User talk:Callanecc/Header

Although the sentiments of your block are admirable, I am an editor trying to improve the page. AukusRuckus has shown bad faith immediately and made accusations against me which I fully deny. I feel like you were possibly misled or used. He tried to get you to unwittingly protect the page as a way to shut down valid discussion on the talk page so he could avoid addressing my edit concerns, proposing a reasonable edit suggestion, and may have unwittingly converted you into a WP:cowboy. I don't see you at fault for this in fact I don't take your actions personally. However, I think you may have jumped the gun on your decision without thinking about my side and what role he may have put you in by having you protect it without telling him to not duck away from our conversation and to actually type in there first. I will continue to try to assume good faith but this doesn't seem like he had good intentions from the outside looking in. I hope you will reconsider this page protection. Thank you. 01:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

The page protection isn't just about your edits. There is a long-term history of sockpuppetry and disruptive edits on the article going back years with page protections on and off throughout that. Making no comment on the merits of what you want to add, my suggestion would be to use the edit request process to suggest and dicuss the changes you want to make. If you try to edit the article there will be some instructions which appear. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns are that without the barrier of that protection he will ignore my pleas for honest and open discussion in the talk page. It's not really fair to me or the community for one user to selfishly ignore conversations that can improve the page. Can you please at least prod him or try to get him to talk there? We can't discuss it if he stonewalls me and we will not get anywhere if I'm by myself. Thanks. 04:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.137.183.249 (talk)

An edit request would go to everyone not just him. I would suggest to you though that it appears that you are a sock or meatpuppet of User:Jacobkennedy given that you are making extremely similar edits to those that Jacobkennedy and their sockpuppets have made. Because of that it is fairly likely that other edits may ignore or decline the request(s) you make for that reason. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I wonder if you were responding to my oversight request (via email) on Blu del Barrio to address the record these additions when you protected the page? The additions include information that may-or-may-not be about the subject before they were notable. I really don't know the best way to phrase this; please bare with me. Assuming they are about the subject is obviously original research; speculative; investigative. If they are about the subject, and we cannot be sure, they fall under policies of deadnaming. If they're not about the subject; I don't think they're quite libel or defamatory but I'm no lawyer and would defer to my feelings on the subject, which are that maintaining a record of possibly completely false or at least undesirably revealing details of the subject is just not okay. At the end of the day; the details are not contributing to the article, but are possibly damaging to the subject, so should (IMO) be at least hidden. Cheers Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 10:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fred Gandt: I'm not sure whether using a deadname (which is now only in the article history) will rise to level required to justify suppression but it may reach the level required to justify revision deletion (which all administrators can do). If you've already submitted a ticket to the oversight team I'll leave it to their judgement and processes. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see you were responding to Funcrunch's request for page protection not my request for oversight, and Primefac just replied to the email/ticket with a rejection, so I guess it's noticeboard time. Sorry to bother you; have a good day :) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 09:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Callanecc,

You banned me for 12 months but may I question if this is the right choice?

Regarding the first incident, I take complete responsibility, It was only of the first things I’ve done on Wikipedia, and though I was unlucky to be ‘caught’ (I’ve seen worse!), I did slow down as another user suggested and mainly for used on small, newcomer copy edits to fix grammar, as you can see on my contributions. I also learnt not to edit a featured page without permission from those on the talk page. This is not something I have done again, thankfully.

However, the second incident was in fact an edit war with another user, something I didn’t know the rules concerning and at that point hadn’t heard of. As far as I was concerned at that point, I had added well-sourced info which hat gained support by a more senior user on the talk page, and looking at that talk page I saw that the person constantly removing the info was also swearing on the talk page. While the page that I added material to is a heavy debate, I added information to both the ‘Support’ and ‘Opposition’ sections, while the other user caught up in the edit war only removed my edits to the ‘Opposition’ section until I pointed it out. Again, I believed I was just protecting the page from vandalism as looking through the second user’s contributions similar things had happened with other pages. The difference was that on other, more protected pages, it was a senior editor who stopped them, and on this one, it was a newcomer – me. This second user was lucky though because I backed down after I was enlightened as to what an edit war was (which I realised I had just done) and their changes were made. Moreover, they got no punishment despite a previous history of being nasty while editing and on talk pages.

