It still bothers me that it bothered you, so by way of explanation, I quote
Illeism#In everyday speech: Illeism in everyday speech can have a variety of intentions depending on context ... third person self-referral can be associated with
self-irony and not taking oneself too
seriously (since the excessive use of pronoun "I" is often seen as a sign of
narcissism and
egocentrism), as well as with
eccentricity in general. Psychological studies show that thinking and speaking of oneself in the third person increases
wisdom and has a positive effect on one's mental state because an individual who does so is more
intellectually humble, more capable of
empathy and understanding the perspectives of others, and is able to distance emotionally from one's own problems.
Levivich hopes El C comes around to the third person :-D
Levivich
harass/
hound
05:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C, I also support an ArbCom Case on the general Kurdish issue. Could you look at User:Paradise Chronicle/ArbComCase and tell me what you think? I'll file a case right away, if you approve it. I opened the page upon advice of Levivich. As to my count, it has 440 words so far. I'll add some more diffs if requested, but they can also be provided during the discussion. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 00:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Could you please take a look at
this. This user has some strong feelings about Brazil and they think that WP is a good place to express that. They've written things like "brazil sucks" and "brazil stinks". Thank you. -
Daveout
(talk)
02:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Throughout the two months of discussion at the bantustans article, I have suspected a particular editor of being a sockpuppet of a well known banned user. I think I now have enough evidence to go to SPI, but the editor is the same one who opened the AE and I feel it would look like an inappropriate motivation. And to be honest there is obviously some related motivation. We see suspected socks all the time, but I rarely bother to do anything because it is a huge amount of effort to build a case and I would rather spend time elsewhere. So I am a bit torn and would appreciate any sage advice. Onceinawhile ( talk) 12:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C, thanks again for the below. Now that this all seems to have settled, are you happy for me to submit the SPI? Onceinawhile ( talk) 17:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Neutral and non-racist, as to opposed the current name— to which you responded with:
I consider that an unacceptable attack. Please retract it or explain yourself( diff). Now, my read of that exchange is that they do not actually owe you an explanation, because how is that even an attack (not to mention an "unacceptable" one)? They are allowed to advance the viewpoint that the current title is racist. While I struggle to see how it is racist (at least in the classical sense of the word), that is not a comment on your person to be construed as an attack. They may be in error (in thinking that it's racist), you may be in error (in thinking that it isn't), but either way, holding those competing views is allowed. See, there's a difference between saying "you are a racist" or "you are being racist," or even "you possess some (any) racist views." [You'd be like "no, I'm an anti-racist!"] But it's another thing entirely to say (by implication): "as a construct, the position you hold has the (inadvertent) effect of being racist." Maybe at first glance, it seems like a minor distinction, but they're actually worlds apart. One attacks the person, while the other attacks the idea. El_C 10:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C, sorry to keep going here but I am conscious of
this late comment; should you wish to act on it please could I respond to it formally at the AE (I am currently over my limit)
[1]? It misrepresents the discussion, and the steam has run out of the thread so I doubt others will reply now. Of the 53 editors who commented at the article, many were drive-by comments who did not follow up and brought no sources; the alleging editor themself made 56 comments
[2]
[3] but only in their final comment on 8 Jan
[4], two days after the start of this AE, did they refer to source material. The RfC and RM that I started were done so thoughtfully and neutrally, made an effort to encourage discussion by painstakingly pinging everyone both times, and successfully allowed us to reach an emerging consensus, unlike the prior discussions. The editor admits this (removing the negative framing): Onceinawhile started the... RFC... which... had a clear result... and then they closed that RFC themselves and started the RM, which again has a clear result
. Re my use of the done template, I in fact wrote proper explanations for each tick, to which, still a month later, the user has chosen not to respond in any constructive manner. If you look at my comments you will not see a single sentiment of anything close to
WP:OWN; I have been here far too long to misunderstand how consensus works. The overall difference of opinion on talk page style between me and this other editor is described neatly in
WP:ALLARGUMENTS.
Onceinawhile (
talk)
08:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points. This confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent.Finally, I realize you've hit the word limit at AE, but I suppose you could ask for a word extension of reasonable length (for my part, I have no immediate objections). Anyway, I hope it all works out okay. Best wishes, El_C 13:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Statement_by_Objective3000_2. I'm really sorry to do that. I hate escalating stuff, but it has apparently caused Objective3000 to retire, and the more I look at it the more I think it's really unfair to someone whose only intention was to help resolve the problem. ~ Awilley ( talk) 02:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I did two reverts, not "more than three". I'd like to know where you see a vio, please. Note that 1RR is suspended there. ― Mandruss ☎ 03:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period.
in effect acknowledged that 1RR was in effect? One of us is seriously confused here. ― Mandruss ☎ 04:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't see how any such suspension can be seen to be in effect- Then you may follow either the wikilink that I provided in the AE complaint, or the identical one that I provided near the bottom of this subsection. Or you could just have a higher level of awareness of what's going on at an article where you propose to issue logged warnings. ― Mandruss ☎ 04:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
The edit restriction is clear: one revert per editor per 24 hours.Where do you see that? ― Mandruss ☎ 04:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
"each editor can only revert the same content once per 24 hours"where is that written? PackMecEng ( talk) 04:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Since this page has been unaltered for months, can you please remove the unlock for this page as it's been over a year since you placed this lock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.238.106.82 ( talk) 04:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to let you know that the global lock request for me and two other editors has been closed (section was removed) and dismissed. I will be going back to my normal edits of interest (with more caution of course). Thanks EdDakhla 16:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Update: for the record, EdDakhla's indef has been reinstated and I also learned something new about global locks. El_C 22:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
SPECIFICO's NPA vio has been on the page at ARCA for 28 hours. I posted a request to strike 27 hours ago at ARCA, including a ping, and posted another request to strike 21 hours ago at his UTP. He has neither stricken nor even responded to my requests despite having edited four times after the first request. Can you please strike the accusation? If so, perhaps we can avoid the need to pursue a sanction for his bad faith behavior. Thank you. ― Mandruss ☎ 22:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Honestly, I wouldn't really stress over it being displayed for a day or two if I were you. That's unlikely to have a lasting impact.If you say so. If the ARCA request is closed before the unsubstantiated accusation is stricken, thereby enshrining it in the permanent record, may I be more "stressed" then? ― Mandruss ☎ 10:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Good Lord, what madness rules in brainsick men
When for so slight and frivolous a cause
Such factious emulations shall arise
Dubingiai massacre, Pawłokoma massacre, Sahryń massacre. All related to a recently created category that is likley controversy-prone, already got a brand new SPA here too: [11]. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
long-term IP disruption, more users expressed as well in the talk not having consensus for the edits pushed. Since almost 1,5 half months, but recently very extensively: ( [12]), ( [13]), ( [14]), ( [15]), ( [16]), ( [17]), ( [18]), ( [19]), with impossible edit logs. Already blocked recently for this (10 days ago), but no change. Unfortunately fails WP:LISTEN, extensively, please handle it. Thank You( KIENGIR ( talk) 11:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC))
Hey, can I ask for closure of a discussion which is listed at the AN but receives no feedback from the admins? -- Mhhossein talk 12:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry everyone above, I'm halfway out the door, but I'm hoping to be able to get to your requests later in the day. But before I go, I believe there's some urgency in me responding to the criticism with the manner in which I conducted myself in the discussion I link to above.
I'll preface by saying that, I suppose, when one is pissed, there is a tendency not to bother reading anything too closely (
Floquenbeam,
Bishonen). And that seems as good a time as any to highlight (which to say, self-aggrandize) my lengthy
email excerpts post (see, I can use boldface, too!), with thanks to
Guy Macon and
Valjean who did actually read it and even liked it!
Where to begin? First, Floquenbeam's assertion that I threatened to block anyone who criticizes [
Atsme's ] bad faith debating techniques
, is just plainly untrue. A substantive argument against someone's reliance on misleading debating techniques is absolutely allowed. Would I prefer for good faith to still be presumed in that instance? Of course. But, if one feels all evidence is to the contrary about it not being expressed in good faith, I believe that they are absolutely allowed to say that, too. Maybe some will view it as a somewhat subtle distinction, but to me, that's a world of difference from engaging in personal attacks outright. It is even different from an aspersion, since presumably, such an argument substantiates its bad faith claims. In short, sad, but one has to do what they must.
And look, I realize all of this is easier to grasp intellectually than it is to apply in practice, but my position is that, on the project, if one (say, MastCell) deems another editor's (say, Atsme) words to be, well, just so terrible that the immediate impulse is to insult them (and I mean in an especially hurtful way), that actually does the opposite of helping anything (well, beyond whatever immediate emotional satisfaction is derived from that). Because, if the offending statements really are that terrible, then efforts to ban or block the offending editor may as well commence (dispassionately), and/or the offending comments may as well be redacted and expunged from the record.
Above,
Objective3000 bemoans how one of the five pillars,
WP:5P4, is long lost
, to which I respond with here's hoping there's a light at the end of that tunnel
. I still have faith that, ultimately, light will peer through the dark clouds. How could I go on otherwise? Not sure what else I can say or do at this point except to make an emphatic plea that appeals to everyone's better nature. So, to that: please treat each other with kindness, even and especially against all odds. A friendly gesture, even when it offers a potent critique, will almost always produce a better outcome than a response that is driven by anger and therefore expressed with venom.
Much love, everyone! El_C 18:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
"SEDITION!" El_C 01:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
"SEASONS OF TRUMP" El_C 15:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
"Hammer of God!" El_C 22:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
"PUMPKIN POPSUMS!" El_C 13:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
If Onceinawhile's many offensive Holocaust comparisons and personal attacks against more than 5 editors (in the original report) are not sufficient, they are continuing their battleground conduct while this request is open and in parallel with their conciliatory discussions with you on user talk:
Onceinawhile did not apologise for calling editors who disagree with him racist. Onceinawhile did not apologise for making offensive Holocaust comparisons. 11Fox11 ( talk) 05:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C, I hope this message finds you well. The Wikipedia:Good article nominations currently has a disambiguation link at the "You can help" in the backlog section – this should almost certainly go to Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions#Reviewing though I have no idea how to access whatever template/subpage this backlog notice is in. Got no response on the GAN talk page, was hoping you could help. Best - Aza24 ( talk) 05:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Hello, El C! You are receiving this barnstar because, according to
this database query, you were the #5 most thanked Wikipedian of 2020, with 1667 entries in
Special:Log/thanks! Thank you again for your contributions!
![]() |
BTW, since we're all gathered here, anyway,
Gerda, allow to present the first 2nd music video spam of the new year:
Everything's better with a cat or two!
El_C
19:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
colours.Indeed, so nice — listening. El_C 17:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Gerda, at the risk of repetition: everything's better with a cat, still! El_C 17:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for help with the Jerome Kohl article, and your flowers that made me blush and cry a bit, because ... he is remembered in friendship - more on my talk -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
But in this case my opinion is that you were thoughtful and well considered here [ [20]]. I honestly feel like that was a very thorny issue and it could have been very easy for someone to leave that feeling like the closer picked a side or didn't listen to either side. I think you showed a degree of consideration of all views which allowed all to feel they were heard even if they didn't get the overall outcome they may have wanted. It's a degree of care that more should exercise these days. Even those who are "wrong" may have some level of legitimate grievance and it helps a great deal when they know that their grievance has been understood. But, as the heading says, this is just my opinion. Someone around here will think I'm wrong. :) Springee ( talk) 14:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
The Amendment request, Amendment request: Warning of Objective3000, has been closed and archived. A permalink to the now closed amendment request can be viewed here.
For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Revolving Personality Construct is back at it again. He just deleted all sourced materials from the last edit, including references from multiple sources.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Chengdu_J-20&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Shenyang_WS-10&action=history
I am not an auto confirmed user and can not revert his vandal. Could you please help.
By the way, he even removed the semi protection you added.
-- 2601:152:4400:5580:4851:5FDA:F8C5:9A5D ( talk) 23:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Greetings, thanks for your feedback on my request for enforcement. As you pointed out, I modified the formatting, but I did so because I'm not complaining about a particular user. I made as minimal changes to the formatting as possible, just taking out any parts that referred to a complaint about another user. Does that satisfy? If not, how would you recommend proceeding. Benevolent human ( talk) 02:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Seems, after a long break Vnkd have made a comeback. He erased the last warning and launched accusations on me. Mr.User200 ( talk) 03:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C, I don't know if these edits: [21] cross the line or not, but it seems like they're really pushing it. They were made right in the middle of the discussion you were having at User talk:Reinhearted#Notice about prohibited WP:ARBPIA editing. I can't tell exactly what the purpose of them is, but it sure looks like they want to establish that kebabs are exclusively an Arab food in origin (see also e.g. [22]), and that somehow Jews stole them... Reinhearted seems somewhat fixated on that general idea. -- IamNotU ( talk) 17:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Erm, also that: [23]. -- IamNotU ( talk) 17:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
not of Israeli originaddition: that edit seems both accurate as well an unrelated to ARBPIA in any meaningful way. El_C 19:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
not of Israeli originedit is accurate, I guess it seems like they're dancing on the edge of the volcano. I suppose that's allowed. I also agree that ARBPIA has been handled pretty well, but I do find it a bit difficult to judge, being mainly involved via food articles, what's under it and what isn't. For example, there's an edit notice on hummus, that says the article is under 1RR/500/30. But autoconfirmed users can edit it (which is ok with me). So is it? Can I make another revert there today, that's nothing to do with Israel? Same with za'atar, though the notice looks different, and falafel has another slightly different one that talks about a portion of the article, but there's no indication which. It seems like everyone just ignores these. When you tell people they can't edit about (or engage in) Arab-Israeli disputes over food, they tend not to believe it, as happened with both the editors who got warnings yesterday. -- IamNotU ( talk) 22:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
yes, those pages are subject to 1RR, always, do you mean the whole page is subject to it, or just the related content? The edit notice on hummus seems to indicate that it's the entire page, as though it's a "primary article", while the one on falafel says only a portion has related content. My take has been that hummus isn't a primary article, but just has an outdated template, and should instead have the same one as falafel. In other words, users with less than 500 edits aren't prohibited from editing hummus, and we don't have to stick to 1RR, as long as the edits or reverts aren't conflict-related. Is that about right? What would be the procedure to get an edit notice updated? Make an edit request on the article's talk page? It seems like not a great idea to have an edit notice telling people they're not allowed to edit when they actually should be, and people becoming accustomed to just ignoring those edit notices. PS, regardless of all that, it looks to me like Reinhearted has taken a dive into the volcano: [24]. -- IamNotU ( talk) 21:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the edit notices. So it looks like Reinhearted remains unclear on the concept of ARBPIA after the block expired; their first action after complaining about harassment by you was to edit the same sentence they were blocked for: [27]. I dunno. I thought about trying to explain it to them, but am doubtful that they're open to hearing it... -- IamNotU ( talk) 00:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi El_C. I made another comment at AE, but when I hit submit, I saw that you had just closed the request. Can you please take a look at it? ― Tartan357 Talk 20:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for collapsing the RfD thread. Unfortunately, AnonQuixote has continued to insist I've made personal attacks, adding a comment in the collapsed section. I don't wish to comment there further. ― Tartan357 Talk 03:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, can I ask why you reverted this diff? I think Tartan357 made a valid point which is now in the collapsed discussion. If you prefer I can reword the comment to not mention the other user, but just state it as a potential counterargument to my prior comment. AnonQuixote ( talk) 07:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to make you aware of an RFC I started so it's not misconstrued an attempt to get around the BLP/N consensus -- this is about the wording used on Wikipedia (as opposed to previous discussions about linking). RFC is here: Talk:Sedition § RFC - Can Wikipedia state that Trump was impeached for sedition? AnonQuixote ( talk) 09:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I think retroactively changing your decision in order to silence me would be a clear abuse of your position as an administrator. However, I really don't want to antagonize you or turn this into a slap fight that I'm certain to lose, since you have all the power and I have just my words. Allow me to clarify further why I think the RfC should be reinstated.
Thinking about how the BLP/N discussion went, I believe that the problem was that the question I wanted to ask was not the question that was discussed and resolved. In reality, before asking "Should we link from 'incitement of insurrection' to Sedition?", I think we should have established a clear consensus on the question "Can Wikipedia explicitly state that Trump was impeached for sedition?"
