User talk:Callanecc/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

RnB-Hip-hop soul

That's a sock of MariaJaydHicky (SPI). Might as well indef them. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Just blocked them and a couple others. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Venezuelan politics opened

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/Venezuelan politics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Questions

Would it be alright if I ask for your advice here on how best to handle situations as relates to the arbitration enforcement?

And am I still able to make a single revert in the WP:BRD steps? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah you can. Here are a couple examples which will hopefully help, the second one is that instance:

• You add a sentence to an article, another editor reverts it. You can't add that sentence back until there is a consensus.
• An editor adds something to an article. You revert/change what they added. An editor reverts you. You can't revert their edit without a consensus.

Does that help? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes those are helpful, thank you. Can I ask for your suggestions on how to proceed with some specific situations?

• Someone reverted a minor change I made, which I discussed with them until they just stopped replying.
• I reverted a minor change someone made and opened a talk page discussion. They reverted me back and apparently consider the discussion unnecessary even though they removed something supported by a previous consensus.
• And there is the Ruben Darbinyan article, mentioned in the AE thread. There was never a consensus version for the "Criticism" section, which contains lots of questionable sources, including one saying Hitler committed the Holocaust because Armenians told him to. Could I revert to the last stable version?

--KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi KhndzorUtogh:

• I'd suggest pinging them to the talk page or leaving them a talk page message to remind them about the conversation.
• Similar thing to the above, ping them back to the article and ask to discuss it further. If they don't respond I'm okay with you saying that if you don't hear anything after a reasonable period (like a week) you'll revert.
• The talk page discussion needs to continue. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

For the Darbinyan article, Aredoros restored their additions four times after two different editors (Revolution Saga and I) reverted them. There was never any consensus for these editions, which are very contentious. Isn't letting them remain technically rewarding edit warring? --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Your consensus restriction prevents you from reverting it but other editors can as per normal. That they have chosen not to might be informative. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I have tried thoroughly explaining to a user what original research is and what a reliable source is and is not, but they still don't seem to comprehend it. They are not even an extended confirmed user and are technically violating WP:GS/AA. What should I do next? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you need to do anything more here. You've explained the siutation and that they can't edit in this topic area. #3 in the list of exemptions allows you to revert ban editors which applies in this case as the editor is banned from editing this topic due to WP:GS/AA. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

On this discussion about whether the conflict is over or not, sources have been provided by myself and other users that it is not, but other users have been changing the article to be over based on their own opinion. The other "not over" users and I have asked them for sources several times, but they have failed to provide them. This has been going on for over three weeks now. MarcusTraianus, the user who originally changed the article to past tense, apparently lost interest in discussing this because they aren't being reverted (while still reverting other users[1]). And Death Editor 2, who I think is editing in good faith, but really doesn't understand they need a source.[2][3][4][5] The situation was explained several times and they have had well over 7 days, but since they don't have WP:GS/AA restrictions, I wasn't sure if it would be okay to revert the conflict back to being ongoing. I figured that probably wouldn't be okay (for me at least) because a consensus hasn't been obtained on the talk page yet, but there was no consensus to change it from ongoing in the first place, we just haven't reverted them yet to avoid an edit war. And again, there are sources in support of ongoing, but not against it. Could I revert the article now or is there something else I should do? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

If this is too much for you to review, could you at least confirm if I can make another revert by now? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

From what I can see, the status of the conflict has been previously reverted so you can't change it back without there being a consensus. Follow the usual dispute resolution procedures. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I have a question. Is this revert a violation of the ban: [6]? Can KhndzorUtogh restore content added and removed by other users? Or he cannot only readd the content that he previously added himself? There was no consensus at talk on restoration of this content when this revert was made. And if it is a violation, should I first ask him to rv himself? Grandmaster 08:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it would be. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand that it is a breach of the sanction. What is the best way to proceed here? Grandmaster 09:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think any action is required at this point. As seen in this section, KU is trying to engage positively with the sanction and work with it. Given that I don't see a need to impose further sanctions. Obviously KU should note this breach and ensure that they take more efforts to comply with the sanction. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Grandmaster 09:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Callanecc, I really appreciate my efforts going noticed.