I don’t really intend to work on gender-related articles in the future. It’s like stepping into a minefield and whatever you do, there are angry users chasing after you. I’m currently working on pages such as Upper Slaughter and Darwin Núñez (true, they’re not related at all). I only ask you if your could possibly review if you have time the comments I have made and if that changes your opinion over what is to happen to me.

Have a Happy New Year when it comes!

Scientelensia Scientelensia (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scientelensia: I think part of the problem you had, as you mention above, is that you stepped into a really difficult area to edit accurately and within the bounds of policy where the consequences for not doing so are higher than they would be in other less contentious areas. Your plan to edit in other areas for while to gain some more knowledge of how Wikipedia works and what you're expected to do is a good one. To take a point from above, the issue wasn't necessarily about you needing to seek permission to edit featured articles it's more about ensuring that your edits meet the criteria that featured articles need to maintain and if you're not sure asking for second opinion before making changes. Once you have experience in other areas I don't think you'll run into problems in the more contentious areas but you, likely the vast majority of other new editors, need experience before working on those topics. While it's not nice to be on the receiving end of a topic ban, I don't think there's a strong justification for removing it at this stage. Having said that, once you've spent 3-6 months editing well in other areas I've no issue looking at it again to see if it can be removed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you! Scientelensia (talk) 09:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read and response to my comments on the Talk about why I tried to edit a part of article which is related on anonymous source using and actual misleading sentences for months.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kim_Seon-ho#On_Using_Dispatch_and_Misleading_Sentences TheWandering (talk) 09:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheWandering: I've asked for a second opinion on the BLP noticeboard but until that happens I'm not super inclined to change the version to something else especially since it has been the stable version of the article for so long. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the "stable version" can be very problematic if there was no check and balance in the first place. This is worse than sock-puppet. Clearly there has been oversight, but more precisely: fans playing editors.

As a person who is familiar with K-Pop industry, I know (everyone knows) how controversial Dispatch is. But the editors in that page insist to retain Dispatch because it gives a better light for the celeb in question.

If you really insist to keep the article for sometime, at least remove the two misleading sentences. This part is especially a lie and not even written in the sources. I suspect the fans try to shift the blame to the ex-girlfriend.

"Screen-captures of chat conversations from acquaintances revealed that the ex-girlfriend had been the one to suggest the abortion, contrary to her claims." TheWandering (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've added an edit request to the talk page for another administrator to review and posted on the BLP noticeboard and have disucssed it with a number of editors on the article's talk page. You need to stop pushing, stop casting aspersions about what you think are the motiviations and thinking of other editors and allow the processes you have started to take place. Continuing to ask the same question in multiple places and making accusations against other editors is not going to help you make the changes you want to make. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After months of oversight with no one actually checked the obviously misleading sentences, and those who were actually there somehow not bothering to correct it while insisting to use an unconfirmed report with anonymous source from a controversial entertainment website, obviously my conjecture did not magically come out of nowhere.

Also I ask around since the Korean Reliable source board is very unresponsive. Someone asked about Dispatch a few months ago and no response. I was also redirected from a Korean board talk page because it's not active. And you are the one who locked the page, so I assumed you at least already checked the problematic part, which is why I came here. TheWandering (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to open a general discussion about the reliability of Dispatch as a source you can try the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard but you may get a similar response as at the Korea WikiProject page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:36, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For [1]. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see if they actually edit, they may not realise that they can. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain your rationale for this undeletion? I don't see any REFUND request anywhere. (please ping on reply) Primefac (talk)

Hi Primefac, I closed the AFD with a soft delete and it was still on my watchlist. The article has since been recreated, with a different subject, so I couldn't see a good reason to keep the original version deleted. Although the brief description in the AFD describes a different person having it undeleted in the article's history allows everyone access to the previous version. Effectively, the reason to keep it soft deleted, so it doesn't appear publically, was no longer necessary as the current version of the article was for someone different. Had the AFD received more participation and I'd closed it as 'delete', as opposed to 'soft delete', that reason would not have applied. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that it's desirable for an article to contain history segments about two different people, especially when they constitute (admittedly minor) parallel histories is bizarre, and I would argue serves to obfuscate what happened rather than clarify it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't catch the parallel history, I thought they were separated in the page history in the page history which would have made the connection (or disconnection) between them clearer. I must have misread the order of the dates and years. I'll redelete it and restore the current version. Sorry about that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You bungled the redeletion - Special:PermaLink/614374151 should have been deleted but wasn't. For the record I've been periodically checking the undeletion log for the last several months to work around phab:T315591, saw your undeletion, assumed someone had contested the soft-deletion off-wiki, and requested an admin split out the two versions at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge, which lead Primefac to ask you here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, fixed now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, ta. Primefac (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Moops @Callanecc == Happy New Year, Callanecc! ==