So I believe this RfC is necessary before proceeding to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. If you think aspects of the RfC should be changed on procedural grounds (like which article it belongs on), let's discuss that. However, I do not think it is fair to completely shut down the RfC as this effectively makes it impossible to challenge the BLP/N decision, while leaving the central point of contention (the question asked by the RfC) unresolved. Respectfully, AnonQuixote ( talk) 10:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
User_talk:Tartan357#Apology. El_C 17:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'd like to notify you about Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_AnonQuixote. AnonQuixote ( talk) 01:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
And wow I'm so sorry you get that kind of treatment. ~Gwennie🐈⦅ 💬 📋⦆ 04:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Not wanting to edit a closed discussion there, but I can't help but notice his comment from the diffs linked there: If my edits were so bad, I would have been blocked already
. You'd think people would know better than to goad the universe, but... -
The Bushranger
One ping only
19:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello El C, The IP you blocked for two years as 86.9.95.201 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is block evading, as 86.8.101.221 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) by inserting the usual unsourced changes to BBC and other TV pages. They are still operating from the same Bath area of the UK and seem to take no notice of previous warnings and blocks. Regards, David, David J Johnson ( talk) 20:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey El C. I noticed that Talk:Joe Biden has an FAQ banner that appears when you are editing. I don't know how this works but was wondering if you could make the FAQs at Talk:Elon Musk do the same thing. I didn't really know who to ask about this. Thanks! ~ HAL 333 00:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
Michael Flynn is under "consensus required" restriction. The page sanction was originally applied by Coffee to Michael T. Flynn, but it seems that, after a page move, you added an edit notice that matches the current title. I'm assuming that makes you the enforcing administrator.
I would ask you to either enforce the "consensus required" sanction or – if possible – remove the sanction altogether because it is just a pain in the ass.
Here's a recent example (all edits involve the same content):
I think that NorthBySouthBaranof is the only editor who was specifically aware of discretionary sanctions (per DS alert) and hence the only one who can be sanctioned for the violation. I tried to send DS alerts to everyone involved who was not already aware. In their last revert NorthBySouthBaranof also used rollback.
I will make one revert and then go offline. Have fun untangling this mess! Politrukki ( talk) 01:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
the enforcing administrator(italics is my emphasis), but I assure that this isn't actually a thing on the project. Anyway, not sure how an edit I made in 2017 is pertinent to anything. I am not familiar with the editing history of this article, nor to be honest, am I that interested to investigate it further at this time. If you wish to see a sanction lifted or modified, the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard is at your disposal. El_C 01:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
It could be argued that as an administrator who created the edit notice (an action that did not reverse previous AE action out of process) you placed a sanction, thus becoming the enforcing administrator. But perhaps it would be more reasonable to say that adding an edit notice was clerical in nature – similar to labelling a sanction – and hence you were not "placing a sanction". The latter interpretation would be obvious had you moved the notice page rather than creating a fork.If Coffee is still the enforcing administrator – who cannot enforce their sanctions due to being desysoped in April 2018 – it means that any administrator can unilateraly modify sanctions placed by Coffee. In which case I would prefer discussing removing the sanction with another administrator. Much of my reasoning for removing "consensus required" restriction from Flynn's bio would consist of examples of disruptive edits. I would like to focus on discussing sub-par edits, not editors. I see in my crystal ball that similar conversation at AE or AN could be easily derailed to discussion about editors. Anyway, this is just my thinking and I will not ask you, or perhaps anyone, to reconsider. Politrukki ( talk) 21:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)The enforcing administrator is the administrator who places sanctions authorised in this procedure.
have fun untangling this mess, and so on, to be quite off-putting. So, please take note. El_C 02:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
"have fun"comment. I have tried, believe me. Perhaps we are communicating at cross purposes. I simply said that as an attempt to lighten the mood. It was not meant to be taken as any kind of personal comment. Politrukki ( talk) 21:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome, Politrukki. Yeah, I get that you were trying to say 'brace yourself,' and so on in jest, but what I meant is that you presumed I was obliged to look at it, which I was not. But, no, nothing amiss about saying that otherwise. But, anyway, it isn't just because it could be seen as a clerical action or whatever, but also because an admin doesn't necessarily gets wedded to an AE sanction they impose. If another admin wishes to reverse a sanction of theirs, that's different, but in so far as the sanction itself being in effect, it isn't an obligation on the admin who imposed it. An AE sanction is recorded in the log — all admins are encouraged to enforce the sanctions recorded therein. Hope that makes sense. As for the indefinite semi, I stand by it. Of course, indefinite isn't infinite, but for the foreseeable future, I doubt I'm gonna lift it. At this moment in time, I'm just not convinced it makes sense in setting it to expire. Regards, El_C 22:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, USER El C. A question, please.
I received an alert/message that my TALK page has recently been "pp-protected". I have no idea what that means. The message about it said "stop being a nuisance" and something about IPs. I am not aware of having behaved like a nuisance to anyone! Do I need to fix something or apologize to anyone? If yes, what do I need to fix, and to whom do I need to apologize, and for what? What does being "pp-protected" mean and will it affect my ability to edit articles? Please explain in simple, non-technical language, as if you were talking to a six-year-old child. That way I MIGHT be able to understand the answer (although my sixth birthday was a long long time ago). Does it have anything to do with the fact that an unregistered weirdo has lately been leaving messages on my TALK page? Well, please advise, preferably on my TALK page.
Thank you very much, HandsomeMrToad ( talk) 10:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
stop being a nuisance, IPs( diff, diff), which I thought was pretty clearly addressed to them.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Anyway, certainly, if you want the semiprotrection to be lifted (or extended, for that matter), that's easy enough to do. Whatever works for you. Let me know. El_C 15:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I see you closed my ANI about accusations of sockpuppetry by britishfinance and alexbrn.
Why am I being warned about "unsubstantiated reports"? The ANI was hijacked by the whole 'lab leak' discussion as I was cocerned about and warned about. The original complaint stands and is substantiated by their own words in making this accusation.
I have been accused of sockpuppeting multiple times now for no reason on pages with sanctions. No action is being taken? This line of reasoning can be applied in the future to discredit accounts that any editor disgrees with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinglelingy ( talk • contribs) 22:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Wow, that is a lot of text. Also, those are not diffs (again, see
WP:DIFF). More below.
El_C
23:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
|
---|
It was clear until the page was hijacked under pretense of wp:boomerang and I could have made it more clear if any admin needed clarification or better links/diffs/whatever. What did I do wrong? My account reputation was unfairly and inaccurately smeared in talk discussion on sanctioned pages. The procedure for sockpuppet accusations was not followed and the smear continued on my ANI. This is wrong. Dinglelingy ( talk) 23:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "huh Dinglelingy, that's an odd response. Are you ScrupulousScribe (now blocked)? Alexbrn (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)"
"Your link to an obvious conspiracy theory website shows that NinjaRobotPirate's earlier concern at your unblock request that you should be topic banned is well-founded. I am concerned that if NinjaRobotPirate checks Dinglelingy, who has been pushing the same material on Wuhan Institute of Virology, that more substantive action may be appropriate. You now have consumed large amounts of editing time constantly pushing theories regarding COVID lab leaks on Wikipedia (i.e. WP:NOTHERE territory). Britishfinance (talk) 12:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)"
3.) /info/en/?search=Talk:Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology#break "Yes indeed. The problem here is that we seem to have some WP:PROFRINGE types, and possible socks,[13] who have a POV and are casting around to try to find sources to support that POV, rather than more disinterestedly looking for good sources as an initial step. Alexbrn (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)"
|
conducive to 'spirited debate', I said it was
within the bounds of a spirited debate(italics is my emphasis). Sometime, one just has to quote. El_C 01:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I meant that they might not have understood the particular sensitivity, rollback use being something that was brought up in the case. I agree with you that it would have been unnecessary regardless of any specifics; it seems to be something they think needs doing when a user dies - an odd area to decide to gnome in, but presumably they thought the were being helpful. GirthSummit (blether) 12:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi. A "new editor" (IP) with a familiar interest for maps is POV pushing and edit warring on Outline of Morocco. Will it be possible for you to have a look? Thanks. M.Bitton ( talk) 16:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
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/Kurds and Kurdistan. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 5, 2021, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/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 16:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Admin. attention will be needed at this sensitive article Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians. Sourced material is removed without any good explanation. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards.lol Ktrimi991 ( talk) 17:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
But why? Do you see what is going on in recent months? There is a rising trend of hatred towards the editors who were labeled as pro-Serbian, simultaneous pressure to change many articles, but also long-term abuse, disclosure of personal information, off-wiki harassment, threats... I have the impression that a group of editors is constantly following me. They always appear in articles with a similar topic, unconditionally supporting each other. This time, three editors came to the article after me even though they had never contributed or participated in the discussion before. Where did they come from in that article at that very moment? And again with identical changes and arguments. It happens literally day by day. Furthermore, I've noticed a strange form of WP:HOUNDING, which included some kind of “countermoves”. More precisely, similar changes to the articles that the user seems to have perceived as a kind of parallel events. I’ve even seen editors literally copy my sentences, just enter other personalities or states.
Many times, I was labeled both as a neoliberal anti-Serbian editor and as a Serbian nationalist POV pusher and propagandist. Has any of the admins ever reacted? Maleschreiber has already put a target on my back here, but it is easy to check what kind of labels he put on me. I just don't want to be a plaintiff. I'm always preferred dialogue. In every Balkan topic, several editors have been labeled as Serbian ultranationalists, are accused of canvassing, etc. Has any of the admins ever reacted? I have personally reported about five times for various forms of harassment (some example: [31] [32] [33]), but without any response. Sometimes, I don't feel safe here, especially since the admins on Balkan topics show less and less impartiality and timeliness. However, I wrote the most negative and critical articles about politics and leaders in Serbia. Apparently, many editors who were labeled as pro-Serbian were the subject of a smear campaign, even banned, while others were forgiven for 10 times more serious violations. There is eve evidence that certain editors use racist and genocide-inspired hypotheses as arguments and sources, and nothing happened. Even this time, Ktrimi991 reverted the page three times, and that version is protected and locked, not the one that contained well-sourced content.
So please, don't turn a blind eye to what is happening. I'm always in the mood for discussion and cooperation. I have changed my own contributions a million times, while on the other hand I only face putting tags and giving up any conversation. I apologize for the inconvenience. Thank you.-- WEBDuB ( talk) 19:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't matterwith
Kind regards, but it is what it is, I suppose. El_C 19:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
there is no reason to dispute it, but you are not justified in repeatedly acting (as in edit warring) upon this sort of premise in a way that is contrary to the spirit of WP:ONUS. I could always use WP:ACDS to force ONUS on repeat offenders by imposing Consensus required on the page in question, or even on select individual editors themselves. So, I hope everyone keeps that in mind as far as a general mode of operation concerning editing disputes in the Balkans topic area are concerned. Finally, I'm not aware of (or at least not able to immediately recall) any previous reports you've filed, so I obviously am unable to comment further on that at present. Thanks for kind words. They are appreciated. El_C 21:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
[A]nd the admins somehow always decide to lock the page on the anti-Serbian narrative. WEBDuB, listen to yourself. That is such a bizarre thing to say. There are (guestimating) 1000ish admins in total; probably less than 500 of them are active-ish; probably less than 25 deal with WP:ACDS, in general, and the Balkans topic area, in particular. I doubt you'd be able to find even one admin on the English Wikipedia that has a strong leaning either toward a pro- or anti-Serbian viewpoint — I certainly don't. It's quite a niche area of history to almost all admins (most of whom are from the US), I would wager. Sure is to me. See, when you say things like that, you make me doubt whether you are a good fit for this topic area... El_C 23:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
To be clear, Ktrimi removed (without consensus) the section that had existed for years. It was added to the article 3 days ago by you [34]. If 3 days are "years", only in that scenario you are right. What kind of Maths is that? Another admin, @ Peacemaker67: asked you some days ago to provide evidence on your claims about "a wave of hatred" and "long-term abuse, disclosure of personal information, off-wiki harassment, threats" [35]. Take that advice seriously. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 00:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Webdub, in 2017 the article did not mention Kosovo. Kosovo was first added on on 16 January 2018. It was reverted by me a week later, and the other side did not reach consensus on the talk page for inclusion. A blocked editor tried to add Kosovo again on 5 July 2018 and it was immediately reverted. A new discussion on the talk page did not produce consensus for inclusion. On 18 April 2019 you tried to add Kosovo, it was reverted. Although you did not get consensus on the talk page at the time, you gave it another try a few days ago. You will probably give another try later, the result is already known though. Bye, Ktrimi991 ( talk) 15:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C - hope all is well. Thanks for blocking this editor a few days ago. However, this new editor is obviously the same person evading their block. Adding this text is exactly the same as the first account, and targeting this article. Please could you take a look, or if you want me to log an WP:SPI case, please give me a ping/note. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me
![]() |
Input |
~ Just saying Hi El C! ~~ ~mitch~ ( talk) 15:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC) |
Since we exchanged a few posts recently the choice fell on you as I want to ask, how do you check redirects, is there any alternative for a tool that has been unavailable for some time, and which could be used by regular editors?-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99° 18:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
This is to avoid an accidental perception of the request as being based on legalistic non-wiki reasons. Based on this slight accommodation in the process, and if indeed there comes a legal outcome, the opposers in a subsequent RM will try to snowball it claiming that legalistic reasons are not wiki reasons, and reframe the whole argument as misguidedly based on the articles of impeachment as the be-all-end-all (they will say: "nothing changed"); if there is yet no outcome, they will try to snowball it claiming that "obviously" it's too soon and/or unmerited and that it's implicit that we should wait for a legal outcome. None of this has to do with the reasons for the request (the actual arguments of the support side, expressed in the posts of most supporters) with are just standard naming conventions reasons. Thanks for consideration — Alalch Emis 18:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
If I understand, AE is only the right venue if there was an arbcom case and a corresponding ds/alert, not for general sanctions (even though gs/alerts show up as ds/alerts in logs)? Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 19:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry to bother you but I am a noob. Lala migos removes any "bad" material about Dutch-based kickboxers, including their Legal Issues and Failed Drug Tests. This is not normal, the UFC fighters have the same.
The main focus is the page of Badr Hari, is Lala migos connected to /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Atlaslion1912 and /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Hozmaster? It seems so because there are mobile phone edits.
I don't know how to report him, but I would do it. Many users are complaining, he's consistently doing that.
I personally think these are all sockpuppets, he probably switched to Mobile from PC. See this case, the same edits on Badr Hari from different sockpuppets, manipulating the page. Basically hiding the truth. Straatmeester's sockpuppetry
Any warnings probably will not fix the problem, he keeps returning.
Zbreller ( talk) 20:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello El C, I must be getting paranoid - but it does seem that the BBC IP is again at work, although in different parts of the UK (this has happened before), by inserting unsourced material. The IP's concerned are 80.6.219.77 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 2a00:23c8:1789:ec01:2187:40ab:f06b:11a3 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Would be glad of your view/action. Regards, David J Johnson ( talk) 12:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm so sorry. I intended to delete that section from the Genocides in history (before World War I) article. In the meantime, there was a problem with link redirection. Or I simply missed the article I was in. Please, I really didn't have any bad intentions. I have already apologized and explained that I will not get into disputes. I think the sanction is too strict. I promise it won't happen again. That was a totally stupid mistake. I hope you will understand. After all, I don't see what it all has to do with Balkan topics. I'm so sorry you linked these situations that have nothing to do with each other. If I had noticed that I was on the wrong article, I would have corrected the mistake myself. I really don't think I deserved a ban like this. Please understand. I’m sure I didn’t break any serious rules.-- WEBDuB ( talk) 15:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Each of my reports with a handful of evidence in the form of diffs for 10 times more serious violations was completely ignored, and now I am the target. During the first next problem, I will prepare evidence for each editor individually.Sorry, it's too much for me at this point. Maybe appeal in six months, I might be open to granting that request contingent on productive editing elsewhere. El_C 16:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Please do not comment in a way that would lead
WEBDuB to violate their topic ban,
Ktrimi991.
El_C
19:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
|
---|
|
To be clear, I didn't write the request there, but someone else copied the appeal from WP:ARCA where there was no word limit. What should I do in that case? Also, after the warning, I didn't accuse any editor of anything. I referred to reports that have been ignored by admins for months (that really hurts!), even if they were IPs reports. There is no proof that I linked the IPs to the regular editors. Certainly not after your warning. I hope you looked at this section. Thanks.-- WEBDuB ( talk) 22:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I know you might not expect to hear this, but Flyer22's death has been hard on a lot of people. It wasn't just her friends on wiki that have to grief here. I genuinely wanted to see her be better and act better because she was a great editor. WanderingWanda is dealing with that, and they are dealing with knowing Flyer22 died resenting them to the bitter end. Everytime I think about that I start to cry, and I can't imagine it is any easier for Wander (in fact, I know it isn't).
