User talk:Callanecc

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)

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)

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)

Sanction

Hey Callanec. A while back you imposed this sanction on me [1]. 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)