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

would you mind helping on the ch73 Mate page. Has 73 been dropped? I can't tune to 177.5Mhz on older DVR. 2405:6E00:268F:D98B:185B:6852:991C:1728 (talk) 06:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 22:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).

Administrator changes

• ComplexRational
• Extraordinary Writ

Stephen

• Andrew Yong
• Dbenbenn
• DESiegel
• GlassCobra
• Joe Decker
• Nancy
• Pathoschild
• StuffOfInterest
• William Pietri
• Wwwwolf
• Xdamr

Interface administrator changes

Nihiltres

CheckUser changes

Moneytrees

• Ivanvector
• SilkTork

Oversighter changes

• GeneralNotability
• Moneytrees

• Guerillero
• SilkTork

Guideline and policy news

• Speedy deletion criterion A5 (transwikied articles) has been repealed following an unopposed proposal.

Arbitration

• Following the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, CaptainEek, GeneralNotability, Guerillero, L235, Moneytrees, Primefac, SilkTork.
• The 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review has concluded with many changes to the discretionary sanctions procedure including a change of the name to "contentious topics". The changes are being implemented over the coming month.
• The arbitration case Stephen has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
• Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.

Hi The Article Full Name is Gadar 2:The Katha Continues. Peter181 (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter181: I've moved the article for you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peter181 (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I've noticed that you've become a lot more active recently, and I just wanted to reach out and introduce myself. You cast a long shadow - Mz7 took me through CVUA training in 2018, and I believe the curriculum he used was mostly your work; I then used that curriculum to train quite a lot of new users, and I also believe that you trained RoySmith, who I have worked closely with since I started working SPIs in 2020. Essentially, I just wanted to say hi, but I also wanted to mention that I remain very open to constructive criticism - I'm one of the more active CUs at SPI at the moment, so if you ever find yourself scratching your head at something I've done, please don't hesitate to let me know. I am always grateful for a steer from an old hand. Happy new year, and good to see you back. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit Yup, I'm a Callanecc trainee (and good to see that you're active again!). I've been trying to pass on the wisdom to @User:Jack Frost and @MarioGom, although I've drifted away from SPI lately and gone for the deep dive on WP:DYK. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the intro Girth Summit. I was actually looking at the CVUA still in my subpages a couple of days ago wondering if it ended up being helpful. I'm glad has been! Ah yes, the training of Roy, I remember it well, I think that material also ended up being passed around as well. I'll let you know if I notice anything. 😊 Nice to see you around Roy, I hadn't seen your username much as SPI, but the DYK focus explained it. I spent some time working on the queues at some point, always interesting to see, sometimes fascinating. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw you posted on on of the anon edits on an SA20 site that is adding the fake site. Whoever it is is adding that site to all the SA20 related sites. Anon has also started adding a fake site to the ILT20 sites. I added all the official sites yesterday for all the SA20 teams but anon changed them all back to the fake site this morning. I don't have time to revert them back now so thought I would let at least one other editor know what was happening, especially since the tournament starts today. Looking for info for it was how I found out about the fake sites to begin with ... XinJeisan (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@XinJeisan: I've blocked the IP range that's been used to add the links so that should stop them at least for the next three days. If they come back after the block and keep adding the links let me know and I'll see what else I can do. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. XinJeisan (talk) 08:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt reply regarding the sockpuppet investigation. I have been investigating for the past week and have uncovered a sock farm engaged in UPE. I have also gathered additional evidence outside of Wikipedia. I can mail you if needed. I think you should also have a look at https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Window369. All the articles created by this sock farm are eligible for G5. Could you review this and delete the eligible UPE articles so that I don't need to individually tag all of them with G5. Akevsharma (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted all except Tharun Moorthy as it has been extensively edited by other editors. Any off-wiki evidence should be sent to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org so that it can be reviewed by the CheckUser team. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Callanecc, I am uncertain if it is appropriate to bring this up here, but I am trying to avoid the hassle of opening another sockpuppet investigation. A new account, KingKIVA has been created a few hours back and their first edit was creating a draft for a non-notable film actor, similar to what the previous sockpuppets of SuhailShaji786 used to do. The previous sockpuppet investigation was closed only a few hours ago. I was wondering if it is necessary to reopen the investigation or if you could take a look into it and take the necessary action. Akevsharma (talk) 08:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you could file a new case I'd appreciate it. It's probably worth us requesting a CheckUser take a look this time. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Akevsharma (talk) 10:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little unclear, yes, how one is to seek help with egregious behavior if one cannot describe for what is at at ANI when slandered on one's eighth or ninth attempt to draw attention to it. i realize you don't know me and several other people probably recused, so I do not want to give you, personally, a hard time, but seriously, have you read that ANI thread? And please, what am I to do about his aspersions against me? He is, right now, still trying to keep rape by Russian soldiers out of Wikipedia, and boasts that he doesn't read my posts. I am interested in the official answer to this question and don't want to berate you about what I think of this. Thanks. Elinruby (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that's in relation to Gitz? If so, the same time I warned you I gave them an indefinite topic ban from the Russo-Ukrainian War based on what was in that thread. The way to avoid it in the future is to provide or directly refer to evidence when making accusations about other editors. If Gitz continues to make aspersions about you in the Eastern Europe topic area (or another area covered by discretionary sanctions) report it to WP:AE so that further sanctions can be considered (such as an interaction ban. If it's in another topic area you can report it (succinctly and with evidence) to ANI. Your decision to post a photo of a chicken was pretty poor too - I'd suggest that avoiding incendiary things like that would be a good idea. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. The cause of truth thanks you for that, then, since as you probably gathered, the problem went far beyond three or four untruths that were about me personally of the many in that thread. Just to tie up some loose ends, yeah, this seems a lot less unfair knowing that. I am not even surprised, really.

