User talk:Callanecc

Some Clerk-ish questions

Hello! Random thing to jump into I know, but as someone totally and completely fascinated with the ArbCom process (bring me popcorn) and Wikipedia procedural and policy matters in general (I consider AN and ANI to be things I read "for fun"), I wanted to ask a few things about clerkship. I can appreciate that my contributions log in no way suggests I'd be appropriate for that position, thus this isn't a request for endorsement but just a few things I'm curious about. What general level of ongoing participation in the Project is expected before such a clerkship would be a realistic aim? Also, it seems require Adminship? I guess if that's the case it makes the rest of this post rather pointless and I'm wasting both of our time! Even passive suggestions that I was eventual admin material several years ago ironically helped scare me away from the Project and that goal is not something I'm sure I'd eventually want to face in the future. Thanks! ♪ Tstorm(talk) 01:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I haven't spoken to the other clerks about it but I'd say that you probably need another 6 months or so of active editing, as over the last few years you've only made a few hundred edits, suggesting you don't have enough experience at the moment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Was expected! Thanks for your time. I'm just getting warmed up here again! ♪ Tstorm(talk) 19:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy Delete

Could you speedy delete this article for me? (It redirects to Port Douglas, Queensland). I intend to move Port Douglas, Queensland there. Luxure Σ 10:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Done as it meets the criteria for WP:G7, however it can just be created again. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

That shouldn't have been done. It should be a disambiguation page, which it was when you deleted it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it should be, but it meets the criteria for G7. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

On a second look, it doesn't meet criteria as it was created as a result of a move which the mover was not the primary contributor to so I've restored it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the inconvenience caused. Luxure Σ 00:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Easy and uncontentious?

I received a request per email to format the information on a user page as an infobox. I did, but - because of my [insert word] restriction was careful not to insert it where it was wanted, but suggested on my own talk. Was I too careful? Would an edit in user space have been tolerated by the enforcers? Would an edit on request would have been tolerated? If yes would that request have had to be made on Wikipedia? - Things could be so easy and uncontentious ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)-

Probably a good idea to add it to your talk page. Given that it was a request from a user about making an infobox (not just adding one) for them for their own userspace I don't think it would have ended up with a block, but better to be careful. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It was now copied to it's destination. I decided a while ago to find my restrictions amusing, - a daily reason to be amused, what else do you want? You read it in the Signpost, I managed another FA, with an infobox, of course ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thomaskantor of Thomanerchor
Incumbent Georg Christoph Biller (resigned) since 1992
Type	Director of music
Reports to	Leipzig
Formation	1518 (1518)
First holder	Georg Rhau

Supporting the FA, I expanded Thomaskantor, a list. If I had started the article, this is the infobox I would add. However, there were already six sentences, so I don't own the article, and by the power of the arbs who support ownership (but whose?) I better don't do that. Anybody else doing it falls under Reductio ad absurdum. Perhaps I ask Little Doctorbody, met here ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

(re AE) Clearly replacing is not adding nor deleting. Where is my language problem this time? I try hard to stay away of AE, yesterday I was successful, not today, sorry. If I am right, we have only to oblige to present restricitons, not to those some people may hope for. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Let me try: adding is give an article an infobox which the owner detests (and such owners were pleased in the infoboxes case), replacing one by another (a better one, like hymn by composition) does not have the same quality, not even in an article. It is not "removing and adding" unless in a sense I would find spitzfindig and have no English word for, therefore no violation of the letter of the restriction. (I have almost given up to find out the spirit of the restrictions.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I hope I found the little language stumble stone, but don't want to blow up the "clarification" further: "discussing the addition OR removal of, infoboxes", OR highlighted, because that is the crucial point, Yes or No to a specific infobox, - a merge or replacement is "removal AND addition" and doesn't fall under the present restriction. You seem to have misunderstood me, but in the more than one year since the case started, I got used to being misunderstood. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Need more language, sorry. You say: "The arbs who have commented have told us that the sanction extends as far as the behaviour is disruptive." Can AE sanction for something that is not in the restrictions? Who defines what is disruptive? Those whose templates are in danger to be merged and find that uncomfortable? - Btw, nobody has told me yet where my behaviour was disruptive. Just curious, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

