine and 2014 Crimean crisis would obviously fall under the WP:ARBEE discretionary sanctions, but I'm not sure if, as a non-administrator, I'm allowed to place a notice on the talk pages? Or if an admin would be required? If so, I'd love it if you were able to help! Both articles are, for obvious reasons, being heatedly edited by editors with more or less open convictions supporting either side of the conflict.

I'm writing because I see you were the admin who gave notice to Talk:Svoboda (political party), which I've been editing a lot, recently. -Darouet (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

No an admin doesn't need to place the warning on a talk page anyone can do that. But it is up to an admin (whenever they warn or sanction) whether that page is actually part of the topic area. I've added the notice to both talk pages. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Internacional20

Hello, could you please block Internacional20 (talk · contribs). I believe it's a sock of Mauricio80. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I've endorsed it for a CheckUser to take a look at. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

List of programmes broadcast by Nickelodeon (UK & Ireland)

Can this article be restored? Your deletion reasoning was related to it being linked to the AfD for Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by Disney Channel (Australia and New Zealand), but obviously this is neither an ANZ network or a Disney Channel network, so I think it's an inadvertent deletion. Thanks. Nate • (chatter) 03:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I've restored it. It was deleted as it was part of a redirect chain which led to the article which I deleted from the AFD. Thanks for the heads up. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much, no problem. Nate • (chatter) 05:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by <Kafkasmurat>-2014-03-05T10:43:00.000Z">

• This appeal belongs at WP:AE as it was imposed there and I don't feel comfortable overturning a sanction imposed by consensus even though technically I can. Also your statement does absolutely nothing to suggest that you understand the reasons you were sanctioned. In particular statements such as "Just told that all of the users edits are anti-Turkish" show a blatant misunderstanding of the civility policy and no personal attacks. To be very clear you tell any editor that they are anti-Turkish it is a personal attack and so will be met with a block of up to a month. You are treading on thin ice, if you break through there are blocks and a topic ban as was stated by commenting admins in the enforcement request. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)"> ">

"...users like Étienne Dolet, who specialized at ethnic manipulation." and "Just told that all of the users edits are anti-Turkish. It's not attack, it's fact."? Please remain WP:CIVIL and stop personally attacking me. I don't appreciate it when you say these things to me when talking to other users. This statement is in itself a violation of your topic ban. Callanecc, where's the best venue to have this examined? Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I generally allow just sanctioned users a little bit of leeway and in this case they were appealing which they're allowed to do. It's best to just drop this one. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hi there, would you be prepared to have another look at the block of User:Parrot_of_Doom. As mentioned on that thread, I'd agree that the stuff POD was reverting was a clear BLP violation (not to mention that it comes from a user with a history of dubious sourcing and borderline racist diatribe; I really don't think that article is one that an editor who thinks that "Misplaced Pages is a platform for Islamic extremism" should be editing anyway...). Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Callanecc, it's been a few hours. I just happened upon the ANI thread and spent the last twenty minutes looking at the article history and the various diffs. I agree with Black Kite, whose position is supported by Hijiri88. I hope you don't mind (you're probably doing something real right now or you would have responded already), but I'm going to unblock PoD, since I believe they were correct in their BLP invocation; the minor incivilities on either side weren't given as a reason for the block and they were minor anyway. Given your edit notice also I feel confident that you won't mind terribly. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • No problem with the unblock, thanks for letting me know. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Tom Butler

I think you made a mistake imposing a topic ban at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Tom Butler without even addressing the canvassing that occurred in this case. There really is the appearance that a half dozen editors who focus on pseudoscientific topics can get anyone who opposes them topic banned or blocked for "disruptive" behavior (defined as disagreement). I can't think of another subject area on Misplaced Pages where 6 or 7 editors have the power to get editors who don't agree with them kicked out. And people wonder why editors with a neutral point of view have avoided editing certain articles...no one wants to contradict the small majority and get blocked. If not at SPI, then at AN/I or AE. IMHO. Liz 15:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