I don't claim the chicken was tactful ;) It seemed necessary at the time and considering that that several admins had unofficially told me pretty much that, possibly I was even correct in that assessment, and seriously, pretty much the same complaint had been getting "no appetite" for months at every noticeboard there is, from most of them several times.

I *can* see that some other editors who agree with him are probably complaining about unfairness even at this, and probably would have howled had I not been warned. I am still deciding whether or not to appeal, as I suspect that saying that "chicken" might possibly have been true is not going to go over well ;) and I mostly hang out at French law where nobody is going to claim that mass rapes are not notable.

Quick followup on Gitz6666 though: I hope you blocked him from the topic area not just the page? Because he kept trying to build a case for Ukrainian war crimes in small spinoff articles. Since I do expect him to sign on with another account, what constitutes proof? Would a proclivity for certain unusual sources be enough? If that's a complicated question, answer it at your leisure, or just point me at a link, if there is one that covers that.

I suspect he will gravitate back to proving Ukrainian war crimes not to messing with me personally, even though he was pretty angry with me. But I am not his mission; he dislikes VM much much more. Thank you for explaining that to me; I came back in to ask about this because I noticed your experience on your user page after my last post. Cheers. Elinruby (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The cause of truth thanks you for that" is probably not very helpful too. Yes, Gitz is banned from making any edit about or editing any page about the Russo-Ukrainian War. Regarding using a different account to try and get around the topic ban, that would be sock puppetry. Wikipedia:Signs of sockpuppetry gives some ideas on what to look for but, yes, using similar sources on similar articles to argue similar things would probably be enough evidence. Obviously, it's impossible for me to say that definitively as we're talking in hypotheticals. Hopefully, Gitz will spend 6 months editing positively in other areas and then file an appeal. If you suspect sock puppetry you can make a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations (there are instructions there in the lead section in a collapse box). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PPS If I decide to appeal I may have more questions about evidence later as I did provide 40-50 links, and I am wondering right now if the problem was that they had been so extensively argued with (?) Right now, though, let's just stick to the question of what a checkuser would need, assuming of course a named a count. I get the part about geolocating an IP, on a basic level anyway. Thanks some more. Elinruby (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, my opinion is that the only successful way to appeal the warning I gave you would be to (1) demonstrate that you were so extensively provoked that you deserve special consideration for everything you said and/or (2) that you had already provided evidence in the ANI thread to support everything you said in ANI thread (especially in the diffs I referred to) that the warning was incorrect.
If I were filing an SPI in this situation, I'd almost certainly be asking a CheckUser to have a look. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright alright ;) You're right and I am not going to go out and throw a party. I'll even let the other people I was talking to at the sexual violence page figure it out for themselves as they are all quite competent and capable of doing so. Elinruby (talk) 03:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry out of synch. I hadn't asked for an SPI, but, well, I have imposed enough on your time for now. Since I am not going to name names proving the chicken part would be pretty tough, except for all of the non appetite stuff going around. I personally don't feel at the moment that I strayed very far into hyperbole, if at all, but I'll sit will that a bit then make an organized case.Thanks. Elinruby (talk) 03:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misread your post, I thought you were asking (if and when you do file an SPI) if you should ask a CU to take a look and I was saying yes. I now see that you were just asking how much a CU would need, which wouldn't be as much as what I said above but it really depends on the situation. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So eventually it was "battleground behaviour" and "tendentious editing"! It's OK, I don't resent it and I won't hold a grudge. However, I'd like to understand a few things about why the decision was taken. I feel that you could help me understand whether and how to appeal.