To the last para, it's not not in the restriction, the restriction is broad, in the past AE admins have limited it (by themselves) and ArbCom has said that it's not that case (or as clear as that). As is always the case with AE unvinvolved admins decide what is disruptive. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Please forgive me that I have little experience with AE, and feel that it drove away another excellent editor today. (Link on top of my talk, click on "just".) I am bit bitter right now. Would you please look at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#December 22? A helpful proposal, if you ask me, opposed by people who possibly never even looked at the templates in question. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

ps: why we are here again ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Guardian discussion

Hi Callanecc, can you say why you removed the discussion I started about the Guardian article and the proposed decision? The talk page is supposed to be a place where editors can discuss the proposals. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 03:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, I archived it for the same reason as it was initially hatted. Threaded discussion isn't permitted on the page and all statements by individuals should be level 3 sections. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Why not leave it hatted the way Euryalus did, so that people can at least see that it existed? I didn't want to make a statement. I wanted to start a discussion about the proposed decision. That surely has to be allowed on the proposed-decision talk page. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 03:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Because it was not relevant to the Committee reaching a decision (hence hat) and was out of process for the page (hence archive). Threaded discussions aren't allowed on the PD talk page as they usually result in heated argument, instead editors are only allowed to edit in their own section. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

But who has decided that? Talk pages are for editors to talk to each other. Those pages aren't necessarily there for the benefit of the committee. Did someone ask you to remove the discussion? Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 04:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes they are there for the benefit of the Committee, pages within arbitration space are under the jurisdiction of the Committee and they use and organise them as they believe will best suit the Committee's purpose. No, it was an action undertaken as an arbitration clerk per the arbitration policy and procedures. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It was not at our specific direction, but I endorse the archival of the discussion if that's for some reason necessary. Clerks are entrusted to maintain the case pages and nothing wrong was done here. Due to the expected volume of comments, the instructions on the page clearly indicate that commentary is to be made by individual editors commenting in their own section and not by threaded discussion, and there was no reason for the hatted discussion to remain on the page. If you would like to offer comments on the case in a section as others have done, your comments are of course welcome. And yes, arbitration case pages, including talk pages, are there for the specific purpose of resolving the case. There are plenty of other forums available for general discussion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked

Hey Callanecc, do you mind adding User:7157.118.25a to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jzyehoshua/Archive? They were trolling Jimbo's talk page. See the now-deleted user page for their admission. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Probably easier just to leave them tagged, if there were a recent archived case I'd add it but given there isn't a new one would need to be filed and I don't think it's worth the work at this stage. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. I gotta say, I expected that archive to be a page full with tons of accounts. Storms and teacups all around, it seems. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

In that case it might be worth filing a case and requesting CU for confirmation and a sleeper check so we can work out what's going on. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe--I don't know. You know, I'm all for trying to get old editors back in, but this editor wasn't maybe that great a contributor, I don't know. Anyway, Chillum has sort of taken the bull by the horns, and I got my hands full with--guess what--K-pop! Drmies (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Woo hoo, fun! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom page errors

This edit accidently messed up the results portion of the page. You can delete this after you read it. Dave Dial (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Recreated Page

Hi. Just wanted to drop an FYI and let you know that Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Department of Health, an article that has been deleted three times, twice for being created by a sock puppet and the last time by you, has been recreated. I am not attaching a G5 CSD tag at this point because I am not certain beyond doubt that this is the same editor, although I suspect as much. I will let you take it from here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I've already submitted an SPI for a second opinion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Because you're awesome

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		As one of my last acts as a sitting arbitrator, I hereby award you the barnstar of diligence. You have gone above and beyond the call of duty as an arbitration clerk many times this past year, especially with the gamergate case. It has been a pleasure working with you and I wish you only the best in your future endeavors. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality

Just as a reminder, the evidence phase of the case is now open, and as a listed party you are encouraged to add evidence. Evidence that is not brought to the attention of the arbitrators risks not being considered, and the evidence phase will close on the 2nd of February.. If you do not wish to contribute evidence to the case, the committee may consider your response in the initial case request as your evidence; if you wish to take this option please let me know and I will convey it back to the committeee. If there is anything else I can do to assist on this case, please let me know. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC).