I don't agree with this close. You probably know at this point I look up to a lot of your work on that board, and I consider you one of the best admins on the project because of it (if not, you do now). However, this was not the right close. No one except the filer agreed with you, and the AGF reading of WanderingWanda's comments would imply that any insensitivity was unintended (as they stated).
There are really important reasons I needed to say this. While the community is still coming to terms with the death of a beloved community member, certain people have gone on to attack people for their participation in the Workshop phase of the case. I feel as though I have been made responsible for an editor's death.
Why is this okay? – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 18:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
MJL, Valereee, and El C, the truth is that we have a rotten dispute-resolution system, and it has been causing deep distress for years. The people who run it seem not to understand how upsetting and all-consuming it is to be at the centre of one of those Arb cases, including the workshops, or perhaps particularly those. Now an editor has died in the middle of a case. Whether her death was hastened by it, or she would have died then anyway, we don't know. The only thing that seems clear is that the last few weeks of her life were a misery because she was consumed by it.
I was similarly concerned when Kevin Gorman died in 2016 a few months after his last holiday season was taken up by a case. Several of us asked the ArbCom to at least postpone it until January. Kevin had had health issues for a long time, and I am not saying I believe he died because of the case, but he was distressed by it and I have to wonder whether the stress made things worse for him.
We can't let this happen to anyone else. At the very least, we have to abolish the workshops. But I think we should take this opportunity to find a new final dispute-resolution mechanism. Would the WMF help with a grant, can we find professionals to help, and so on. We need to be talking about those issues and come up with ideas and proposals. I'm going to ping Littleolive oil because I've discussed the issue of stress in cases with her (in general, not this case), and Montanabw. Don't feel you have to comment; I just want to make sure you see this. SarahSV (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Look,
Montanabw,
Barkeep49 had already collapsed that at
WT:ACN. Frankly, I don't want it on my talk page, either.
El_C
22:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
|
---|
|
It doesn't look like you were ever actually notified of this appeal in the first place, but there is an appeal of a sanction you placed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_WEBDuB. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Would you please look at the Dabaqabad thread at ANI. I've had a look myself, and my gut feeling is that both editors are at fault, with Dabaqabad being the worst of the two. A problem I'm having is that links provided are meta links (used editing with a mobile phone?) which make it harder for me to do further investigation from those links. Mjroots ( talk) 19:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello El C!
I noticed you closed the discussion on the report I filed, and I was wondering why? No administrators responded to the discussion before it was closed and it doesn't appear to be resolved. If there's something different I can do in the future please let me know, if not would it be possible to reopen the discussion?
Thank you! Jonmaxras ( talk) 20:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
SPA not listening. This has been an issue last year, the talk entry I opened were not engaged, once already an admin acted. Since a longer while, user:S002282000 does not stop, ignore all edit log messages, warnings ( [42]), 15 reverts since October [ [43]], other users also reverted....please intervene, Thank you( KIENGIR ( talk) 22:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC))
[45]. Very WP:SPA-like, and slow-wars in replacing Polish/Prussian with German, he always gets reverted but returns after a while. I think this pattern matches some older accounts from the past but I can't recall exactly which (ping User:Volunteer Marek, User:Oliszydlowski, User:MyMoloboaccount - maybe you recall which accounts displayed similar pattern in the past?). Is there anything an admin can do here? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, El-C,
I've run into a problem that I'm not sure how to resolve and I see you've been recently active so you might see this. I deleted a user page on the request of the editor but it contained a userbox that was used by quite a lot of other editors. And now, if you look at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user, you can see that 68 user pages are listed for CSD U1 deletion because of this tagged userbox. But clearly the editors are not requesting that their user pages be deleted as some aren't even active any more.
Unfortunately, there are some admins who don't ask a lot of questions when they see pages tagged for deletion. Will these user pages eventually lost their inappropriate CSD tag now that the page with the userbox has been deleted? Any advice from you or a friendly talk page stalker? I'm keeping the category open in a tab on my laptop in case these pages need to be restored as categories do not maintain lists of their previous contents once they've been emptied. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 06:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
Forgive me for being inexperienced, but I wanted to ask a couple follow-up questions based on my comment at AN and the discussion there regarding the table. One of the problems I think that discussion is having is that many people (I won't name names here) are using it to "relitigate" the insurrection discussion - which you placed a discretionary sanction against for one month. Unfortunately, some of these people seem like the only reason they are participating in that talk page is to attempt to put the article at the only title they feel is correct, and this goes beyond a reasonable assumption of good faith. I also note that many people are saying things such as "truly accurate" and/or "watered down" - which are refusing to accept that the policy that is being discussed is WP:COMMONNAME. I won't say most, because I don't think it is most, but a significant minority (maybe 30% or so) of the comments are based solely on reasons similar to not liking the proposal or at best based on attempts at proving what the name "should" be for reasons other than reliable source name usage. I understand that your moratorium is solely on the proposal of "insurrection" for one month - but I will now get into my questions. 1) Based on your DS, would it be possible to strike or remove completely comments which solely or virtually completely advocate for an "insurrection" title in this discussion as an arbitration enforcement? If so, what would be the best way about getting an admin to do that. If not, can they be struck as moot given the DS you placed so as to not derail discussion further? 2) Given your DS, can the insurrection part of the table be removed completely, even if the table is allowed to stay? 3) Under (general, not your specific moratorium) DS, would it be possible for an admin or admins to "monitor" the discussion and strike comments that are solely based on things such as "x is the only accurate term" or "I don't like y"? 4) Would warnings/sanctions be appropriate for editors who are advocating for "insurrection" here (assuming they are or should be aware of the DS, such as having participated in the previous discussion), given that such comments are blatantly unhelpful and useless in this current discussion?
Thanks for your attention here - I think the discussion is getting off track primarily because of the poor structure of this RM (ideally would've been started with multiple options instead of as a single option RM with multiple others added later) - but I think it may be able to be brought back if the DS you placed is enforced and comments that are clearly not based in policy are struck/removed before they turn into long discussions. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 02:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
How to find out if a notable people addition is tiktok disruption or a legitimate edit? Steve M 03:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I think GW's point is that there is already an AP topic ban currently in place, and that IHTS is violating it. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 16:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
They're now on Raju jeyamohan02, already blocked on Commons, similar edit here on Shivani Narayanan. That's been their main target, would you mind semi-protecting it to at least slow them down? Ravensfire ( talk) 17:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
You might want to read this. Slatersteven ( talk) 19:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, El C. I wanted to ask you about Template removal. Currently, on Talk:Beit Shearim, there is a discussion between myself and another editor on the relevance of removing a Template that says, "This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, etc." Please go there and review our exchange of comments. Currently, I am in disagreement with the editor on the Template's relevance. Am I handling the issue correctly, or should we wait for a third opinion? Please advise. Davidbena ( talk) 23:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, you closed the WP:ANI#Armatura report and recommended it to be taken to WP:AE. I was wondering if I was allowed to copy-paste the material of the original report into a new WP:AE report or was that not-allowed? Cheers. — CuriousGolden (T· C) 17:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
You closed it with the rationale that “this report is too lengthy”. What did you mean by that? The original report by CuriousGolden, or how long it became eventually? Is there any precedence for such a closure? ◅ Sebastian 11:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
OK, now at last we're getting to a point that may actually end up constructive for the project. Do I understand you correctly that you believe that closing this case with no action somehow was constructive, while my suggestion to close it with certain actions was “self-defeating”? What makes you think so? The “no action” approach has been tried many times before, so far without result. That is why I tried a more thorough approach. ◅ Sebastian 17:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
There may be a dissonance here. Because, why were you even waiting for other admins for, like, a week after having posted all of that, in the first place? If, as an uninvolved admin, you're satisfied with your own investigation, just impose whatever remedies you see fit (ACDS or otherwise), and that would be that. But waiting for someone to parse something like 30+ disparate points, to me, that comes across as neither respectful to the prospective outside reviewer, nor reasonably expedient, for that matter, in resolving the dispute. El_C 20:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi. This article has suffered from persistent vandalism and sockpuppetry in the past until it was semi-protected by Ad_Orientem for 3 months. Unsurprisingly, the usual vandalism from the usual suspects started again as soon as the protection expired and is now becoming a time sink. Will it be possible for you to semi-protect it again? Thanks. M.Bitton ( talk) 14:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C, how have you been? I am on "wikibreak" actually as I need to focus on real life stuff and to reflect on some things on Wikipedia - maybe change editing topics or practices etc. Anyways, as I have been seeing Balkan editors from all sides during the years to accuse each other of "off-Wiki collaboration" and "tag-teaming", is that edit summary without bringing evidence (not the first by the editor) acceptable? I ask because this kind of claim has become a habit among a part of Balkan editors. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 16:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Is it ok for a user to edit war [50], lecture others to "find consensus on tp" (while avoiding participating in the tp discussion themselves), all the while claiming to be "busy in rl" (presumably "too busy" to discuss in the talkpage discussion, but apparently not "too busy" to edit-war)? Khirurg ( talk) 18:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
People find some consensus on tp between you and make changes— that sentence just isn't entirely comprehensible to me. El_C 18:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
People, find some consensus on tp between you, and make changes. Khirurg ( talk) 18:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Template talk:Southern Illyria Labeled MapIt's color blind in terms of ethnicity. And Khirurg replies: Highly disingenous. The name automatically implies everything in it is "Illyrian", and shows "Illyrians" all in the same font and color. Anyone seeing that map will be led to believe that the tribes listed therein are Illyrian. Nope. How should I respond to that?-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 18:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate that. A number of editors usually ask for my help on a number of topics (including really fraught ones that are covered by WP:ACDS or WP:GS) pretty much on a daily basis, so I do expect a certain level of... finesse (I guess...?) — because I am otherwise stretched thin, nearly always. El_C 19:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for this (boring) dispute coming again to your tp but, if possible, can you post a reminder there about WP:Civility or DS regarding the Balkans? The discussion has degraded to that degree that I decided to not participate at all - for me they are free to do whatever they want. If you have time and desire, just read a few comments, such as the last 10, to see a good example of what a discussion should not be. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 23:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
do not open new discussions with the usual warnings and threats, as it will bring you no benefit.[57] which is exactly the kind of problematic approach where one editor disregards any concerns of other editors for the cost of edit warring to the article's well-being. Since Ktrimi seemed too concerned about User:Alexikoua's conduct, I want to remind him that his attitude is also problematic and there is room for improvement. Just my two cents. Good day.
Please see this ( [58]), the situation is not as most of the participants identified (I focused only the Axis/Allies related articles, which I follow). I just notify you to help, given the rapid events in more articles that are hard to follow and evaluate by those who are not daily engaged in the plethora of intermediary edits and talk page content. Cheers! (a lot of issues, why people ain't calm in January... :/).( KIENGIR ( talk) 19:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC))
I posted my explanation here --> [59] - GizzyCatBella 🍁 05:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C, I am having a tough time in understanding the scope of Arbitration enforcement and your response. So allow me to have a discussion here. Are you saying that the topic may be under the scope of Arbitration Enforcement, but sanction do not apply because the content being added/removed in the linked edit does not relate to India-Pakistan? Excuse me if I am still getting this wrong. -- Walrus Ji ( talk) 19:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Please take a look at this thread User_talk:Joshua_Jonathan#Alert. I have two questions. Was it a right call to alert that user about DS even though his edits are not about the conflict. 2. if the offending editor continued adding the same content, could he be reported to WP:AE or will it be judged out of scope. I think it is important for me to better understand this grey area of the scope, to avoid misunderstanding and time waste in filing future AE reports. Walrus Ji ( talk) 13:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey, El C. Hope you're well and that you managed to get some time off during the weekend. You protected
Predrag Bošković on 20 January. As soon as the protection ended, the edit-war began again. The bigger problem is that the dispute is about a potential BLP violation
[60]
[61]
[62]. A tabloid - rival to Bošković's party - alleged in 2001 that he was a Serbian nationalist and a member of a paramilitary death squad (
White Eagles) at the age of 20-25. The Whie Eagles were involved in many massacres in Bosnia and their members have been convicted of war crimes. Bošković who self-identifies as a Montenegrin apparently has never been indicted or involved in events linked to
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. The tabloid allegation made it into the article as The general public learned about Boskovic in mid-2001 when, as president of the DPS Youth Club and a member of the
Parliament of Montenegro, he announced a lawsuit against the newspaper
Dan for a text claiming he was a volunteer in the
Croatian War of Independence as a member of the
Serbian National Renewal and a paramilitary
White Eagles unit. Up to this day, he has not filed a lawsuit against Dan.
Is there a specific talkpage template about BLP which could notify editors that they should be careful about allegations which potentially have very serious legal repercussions? --
Maleschreiber (
talk)
19:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by China - I just restored all of the text that was removed in huge blocks as follows:
*10:55, January 31, 2021 Thucydides411 talk contribs [+] 11,970 bytes −2,869 Cut out extremely POV essay about China in general during the pandemic, and shorten to statement that state media has made some false claims. undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit *10:52, January 31, 2021 Thucydides411 talk contribs [+] 14,839 bytes −937 →Accusations of downplaying early signs: This again has nothing to do with misinformation. undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit *10:52, January 31, 2021 Thucydides411 talk contribs [+] 15,776 bytes −597 →Accusations of downplaying early signs: Macron's "worries" do not render the National Health Commission's numbers "misinformation" undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit *10:51, January 31, 2021 Thucydides411 talk contribs [+] 16,373 bytes −465 →Accusations of downplaying early signs: This is extremely misleading. The increased numbers were "revealed" by the government, similarly to how many countries have periodically "revealed" increased tallies. undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit *10:49, January 31, 2021 Thucydides411 talk contribs [+] 16,838 bytes −1,082 →Accusations of downplaying early signs: Remove conspiracy theory about urns undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit *10:48, January 31, 2021 Thucydides411 talk contribs [+] 17,920 bytes −3,866 This is not an example of misinformation. undothank Tags: Mobile edit*
I worked very hard to expand the article while the AfD was still open, and spent alot of time researching to find high quality RS for in-text attribution. It was all removed as demonstrated above. After I restored it, I explained what I did on the article TP. Just wanted you to be apprised because my intent is to entice the other editors to collaborate rather than take it upon themselves in a WP:0WN style behavior to push their POV. The editor who removed all of the above content, Thucydides411, adamantly opposed keeping the article and as you can see by the edit summaries, his reasons are not backed by RS or policy. Atsme 💬 📧 20:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
understand that this is a sensitive topic for you being Chinese, but Wikipedia is not censored), and how it's suspicious that I have some proficiency in Mandarin (
on WP:RS/N revealed that you have a high level of fluency in Mandarin Chinese, and while I agree that language proficiency isn't something a Wikipedia editor should normally have to disclose, I find it highly unusual in your case [...]). See [63]. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 21:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
The PP has ended, and Thucydides411 has returned to removing well-sourced information leaving false edit summaries. The material complies with WP:PAG and MOS:LEAD, but he picked-up where he left off at the time of PP, and resumed his reverting behavior that clearly conflicts with our policies. I restored the material, but I'm of the mind that Thucydides is not quite understanding the context of disinformation based on his edit summaries. For example, he appears to be fixated on the material about the urns. His edit summary misrepresents the context: The story about the urns itself is very likely disinformation, which makes its inclusion here ironic. The context of the urns is proper not ironic, and the material is cited to Time Magazine, Bloomberg, and the BBC, to name a few RS. I have attempted to explain the context to him but it has been futile and more like a WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT issue. Atsme 💬 📧 14:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Listen, you two, I'd rather not host this content dispute on my talk page any longer at this juncture. Thanks and good luck! El_C 16:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
El C, would you look at this IP editor? [ [66]] (record of clearing talk page [ [67]]). It looks like their recent edits are meant to antagonize an editor who you recently tban'ed. Comments like this are unproductive [ [68]] and these are clearly designed to tban dance on another editor [ [69]], [ [70]], [ [71]], [ [72]]. Edits like this are simply NOTHERE [ [73]]. Thanks Springee ( talk) 14:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
CaptainEek has posted on AdmiralEek's userpage and talk page claiming it as their account. Am I missing something? Pahunkat ( talk) 17:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
That's a legit alternate account of User:CaptainEek, according to the user page.-- P-K3 ( talk) 17:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Howdy El C! I appreciate your protectiveness, but you have just blocked my alt account. I'm working at a new job with less than secure internet and lots of people who could possibly be at my computer, so I'm not using my OS/CU super sensitive account there :) I'm using my phone to be the Captain if I have to, but its bloody annoying to type on it. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 17:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
For your work. Shiny bonjour. 18:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC) |
Can you unprotect the Tigray War page? Wowzers122 ( talk) 23:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C. Since the topic ban concerns not just WWII but " Polish political history, as broadly construed as you can imagine", can you clarify the following for me. I am in the process of expanding an article on the Ćmielów Porcelain Factory, which as far as I can tell has nothing to do with WWII or Polish political history. But in the process I added a relevant tidbit of info to a biography about the 18th century nobleman who founded it ( [74]). But then I noticed that noble was also a politician, even if removed from WWII era by a century and a half. Nonetheless, if my topic ban concerns not just WWII but, independently, as a second topic area, also non-WWII Polish political history (all the way to Mieszko I?), I realized that my edit could possibly have violated the topic ban. To be safe, I reverted myself. Could you clarify if this article ( Jacek Małachowski) is indeed within the scope of the topic ban? And if so, should I also revert my edits to the Porcelain Factory, where I added information about said founder? I will do my best to abide by the restriction, but I'd appreciate some clarification and guidance here (I was initially under the impression the topic ban is focused on Poland and WWII topic area, but having re-read it I am not so sure...). To be safe, I will stop all my editing until I receive a clarification. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nil Einne ( talk • contribs)
Some Anon IP have been playing with User:Vnkd Talk Page. See here. Mr.User200 ( talk) 16:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C, To follow up on your comment at the arbitration case, I thought I'd bring to your attention the whitewashing taking place by user Des Vallee at AANES and other pages. This diff and comment from a more reasonable user (Applodion) on their edits explains what I am talking about. You're welcome to use that at the case too. While writing this I found out they just received a block. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 23:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
[Original message read:] If you can show that either myself, NinjaRobotPirate, Floquenbeam or Fram (to name the latest) were/are "trigger happy," then making that assertion would certainly be your prerogative. But otherwise stating it just as snark in passing, I'm not sure that's helping anyone or anything. El_C 21:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Message seen. Don't want to argue, but it is my opinion that the block was ill-judged and fails to meet the requirements of WP:BLOCK as it is clearly not a preventive but a punitive measure.Well, RandomCanadian, maybe I'm speaking into the ether here, but it seems to me that: either you argue or you don't. Either you engage in snark, or you don't. Anyway, my approach to some WP:AEL/ WP:RESTRICT sanctions is that "preventative" has to be understood in the context of: the rate of violations in relation to the date of the latest violation (i.e. risk of repetition); though, generally, with weeks-rather-than-months serving as its upper limit. But I do not view it as a normal, say, WP:EW block or one that's otherwise conventional. It has to do with interpreting WP:HARASS, which I find is more tricky. Other admins' mileage may vary, which is what unblock requests are for. Just in case you're interested, or even reading. El_C 03:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I think
this incident may merit a little more attention. The OP claims Today I plan to create many articles about political heroes during
2021 Myanmar coup d'état and members of the dictator family
, and a quick check of their talkpage reveals a pretty telling username change a couple of years ago. Pop that old username into Google or Wikipedia itself, and you get an alarming COI red flag.