My understanding was that the revert fell under 1RR, which I am still allowed to do. The content Parishan removed had been part of the stable version of the article for a long time, until one day Parishan removed it without any consensus (the talk page discussion was initially about something else) and then I reverted them once. Could you please clarify how this is a breach? --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

On the Republic of Artsakh article, I waited for three weeks instead of one on the talk discussion, but Beshogur reverted again without even bothering to reply on the talk again, even though they are the ones trying to push a change. Is Beshogur edit warring and what should I do next? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

As we've talked about before you need to following the process at WP:DR, specifically WP:SEEKHELP. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Is this user allowed to be editing this article after I alerted them of GS/AA and you personally reverted them? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I've extended confirmed protected the page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Your close of the NoonIcarus ANI report

Hi Callanecc

I hope you're well. Just querying your close of the NoonIcarus thread, I don't think that declaring a consensus for a topic ban was at all an accurate summary of the discussion. There were numerous issues raised about the entire arena of Venezuelan politics, which far exceeded the scope of the original request and which has led to an arbcom case being opened to properly drill down into the entire matter. As such, I think the ANI thread had to be closed as no action. There was a lot of objection to the one sided topic ban, and I don't think anyone was expecting the few votes for a topic ban made before the arbcom case was opened would be enacted after the case had been moved on to arbcom. This isn't to say NoonIcarus is right or wrong, just that there's a lot more to this than meets the eye. And Certainly I and others would have opposed the tban measure had I known such a closure was on the cards, as it misses half the picture.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

There were definitely a range of issues brought up in the thread from a range of editors. Having said that though, there was a strong consensus that there are issues in the topic area and a consensus that NoonIcarus's conduct isn't appropriate regardless of the other issues in the topic area (not just in the sub-section in which the TBAN was proposed). From what I read in the thread one of the issues raised in the thread and at the case was there was some hesitation in the community from acting due to the complexity of the topic and conduct. Closing it as no action effectively ignores the consensus that had developed throughout the (level 2) thread that NoonIcarus's conduct wasn't acceptable. There is more to be done in this topic area, and that should happen in the case which NoonIcarus will be able to participate in. Effectively this TBAN is really more of a suspension from the topic area for the duration of the case, given the consensus that NoonIcarus's conduct isn't appropriate, as ArbCom will decide whether to keep or vacate the topic ban as part of the normal case process. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah I see, thanks for the response and when put like that, that sounds fair enough. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

If I may. The way I see it, the thread dealt with two main points: the failed verification edits and POV. I provided a response refuting WMrapids accusations that I was intentionally ignoring sourced content, and the second point was a lot less supported by diffs or evidence. As SandyGeorgia put it at ARBCOM, I'm concerned that most of the allegations at ANI that involve more than citation tagging are without diffs, so a sledge hammer is being applied.

Without considering the !votes, there was still noticeable opposition to the ban, and from what I understand said bar is higher when applying community sanctions (and even more if they're indefinite). The close also doesn't consider the overlapping issues that other editors mentioned, which fortunately should be addressed at ARBCOM. Knowing how controversial the sanction is, how further evidence is needed and that at any rate the Arbitration Committee and should be able to decide whether to uphold or to recint the decision, could you reconsider the close? Thank you kindly, --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi NoonIcarus, I am comfortable that the close is an accurate assessment of the consensus in that thread. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand, that's alright. In that case, and just to make sure: I gather that the restrictions are extended to the related article talk pages, is that correct? --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, topic bans apply everywhere on Wikipedia including articles, article talk page, Wikipedia: pages, files and so on. The exception in your case is for pages directly relevant to the Venezuelan politics arbitration case. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Of course. Many thanks once again. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

By the way: I'd like to translate several articles about Venezuelan films in the following weeks, and I naturally want them to be as unrelated to politics as possible. I wanted to give you the heads up and if there's anything else I should consider, or if you'd like to know which ones are them in advance. Best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

You don't need to give me a list of them. It's up to you to manage the sanction avoid making any edit about or related to Venezuelan politics. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure. I'll let you know if I have any other questions. Cheers, --NoonIcarus (talk) 07:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Remove Harassment

Hi Callanecc,

Could you please remove harassment content on User talk:68.5.56.20? Thanks.