As a few admins who work at AE have said canvassing isn't really that much of a problem as it's the admins who make the call not based on the number of editors who comment which I for one wouldn't even be able to guess at. We look for the evidence presented and work from there. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Anjem Choudary Edit War

Hello. I'm here because I've noticed you have banned one user Atsme for an edit war for actions on Anjem Choudary. I would like ask you to consider futher investigation. It's not that I disagree with the ban but I question if there's a balance of fairness in this ban. This is the second edit war with many of the same people involved. The previous one took place on 2/24/14. At this point I do not feel that an edit war is the only disruptive editing taking place. With that I'm not sure this ban will effectively do anything but prevent one user from editing for 36 hours.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• The user was blocked, not banned. I agree that a 36-hour block on what appears to be pretty much an SPA account might not be enough. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Pardon I actually meant block when I said ban. I don't know what you mean by SPA. While this particular user has certainly earned a 36 hour block if not more, I think this situation does call for more. It really has got out of hand. I'm not asking you block anyone else.

I'm just saying that only one thing was addressed. I'm asking you to get involved in any content dispute. I think behavoir on both ends may have lead to this. I think it does need to be addressed. I could have been a major contributing factor. I don't think I have but I could have been. I'd just ask you consider the over all situation and see if you feel anything else should be addressed.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Drmies meant that Atsme is a single purpose account so that they'll be back after their block has expired. I agree mostly however I'd rather wait and see what they do after their block expires. If they continue with the same sort of behaviour I'll long term or indef them but I'd rather give them a chance to see what will happen first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. The articles they work on are hotbeds of POV editing, and I have yet to see them being productive. I looked at behavior and content only narrowly--narrow enough to establish that Parrot of Doom was correct in reverting them. (Admins typically stay out of content discussions, but in such cases you have to look carefully to see if someone correctly invokes BLP policy, for instance, during an edit war.) I saw two problematic editors and I will be keeping an eye on the matter: the article is as yet salvageable through normal means, as far as I can tell right now. Thank you, and Callanecc, thanks for this and the message above. Drmies (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I particularly disagree that Atsme is SPA. I think disruptive behavoir however will continue when she returns. It may not be edit warring however she has done more than that. Point illustrating for instance I think can be seen on Anjem Choudary. There was forum shopping. The thing is I don't think she is trying to be a disruptive editor. She seems very much to be a new user that got ran off before and came back to try again. The behavoir of others hasn't been ideal either. While I think she paved the way for uncivility, the fact is two wrongs do not make a right. If you adress her behavoir but not that of everyone else then I don't feel your action will make her take stock and adjust accordingly.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Block Evasion

LimosaCorel, who you blocked today for sockpuppeting, is evading his block by editing from a new IP address, http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/2606:6000:80C1:6900:C27:5D5A:F5A1:705B He has so far, already reverted one editor, http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ash_Wednesday&diff=598239846&oldid=598238687 after being unable to edit with his account on the same page, http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ash_Wednesday&diff=598217112&oldid=598208511

Editing from yet one more IP address on the same article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/2606:6000:80C1:6900:E54D:20C3:B245:C208 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.123.177.3 (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked both. I'll hold of on page protection as it'll mean others won't be able to edit (including you). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that was nice of you to follow up with me so fast. I think that's a good solution but if it happens again, which I think it will, there should probably be more consquences for LimosaCorel, who controls all these IPs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.123.177.3 (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Account creator right

I no longer require the account creator rights. Thanks for granting them to me. Viola-Ness (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've removed the user right. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Block Evasion - HistorNE

Callanecc, user:HistorNE is continuing his block evasion at the IP 109.60.14.112. He also reverted me with the summary "rv judeofascist liar". Any help in resolving this nastiness would appreciated. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey!