Grandpallama (
talk)
18:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello. This picture here originates from the same source as the picture you removed here. That is the Museum of Revolution of the Peoples of Yugoslavia, and its copyright usage remains unclear.
It is used as the picture in the infobox in the Chetnik war crimes in World War II article. I think it should be removed, based on the same reasoning as on the Persecution of Eastern Orthodox article. -- Griboski ( talk) 19:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the closure of this incident.
I hope, you'll reconsider this incident again. Magnus Dominus ( talk) 07:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Could you look this user talkpage history? He is quite disruptive and has lot of warnings but he blanked 2 times his talkpage and contines disrupting wiki. Shadow4dark ( talk) 14:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi. EdDakhla ( their sock) is back right after the IP's block expired to engage in more of the same. Regards. M.Bitton ( talk) 17:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Could you please block 65.153.77.106 and semi the article for a few hours? The IP-hopping BLP vandal is at it again. Pahunkat ( talk) 20:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello admin, can 65.153.77.106 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) be blocked as soon as possible? -- Ashley yoursmile! 20:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
You SEMIed it it based on a request from a LLLLLLLLTA. Looking at the article history, that editor was making substantially bad edits whereas IPs and others were making reasonably constructive edits (including fixing the requestor's mistakes). Maybe unprotect? DMacks ( talk) 22:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I would have taken this to the user's talk page, but for obvious reasons I don't think that would be a good idea, so here I am. I don't believe this quite conforms with Wikipedia standards. – 2. O. Boxing 17:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey, El C. Hope you're well. An IP started adding a Greek translation of toponyms across many villages in Albania - inhabited by a Greek community and also many that have a small Greek community or none at all. I reverted some of the IP's edits, particularly in places where very few Greeks or none at all live. Many editors have reverted the IP's edits and have warned them on their talkpage. Now, Khirurg began reverting back the IP edits [75] without any consensus and claiming that somehow I'm following him [76] because I restored some articles to the pre-IP version which he is trying to make into the new WP:STABLE without discussion. These WP:LEDE name changes can create a very tendentious situation and I don't think that they should be decided via who does the most reverts.-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 01:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry about car trouble, and no friends. Really, nobody? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I asked you a long time ago not to comment on “my” talk page, and that position hasn’t changed. Your comments are, as El_C put it, sincerely not welcomed. Commenting when you’ve asked not to can be taken for harassment, and that is exactly what it will be every time you do it. I have deleted similar messages from you in the recent past ( example), so why this hasn’t sunk in yet, I really don’t know. I will make it crystal clear here for you, yet again: do not comment on the SchroCat talk page again. 213.205.194.182 ( talk) 20:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Easy answer: Three elected delegates put something in the days, which may be by their choice (they take turnes monthly), or by requests WP:TFAR. Everybody can work on the blurbs that lie in the future. The delegates have the tricky job to have only one bird and one hurricane per month ;) - On TFAR, you see two suggestions by me for the articles of others, and one that made me slow down work on BWV 1, because the only possible day for it in 2021 is wanted by someone else. In the old days, people would then fight, with a point system of relevance, newness, recent similaraties etc, but I just slow down. Support whatever you like there! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Regarding your close of the Zvikorn report on AE, I have always been perplexed by what, exactly, "previous version reverted to" means on AN3. I don't often file reports there, but I did file two recently, and, as usual, I really didn't understand what was being asked of me. When you have a free moment, could you explain it? Ping me if you do, please -- and thanks. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 05:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, El C. I am asking you to look at the section "Depopulated" vs. "Displaced" in the Talk:Beit Shearim article where I have asked you to decide in my case if this article falls under my Narrow Topic Ban issued here on 18 August 2020. Please give me your fair and undivided judgment. Be well. Davidbena ( talk) 08:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
And ONLY if you have time. Please take a look at this page Witold Pilecki, the ongoing discussion [81], new account edits in breach of ARBCOM restriction [82] following a revert without concensus reached, (discussion ongoing) to the version of the restricted account, by another fresh account that (I think) just passed the restriction threshold [83]. Links to discussions [84], [85] Note that Bob not Snob participates in both discussions, so is aware of them. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 13:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
KY-Acc ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Hi El C, this user has recently resumed his personal attacks towards me because I reverted his WP:TENDENTIOUS edit at Karabakh Khanate:
His previous one: [88]
Here are some other examples of his WP:TENDENTIOUS edits.
He is clearly WP:NOT HERE imo. -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 09:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for closing my ANI case! I think you missed two accounts, though (the last and third-to-last in the given list of socks). Especially the former has been active in the talk page abuse I mentioned. Also, should this vandal return with a new account, would I be able to request TPA revocation alongside the SPI case? Regards, IceWelder [ ✉] 18:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Please welcome, Richardmouser, everyone! El_C 00:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey, the LTA from this thread appears to still be using one of their IPs at Zara Noor Abbas. I'm not able to file an SPI right this moment, but do you think you could please block the range in the interim? Thanks, M Imtiaz ( talk · contribs) 11:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
We have a novice user, that more or less try to cooperate, however I raised an obvious question ( [92]) for which I get a correct answer ( [93])...besides this, I ignored a third IP editing which may be the same user logging out...with all of good faith could you explain him/treat the situation about the validity of multiple accounts? (did he forget his password, or?) Thank You( KIENGIR ( talk) 13:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC))
Hi. User:XForceX is the sockpuppet of User:InellectualThinker. - Aybeg ( talk) 20:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi EL C, could you look in on Talk:Wright Flyer#Colorized photo? It's. a verrrrry long discussion, mostly from one user. I'm not sure where to go with this one. Thanks. BilCat ( talk) 23:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
You don't have it easy do you... have a kitten. It may help,
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
06:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Since the above discussion was cut short, I'm going to further expand and expound about some of my thoughts on the matter. When DGG said to Sarah: And it's curious that what we personally believe is always the mainstream
— I didn't like that. Speaking as someone whose social philosophy views are in no small measure outside the mainstream (to which I'm acutely aware), when it comes to depictions of
Holocaust historiography, as representing a social scientific consensus approach, that's all I actually want. Yes, I agree with DGG that APL content should also feature some components that touch on popular sentiments, but I think it's absolutely key that these are carefully qualified by the real
WP:APLRS — and it is this body of work which needs to form the central basis for any overarching wikivoice presentation.
So, I'm dissapointed when I see gaming that injects substandard sources in contravention of these sourcing requirements, like so (noting own comment, obviously): Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Volunteer_(book).
The whitewashing coming from Poland serving to minimize Polish culpability (or involvement, call it what you will) in the Holocaust, is not just despicable and reprehensible, it also injects itself into a scholarly discourse where it does not belong in a deeply insidious way. So, I'm thinking maybe Sarah is right, after all, about me supporting the respective appeals of GCB and VM having been a huge mistake on my part.
I mean, my conscience is clear about having advocated for their appeals to be granted on the basis of sheer merit (giving a 2nd chance coupled by abuse amelioration). But my conscience is not clear about the real damage resulting from those appeals being lifted, which they now both bring about, eroding verifiability for this key subject by advancing a fringe view (and who cares how popular that fringe view might be in one country, to the point of it even being legislated outright!).
Anyway, in theory, to combat that, we have APLRS, which is meant to serve as barrier against substandard material. Just like we do with WP:MEDRS for medical content. Both of these enhanced sourcing standards are equally important, in my view, and serve as a great credit to the Committee and community that passed them, respectively.
So, I definitely have regrets, and though I try not to lament them, it is a struggle, I admit. El_C 17:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
User Armanqur has been edit warring over the same Kurds-related section for a long time. Their very first edit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Contributions/Armanqur&dir=prev&target=Armanqur
They were blocked 1 week for socking at Medes:
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Armanqur#October_2020_2
Their strawman sock at talk page of Medes:
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Dirokakurdi
They continue socking and edit warring over the same section:
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/80.191.203.92
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Armanqur
The ip uses the same arguments with Armanqur's arguments on talk page and has similar edit summaries. They also remove modern Iranologists and linguists (Limbert, McKenzie, Daryaee, Russel) and some Medieval historians' notes which provide better context for the reader as to why the association between 2 is regarded as "old" by James R Russel.
Creating strawman socks to demonize opposing editors, removing useful contents from the section, edit warring through his ips and his account is disruptive. Please lock the page. 176.54.37.31 ( talk) 05:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Paradise Chronicle, Semsûrî, please know that you can expect swift and decisive action for this kind of disruption. Hopefully, the conclusion of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan will bring further relief. El_C 06:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
El C many editors have been edit warring over the same content which was added by User Khorler:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Medes&diff=1003824309&oldid=1003439589
Now one more user has become a part of the same edit war and removed modern scholars, historians and Iranologists' opinions (Limbert, Daryaee, McKenzie, Russel, etc) from the section again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Medes&diff=1007069765&oldid=1006810936
Instead of removing the specific outdated content he mentioned, the user outright removed everything completely (including the opinions by modern experts). Was it a constructive edit? I'll notify some other editors editing related topics. I don't have a time to follow up the page but an admin or a capable editor should definitely do. 176.54.39.53 ( talk) 12:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
"It is not our responsibility as readers and fellow editors to filter whatever may be good out of the heaps of problematic content."
It is a basic policy:
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Editing_policy
"Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia."
I would copy edit the unencylopedic style and preserve the sourced content from modern experts.
176.54.39.53 ( talk) 23:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation El C. I have checked the policies you mentioned. Policies regarding onus and burden seem to be about insistence of including the problematic content (in this case certain outdated sources). It is not the case here. It is about removal of large amount of appropriate content (Limbert, McKenzie, Russel, Daryaee, full quote of Bruinessen etc) leaving the page unbalanced. Moreover at least 2 unverifiable and unreliable sources re inserted (probably by a mistake). Sparing a few minutes to filter the content would leave wikipedia articles in a better quality.
Anyway my intent was to raise awareness about the long term edit warring on the page and thank you for your actions. Good night
176.54.39.53 ( talk) 23:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
excuse me, today I am strained, sorry I have no power to provide more diffs, but more of use recognized a troll that is keeping vandalizing articles, post unnecessary templates and warnings and meanwhile playing fool, and tire more editors, including me ( [94])...and SPI is already opened, clearly WP:NOTHERE. If you check the recent edits or the discussions at the joke article the user created Szekely moustache and the nomination for deletion discussion, more user demands an action..I am afraid patiently waiting for the SPI evaluation will not be enough...
@ Borsoka:, @ Super Dromaeosaurus:, I kindly asked El_C's closer attention, to make one step forward, the user just trolled me heavily filled with personal insults....enough!( KIENGIR ( talk) 17:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC))
Hi. I noticed that 71.232.135.186 has just restored EdDakhla's rant [96], using the same strange choice of word ("inquiry" instead of "enquiry") that was used previously by T.Khattabi when they reverted your edit [97]. Is this too much of a coincidence to be a coincidence? Regards. M.Bitton ( talk) 18:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't know the ins and outs of Wikipedia. Question: If someone places a 3RR warning (or any warning) in error, what is the appeals process? Thanks. Art Smart Chart/ Heart 18:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, Could you remove the RfD notice from January 6th so it works again? I can't do it because the redirect has been fully protected. Thanks. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 20:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your close; I'm glad you saw my point of view on this being vandalism. I was quite shocked when I went to AIV and was told that it was not vandalism, and then told at ANI that I was edit warring. ― Tartan357 Talk 02:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C! I appreciate your closure of the ANI discussion that I replied to. I didn't mean to "sidestep" anything, however. I felt that, upon looking, that the dispute was content-related, and that the basis of the problem was edit warring. I'm obviously no expert on the article subject, but I thought that what I did was the right thing to do. :-) ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 03:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Oshwah, no, it is absolutely exempt by virtue of it being vandalism-like (once explained) and, as I mention, should be initially responded with something like {{ uw-error2}} (seriously, click on that link and see what it says). Again, a plain fabrication does not constitute a content dispute. Never have, never will. El_C 03:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
This just happened again at Win Myint. I reverted and gave a level 2 warning, as you suggested. ― Tartan357 Talk 03:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi El_C, while the reported IP was stale, the user you blocked here has an IP account which they have flitted in and out of using since creating their account. They were warned about it here (and simultaneously here) and confirm they are the same user here. That IP was missed by the reporting editor at ANI. Incidentally, the accusations here, according to the person's own account, most likely refer to the "personal attacks" whose tenor can be sampled from what they mass deleted, labelling them as personal attacks. The direct accusation toward me of hounding refers to this article; its tiny editing history shows who was following whom with little effort (I started editing the article 3 months before they created their account; edit immediately preceding theirs was by me). Cambial foliage❧ 03:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
There is a second AfD ongoing that has aroused weird controversy, including sockpuppetry at the first AfD to keep, and now (alleged) canvassing to the second to delete. If you or experienced stalkers of your talk page could bring some thoughts here, it would be good. I hope this is not canvassing because I am not telling anybody how to vote on the AfD but if it is canvassing, I apologize. HouseOfChange ( talk) 15:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey El C, User:Seyoumamhara has merged the information in the Humera massacre article with information in the Mai Kadra massacre article without reason. Which could be a simple mistake but then in the War crimes in the Tigray War page, he removed mentions of war crimes committed by Ethiopia and Eritrea against Tigrayans in the introduction and instead said they were committed by TPLF forces against Amhara.
Finally, in the Humera article (the city itself), he changed the city to be apart of the Amhara Region and not the Tigray region. And also changed the mention of the Humera massacre to say that it was committed by TPLF-allied forces against Amhara. Also made unsourced edits like changing the majority ethnic group in the city to be Amhara and not Tigrayan. He changed the text under Monuments section to say "The Amhara population living in the area destroyed a monument named after qeshi gebru she is known for her bravery to kill amharas brutally a former foot soldier of tigray people liberation front TPLF after liberating thier home land after 50 years of tigray colonisation of the area in Nov,2020." The original text was "Statue of anti-patriarchal feminist Mulu Gebreegziabher. It was destroyed by two Neftenya vandals, under the eyes of Ethiopian soldiers, in November 2020."