Sincerely, Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 12:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Looks like it's already been done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Question about sanction

Hi there. I have a question for you. Few months ago there was a dispute over this article. Shortly, after the sanction my last edit was reverted[1] by an IP with 0 edit count. A content with 7 sources was deleted without any discussion. My question is would it break any sanction rule if I revert it? Thanks Aredoros87 (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

You would be able to revert it as the IP edit is in violation of the extended-confirmed restriction. You'd need to make that reason clear in your edit summary and be confident that the article and edit is covered by the restriction. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

A similar case happened to this article too. A new user made an edit here and got warned on his/her talk page. Shortly, after the same user made another edit (removal of a sourced content). May you make that article protected? Aredoros87 (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think extended-confirmed protection of this article is appropriate given that a significant part of the article isn't about the A-A topic area. Your revert was appropriate though. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering, but another sourced content removal made by another non-EC user. Vardanyan's relation to Russia is being deleted time by time from the article. I don't want to make any accusations, but considering article contains information from an editor with COI (it's written in talk page), I believe it's worth to lock it. Cheers, Aredoros87 (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Just to make sure. As far as I know, I'm can revert this particular edit. And it won't violate any rule. Am I right? Aredoros87 (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Yet another non-EC user deleted lot's of reliable sources including BBC, Forbes, Washington Post etc.[1][2] The most concerning part is that the user initially deletes 4 sources under the edit name WP:REFMOB[3] and then after 5 minutes, deletes the content saying "any such claims should have multiple sources".[4]. Aredoros87 (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes that's correct, you can revert non-EC editors. Just ensure that you make that clear in your edit summary. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Sanction

Hey Callanec. A while back you imposed this sanction on me [7]. It’s been almost a year and a half. I was wondering you’d be willing to vacate it. I know I can appeal it via WP:AE but the first step - and your instruction in the sanction notice - state to ask the imposing admin directly. So I’m asking.

There was an instance early on, right after the sanction was initially imposed, where I was accused of violating it (more than a year ago). I tried to follow the instructions and struck/removed etc. and no violation was found. Pretty much since then (more than a year) I have not run into any problems with it nor has anyone accused or implied I have violated it. Admittedly, I don’t see the sanction as particularly onerous or unfair (in some sense it reflects “best practice” in editing and discussing) and I intend to keep following it regardless as it’s just good advice, but I don’t really want it hanging over my head. Let me know if you’re willing to consider it. Thanks. Volunteer Marek 20:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Volunteer Marek: I'm happy to accept your appeal and vacate the sanction. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Volunteer Marek 21:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposed decision in the Venezuelan politics case posted

The proposed decision in the open Venezuelan politics arbitration case has been posted. Comments on the proposed decision may be brought to the attention of the committee at the talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Zionism

Please remove the protection. If you want to help block the disruptive editors, please do, but indef full protection an article does nothing to help stop disruption and is itself purely disruptive to the editing process. Levivich (talk) 10:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

My intent isn't for it to be indef full protection but I can't put a time-limited protection on it without the article automatically reverting to unprotection. The intent is that it's for around a week (if that much is required) to force discussion and a consensus. If after a week when it goes back to ECP there is still edit warring individual or other page-level sanctions can be used. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by "force" discussion and a consensus exactly? There is already discussion happening on the talk page, and no edit warring in almost a week. (Not every revert is an edit war.) There is also already consensus, at least about some things--a product of the lengthy discussions on the talk page. (Also, one cannot "force" a consensus.) All the full protection is going to do is put a hard stop on the discussion and consensus building until the protection is lifted. Levivich (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

You can't edit war if you can't edit the page, the only way to get your preferred version is through discussion to build consensus. This is what full protection is regularly used to do in multi-party edit wars. I can't see how protecting a page where there is an ongoing multi-party edit war could put a hard stop on discussion. It only allows editors to discuss, come to a consensus and request a change. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Years ago I wrote this joke, it's about this exact situation:

A Wikipedian and a vandal are stranded on a deserted island. On the first day, the Wikipedian builds a raft, but that night, the vandal destroys it. The second day, the Wikipedian lets the vandal know that one or more of his contributions to the raft did not appear constructive, and rebuilds the raft. Again, the vandal destroys it. The third day, the Wikipedian asks the vandal to please refrain from making unconstructive changes to the raft, and rebuilds the raft. The vandal destroys it. The fourth day, the Wikipedian tells the vandal that if he destroys the raft again, he may not be allowed to participate in the building of the raft. The Wikipedian rebuilds the raft and the vandal destroys it once more. On the fifth day, an admin finally arrives with the navy, announces that nobody can build a raft until everyone on the island agrees about whether or not a raft should be built, and sails off.