On WP:AIV they RevDel some revisions but seemed to forgot this. --///EuroCarGT 04:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! --///EuroCarGT 04:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The Surreal Barnstar

		The Surreal Barnstar
		In recognition of being the first administrator in my long Misplaced Pages career of enduring blocks to actually be willing to discuss the block with me and seriously consider whether the situation could be handled if I was unblocked. And then unblock! jps (talk) 05:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

IPhonehurricane LTA Report

Hi there. I know that you are busy, like User:DoRD but... If you find the time, could you please file a WP:LTA Report for this guy, and link it on his SPI mainpage? I'm not familiar with that kind of stuff so I thought that I'd leave it to you, in case DoRD doesn't get around to it before you do. Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I really don't think it's necessary and echo the suggestion given to you by DoRD and Bbb23, please just spend sometime away from this sock master. If you notice a sock report it then drop it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

IP block

Good IP block on 41.132.179.212 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks ), but you should also be aware that he is a sock of 41.133.0.152 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks ) who is stalking Mezigue's edits; we'll keep an eye out and report further activity. Elizium23 (talk) 06:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/HistorNE

Hey, I noticed that you're familiar with this sock. I find the edits of this relatively new user to be unusual. What do you think?--Bbb23 (talk) 10:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I've left them a message, if they keep going then I'd be happy to block for abusing multiple accounts. That being said, I think this is a new behaviour for this puppeteer. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Ponyo indeffed the account based on a CU.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Another CU has confirmed it's a Mangoeater1000 sock.--Jezebel'sPonyo 21:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, now that I've had a chance to take a look, that's definitely him. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

That makes much more sense considering the edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI Inadequate behavior

(WP:ANI is protected)

I would tell both of them to calm down. A "2014 ..." military topic is too recent. Editors are not warriors. I would advise Aleksandr Grigoryev to avoid sentences like "the fact that you dont know anything about military". 84.127.80.114 (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

84.127.80.114, still, how is it OK to throw around threats? My statement could argued without threats or insults. Am I not right? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Aleksandr Grigoryev is right. Both users should make an effort to keep to the point, stop any quarrel and report the one who does not stop. It looks like they already stopped. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

SPI "Tracker"

Hi. I just noticed Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/UpdatedTrackerAccurate and the associated account blocks. I had noticed these users making the changes to Sheldon Adelson but the changes weren't vandalism and weren't violating NPOV so I mostly ignored them. Should I have reported them as possible socks? I assumed they might have been paid editors but without malicious intent it seemed beneath notice. While I'm aware of socking I've never personally dealt with it. Please advise. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The checkuser which was done would have picked them up if they were the same person. It's useful to report them all so the admins patrolling and CUs have a wider range to look through. However once the CU is done there really isn't much point adding an account which existed when the CU was done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Bonender

A 24h block has been imposed to user:Bonender per . However, it appears that his block log hasn't been updated ]. Thanks in advance for your time.Alexikoua (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370

Re: Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 I've been trying to improve this article in a real way for some time but it continually devolves into frustrating, nitpicking issues with a few of the users. Now a user has gone through the article and removed all the references to the airline's press releases, claiming that they are dynamic primary sources, and that as primary sources they should not be used. I think they are reputable and I have not been interpreting them.

I'm relatively new but I think I'm following the rules and assuming good faith, but the article just cannot be maintained the way it is.

... so I don't know what to do, really. Roches (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protect of MH370 article

Hi, saw you semi-protected the article. Was there a consensus for this, or a discussion on the week-long semi-protect? That's a pretty long semi-protect duration, so if it can be unprotected earlier, that'd be better. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Block log oddness

This is weird. You announced a block and the user hasn't edited since but there is nothing in the block log. This was pointed out to me by another user and I did the usual cache clearing, so I don't think I am seeing an old version.

No harm is occurring and there doesn't seem to be any need to take any sort of action, but I am curious as to whether the log has some sort of bug, there was an error in the blocking (which might mean that a typo blocked someone else) or whether I am wrong about the cache and am looking at on old version. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I think you got it right, although it was not exactly a typo: Pinkbeast got blocked instead. Δρ.Κ.  17:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)