IP 213.55.85.126 has the same problem but is on a different side of the coin. He undid some of Seyoumamhara's edits but still removed information. Changed the monuments section to "The Amhara barbarian ethnic group has demolished the Tigray heroine monument,qeshi gebru,collaborating with the Eritrean troops in Nov,2020." Calling an ethic group barbaric seems like hate speech. Finally, he removed the entire history section of the article and once again called Amharans barbarians in his edit summary. Wowzers122 ( talk) 22:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry El C, but the personal attacks continue. I know, water off ducks back and all but seriously? Polyamorph ( talk) 10:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
If I inadvertently undid your removal of your comment in this edit please forgive me - I am using the beta edit conflict resolution tool and it showed zero change on the left side (before my edit) and so I selected my comment to be added - it did not display any other changes so I figured it must've been an edit on another part of the page that was conflicting. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 20:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C, I'm having an issue with a user here at [102] who is attempting to push the name of 'Persia' onto the lede as one of its synonyms, even more or less no sources uses the word 'Persia' to refer to the region (it goes without saying that the term is a synonym for Iran). I've attempted to discuss with the user at it [103], but to no avail, as the user is more interested in me than the topic itself (getting lowkey WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE vibes). I'm thinking about taking this to WP:ANI, but I think that it will be ignored/won't reach a outcome. Thoughts? -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 21:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
As can be for example seen here among all other edits here, me edits are removed with accusations of pov pushing and twisting wording when I followed the source. The person even literally deleted and copied what I wrote again. Subtly leaving out the fact that Yoemans said that the anti-Catholic angle he could see. Could you step in to deal with the constant edit waring and accusations? It’s getting to be too much. OyMosby ( talk) 01:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
El C you wrote that the ip was stale:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:El_C&diff=1006684630&oldid=1006684233
When does an account or an ip become stale? Just not to report stale accounts again. I still believe that the ip is from Armanqur tho.
Regards
176.54.39.53 ( talk) 06:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your answers El C. I believe the ip is from the blocked account because;
-both the account and the ip edit warred over the same content
-both the account and the ip resisted against using the talk page
-the account's confirmed sockpuppetry in the same page through a strawman role account
-somewhat similar arguments and edit summaries
I hope all the pov-pushers (from both sides) disappear from the page. Thank you for locking the page.
Have a nice day.
176.54.39.53 ( talk) 08:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I am at work atm and will not have enough time to follow up this case but in case you may want to follow up it, i am dropping the link below:
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Armanqur#Indefinite_block
Thank you again.
176.54.39.53 ( talk) 08:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, El C. The article about Ajet Sopi Bllata, who was an Albanian rebel who lived in present-day Serbia, was CSD-ed by user Amanuensis Balkanicus who has twice AfD-ed the same article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajet Sopi Bllata, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajet Sopi Bllata (2nd nomination) but it wasn't deleted. User Maleschreiber made changes the second time and it was saved. Amanuensis Balkanicus CSD-ed now because in 2016 it was created by a sock. If since then, it was twice saved via AfD and saw changes the second time it wasn't deleted, is it ok for the same person who AfD-ed it two times in the span of 4 years to ask for CSD 5 after both of their reports didn't result in deletion? Ahmet Q. ( talk) 00:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
... and your translations too, which almost read like original poetry, given that I didn't understand the Hebrew lyrics. Thanks for sharing! DanCherek ( talk) 05:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey, there is a (very naive} cycle of reverts on the Dafina Zeqiri article between some IPs and a registered editor. It is a pity that an editor who has written 31 GAs gives that attention to that. Can you make a short protection or sth similar? Ktrimi991 ( talk) 15:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C, fyi Reinhearted has been evading your block, which expires in a few days, in order to continue their edit-war at Falafel among other things. I made an SPI report a couple of weeks ago: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Reinhearted. Thought you might be interested, if not, no problem... -- IamNotU ( talk) 12:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello admin, can this IP 23.233.138.142 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) be blocked as soon as possible? -- Ashley yoursmile! 13:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
In the open Kurds and Kurdistan arbitration case, the proposed decision has now been posted. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. You were notified as you made comments in the case request. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 16:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Palestinian enclaves#This talk page is toxic. This is the same talk page that previously lead to a warning with the holocaust references and baseless allegations of racism. Unfortunately, the general toxicity of this talk page has continued unabated. I'm wondering if there are any steps that could be taken to cool things down there, as it is essentially impossible to go 5 minutes without receiving a hostile and uncivil reply on that page. Drsmoo ( talk) 18:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to be sleepless tonight over the Cliff Notes' joke. I guess it asks for a gloss on T E Lawrence saying 'outrageous' on the outskirts of Damascus? Well that's not, as far as I checked, in his great memoir Seven Pillars of Wisdom, but by hearsay exclaimed by Peter O'Toole playing that role in David Lean's 1962 film Lawrence of Arabia. And no, I can't say I personally remembered it from that date, though I recall the scene. What happened was, when I happened to use the term comically, my cousin told me (in mid 1983) that this was the adjective used by O'Toole qua Lawrence at that dramatic moment. So it may be indeed my latest addition to the immense archives of apocrypha in circulation. Thanks for making me remember the details of this. Now I'm going to be sleepless until I find a video of the film to check where the truth lies (which truth often does:), alas Nishidani ( talk) 20:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Noting that I have imposed the Consensus required restriction for this page. I have also warned Wikieditor19920 to dial it back, under penalty of imminent sanctions. El_C 18:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
For the sakes of completion, I'll just note that I have logged a warning to both Wikieditor19920 and Onceinawhile. El_C 23:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Piggybacking above. One or several of these steps apply: Alert, Caution, Warning, Final warning, Sanctions. There can be some back and forth. Less is more. El_C 04:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello El C- I'm trying to figure out the best approach to get a new editor on a campaign to slow down and communicate with others. Hoping you might be able to point me in the right direction. I'm assuming that posting on a noticeboard would be premature at this point. The editor has been active for a little more than a day, making similar changes across many articles related to Catholic clergy and buildings: contributions, talk. Thanks in advance for any tips. Eric talk 17:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C, would you be able to review an edit warring & content issue relating to a possible hoax image that seems to be motivated by Turkish nationalism? One editor inserted the image across multiple Wikipedias and another keeps edit warring to keep the image in the article space here at en-wiki. I've written a short contextual summary and gathered several relevant links on my talk page. Given the topic, nobody wants to touch my reports at AN/EW or sanction the editor involved (the first report was archived without action). If you're unable to do this, do you happen to know any admins with expertise in regional history/nationalism who would be able to assist? Thanks for your help, Jr8825 • Talk 22:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Can you take a look at the recent edits at Lorestan Province by user Rizorius? [104] The local Kurdish name of the province is being removed despite a large population of the province being Kurdish. The editor is making a false equivalence comparing it with having the German name at Paris. Conversely, an unverifiable and ridiculous survey that contradicts the info in the 'demographics'-section is being added. -- Semsûrî ( talk) 23:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I do not feel inclined to unblock, but I do feel that you should have asked someone else to impose the block, as a best practice. It would have eliminated unneeded Sturm und Drang and would have served as a reality check. She did almost step back with that trope business, but that could be read as attempted salvage. Also, I don't think there is much distinction between being "XYZist" and using an "XYZist trope". Having said that, I believe this user should edit in less emotionally volatile areas and I believe she may not be compatible. Best, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
There has been a lot of discussion around this and there is now a very wide consensus in support of the section as it currently stands. A handful of transphobes trying to whitewash it aren't going to convince anyone otherwise( diff).
esteemed selfis not a nice thing to say, I find. I'm not sure why they choose to address me in such a manner, also calling my comment above
hilarious, and so on, but I feel that it is uncalled for, and I wish for it to stop. El_C 02:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
No comments in this thread except for reviewing admins, please. The matter is pending review, still. El_C 00:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
My final UTRS message (plus new addition) reads as follows:
Since there's seems to be a cloud over this block, now raised by
GW, I have unblocked Awoma.
. [Added now: not to mention a "sexist trope."]
User_talk:Awoma#Unblocked
But, GW, again, for the record, I said: "I truly am sorry you feel that way." And I truly meant it. I'm still puzzled it backfired or was viewed as a non-apology apologyI mean, how else do I convey that better? I really am racking my brain over this.
El_C
00:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
While it's true that "I'm sorry you feel that way" can be a non-apology, and I've certainly seen the phrase used in response to accusations that a person is sexist, I don't think I've ever seen someone argue that the phrase itself is a sexist trope. I tried googling for "'i'm sorry you feel that way' sexist" in case I'm just behind the times, but it's all discussions of someone being called out for saying something sexist and then using the phrase as a non-apology. While Awoma may well personally believe that the phrase is sexist, I wouldn't say it's widely considered to be. That said, I do think a better response would have been to ask why they felt that way about the phrase or just move on. It also seems to me that if El C thought a block was appropriate, it probably should've been handled by another admin.
if I admin imposes, say, an WP:ARBPIA sanction and the sanctioned editor accuses me of using "Zionist racist tropes" or "Palestinian terrorist tropes" or whatever due to something innocuous I said, then I think that, if warnings to that effect remain unheeded, I'm entitled to apply additional sanctions, despite it being directed toward me. Not sure why it should be any different in the ARBGG topic area [realm], or any [other] DS/GS topic areas, for that matter.
As someone who has invested a fair amount of time and energy negotiating the terrain of apologizing, my suggestion would be that "I understand that you feel singled out by my admin conduct" (or whatever the apology is for) ". I am sorry." - or some similar formulation - is more likely to be heard by the recipient. For one thing, "I am sorry you feel that way" leaves "that way" doing a lot of the work, and doesn't acknowledge anything in particular that the person apologizing is actually apologizing for. Taking a stab at what the hurt is about - even if the first try doesn't 100% capture the respondent's actual cause of hurt - will come across as more authentic than vagueries, IMO. Newimpartial ( talk) 17:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I made you feel that wayseem to concede too much responsibility for the other person's feelings. In such cases, "I understand that you feel X, and I am sorry about that" might at times offer a more authentic take. But YMMV, of course. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I'm not whether this is acceptable. What do you think? Regards. M.Bitton ( talk) 01:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Palestinian enclaves#This talk page is toxic. This is the same talk page that previously lead to a warning with the holocaust references and baseless allegations of racism. Unfortunately, the general toxicity of this talk page has continued unabated. I'm wondering if there are any steps that could be taken to cool things down there, as it is essentially impossible to go 5 minutes without receiving a hostile and uncivil reply on that page. Drsmoo ( talk) 18:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to be sleepless tonight over the Cliff Notes' joke. I guess it asks for a gloss on T E Lawrence saying 'outrageous' on the outskirts of Damascus? Well that's not, as far as I checked, in his great memoir Seven Pillars of Wisdom, but by hearsay exclaimed by Peter O'Toole playing that role in David Lean's 1962 film Lawrence of Arabia. And no, I can't say I personally remembered it from that date, though I recall the scene. What happened was, when I happened to use the term comically, my cousin told me (in mid 1983) that this was the adjective used by O'Toole qua Lawrence at that dramatic moment. So it may be indeed my latest addition to the immense archives of apocrypha in circulation. Thanks for making me remember the details of this. Now I'm going to be sleepless until I find a video of the film to check where the truth lies (which truth often does:), alas Nishidani ( talk) 20:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Noting that I have imposed the Consensus required restriction for this page. I have also warned Wikieditor19920 to dial it back, under penalty of imminent sanctions. El_C 18:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
For the sakes of completion, I'll just note that I have logged a warning to both Wikieditor19920 and Onceinawhile. El_C 23:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Piggybacking above. One or several of these steps apply: Alert, Caution, Warning, Final warning, Sanctions. There can be some back and forth. Less is more. El_C 04:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello El C- I'm trying to figure out the best approach to get a new editor on a campaign to slow down and communicate with others. Hoping you might be able to point me in the right direction. I'm assuming that posting on a noticeboard would be premature at this point. The editor has been active for a little more than a day, making similar changes across many articles related to Catholic clergy and buildings: contributions, talk. Thanks in advance for any tips. Eric talk 17:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C, would you be able to review an edit warring & content issue relating to a possible hoax image that seems to be motivated by Turkish nationalism? One editor inserted the image across multiple Wikipedias and another keeps edit warring to keep the image in the article space here at en-wiki. I've written a short contextual summary and gathered several relevant links on my talk page. Given the topic, nobody wants to touch my reports at AN/EW or sanction the editor involved (the first report was archived without action). If you're unable to do this, do you happen to know any admins with expertise in regional history/nationalism who would be able to assist? Thanks for your help, Jr8825 • Talk 22:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Can you take a look at the recent edits at Lorestan Province by user Rizorius? [105] The local Kurdish name of the province is being removed despite a large population of the province being Kurdish. The editor is making a false equivalence comparing it with having the German name at Paris. Conversely, an unverifiable and ridiculous survey that contradicts the info in the 'demographics'-section is being added. -- Semsûrî ( talk) 23:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I do not feel inclined to unblock, but I do feel that you should have asked someone else to impose the block, as a best practice. It would have eliminated unneeded Sturm und Drang and would have served as a reality check. She did almost step back with that trope business, but that could be read as attempted salvage. Also, I don't think there is much distinction between being "XYZist" and using an "XYZist trope". Having said that, I believe this user should edit in less emotionally volatile areas and I believe she may not be compatible. Best, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
There has been a lot of discussion around this and there is now a very wide consensus in support of the section as it currently stands. A handful of transphobes trying to whitewash it aren't going to convince anyone otherwise( diff).
esteemed selfis not a nice thing to say, I find. I'm not sure why they choose to address me in such a manner, also calling my comment above
hilarious, and so on, but I feel that it is uncalled for, and I wish for it to stop. El_C 02:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
No comments in this thread except for reviewing admins, please. The matter is pending review, still. El_C 00:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
My final UTRS message (plus new addition) reads as follows:
Since there's seems to be a cloud over this block, now raised by
GW, I have unblocked Awoma.
. [Added now: not to mention a "sexist trope."]
User_talk:Awoma#Unblocked
But, GW, again, for the record, I said: "I truly am sorry you feel that way." And I truly meant it. I'm still puzzled it backfired or was viewed as a non-apology apologyI mean, how else do I convey that better? I really am racking my brain over this.
El_C
00:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
While it's true that "I'm sorry you feel that way" can be a non-apology, and I've certainly seen the phrase used in response to accusations that a person is sexist, I don't think I've ever seen someone argue that the phrase itself is a sexist trope. I tried googling for "'i'm sorry you feel that way' sexist" in case I'm just behind the times, but it's all discussions of someone being called out for saying something sexist and then using the phrase as a non-apology. While Awoma may well personally believe that the phrase is sexist, I wouldn't say it's widely considered to be. That said, I do think a better response would have been to ask why they felt that way about the phrase or just move on. It also seems to me that if El C thought a block was appropriate, it probably should've been handled by another admin.
if I admin imposes, say, an WP:ARBPIA sanction and the sanctioned editor accuses me of using "Zionist racist tropes" or "Palestinian terrorist tropes" or whatever due to something innocuous I said, then I think that, if warnings to that effect remain unheeded, I'm entitled to apply additional sanctions, despite it being directed toward me. Not sure why it should be any different in the ARBGG topic area [realm], or any [other] DS/GS topic areas, for that matter.