There are three groups of participating editors: (1) those who are not edit warring and are discussing -- they're fine, we don't have to worry about them; (2) those who are edit warring and are discussing -- they're already discussing; (3) those who are edit warring and not discussing -- three checkuser blocked so far, and the rest, we don't want them (or most of them) to join the discussion. I can't speak for other editors, but I'm not going to try and gain consensus with a vandal, or a POV pusher, or a UPE, or someone with an undisclosed COI, or various other types of bad-faith actors.

Full protection, for a limited time, works when good faith editors are edit warring and not discussing, in order to get them over to the talk page. That is not the case here, as can be seen from the talk page, which has been full of discussion alongside the edit warring, which itself isn't really edit warring so much as vandalism and blatant POV pushing by a small group of editors (some of them now checkuser blocked) being reverted by other editors (and not by another group, but by a wide variety of other editors). This problem is not limited to the Zionism article, it is limited to a small group of editors, and thus it is not the kind of disruption that can be cured by page-level sanctions.

As to why indefinite full protection would put a hard stop to discussion and consensus building until the protection is lifted, for the same reason that the Wikipedian in my joke is not going to try and come to consensus with the vandal about whether or not a raft should be built. Levivich (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

So based your three types of editors in this case, it will stop group 2 from edit warring which is its purpose. It will provide a platform the article to reach a consensus-driven stable version without the distractions of revert warring happening. It will also prevent group 3 from edit warring. The time provided for a consensus-driven stable version (through consensus then edit request) to emerge will support other page-level restrictions (such as consensus required or enforced BRD if we go that path) and also apply editor restrictions to those who are (more clearly) editing against the consensus version. I'm not suggesting you need to gain consensus with editors who are editing against the purpose of the project but the full protection means they can't edit the article against consensus while that is being firmed up and allows time for AE requests to be filed without the constant editing taking attention away from discussion. Again it's indefinite only due to the technical limitation. Callanecc (alt) (talk) 02:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

unprotect?

Hey! I'm sorry I forgot to inform you earlier. You've protected Maine 8-ish years ago, and I was wondering if you'd like to unprotect it. I posted on RFPP without consulting you first, I regret my mistake. Josethewikier (talk) 03:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Josethewikier: Unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocking

Hello. You blocked user ალექსანდროს on Wikipedia as if he was a sockpuppet of user Nugo20299. How could 1 or 2 edits posted on this talk page qualify the user as a sockpuppet? Please use your CheckUser rights and check the IP addresses of these users. Otherwise, this is an unfounded decision. Users cannot be unjustifiably blocked based on complaints from politically motivated users without a thorough investigation. How can 1 similar edit by two users be considered a reason for blocking? It's incredible. Best wishes, გიო ოქრო 13:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi გიო ოქრო, I did use my CheckUser rights which is what my comment when I said "possilikely" means. I've used CheckUser to compare the accounts and found that based only on the CheckUser evidence it's likely-possible that they're the same. With the addition of the similar edit it was enough for me to do the block. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Even if you compare my account with any of these users, the result can still be "likely-possible". When users live in the same region or city, and use the same providers, how justified is it to rely only on "likely-possible"? გიო ოქრო 13:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It's unlikely to be at that level. If ალექსანდროს wants to appeal the block I'm happy to consider the reasoning they provide. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aaryajin88‎‎

No sleepers? - UtherSRG (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@UtherSRG: One suspicious but nothing definitive enough to block. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Have they edited, or just sitting out there? - UtherSRG (talk) 02:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

No edits or actions and it's a very common user agent so I can't be sure if its the same person or not. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Ruben Vardanyan (politician)