DS, logs, and Editing restrictions

Hello! I came across a question regarding a topic ban applied under DS a little over two years ago. I can see the TB in question in the "old" case page bans section[1], and I can see the TB listed in the "new" central log[2]. However, the TB does not show at WP:RESTRICT. Is it supposed to be there, or am I misunderstanding the purpose of these separate lists? Said another way, if I am trying to find out if a restriction applies to an editor - where do I look? Thank you for your time, Tgeairn (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Due to the size of the discretionary sanctions log and that everything needs to be recorded there (including short blocks for example) it's not transcluded to WP:EDR. So to check is someone has an active sanction you need to search for their username at WP:EDR and WP:AC/DSL. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Perfectly clear! Cheers, Tgeairn (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Abusive account names filter (Edit filter #102)

on page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseFilter

I tried to add a filter:

---

(action == "createaccount") & ((user_name rlike "[bcdfghjklmnpqrstvwxz]{4,}") | (user_name rlike "[\d]{4,}") | (user_name rlike "[абвгдеёжзийклмнопрстуфхцчшщъыьэюяАБВГҐДЂЃЕЁЄЖЗЗ́ЅИІЇЙЈКЛЉМНЊОПРСС́ТЋЌУЎФХЦЧЏШЩЪЫЬЭЮЯ]") | (user_name rlike "[ΑαΒβΓγΔδΕεΖζΗηΘθΙιΚκΛλΜμΝνΞξΟοΠπΡρΣσςΤτΥυΦφΧχΨψΩω]") | (user_name rlike "['"+!%\/=()<>#&@\{\}\?,;.:-_*$÷×\\˝ ].*['"+!%\/=()<>#&@\{\}\?,;.:-_*$÷×\\˝ ]"))

---

I'd like to avoid :

• 4 or more consecutive consonants
• 4 or more digits
• cyrillic or greek characters
• more than one blank or other special character

I added the filter and tried, however it does not seem to trigger to bad names.

I assume, that at createaccount time there is no user_name, and therefore the check does not trigger. Is there a way at all to check the entered user name?

Thank you in advance: Muki985 (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Only edit filter managers are able to edit the filters. That type of thing would normally be done using the MediaWiki:Title blacklist. However I can't see a reason to prevent those account names as they would be allowed under the username policy. Also I'll also point out the sock puppetry policy which you need to read. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll look into MediaWiki:Title blacklist. I have an own wiki, and there I'd like to have this filter. Greek and Cyrillic chars are bad, because some of them look identical to latin ones, and that confuses users. I am still curious to your rule #102. Could you please give me the source of it? Muki985 (talk) 09:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Does a notification of a closed arbitration case count as a DS alert?

For example User_talk:Nwlaw63#Wikipedia:Arbitration.2FRequests.2FCase.2FLandmark_Worldwide_closed. I was about to leave a {{ds/alert}}, but after seeing the closure notice I wondered if a formal alert on top of that may raise the spectre of "Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned". (No editor was mentioned in the final decision or has been sanctioned, so technically nobody is "alerted" if we ignore the closure notices.) Manul ~ talk 22:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not covered by the final decision clause as they weren't named in it. If they'd made a statement in the clarification request in which the motion was passed they'd likely be "aware" because of that (#2 in that section on WP:AC/DS, but as they didn't they need {{Ds/alert}}. My reading of the paragraph about disruptively issuing alerts would be knowingly issuing more than {{Ds/alert}} in a year or using for chilling effect in a content dispute. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

OK I've done the alerts. I can make a pretty strong case against myself for alerting "disruptively". I am currently participating in a content dispute with those I alerted. Because I know about DS on Landmark, I must have seen the arbitration case, so I must have known they were part of it. In addition, they each received a formal notification that Landmark now falls under DS, which is readily apparent on each talk page. Because no reasonable person could suspect that they were unaware of DS sanctions, I must have issued the alerts for a chilling effect.