As someone who has invested a fair amount of time and energy negotiating the terrain of apologizing, my suggestion would be that "I understand that you feel singled out by my admin conduct" (or whatever the apology is for) ". I am sorry." - or some similar formulation - is more likely to be heard by the recipient. For one thing, "I am sorry you feel that way" leaves "that way" doing a lot of the work, and doesn't acknowledge anything in particular that the person apologizing is actually apologizing for. Taking a stab at what the hurt is about - even if the first try doesn't 100% capture the respondent's actual cause of hurt - will come across as more authentic than vagueries, IMO. Newimpartial ( talk) 17:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I made you feel that wayseem to concede too much responsibility for the other person's feelings. In such cases, "I understand that you feel X, and I am sorry about that" might at times offer a more authentic take. But YMMV, of course. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I'm not whether this is acceptable. What do you think? Regards. M.Bitton ( talk) 01:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello admin, can you please revoke the talk page access of Focus Training Academy, who have been blocked for advertising and promotion? They are currently making promotional edits to their talk page. -- Ashley yoursmile! 08:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
What did you mean in your reason when you unblocked LightningComplexFire from an indefinite block y? What does it mean to “I live to serve”? – Cupper52 Discuss! 13:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
I'm not certain that I need to explain exactly why you deserve this barnstar, suffice it to say that you spend a lot more time cleaning up WP:AN and WP:ANI than any admin should be honorably required to do. One hopes that perhaps watching the soothing, spinning star will help you relax some. :-) WaltCip-( talk) 15:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC) |
Ronging rogue ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Our friend with the ungulate fixation is at it again. Please smite when convenient. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 18:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey, I copied you in something, so you can learn some Dutch. Saflieni sounds like they're very upset. Drmies ( talk) 03:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
This message is made for notifying you about a discussion on WP:ARE#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_NomanPK44 for appeal. NomanPK44 ( talk) 18:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
"he seems to be at his wits end at this time" about sums it up. The worst of the behavior has stopped, but there's two factions that are numerically balanced, and neither is willing to budge an inch on any aspect of the article whatsoever (you'd think a more readable page with the same content would be something everyone's interested in, but no). So the talk page has just devolved into endless stone-walling, and unless and until an uninvolved user with no opinions on the content is willing to try to rewrite the page, I don't think any progress is likely to be made... Vanamonde ( Talk) 19:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I read your closure op my AE request. I have just one practical question. Where and how should these IP's be reported? T v x1 22:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Regarding this, you might want to do the same to the other two accounts listed here. There is also a list of similar names here that haven't been used in awhile but which may need watching. Also, this does not bode well. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 23:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C,
I thought I should post something here because my name has come up in some of your recent discussions. I was previously known as Mclarenfan17, and I have largely been retired for the past six months. I have been intermittently active over the past few weeks, mostly because of virus restrictions.
I have noticed that I was referred to you because of arbitration enforcement. An editor, Tvx1, claims that I have been editing from an IP address to circumvent an arbitration ruling. I think these claims are being made in bad faith as the editor in question had a habit of wikilawyering, which was noted in the arbitration hearing. Case in point, this edit that he made around the time he went to arbitration enforcement. It ignores a consensus that was established on the article talk page, a discussion that the editor did not take part in. He is well aware that there is a small number of editors on the article, and so appears to be using arbitration enforcement to try and stop me from making any edits to the article and allowing him to ignore the consensus. 1.129.108.95 ( talk) 00:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Maybe I'm using the wrong word here. In registering an account, I specifically had to request one. I had to fill in a form with my preferred username and e-mail address, and it would be sent off to someone to review and approve. I was directed to Wikipedia:Request an account, possibly because of my dynamic IP. The first time I did it was shortly after I forgot the Mclarenfan17 password. I did not get an e-mail about it for about six weeks.
Well, my concern here is that the arbitration enforcement message was posted on the 12th. You closed the discussion on the 18th and described me as persona non grata on the project because I was not taking part in the discussions. What would you suggest that I do here? I cannot participate because I am waiting to hear back about an account, and get in trouble because I'm not participating. But if I do participate while waiting on an account, I get in trouble for circumventing the rules. By the time the account is approved, the decision has already been made.
Now, I did everything in good faith. When the issue was raised, I owned my actions. I could have ignored it and pretended it was someone else, but I didn't. The person who filed the report was clearly on a fishing trip (and had previously been told as much) - they had no concrete evidence to support their claim and ArbCom recognised that they have a history of wikilawyering, using the rules to punish editors they disagree with. I have been transparent at every step of the process, and so all I am asking is some reason to believe that if I follow the instructions of the arbitrators that I won't just have a different rule thrown at me.
So let's say for the sake of argument that I apply for a new account right now and that it takes six weeks. And in six weeks, I go straight to arbitration to deal with this. How do I know that I'm not going to be told "you had your chance to deal with this six weeks ago" and then get slapped with further santions despite following instructions to the letter? 1.144.105.203 ( talk) 02:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C,
I have decided that I am not going to register a new account. From this point forward, you may consider me fully retired. My reasoning for this is simple: in the weeks after I forgot my password, I noticed that my mental health improved. In the time since I resumed editing—even on the small scale that I did it—my mental health declined. I attribute this to one person: Tvx1. Truth be told, dealing with him was always exhausting, and I am disappointed to note that many editors of WP:F1 and WP:MOTOR have adopted his tactics in their editing practice. These WikiProjects were once well-organised with dedicated editors who worked collaboratively. Now they are toxic, run by bullies who toe the line of Wikipedia policies. See, for example, this edit by Fecotank, who seems to think that if an editor has been banned at any point, then he is free to disregard any contributions that they have made regardless of whether or not those contributions had anything to do with said ban (and in this case, these contributions were made before this Arbitration case). Disagree with someone—especially Tvx1—and you will likely be referred to ANI for daring to disagree in the first place. If you raise concerns about his activities, they will run to their favourite admins and plead their case, convincing them that it is a bad-faith move by the other editor. If you propose a change that one editor does not like—even if everyone else is on-board—then be prepared for that editor to drag the discussion out and force a WP:NOCONSENSUS, preventing the change from taking hold. Case in point, in a recent discussion, Tvx1 emphasised the importance of articles complying with MOS:DTT. From the way he presents this argument, you would think it is something he is passionate about, but that article is the only article that he cares about complying with MOS:DTT. And he only started caring about it once he suspected I was active again. His agenda is obvious: he cannot stand the thought of someone being able to influence the direction of an article when that same person disagrees with him on other issues. Knowing that others take pride in their work, he aims to destroy that. He is toxic, agressive and condescending and he is almost certainly reading this (watch his contributions page and see which admin's talk page he posts to). He should have been banned years ago, but he has been very careful to observe policies. I hope that someone keeps a very close eye on him because he keeps getting away with this stuff, which has only emboldened him and dragged the community down with him. There is no collaboration within WP:F1 and WP:MOTOR anymore. Just an attitude of "we will not negotiate with terrorists", and it is solely down to his influence. I have had enough, and I know other editors have, too. He will likely take my retirement as vindication, but it is quite clear that this latest chapter started because he wanted to change a consensus. Unable to convince other editors, he instead decided to get one banned, paving the way for a new discussion. He needs to be stopped. 1.129.111.253 ( talk) 22:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
There was a consensus [106] of many Wikipedia users to oppose the edit Casperti just made again, [107] even though these were exactly the types of edits which got him topic banned. [108] The ANI thread confirms it. [109]
Now after coming off from the temporary topic ban, it seems that nothing has changed.
He started a DRN thread on 11 February (see WP:STICK) to dispute the same content from Pashtuns and it was speedily closed. [110] He invited only 1 editor (who didn't even participate in ANI) instead of inviting me and other 3 editors who vehemently disputed his edits to Pashtun.
He continues to misrepresent sources on that article per his recent edit. The Census link he uses mentions the number of Pushto speakers in India, but not the number of Pushtuns (Pushto speakers ≠ Pushtuns). A reliable source says that over 100,000 Pushtuns were granted Indian citizenship in the Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir alone and Casperti was pointed this out many times. [111] Repeating entirely same conduct that led the topic ban is surely WP:DE. Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk) 03:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
If that was an appeal, it is declined. If it was just a query about the ban, it was explained as best I could.
El_C
07:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
|
---|
Hello El_C, I recently noticed your message on my Talk page [112]. I have neither engaged in a edit conflict, only what I did was picking up the issue we were facing 8 months ago here in the dispute resolution:
Please read the Resolution board for more info: [116]
|
Hi El C, I was going to write to Ymblanter but then I read the banner (I hope everything is ok), so I thought I would contact you. I would like to give you a report of what is happening on Navalny's article (and not only), because I consider it quite particular and of a certain gravity.
Extended content
|
---|
Since February 3, I have been forced to protect the article from the removal of the controversial content of the past of this politician (approximately 6 years of documented nationalist militancy from 2007 to 2013). I started fighting with the sockpuppet User:LauraWilliamson and User:Nicoljaus, and now I'm continuing with User:Nicoljaus and User:My very best wishes. In particular User:My very best wishes removed with confidence a huge amount of data [119] [120] (only the controversial ones, making the article a sort of LinkedIn profile, where only the positive aspects are shown), then justifying them in this way: "the page is very big, and we should focus on facts of his biography" [121] Here I summarize all the parts of the article that are in the process of being destroyed or that have already been destroyed:
The point of view of
User:My very best wishes is this one:"He is mostly known as an anti-corruption activist, and yes, involved in Russian politics in general ("smart voting"), etc. But he never was an officially registered presidential candidate, for example. Given that, his views on various political events that had happen many years ago are unimportant"
At first he removed everything. [125] Then, when the part was restored, he removed [126] any reference to the fact that it was a campaign launched by the nationalists (as it was written on the RS)
On the issue of the two NAROD videos we have opened a discussion [127] that reached surreal levels. User:My very best wishes states that "not every sourced defamatory content about living persons belongs to WP". He is literally accusing some of the biggest newspapers of the world journalism of having produced defamatory content. I understand a little Russian, I went to see those original videos, the journalists did nothing but correctly report what they saw, without adding anything else.
Just to underline how User:My very best wishes doesn't care about the facts themselves, but about the protection of Navalny's reputation, he took a part of the text already inserted, where Navalny defined himself as a "democratic nationalist "and deliberately distorted the meaning of it without even reading what the source said. [131]. Since the discussion started, has started also leaving me incomprehensible (perhaps derisive) messages on my talk page, citing my first edits on Wikipedia. [132] Or by reverting [133] my old edits, [134] showing that he taken the matter a little bit too personally. On the other user User:Nicoljaus that is backing the deletions on Navalny's article (he is not the one to implement them, I must admit this), I have some doubts about how he behave, I'm sure he is in good faith, but he seems to be defending Navalny from a political point of view, constantly talking about the Kremlin's influence on the media [135], with phrases like "The Kremlin has spent a lot of money to demonize Navalny, regarding the Georgian question" and "Despite the Kremlin's best efforts to demonize his opponent, only a few publications follows this narrative.", or accusing me of adding "bad things" on the article. These are answers given in the face of the my hard work of search for all the multiple western RS brought. Not fair in my opinion. This looks to me like a whitewashing operation mainly carried out by a user, and backed by a user who supports Navalny. I may be wrong, but I have spent enough days in these discussions to understand that I am not facing interlocutors who want to find a way to report the info with neutrality. The topics that have been put into question are now numerous, I don't even know if I should open an RFC (I still don't know how to open those RFC) for each of these points listed. I'm afraid this thing will go on indefinitely and I can't handle it alone. My impression is that we are facing a clash of tons of RS against smoky "Undue weight" accusations everywhere. UPDATES 15 February 2021
|
If I'm right, I'm asking you to help me. I invite you to check my edits, about 220 almost on Navalny's discussion [138]. I've spent days turning the web upside down searching RS, and now I'm really exhausted... I really don't have the energy left to handle this alone. If instead I'm wrong, I apologize to everyone.-- Mhorg ( talk) 19:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC) - modified 15 February
Not wishing to host this dispute on my talk page at this time.
El_C
08:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
|
---|
|
Hi El C, I already asked
User:Robert_McClenon
[143] the question of the 500 words. I still don't understand if they affect both the diffs section and the space for my answers below together. Actually, the diff part is below 500 words... but I had to answer a lot to defend myself from accusations.
Speaking of wikihounding... MVBW has precisely targeted my old changes to revert them, just to annoy me. Isn't this stalking or wikihounding? Thank you.--
Mhorg (
talk)
17:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C, how have you been? I just took a look at my watchlist after an absence of almost two weeks, just to see that several IPs of the same range have been making disruptive edits on articles of settlements in southern Albania. Their disruption includes removal of sourced content and modifications that counter with what the used sources say. Since they are being continuously reverted by several editors, including User:Bes-ART and User:Maleschreiber, I wonder why nobody has made a report somewhere already. The IPs include [146] [147] [148]. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 23:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding Kurds and Kurdistan has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi El_C, another autoconfirmed editor is declaring
Win Myint to still be president and
Aung San Suu Kyi to still be state counsellor of Myanmar, reverting past my {{
uw-error2}}
warning and
declaring my revert to be "illegal". I'll keep reverting and have explained myself at user and article talk, but I may need your help. ―
Tartan357
Talk
02:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
All of them look like sockpuppets of blocked HistoriaTurce and HistoryOfTurkic. See their edits an rants on the talk pages. Wario-Man talk 11:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Have you seen this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Syrian_Kurdistan&type=revision&diff=1008148155&oldid=1007929627
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Arab_Belt&type=revision&diff=1008148981&oldid=1007875763
This is happening right now.
+ this from earlier that flew under the radar: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds_and_Kurdistan/Proposed_decision#Comments_by_Attar-Aram_syria
This is like 6 times now she has violated her topic ban. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 21:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C, could you please look into the sabotage of the Arab Belt page done by GPinkerton here just hours before they are indefinitely banned? This wild POV pushing is obviously a hopeless provocation from a sinking user to launch an edit-war in an effort to sink other users with them. They even nominated the article as GA. I am staying away from it, but was hoping you could intervene given that this is a huge violation of their current post-1532 Middle East tban. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 21:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Also noting per the section above this ("Block evasion?"), that my internet is proving a bit spotty today for me to want to engage in too intensive use of admin tools, regardless of anything. El_C 21:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
I appreciate your work and I hope you make good use of the sanctions from the ArbCom case I opened. GPinkerton ( talk) 22:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC) |
Hi El C. You blocked Mdgds for a week after my report at ANI due to their repeated addition of unsourced information. It seems they waited out their block and have resumed their mass unsourced editing again. I did bring it up on their talk page but then thought you may prefer I bring it up here. Could I trouble you to cast an eye please. Rob van vee 05:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
El_C, is it acceptable to put blocks of the AE requests into collapsed blocks? The issue I'm trying to illustrate is not that any single event crosses the line but the long term behavior is the problem. My concern is with fewer diffs all this looks like a small thing vs a wide spread pattern. Thanks. Springee ( talk) 11:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/180.242.214.144
If you look at this person's contributions, they have been nothing but disruptive.
For the Kebaya page, they removed over 23 thousand bytes of information.
For pages relating to geographical regions, they've removed Chinese Indonesians from the demographics in the infoboxes.
Lastly, they've also removed mentions of the Betawi language as being a Malay dialect (something that is disputed).
Would appreciate swift action. Thanks. Sisuvia ( talk) 16:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Your wish is
my command.
. I will be out of pocket for most of the day CELEBRATING.
Atsme
💬
📧
17:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
BTW, Atsme, if you wish to address me as Skeet Simpson or Buzz Knudson or even Buck Flower ( YouTube diff) — I'm actually good with that! El_C 21:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C, there's some material I believe needs to be said regarding the arbitration request but it's sensitive and I think it would be best if I communicated it to you personally rather than post it publicly on Wiki. Would it be possible to email you about this? Thank you Noteduck ( talk) 04:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | |
Four years! |
---|
There's a cat on my talk. No ping - today. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Okay, now read in full. Glad to see that Hammersoft and Drmies (courtesy spam-pings) have the matter well in hand. I'll also note that their comments shed light on facets to this with which I was previously unaware. Anyway, looks like a significant outcome is all but certain, so hopefully, that will do much to alleviate tension in the topic area, which, though I am largely ignorant of, seems to revolve mostly on FS and Mathsci by way of their longstanding IBAN. Looking promising, at any rate. El_C 18:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
He violated topic ban again even after the less than a day old warning against it. [152] Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk) 17:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi El_C, can you semi-protect Soe Win (general)? ― Tartan357 Talk 17:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi El_C, can you semi-protect Win Myint? ― Tartan357 Talk 22:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Can you semi-protect Wunna Maung Lwin? ― Tartan357 Talk 12:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
El_C, we may need to semi-protect Talk:Aung San Suu Kyi for a short period of time. It's being filled with edit requests all asking to declare her still in office, with some potential socking going on. ― Tartan357 Talk 00:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Can you semi-protect Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Myanmar)? ― Tartan357 Talk 03:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Can you semi-protect 2021 Myanmar protests? IPs have been adding unsourced content, editing tendentiously, and making weird formatting changes. ― Tartan357 Talk 20:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Can you renew the semi-protection on Min Aung Hlaing? ― Tartan357 Talk 18:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Can you semi-protect State Administration Council? ― Tartan357 Talk 17:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Can you renew the semi-protection on Thet Thet Khine? It was vandalized immediately after the last protection expired. ― Tartan357 Talk 20:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Can you renew the protection on President of Myanmar? ― Tartan357 Talk 18:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi El_C, there's an editor, S2K-Lynx, who's been adding unsourced content, making test edits, and introducing bizarre formatting changes to articles related to the Myanmar coup for several days now. I've warned them for all of these things numerous times (they've since removed some of the warnings from their talk page), but they have not engaged me and have simply carried on editing disruptively. Can you block them? Thanks. ― Tartan357 Talk 03:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi El_C, Rolf h nelson has edited Talk:Aung San Suu Kyi/FAQ to introduce doubt to it. Please advise. ― Tartan357 Talk 17:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi El_C, it looks like I'm going to need your help at Vice-President of Myanmar. There are multiple editors repeatedly adding egregious fabrications. ― Tartan357 Talk 06:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Following on from this where you protected several motor sport articles to shut down a long time IP hopper, can you do likewise for 2021 Supercars Championship? IP hopper has deleted the same text twice in the past 2 days [156] [157]that he deleted about half a dozen times in December. May want to consider 2021 Super2 Series and 2022 Supercars Championship as inevitably he will move on to edit warring at these articles. Fecotank ( talk) 10:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C, sorry to bring this here, but ANI has been locked, so I can't respond there [158]. The issue seems to be over what steps can and should be taken to protect the articles, given that the promotional/copyright issues are slow-moving and long-term. I don't know what alternatives are at your discretion re: level and length of protection; as well, each article has experienced different amounts of disruption.-Mr. Harris' bio was one of the more egregious promotional pieces I'd seen, all the more so for having sat relatively fallow for so long. Your thoughts welcome, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 18:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, El_C, I opened a WP:AN thread, WP:AN#WP:AE understaffed by admins. I mentioned you there, so I am letting you know, in case you want to comment. Thanks, Nsk92 ( talk) 19:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
He has replied to you at talk page. It is the passive aggressive behavior.