Hi. I would like to ask for your advice, since you advised us before in similar situations. We were advised at AE to try dispute resolution. What would you recommend as an appropriate DR process at this point? As you can see, there is not much discussion going on at the talk, my messages remain unanswered for days. The contentions issues are that the official charges against this person were removed from the article, so it is unclear what exactly he is being charged with. Also, the article calls him a political prisoner in a wiki voice, which I believe is not line with WP:NPOV, because it is not generally accepted to consider this person a political prisoner. Probably, we need to ask the wider community to help decide on this? Or what would you recommend us to do? Grandmaster 06:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Another issue is that the article claims that "The US Congress has stated that he and several others have been illegally detained in violation of international laws", but in fact the US Congress did not make any statements about Vardanyan. It was a speech by a single politician, senator Markey, [8] who does not represent the entire US congress. The enforcing admin at WP:AE was not happy about the misrepresentation of the primary source, but did not find it actionable. If I remove or rephrase that claim to attribute it to the person who made it, would it be alright? False statements such as this actually damage the quality of Wikipedia, but I do not want to get involved in any edit war. I don't think we need DR for obvious things like misrepresentation of a source. Grandmaster 06:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Grandmaster, regarding dispute resolution, you're probably at the point were you need to do an RfC on the talk page to resolve the issues. That's probably the best way to resolve the charges issues.
I'll preface this by saying that I haven't read the talk page so I'm taking what you've said at face value. Given that I can't see any issue with you rephrasing it to make it clear that it's some members of Congress rather than Congress itself. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I will follow your advice. Grandmaster 06:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@Grandmaster: Actually looking at it further, you could probably just ping the other two editors and let them know that you'll make the changes you suggested 5 days ago unless they need to discuss further. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. The user who made those changes has not been active for 2 weeks now. I actually asked if they had any objections 5 days ago, the second editor responded, but he has not responded for another 5 days to my follow up message. I will ping them both now, to see what their response will be. And I fixed the statement of senator Markey. Grandmaster 06:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi. As you can see, the discussion is not moving anywhere. No comments since 17 July. What would you advise to do next? Grandmaster 07:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks like there is now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there is some discussion underway now. I hope we'll be able to resolve it by consensus. Grandmaster 08:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

But I believe we may have a bit of a problem with the new user who does not seem to understand WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. Grandmaster 08:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Your comments re: spelling corrections

Thank you -

I appreciate and understand your points. It is humbling though instructional that I made what seemed to me a simple change - when in fact it was not.

I understand that you are quite busy.

Thank you! Dmack914 (talk) 03:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Dmack914, no worries at all. The more you edit the more you find out about what Wikipedia works behind the scenes. Hopefully you're not discouraged and you keep editing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

NoonIcarus Venezuelan politics topic ban

Hi, Callanecc,

Regarding NoonIcarus's April 2 topic ban (archive) and the May ArbCom, I am considering asking the community to relax the ban, going back to a revert restriction. My thoughts are that a) the arbcase revealed issues the community wasn't aware of during the ANI; b) some editors mentioned they didn't enter a declaration on the ANI as they thought it would be decided at the arb level (I recall for example Amakuru in addition to myself); and c) events and developments since the close of the arbcase may mean the broader community now has a better understanding of the bigger picture and the effect on Wikipedia.

Unless you think it's too soon to approach a noticeboard about re-visiting NI's topic ban (would the venue be WP:AN?), I would first want to discuss on NoonIcarus talk what I saw as behaviors contributing to the issues and how he might do better going forward. Is it OK for me to discuss his involvement in Venezuelan politics frankly on his talk page, and will he be able to respond there without breaching the topic ban ?

Thanks in advance for any advice (and I hope Amakuru will jump in as well), SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia, seems like a good time to go back to AN to reduce the TBAN to a revert restriction. No issue with you discussing the ban on NoonIcarus's talk page in order to prepare for a discussion about appealing it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Callanecc ... I'm quite busy over the next few days, and maybe Amakuru will weigh in before I get to this. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @SandyGeorgia and Callanecc: I'm on vacation currently, so quite busy, and don't have a huge amount of time but if I get a chance I'll review this in the next couple of days, remind myself of the circumstances. It sounds at first glance as if a reduction in scope would be appropriate. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

No hurry; I am similarly busy! Thanks, Amakuru. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Amakuru to save you some time, here's your previous post. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Editnotices/Page/Template:Contentious topics/talk notice

Template:Editnotices/Page/Template:Contentious topics/talk notice has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. —⁠andrybak (talk) 03:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)