I had hoped WP:COMMONSENSE would be invoked to avoid these alerts, but it seems the machine of bureaucracy won out this time. Manul ~ talk 01:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Except that there's no option for 'is obviously aware' unfortunately, that got shouted down while the Committee was discussing the new procedure with the community. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Mail

See your email. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm full of queries today

Hi Callanecc - I see you've submitted evidence relating to Crisis pregnancy center for the Christianity and sexuality ArbCom case. Does this mean that abortion-related articles, which have their own arb case, are also being considered under this case? I have heaps of evidence for abortion-related articles, but wanted to check before factoring this in to my plan for continuing to submit evidence. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

(Frankly, I think your presentation of goings-on at that article was very disingenuous, but if we're going to talk about it there, I'll respond there.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the bit about Crisis pregnancy center. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Should I make some sort of note on the talk page/do you want to? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Note about what? The bit I added was only there for bit and it doesn't look like anyone has commented on it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for page semi-protection

I have requested semi-protection of my userpage per your advice (see our email exchange) at WP:RFPP here. As you will see, there is great confusion over my request, which is for semi-protection of the whole of my userpage for one month. You advised that I could alternatively make this request directly on your Talk page. Can I do that now, please? Diffs backing up this request are in my emails to you and in my request at WP:RFPP. I am sorry to give you this headache. ~ P-123 (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The request at WP:RFPP has now been aborted. Briefly, I understand from WP:RFPP here that my userpage and what I thought was part of my userpage, P123ct1/Notes, are two distinct pages, the latter being User:P-123/Notes. I did not know this. That is what the confusion was about. Please may both of these pages be semi-protected for a month? The idea is to keep this and other IPs off anything listed under my userpage, including the Notes part, and off my userpage generally. As you will see, it has been spotted by the WP Help Desk that the IP in question is in fact two IPs, with slightly different addresses, as can be seen from the Revision History for User:P-123/Notes here. They both now have been given level 3 warnings. I should add that P123ct1 was my old username, which I changed to P-123 for the sake of other editors, as it is easier to remember. ~ P-123 (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Per WP:UPROT you are entitled to have any page in your userspace semi-protected. Your userspace (with exception of your talk page) is not considered a collaborative environment by contrast to other namespaces, so even if no disruption has occurred you can still request that it be semi-protected. I've gone ahead and done this, to both your userpage and User:P-123/Notes. Let any admin know if you'd like the semi removed. User:P123ct1/Notes is technically no longer in your userspace... but it hasn't been vandalized at all so I don't think protection is needed anyway. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

MusikAnimal: Thank you very much, but I am mystified. Surely User:P123ct1/Notes has been vandalized? If you click on "P123ct/Notes" on my userpage, it goes to this Revision History, listing all the diffs from this IP (which has two nearly identical addresses) showing the vandalism. But I do notice that that Revision History is headed "P-123/Notes:Revision History" and cannot understand it. I must have created a redirect somewhow and that must account for why User:P123ct1/Notes got lost along the way, but I was not aware of doing anything other than create a subsection on my userpage! I am a comparative newcomer and much of WP's technical side still baffles me, but as all is semi-protected now - thank you - there is no need for an explanation! ~ P-123 (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I think MusikAnimal meant this. Thanks Musik. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

John Galea (artist)

Hi Callanecc, I notice you were the deleting admin for John Galea a couple of times. The article has been re-created at John Galea (artist) and thought you may want to check it - I would just delete it myself, but the content makes the article look notable - could you use checkuser to see if the IP that deleted the deletion template is the same as the user who created it? -- Chuq (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Using checkuser to confirm an account to an IP is rarely done due to privacy issues. I've filed an sockpuppet investigation if you want to take a look. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Possible SPI Clerk