When I point out flaws in his writing and sources, he thanked me for my time and asked me to find better sources. TrangaBellam ( talk) 19:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, since you're aware of the situation about the lab leak i'd like if you could TBAN me from Covid stuff so that the thread at WP:ANI can stop. I'm reacting very badly to their comments and it's starting to affect me irl. It's just too much at this point. They're just commenting about me and slandering my (yes limited) contributions and they don't seem to answer my questions. Thank you. Feynstein ( talk) 20:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi! Of this user. He started with kickboxer Benjamin Adegbuyi, currently removing the description of other fighters but from the UFC. Special:Contributions/Belevalo I tried to talk with him nicely, but he has moved now his attention from ice hockey to other sports. Unfortunately. .karellian-24 ( talk) 20:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey C, On Feb 11, you blocked JG4236 ( talk · contribs) for a week for a persistent, long-term pattern of adding unsourced material with tons and tons of warnings. Since that block, the editor is back to his old tricks: [159], [160], [161], [162] and [163] among others. Could you have a look? Toddst1 ( talk) 21:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
El_C I saw your comment/advice here [164]. I have shorten it here at "Answer Casperti to Johnuniq" at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Casperti. It was indeed blurry and vague from my side I guess. Frustration led to that I guess. Thank you. PS Can I delete that larger text? -- Casperti ( talk) 19:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C. First I hope you're doing well
I had a question about 1RR restrictions for pages. The pages I am specifically concerned with are Uyghur genocide and Slavery. How does an editor request that a 1RR restriction be placed on a page? I have no experience on this, so this might not even be possible (or advisable). I always appreciate your counsel.
Best wishes from Los Angeles, // Timothy :: talk 19:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Is editing against a talk page consensus a "content issue" or is it something that can be raised at AE in a topic covered by discretionary sanctions? nableezy - 21:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
treading on tenterhooks does improve the dancing of aged pins.
Perhaps this dark hilarity is now easier to understand. Newimpartial ( talk) 02:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Maybe they were and I missed them, somehow...?Yes, that. No further need for humour, thankfully. Newimpartial ( talk) 02:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Yup, confirming. Briefly glanced at the diffs you've provided during the July 8 and July 30 discussions on my talk page (archives 18 and 19, respectively) and there was no mention of that attack. El_C 02:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I simply stated (accurately) that it this term(cis)
is not considered a personal attack on WP, unlike such other terms as "misogynist" and accusations of "smacking a woman into place", which you have lobbed at me repeatedly. It is true that the relevant diff ( this one) was provided in the previous comment I added to your Talk page. Rest assured that I did not separate the quote from the diff when I posted to GS in early July, FWIW. Newimpartial ( talk) 04:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
[Jeez, Newimpartial, you are taxing me today.] Anyway, now I realize what happened. You did say that (being labeled a "misogynist," etc.), but you did not support it with a diff, which is all I was looking for a few minutes ago. Anyway, so, on 21:09, 19 April 2020, Lilipo25 removes the entire section along with everyone's comments (!), before I got a chance to read your "relevant" comment. I almost certainly didn't notice either of these changes, just because my talk page is, well, super-busy. Like, I had to go with a 25,000 edit range (which takes like 30 seconds to load) just to get to April 2020! Or, put another way, there have been hundreds of edits to my talk page this week alone, even with the notice at the bottom of my talk page that's meant to deter the sheer volume of these. El_C 05:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Newimpartial, in conclusion: if you go forward from the point you cited that diff ( here) all the way until Llilipo25 went on to remove everything ( here), you'll see that I simply wasn't around to notice any of it happening. And that's that. El_C 05:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Also, I can't believe that a few hours ago I said: Also, no luck required. Doing nothing is a breeze
(
diff). That shows me to test the gods of chance...
El_C
07:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
In gratitude for following up on arcane and complex disruption to Wikipedia articles. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 04:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC) |
Per [165]. When I was young, many years ago, I was walking on Gun Hill Road in the Bronx, when an old man passed by. My memory is that he was shirtless (though that may be a romantic embellishment provided by time), laughing to himself, and announcing, "I'm the old sea captain!" So I mean, why not? 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 19:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
SR, just as a follow up, because I think you missed it, but I did actually soften that statement a few minutes later in the interest of accuracy. Anyway, hope you get to see this. // Salsa dance! El_C 18:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Please replace Mika's copy of her suggested text, which you deleted from my talk page, or at least replace her surrounding message. Thank you. Pam D 18:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, hope you're fine. I just noticed what is written on the bottom, however, I wanted to ask your opinion and advice on an issue (I waited even two weeks to come up, since I have been as well very busy after a strained period, which lasts still :( )...I listened a few of the musics offered....please tell me when I may have your attention, or when I should return...at least I hope with you everything is ok!( KIENGIR ( talk) 01:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC))
Hello,
Thank you for deleting those revisions and protecting the page. I was wondering if you could also delete this revision https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1009376237 that was an accidental restoration of the deleted content. CAMERAwMUSTACHE ( talk) 15:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C, hope you're well. I would like to ask you if it is possible to semi-protect the Tayna article, there have been several IPs making disruptive edits in the last months. I would welcome your response, thanks!-- Lorik17 ( talk) 17:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you :) Lorik17 ( talk) 18:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Mentioned user was TBANed by you under AA2 sanctions, and has since edited in Articles in the area that he was sanctioned [167] [168] (I tried to provide ordinary diff instead of mobile diffs). I think that he didn't understand the "Broadly construed" part of the sanction, he might need a bit of guidance on this. - Kevo327 ( talk) 17:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I know you are busy, but what is this person trying to do? He cleans up also the name of Romania. Nothing against anyone, but it might be wrong. Special:Contributions/MB .karellian-24 ( talk) 02:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
I just wanted to ask if you could help with a repeat vandalism on Somalia, previously you gave the same user a 48 hour ban for removing sources. They are doing the same thing again, I have reverted back to the official source for the time being.
Previous case which you banned the user for 48 hours - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1057#Dabaqabad
Could you kindly look into it, I have also reported it for Vandalism but since you have previously dealt with it, I thought I would inform you also.
Thank you. Hurbad ( talk) 15:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for getting back to me ( diff).
I have since reverted it. Hurbad ( talk) 16:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Update: upon further thought, I decided to place a revert-talk page requirement on Dabaqabad ( diff), as a logged AE action. El_C 18:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Even if I had wanted to start a conflict of interest discussion about Tenebrae, I would not have since I have been told that the Arbitration Committee is looking into it. Although my question was prompted by the accusations against Tenebrae, it was, as I clearly said, a general question. I have no idea why you would want to mention Tenebrae in that context. You pretty much said "It's Tenebrae who did all that bad stuff mentioned earlier". What were you thinking? Mo Billings ( talk) 18:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi there El C - per WP:OUT, I really think you should redact the username you posted in COIN - doing so makes it very easy to find the article that links a person to that username. Without the username being posted, the description in the original COIN post is generic enough that it would be quite difficult to find the article. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 14:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I see an [edit] button next to the section header. Maybe refresh to page? Beyond My Ken ( talk) 20:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
We both semi-protected ANI, within 1 second of each other, and both for 6 hours (which isn't a dropdown default). Great minds think alike (or summat like that, I forget). Black Kite (talk) 01:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
On a social website, we moderators agreed that (bar a rare sighting of Trollus jocosus, a threatened species) we could always be funnier than trolls. The site had an age limit of 13, but required an explicit admission of age before we could take action. One annoying but not sanctionable user, to emphasise how obvious his political points were, started signing his posts "six-year-old boy". Who was I to argue? Narky Blert ( talk) 19:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I saw you semi protected Pop Smoke's article back in September 2020. It looks like it expires in a few hours. I think you should semi protect it again as he has new music and his debut posthumous acting for Boogie is out in the United States now. [169] [170] [171] The Ultimate Boss ( talk) 04:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Mind extending the protection a wee bit (there's a posthumous film the subject is involved in, at least until then, and then maybe a bit more). The subject recently died, and an editor on talk page has reasonable concerns that it might get IP vandalism and infobox warring, so... Cheers, RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 05:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
El_C
13:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
... and now I don't have to check back on the page. TY. :-) [172]. — Ched ( talk) 19:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC) (but I do really appreciate the courtesy) — Ched ( talk) 19:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi EI C, hope you are doing well! There is a problem on the Croatisation. Now there is an edit war there. The banned puppet account added pov content and as you can see here they have an agenda against Croats. Your inout on this situation would be welcomed. I usually see the same editors defending puppet edits mass wipe edits by other sock accounts that get blocked ignore whatever the content is. Much appropriate. OyMosby ( talk) 19:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
On another page There is also a pupoet IP solely removing info they don’t like on the Bleiburg Reparations Page page referring to Chetnik Genocidal atrocities and numbers as “ranting”. I’m beyond words. Also deleted Reliable sources while complaints of “not sourced” caims even though they are. Please take a look. Thank you. OyMosby ( talk) 22:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Done.
El_C
23:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for WP:REVDELing those IP edits. I thought of requesting it, but couldn't remember the right criteria offhand. I also hate giving people an excuse to cry "censorship". But calling people "feminazis" obviously has no place on WP. Good call. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 23:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello El C I hope you're good. I just wanted to ask if you could help with repeated vandalism on Anxhela Peristeri. There are few editors [173] [174] [175] [176] who try to add inaccurate and false informations related to the origin of the singer. This inaccuracy was taken from an interview here [177] during which she did not confirmed that however, there are also no reliable Albanian sources who discusses her "Greek" origin. Thank you!-- Lorik17 ( talk) 14:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Hallo, thanks for your comment. I agree with you completely, but if - as in this case, which I think is crystal clear - the topic is subject to discretionary sanctions, the underlying problem is that these are not applied from the start. I, who belongs to neither the Capulets nor the Montagues, (my only fault is having a page on my watchlist) :-) contacted an administrator a few hours before someone else opened a thread at AN/I against the same user, but all I got was a notice about discretionary sanction on my discussion page. 16:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC) P.S. I only replied here because I don't want the thread in question to double in length again. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alessandro57 ( talk • contribs)
Sir, this user is making legal threats, should I warn them? The user has previously tried to remove large chunks of sourced content. - Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 16:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
The clarification request you filed, Clarification request: Discretionary sanctions, has been closed and archived. You can view a permalink of the here. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 19:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
There's a new account ( CrnogorskiKralj ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) which as we speak is replacing the Montenegrin language template with Serbian in every article about settlements in Montenegro. This needs attention because it is getting out of hand. There are almost 500 articles which it has changed.-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 23:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Whoa, 1,000 contested edits in 24 hours is absolutely bonkers! Shut down. BTW, thanks
Ktrimi991 — I see you!
El_C
01:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
User:Tarik289 has returned, under the name of User:Tarik298. - Kevo327 ( talk) 13:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Hey El C, I see that you've p-blocked Soyoko for two weeks. While I sort of understand, I also just wanted to note that I don't think a pblock is completely appropriate given the admin who left a final warning is also calling for an outright block. I also don't think two weeks is going to give them the necessary perspective and their disruption isn't completely limited to mainspace. Would you be willing to reconsider this? I get the impression that the pblock is not so much a "while under discussion" block based on the wording but if it is, please let me know. CUPIDICAE💕 13:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to bring it to your attention that despite a block, User:Rtr315 has continued the exact same behavior of violating WP:ONUS, WP:RS WP:OR and WP:CIRCULAR. These actions continue to be disruptive and I request that action be taken to enforce Wikipedia's policies. Thank you, Chariotrider555 ( talk) 15:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Why would an IP address revert this on my talkpage? Clownshking ( talk) 16:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Please explain to me wp:undue issue in Jovan Rašković article. I have two sources [179] which say that mother of Jovan Rašković is Croat and father was judge in NDH. Can I do something to prevent wp:undue issue? Or for some reason such information should not be included in the article, maybe this information is not important or more sources for confirmation is needed? I don't understand entirely that rule, so explain to me in more detail if you have time. What exactly undue problem means in this case? Thank you. Mikola22 ( talk) 10:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
This user page User talk:185.205.142.78 should be looked at. From the ANI discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Current Burmese case 2 I tink there is either some socking or canvassing happening. // Timothy :: talk 13:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C, thanks for semi-protecting the Emraan Hashmi article and for deleting the BLP violations! I noticed that the article was pending changes protected when I edited and my edits were caught up in it until a bot had to approve my edits. Could I request the Pending changes reviewer rights to avoid this in the future pleae? (Some articles I've come across during RCP are also pending changes protected so this permission would help a lot too). Thanks! Some1 ( talk) 16:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
I humbly request Semi-protected status for the Liberal Democrats (UK) Wikipage due to vandalism and sock puppetry! B. M. L. Peters ( talk) 01:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I hope you are well. I have done as you suggested, and appealed; please see WP:AE. Kind regards, J.Turner99 ( talk) 21:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
I would like to request to decrease the semi-protection level of Pangako, Ikaw Lang for 1 week since you protected it. I replaced the edit with proper source, the page was redirect because it has no proper source last February 14, 2021. Thank You! SeanJ 2007 ( talk) 12:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Hey El C, I just applied a DS sanction here in response to this edit (exacerbated by the others around it), and logged it here. This is the first time I've applied a DS sanction - would you be willing to check that I've completed all the paperwork correctly? Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 11:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh, GS, just noticed this: you should not be closing requests at WP:ARCA (or any arbitration pages). That is the exclusive domain of the arbitrators and clerks. El_C 14:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
G— I'll take that save! (And hold onto it for dear life!) For sure, glad I could help (until I went to visit outer space, at least). El_C 15:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Today: Carmen for TFA, with Bizet's music " expressing the emotions and suffering of his characters" as Brian worded it. Miss him. Miss too many. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
enjoy the music -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
BTW, I did an Us already, so how about a You? El_C 23:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi - since you were involved in the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Volunteer (book), I am letting you know that I have requested clarification from the Arbitration Committee about how we should interpret the wording of the remedy at WP:APLRS. If you wish to comment on the request, it is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Antisemitism in Poland#Article sourcing expectations. Best GirthSummit (blether) 15:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Your comment here made me wonder - was MEDRS community imposed/decided or ArbCom imposed? Volunteer Marek 16:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
In case you didn't know about the tool - you may want to try Special:Mute/USERNAMEHERE - will let you avoid some notifications. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 18:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I hope you’re doing well. Would it be convenient for you to briefly explain to me something about the ban on Balkans topic area? May I edit articles for the 2020 Summer Olympics, Eurovision Song Contest 2021, 93rd Academy Awards, 2021 ATP Tour etc? These events undoubtedly have participants from the Balkans, but by strict definition they do not belong to Balkans pages. Especially, am I allowed to update the results and other data on participants from the Balkans? Does the ban apply to Novak Djokovic career statistics and other non-political Balkans individuals (sports, culture, science)? Of course, I understand that I should not get involved in disputes about ethnic origin, controversial parts, etc. I'm thinking specifically of undisputed sports results, festival awards, etc. Could you please clarify this for me? I'd appreciate your reply. Best regards. -- WEBDuB ( talk) 16:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
If you are unfamiliar with the wonder of goats, I suggest the video:
Are goats OP? Recently the general public has come to recognize the wonder of goats, with GOAT serving as a
backronym for "Greatest Of All Time". Unfortunately, society still has a ways to go in recognizing the contributions of our caprine symbiotes. Like goats, your work here is important but underappreciated. Our sanctions regimes are functional largely because of your work to enforce them, and despite the flak you receive, your work is truly appreciated. Perhaps the "C" in "El_C" stands for "Caprine", and
you were a goat all along? Either way, enjoy the new lawn mower accompanying goat!