1. What was decisive for your decision: the high number of users in favour of the t-ban (nine users: Volunteer Marek, My very best wishes, GizzyCatBella, TimothyBlue, Elinruby, Cambial Yellowing, Horse Eye's Back, GabberFlasted, Jeppiz) compared to those against (four users excluding myself: Mr Ernie, François Robere, Pincrete, Levivich), or the strength of the arguments used in the discussion (discussion undoubtedly too long)? Or perhaps some comment of mine in particular, or a comment by one of my interlocutors that seemed decisive? Or a mixture of all these things?
2. I'm a bit sorry about the "tendentious editing". Did you check the diffs I provided showing that I edit also for the Ukrainian side? See in particular 02:13, 13 January 2023, but also 08:26, 13 January 2023 and 21:32, 13 January 2023. Do they not prove that I at least tried in good faith to comply with NPOV? My very best wishes himself acknowledged that I made "many valid edits in this subject area" (16:59, 14 January 2023). Furthermore, I mentioned and linked to several threads I opened where my views achieved consensus (at the very least, one or two RfCs and one thread at AN), I mentioned that I wrote nearly 1/3 of War crimes during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, and I mentioned (but didn't ping to avoid WP:CANVASS) that there are editors who often or occasionally agree with me. Isn't achieving consensus at odds with being tendentious?
3. Re battleground, I admit that in my eyes the EE area is kind of a battleground. I believe I found the battleground ready and waiting for me, but who knows, maybe I did my bit to polarise the field and pollute the air. However, I was wondering: was the argument put forward by Mr Ernie, Pincrete, François Robere and myself that it isn't fair to target one editor and leave the others untouched, since the others may have been as much or more responsible than me in creating the battleground, in any way convincing to you? As I said in the discussion, I have the feeling that AN/I isn't the right place to have our policies applied impartially to polarising issues such as the war in Ukraine (at 23:08, 11 January 2023). I also mentioned that El C suggested that perhaps ArbCom was the right forum for this kind of controversy in the EE area (09:53, 13 January 2023). Did you consider the possibility that he was right?
4. At the end, I made a comments that may sound a bit WP:NOTAFORUM-like, but which I think is significant of my take on "battleground behaviour" and "tendentious editing". It's at 19:29, 14 January 2023. Have you read it? What do you think of it? If there is any truth to it, and my view of the EE area regarding the Russo-Ukrainian war is not purely delusional, aren't you afraid that by removing me, and only me, you have unbalanced the area, eaving it prey to warmongering spirits?

I know it's a lot of questions, but there is no hurry: you can answer whenever you want. But I would be very grateful if you would answer all my questions. I promise never to reply, to spare you the waste of time of a long discussion. Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 04:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re 1: One of the reasons I imposed it as a discretionary sanction rather than a community-imposed sanction was that I wasn't weighing consensus in the discussion. The discretionary sanction was based on a range of evidence and arguments that had been brought up in the ANI thread. For example, your conduct in and referred to in this AN thread from December, this comment from you (cf. the first paragraph of VM's reply).