Hello Callanecc, for the past couple of months I've been seeing the big backlogs that regularly happen at SPI. As you can already see from my editing history and experience, I've filed numerous cases (where I did the main SPI investigations all by myself), most of them which have led to the findings of various sockpuppets and I can easily list all those cases. SPI is one my best administrative areas of Wikipedia where I really like and enjoy working the most. Also I just saw a training page which will be used for recruiting new SPI clerks. If you could suggest me, then I can happily add my name to the clerk's noticeboard and I'm sure everyone at the team would be happy to receive that extra help from me. Regards. TheGeneralUser (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi TGU, I haven't had much time to do SPI clerk related stuff recently. Might be better to ask Mike V. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

If you're not too busy

I see that you're around, if you have a minute can you check my reports at WP:UAA, I'm too sure about User:NotOrangemike but I reported them just in case, the other is a well know person. :) Thanx, Mlpearc (open channel) 02:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, :) Mlpearc (open channel) 02:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Sanction review

As the closing admin, I'd like you to review the topic ban placed on me with this being the appeal of ending it. As per the close, [3], I was not entirely wrong. The word "major" was added due to one of the sources I reviewed (and is also only being kept out due to lack of consensus, I think I had a right to share my deductions in forming that consensus) but most of issues were due to my opposing of blanking the term "victory" in which I was not wrong. As far as the other things such as casting aspirations go, it was recognized in the AE that all of them were not wrong rather I had recently faced enough to get to the conclusions of following based on the diffs I gave then... with that said and leaving the objections aside, my main point is that I have long ended engaging OZ and have not violated my ban. As such this is topic is closed and also [4] reviewed which most probably is going in the closer's way.. I don't mind what sources are used as far as consensus is followed. Furthermore, I've also been banned for a around a month, it can be reduced for being stale as all that contention is stale and the sanction is no more preventive - plus my behaviour in other topics hasn't shown any disruption. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not about whether you were 'right' or not but about who you went about it. However given that the use of sources was involved I can see how you made that connection. Having said that, I'm willing to accept in good faith that you realise what you did wrong and have learnt from it. However I'm not convinced that you will make good, constructive, collaborative edits to Battle of Chawinda, so I'd be willing to replace your current topic ban with a topic ban from Battle of Chawinda until the expiry date of the current TBAN (12:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)). How does that sound? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I see the consensus finalizing that infobox anyway and I can live with that (the article was really not on my top priority, I just went after some old sock master who was reverting to completely opposite statements and fell into this mess). So your offer is fine by me. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It was not just Battle of Chawinda, but many other articles. On Operation Dwarka he continued to edit war over results and never discussed them. On Inter-Services Intelligence activities in India he edit warred over making a conspiracy theory look clean. On Operation Chengiz Khan he restored the statements that were removed a year ago because they were unsourced since 2012, and his edit summary reads "Restored consensus version.. no intermediate useful edits"[5], misleading indeed because he had never discussed them. And a few others. Even if the topic ban is limited to Battle of Chawinda, I am certain that we will still have a number of unnecessary edit conflicts. Since the topic ban, TopGun has not made even 75 edits to main article space, I doubt that how he proved that he can edit without conflicting. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:VOLUNTEER is all I have to say to you, I don't have the time to edit that much neither should I be expected to have to satisfy your arbitrary criteria of edit count. About the sanction, I'm not going to debate my reverts to proven socks and other disruptive editors with you. I've said all I had to.. it's for Callanecc to decide. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

OccultZone your conduct on those articles is not great either. In fact having seen the reverts from both of you I'm of the opinion that it might be useful to impose 1RR on both of you for any edit which relates to the India-Pakistan conflict (with the clarification that you may only revert accounts and IPs you believe to be socks without reference to 1RR if you have reported them). Opinions? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)