Re 2: The tendentious editing I was referring to was specifically about the following sections from that page: §2.5, §2.9, §2.17 (since I have them to hand: eg 1 & eg 2 (your last comment in that section). It's not necessarily that you only edit on one side of the dispute (which you don't) it's the approach you take when you are editing.

Re 3: I think seeing it as a battleground is a good reason to take a break from it. Spend 6 months editing positively in other areas then appeal the TBAN and come back with some fresh eyes. Re ArbCom, editors are free to file an arbitration case but since one hasn't been and at least this issue can be resolved with a discretionary sanction I have. If you want to file a case let me know and we can work out a way forward by modifying the TBAN - ArbCom would likely do the same for you.

Re 4: It's good that you're self-reflective and can identify your offwiki point of view, I won't comment on whether that appears to be the way your editing appears onwiki. Whether or not it's being left to "warmongering spirits" (which sounds like more WP:BATTLE) is really separate to whether or not the TBAN is justified. To use a different example, an admin should necessarily consider that when blocking someone who is edit warring against multiple other editors.

Hopefully that answers your questions in sufficient detail? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, thank you - your answers were comprehensive and helpful. I appreciate the time you have taken to untangle the intricate discussions I've been involved it. I was surprised by the reference to my "conduct in and referred to in this AN thread", which I hadn't perceived as problematic. Re filing a request at ArbCom, I don't intend to do this on my own without first receiving input from the community; I thank you for willingness to modify my TBAN in that case. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the T-ban applies also to my talk and other user talk discussions, including conversations about the t-ban itself. Is this correct? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the only exemptions to it are at WP:BANEX. You can engage in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution such as clarifying the ban but can't talk about the topic area outside of the limited scope of getting clarification or appealing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you please instruct me on how to interpret the scope of my T-ban on "Russo-Ukrainian War". I noticed that the message you left me (here) is missing the "broadly construed" clause. I just received an automatic notification to comment on an RfC about a 19th century Russian-Ukrainian historian: does it fall under the domain of the Russo-Ukrainian War? And what about contemporary Russian and Ukrainian politics not directly related to the Russo-Ukrainian war? Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't include 'broadly construed' primarily because that could effectively prevent you from editing anything that has a connection to the conflict. Technically you probably could contribute to that RfC but you would need to be very careful that you don't talk about the conflict between Russia and Ukraine as a reason for including or not including the content. Also that any sources you refer to that justify your argument also don't talk about the conflict. To me, the conflict seems like an inherent part of the discussion which would be required as part of the RfC so it's probably best not to participate unless the comment you want to make is very clearly not related to the conflict at all. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to talk about the Russo-Ukrainian war as a reason to include or not include content about a 19th century historian, I would deserve to be blocked for trolling anyway, regardless of the t-ban... I am not eager to contribute to the RfC and I will follow your advice not to participate in that discussion, but there are topics in contemporary Ukrainian politics, not directly related to the war, that I'd rather not abandon, e.g. this article, which I had almost finished translating from the Ukrainian Wikipedia (year "2021" is still missing), and this discussion, which I opened and which seems to be over anyway. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Derussification in Ukraine would definitely be covered by the TBAN. You could potentially still participate in the BLPN discussion but you'd need to be cautious. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I wouldn't have guessed that Derussification in Ukraine was covered by the TBAN - I would have thought it was related to, but not included in, the Russo-Ukrainian war. This mismatch implies that it's very likely that I'll have to ask you again in the coming months and years to clarify the exact scope of the sanction. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recently I add a external link that is very relevant with Bangladesh recipes. Who want to know more about Recipe of Bangladesh. Please add that link again that is more helpful for readers. Wp Umme Habiba (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wp Umme Habiba: Wikipedia has specific rules on when links to external websites can be added. Have a look at Wikipedia:External links for more information. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I award you the Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your numerous and quick actions against vandalism on the Wikipedia platform. Congratulation! ChaseYUL99 (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and good day to you. Can I send you an email? I have some questions that I'd want to ask in private. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 19:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure can, just note this before you do. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Am I allowed to ask a question at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard concerning the change announced, concerning DS to CT? I'm asking due to my current 't-ban', which might be affected by the change. I don't want to ask my question there & have someone yelling that I've breach my t-ban. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at WP:AC/CT#Continuity I don't think there would be any changes to the TBAN. Per WP:BANEX you can ask "for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban". Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per the response to your block here [2]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Do you think it is appropriate for this user to come along and remove an entire sourced section from an article, despite ongoing discussion at talk? [3] This user has recently received a logged warning for edit warring: [4] Thank you. Grandmaster 22:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not ideal but, you and reverting it was also not a great idea. There seems to be agreement in the discussion that the section on Vardanyan needs to be shortened. It's now just a matter of developing a consensus version of text. That takes discussion not edit warring. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree, reverting is never good. I rarely revert anything, I prefer consensus building and dispute resolution, in accordance with the rules. I made 2 proposals on talk on how to better summarize the text, trying to build consensus. But then Dallavid comes along and simply removes the entire section. I don't think it was a constructive approach. Anyway, thanks for the attention to this topic, and placing the article on notice. Much appreciated. Grandmaster 09:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye on the discussion as best I can. Now that there's an agreement to shorten the content hopefully it will make the discussion more focused on doing that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Grandmaster 10:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was it appropriate for you to restore the new section you had just created when there was already a strong consensus against it? --Dallavid (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Speaker Knockerz. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Célestin Denis (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure why you think I have been "attacking people" when the people in question have been composing libelous content (which, in and of itself, can be considered to be attacking a person), and I was rightfully calling it out.

The discussion with regards to my Russia/Ukraine-related activities on Wikipedia has very little in common with my activities regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh region. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I originally edited the Artsakh blockade article in order to make it easier to read. I did several copy-edits to the lead and to the various subsections. Subsequently, I became involved in the dispute over the "Arrival of Ruben Vardanyan", because this section had suddenly appeared in the article, and it seemed questionable. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I linked some revisions in particular in the notice I left on your talk page which demonstrate the behaviour I was referring to. I can give you specific quotes if you need? Given that similar issues have presented in the topic area discussed in the AE thread and in relation to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict they seem, in fact, to be linked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you agree with the allegations made against me recently at my talk page? Because, I did not. The user Grandmaster had written an entire section in which he accused Ruben Vardanyan of being a Russian puppet, and I pointed out that some of the wording, such as "if Vardanyan was its man", seemed like it was personally attacking Vardanyan. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I referred to in the TBAN notice, yes, you made personal remarks about the behavior of other editors on the talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that my "personal vendetta" comment was a personal attack. I was pointing to specific policies, and I provided legitimate reasons/evidence for my assessment. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was. The fact that you can't see that it was suggests that you need a break from that topic area. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced by the "it was" argument. Some reasoning would be helpful. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You were making an accusation about the contributor, not the content. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But the content was entirely written by the contributor? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will also point out that I said "Grandmaster's paragraph is a personal vendetta against Vardanyan", which does mean that I was specifically addressing the paragraph (i.e. the paragraph about Vardanyan inside of the article itself, not on the talk page). The paragraph just happened to be written by Grandmaster. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk pages are not the place to discuss conduct issues, there are noticeboards for that. The purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of the articles not the people who put the content into the article, the second sentence in the no personal attacks policy explicitly states comment on content, not on the contributor. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But as I pointed out, I wasn't really attacking the person. In this context, the term "personal vendetta" serves as a synonym for "hit piece". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the specific comment about "personal vendetta", I was leading directly into my argument that the section qualified as libel. So, in that respect, I don't think it was really a personal attack against Grandmaster, and it was instead a criticism of the section that Grandmaster had written. Please take note of the clause "This is not an encyclopaedic way to frame the allegations...". As you can see, I was primarily discussing the content within the article at that point in time, and Grandmaster's name was only mentioned because he's the person who wrote the bulk of that content. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will point out that the user Abrvagl, who originally reported me, was displaying some behaviour in the thread (before the altercation involving Grandmaster) that could be viewed as problematic. For example, Abrvagl accused both ZaniGiovanni and myself of gaslighting beforehand. Even though "gaslighting" seems to be mentioned in Wikipedia's "behavioural guidelines", it is certainly leaning into "personal attack" territory since it criticizes behaviour rather than content (and it also does not assume good faith). Particularly this sentence – "And why are you always snipping just one sentence from what I wrote an building your whole response around that, while completely ignoring the rest?" [5], which is what Abrvagl accused ZaniGiovanni of; this is basically where I got the idea to accuse Grandmaster of something very similar later on down the track. So, it's not like only one side was launching personal attacks. Abrvagl also accused me of something similar, here: "Moreover, gasligtning [sic] the conversation by snipping a line from the euroasianet article 'Debating GONGO vs. NGO' does not make the source a liar." [6]. Also, as far as I'm aware, Grandmaster himself never reported me, and it was really Abrvagl who reported me with regards to my behaviour towards Grandmaster. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Callanecc, hope you're doing well. Just wanted to leave a small comment regarding this: I was happy to see Jargo being self-critical on my talk page [7], [8] – I believe it's a good quality to have especially for Wikipedia. I also wanted to ask whether their comments should've been entirely removed by a different editor? Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry to bother you again Callanecc, please just revert if you're not interested (I'll completely understand), but this was the blpn comment and the whole purpose of the non-issue discussion opened on my talk (with follow-up WP:HUSH even when I asked the user to stop). ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure what you're asking me to do here? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps a warning to the user to stop bothering and borderline harassing my talk with pseudo-lectures that I didn't ask for? If I did anything wrong with that comment, I'll gladly take criticism. But I don't think that simply providing the WP:undue context regarding an issue highly (almost entirely) challenged/discussed as undue on the talk (especially when it's the first time of it appearing outside the talk) is "wrong" in any way. In fact, OP themselves [9] and a third-party [10] (from Abrvagl's own thread) have commented the same undue, which I also don't think is wrong in any way.

  I just don't fathom how Abrvagl thought this was an issue at all, no less "educating" me in blpn, coming to my talk with the same lecture, and then commenting this gaslighting reply again when I kindly asked them to stop the non-issue discussion on my talk. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You've explicitly made a request for Abrvagl not to comment on your talk page per WP:USERTALKSTOP now. If they ignore WP:USERTALKSTOP you can make a report at WP:ANI if you feel it necessary. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the help. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One question. Is it Ok to remove all the sourced information from the article, when the discussion is still ongoing? [11] I suggested to take the issue to WP:BLPN, if Jargo Nautilus thought it was libelous, but he simply deleted everything. I took it to BLPN myself, but I don't think it is Ok to simply delete everything in the absence of a clear consensus. Grandmaster 10:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no harm in having it not there while a consensus (shortened) wording is established. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks. I made 3 different proposals on the wording at talk. And I hope BLPN discussion will lead to third party opinions on the subject, in particular as to whether there are BLP and UNDUE issues with the sources that discuss Vardanyan. Grandmaster 13:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I may be able to give a thorough answer to you (if Callanecc doesn't mind), as someone involved in the discussion: the info you've added was challenged to be removed by at least four editors on talk, and edited-out/cut by three [12], [13], [14], another three editors suggested shortening it. I would call this the definition of something being disputed hence WP:ONUS applies: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content – meaning you. Until then as you mentioned, there is no consensus for its inclusion. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Callanecc, hope you're doing well.

I removed rather large and irrelevant material since, in my experience, the larger a thread becomes, the less likely it is that someone would respond. I was referring to WP:TALKOFFTOPIC and WP:NOTFORUM, as well as my prior observations of editors removing irrelevant comments.

However, I think you are right, although my intention was to aid the dispute resolution, from side it may be misinterpreted considering that I am "part of the dispute". As such, may I ask that you, as an uninvolved party, review the aforementioned comment and decide whether keeping it will be beneficial to the discussion? Because the aforementioned comment literally describes a story that has absolutely nothing to do with the BLPN topic. For example: In the South Caucasus region, part of the former USSR, there is a territorial conflict between two countries, Armenia and Azerbaijan...; In 2020, Azerbaijan successfully launched an invasion of Artsakh...; In the next two years, Azerbaijan economically developed the territories.. I'm not sure how literally copying and pasting the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict article's content is relevant to and beneficial to the BLPN.

Thanks in advance! A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 09:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've collapsed part of it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't copy-paste content. All of that info was written in my own words? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the discrepancy which had to be mentioned is that this is a "BLPN" case that applies to an article that isn't actually the main article of the person in question. So, obviously, it has to be explained what the article actually is, where the dispute is occurring, and how the situation might qualify as BLPN in the first place. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Callanecc,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 10, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]