—
Wug·
a·po·des
07:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, ZaniGiovanni made a personal attack on my page and when reverted and replied to, wrote this. What should the appropriate course of action be? Cheers. — CuriousGolden (T· C) 16:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Now that my IBAN partner has left Wikipedia, and then been indef blocked and had TPA revoked for NOTHERE behaviour - including personal attacks in violation of the IBAN - I would ask that the IBAN between us be voided. That would allow me to edit certain pages without going into convolutions about their edit histories. If the editor in question is unblocked for some reason, I will consider myself under a voluntary 1-way IBAN while awaiting further developments, but given the circumstances of the indef, I do not see this scenario as likely. Anyway, you could just let me know here, at your leisure, what you decide. Thanks. Newimpartial ( talk) 16:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, hope you're fine. I just noticed what is written on the bottom, however, I wanted to ask your opinion and advice on an issue (I waited even two weeks to come up, since I have been as well very busy after a strained period, which lasts still :( )...I listened a few of the musics offered....please tell me when I may have your attention, or when I should return...at least I hope with you everything is ok!( KIENGIR ( talk) 01:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC))
Oh, Thanks, I did not know you already read it, I thought you would add a preliminary opinion, but ok, I'll spell out then my problem (or better I summarize since it should seem obvious). Well, I just noticed they will renew the trilogy, with the most advanced graphics, correcting bugs, and to convert the first parts control system akin the second one...although would be happy if Andromeda would continue in a better shape, if they really abandoned the original storyline...
Back to Sol, Earth:
- "In general": I was very sad of the witch-hunt I suffered, nobody really wished to have serious arguments, I've got mostly ad hominem or emotionally motivated arguments towards the subject as well, and pure straw-man argumentations almost for every professional demonstrations, furthermore the number & actual stance of participants a discussion should never influence it's outcome, if it is not well or thouroughly discussed, or the problem solved in accordance our policies and guidelines (as well). Hence the very early closure, even wished to be boosted by AN was execptional, given there are less "core important" discussions taking much more longer and there have been not such a fuss (but even important ones, in ten years I experienced even week/month long threads)
- Problem 1: Majority of the participants erroneusly considered the subject would be denying the connection between Fascism or Nazism, and they adamantly tried to prove something that was not even the catch, the closer's comment perfectly reflected this error - and suggest he did not read/understood the discussion -, so I contest closing (even this "Virginia" remark is hard (?) to be interpreted, since such user/username did not participate in the discussion, if it was meant to be a(n) (pejorative) insult, twice as bad, since would be a pure boomerang). Nazism is a form of Fascism (as well here Nazism is a subcat of it), and the first defining, appropriate qualifier to designate the ideology/system etc. Since the Elton John example was ignored, there is even better, beetle is a subgroup of insects, but it does not mean that ever insect would be beetle, similary if I wish to define a human, it's enough the designate with the first-defining order mammals, but I don't have/need to add that it stems/belongs/subgroup of Tetrapods.
- Problem 2: even is Problem 1 is enough to demonstrate the error, the discussion went to that direction what the sources say, a user after a hard digging shown two sources containing Fascist state...after I have shown three sources contanining Nazi state....according to our rules - since they preached we say what RS say - they should have either accept or make a scrutiny which is more prevalent and go on, etc.! This did not happen, but I've got serious deterioration and straw man arguments, and an overly pressure to falsely identify my conduct as a problematic behavior (= translation: they identified this was of argumentation with RS may result the same boomerang as before, so all efforts was put on charge on my witch hunting, like I would not hear/accept the other users opinions and what I would do would be disruptive and tendentious, etc., despite I also disproved all of such trials, since a content dispute is a content dispute, not a beauty contest or an exit poll, especially if I follow those policy line they introduced)
- Problem 3: after I came to realize the Jolly Joker - after the discussion has been unfortunately successfully deteriorated from the point -, besides Problem1&Problem2, the whole addition to the Government parameter of the infobox was in fact even semantically erroneus, since a government is not a state ( [182]), hence regardless of the other points of the debate, it has to be reverted, but they've got very mad at me and the ad-hominem campaign has been intensified, like I would be the bad who should revise his thinking because so many users are disagreeing, blabla and the same panels, they've got so afraid that started to rush to close the discussion ASAP (= translation: "since it cannot happen one user would make a fool of all of us, after this already strained hotch-potch against him, since the decoy was taken by the majority already that he is "baddish"...)
Epilogue: I became very sad and I feel like this, very disappointed as a said, since any good-faith/professional editor who knows the subject and/or have an elementary logic, or just even conduct or practises of guidelines/policies in WP about content issues, clearly identifies my argumentations and points are valid and correct. What happened here, could not happen at Chess or Deutsch–Jozsa algorithm articles. Etc., I don't explain further, I think/hope you fully understand me, and I need it very much, since this issue has to be remedied...this bold edit was the cause of everything ( [183]), unfortunately contrary the edit log, the user added someting else, the problem :( .( KIENGIR ( talk) 12:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC))
Nazism is fascism that was developed in Germany, with added racist principles.
Fascism, Nazism— that's it! Anyway, again, as someone who has studied and taught the subject, through the prism of Holocaust historiography and beyond, that description aligns with what I know to be mainstream scholarly consensus (myself, I place more of a stress on the role of class in my own analysis, but that goes beyond the scope of this note at the moment).
Thanks goes to Wikipediocracy for the interesting pointer to the "CR&S Office Hour" Zoom meetup back in June: YouTube link, which I had missed. Thanks, especially, to Vigilant for the OP and to SR for the bump. It's about an hour long, but well worth viewing in full. Possibly, everyone else knew about it except for me...?
BTW, Osborne, not sure why you're spreading misinformation about me. I was was opposed to SR's original siteban, as well as having supported their appeal a couple of months ago (first to do so, in fact). I was dissapointed that the appeal did not succeed, but remain hopeful that one day it will. Anyway, sometime, it's best to state the salient facts, for the record, especially against patently false assertions. El_C 17:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/trickle-down-economics-doesnt-work,-says-joe-biden-6X190Do6
The trifecta:
El_C 21:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Lyrics:
|
---|
"Bound":
|
Hi, El C. To the best of my knowledge, we have "hashed-out" all issues relating to "unbalance" in the article Beit She'arim (Roman-era Jewish village). Therefore, can I ask you to remove the "Unbalanced tag"? Since the tag was first placed there in January of 2021, more than six editors have worked on the article to alleviate the "perceived" problems. Davidbena ( talk) 22:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Hey El C,
Could you please remove this per WP:ATTACK, and revdel these [Links removed for privacy] per WP:CRD? Thanks. François Robere ( talk) 16:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, re
this edit. Removal of the {{
archive top}}
/{{
archive bottom}}
, essentially reverting
these edits, was OK if
Mikehawk10 (
talk ·
contribs) said that it was OK. But rather than adding a new {{
rfc}}
, which caused Legobot to assume a totally new RfC, you should have reverted
this edit (so that the same rfcid was used) and immediately inserted your relisting comment between the original statement and original signature. Something like this:
Legobot looks for the {{
rfc}}
tag, and from that point scans forward to the next valid timestamp. Everything in between is taken as the RfC statement, hence
this result. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
21:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
|rfcid=
. A number of processes use this as a unique key, for example to decide if a user should not be sent a
WP:FRS message (because they already had one). So if Legobot generates a new rfcid, people might be messaged twice about the same rfc. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
17:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)For someone who is not taking any new requests for help, you seem to resolve more editor conflict problems in a day than I do in a week. You can't help yourself but help out people who come to you with problems, can you, El C? Don't worry, I won't tell anyone. We're lucky to have you. Liz Read! Talk! 05:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you ECP protected this article, but I don't think that was the correct decision. While the organization is opposed to intermarriage and is an active org, it doesn't have anything really to do with the IP Conflict. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C, I'm concerned about the activity of the new editor, Traineek. Their first edits were a series of extremely POV and unsourced (or poorly) sourced information ( [185], [186], [187] just a few examples...) which were all subsequently reverted. They then edit-warred far past the limitations of WP:3R and continue to exhibit serious battle ground behavior on The talk page. Surely something can be done here?? Aza24 ( talk) 16:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Happy St. Patrick's Day! I hope your St. Patrick's Day is enjoyable and safe. Hopefully next year there will be more festive celebrations. Best wishes from Los Angeles. // Timothy :: talk |
Greetings,
It seems you have previously edited article Black sea or some article which is linked/ connected to Black sea article.
Thanks and warm regards
Bookku ( talk) 11:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello El C, could Merrywalker ( talk · contribs) be blocked as soon as convenient? They are an LTA. Thanks, Pahunkat ( talk) 14:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi El_C!
Sorry to bug your but I have a general question regarding the scope WP:BLP. The policy states that it applies to all Wikipedia pages. Does this include talk pages? My reading is that it does, but I wanted to check with a much more experienced person to make sure I am reading it right.
Thanks, — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 05:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC) — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 05:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Can you please Semi-Protect his article for a while? It has recently been vandalized by a handful of vandals, in addition to suffering from unsourced/misleading changes. The article also covers an unfolding natural disaster in the United States, so it's probably going to continue drawing attention for a while. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 ( talk) 15:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
That page was hijacked. I had restored the correct version and requested protection. Are you sure it should have been deleted? MB 16:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
likely NN businessman. Which was my assessment, as well. El_C 16:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Please consider unlocking this page so disruptive editing cannot be made by those with Extended Protection status.
User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz tampered with the personal relationship section of both Gurbaksh Chahal and Rubina Bajwa by simply removing it outright. This user was later blocked on February 22nd (Per consensus at ANI (discussion); violation of civility-related editing restriction) after he made his changes.
For Gurbaksh Chahal, on January 18 his reason was →Personal life: no current source
For Rubina Bajwa, on January 18 his reasons were →Personal life: noncurrent gossip, no significance indicated
I did not know just because he saw a citation of article that was not recent enough, he had the ability to remove relationship status in its entirety? Their relationship status has been reportedly quite heavily in Indian media. Was there ever an article mentioning a break up? This was clearly done not in good faith.
I was able to revert the changes for Rubina Bajwa but since I do not have EP status, I could not make the changes to his page. I have requested others to revert the changes, with no luck. I believe it is only fair to open up this page so it can be monitored and protected by the entire wikipedia community when any user makes changes that are considered disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.238.106.82 ( talk) 14:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
The only thing about this is that heralds tend to precede their main event, whereas SineBot would let the entire apocalypse happen and then follow up with something like " — Preceding unsigned death and destruction added by the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (talk • contribs)". DanCherek ( talk) 03:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
For protecting thousands of pages, for endlessly leaving comments at AN and ANI, for being valuable to a whole admin area that very few can bear to edit it, for other things. Courtesy of WikiProject Giving Users Barnstars Because They Deserve Them. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 10:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC) |
The removal of Romanian content simply because it is Romanian has no place on Wikipedia. Please revert and delete revision Special:Diff/1013415724 so viewers do not get offended.-- Frobozz1 ( talk) 19:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Hey! I just saw the text on your talk page about not accepting new requests right now, so I'm sorry if my recent ping on the Talk:Zangezur Mountains page was one of those requests that you're not open to at the moment. One of the editors in the discussion pinged me and asked for help to get admin input and so I thought I'd ping you since you dealt with a dispute concerning the involved editors previously. AntonSamuel ( talk) 14:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I was wondering what the reason was for your protecting an article here. [188] In particular, given the directly before insertion of OR, non-RS supported accusations relating to a living person, as (now) indicated here. [189] -- 2603:7000:2143:8500:245F:81DC:F4FB:745E ( talk) 23:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed the issue at ani in the past hour that resulted in a warning for outing. I just wanted to point out that on the "outee"/ reg'd account's tp is a comment that clearly and easily leads anyone to an edit by the "outee" stating that they are also a specific ip user. Why do I bring this up? First, (jtbc), I have nothing to do with that ani, any of the user's or pages involved. I just noticed it while posting at another ani just above. I was just curious if, given that you now have this disclosure info, is that warning still justified? Did user "jb" still violate wp:outing? (I don't blame you for warning them at the time as you didn't have this info then.) The only reason I ask is because if I find a similar disclosure between an ip and a reg'd account, and I then warn them about ewlo, I wouldn't want to run afoul of outing myself. Sorry about the lengthy post. Any feedback would be appreciated. Cheers - wolf 23:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Note that in locking the Rubin Carter page, you are leaving an edit which not only reverses a long standing edit that had already gained talk page consensus, but which removed the very notice of the talk page consensus, which I suspect, is the best possible outcome the vandal could have hoped for 69.116.78.233 ( talk) 23:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I thought you'd like to know it was delicious, although there was a last minute switch from the chips to mushrooms. It's a shame that you kept it off ANI but I understand. 90.209.118.28 ( talk) 00:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C -- I saw the request for an uninvolved admin to have a look at this debacle discussion and just got done reading through it all and the relevant offshoots (I think). I saw you've taken a few administrative actions, though, so I didn't want to step on your toes if you were planning to close. Seems there's consensus at least for a topic ban; less convinced a block is going to do the trick. Conversation among other editors on the article talk page about the content dispute (insofar as there is one without him) seems like it can continue. I'm happy to dive in and close it as such, or I am happy to defer to you, or I can butt out entirely, or if you think there's a better path forward, I'm all ears. Just seems to me this has taken enough of everyone's time. Best,
Go
Phightins
!
00:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello El C. Earlier in March you enforced a Post-1992 US Politic T-Ban on me for 6 months. While patrolling new pages, I accidentally tagged a non-notable article with PROD (And still should be PROD), but I didn't read in detail and Fram messaged me on my talk page. He apparently was a canadit in an election in 2020, which made my PROD notice a violation on the T-Ban. I am sorry for that. I don't want to violate the T-Ban again so I won't link the article in question (See my talk page to see message from Fram about it). I did self-revert the PROD notice on the article since it was a T-Ban violation. Can I ask for the edits to be "swept under the rug" and become hidden edits? It was an unintentional T-Ban violation and my recent edits show that, however, I know there are users that will use that to get me in trouble well after the T-Ban expires. Thanks for the help or any advice you give about this. Elijahandskip ( talk) 10:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
RandomCanadian has given you a bonbon! Bonbons promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bonbon, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Much obliged! - Cheers,
RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 23:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Huasteca, a Mexican-based user and nationalist who mainly and frequently targets El Salvador's ethnic composition and edit these pages according to his own personal racial views, yet only apply these views in the Salvadorans pages and not the Mexican demographic pages, he neglect to answer why he makes exception to all Latin American pages except for the one's relation to El Salvador. This user makes changes in the Demographics of El Salvador as well and removes sources that don't fit his personal racial agenda despite advices to find better sources rather than going into a erasing rampage. I tried to act civil with this user but he persistently keep editing Salvadoran pages with valuable information for weeks. When confronted with reliable sources he dismiss these and begins on a edit warring rampage over and over again. When Sources are presented, he erases them out of spite. This user seems to be infatuated with race in El Salvador and seems to be bent on erasing African, Indigenous and European contributions in El Salvador. Cobaltous ( talk) 02:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Commander! I won't be lenghty. What prompted me to write you is this ( [191]), but this is the premilinary ( [192]). One user still did not answer me who sent the e-emails to co-odinate against me, as well I don't know their content yet, will wait still. However it's better if more administrators have insight, I am really fed up that a novice user hounding me with a bogus campaign, I have been quite patient, however the recurrent denial of basic policies, or not understading them today already reached that point that is untenable. To prevent @ Ymblanter: of any concern, please also overview, or follow the events. Lying is a WP civility issue as well, which I graciously ignored to use against the novice user, better with extreme patience I tried to explain and enlight of the things with good faith, but had no success. Enough what is enough. If you have any questions just ask, very sad again, that instead of useful editing I have waste time on this :/. Have a nice day!( KIENGIR ( talk) 14:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC))
I've just got my answer, the user won't willing to disclose the off-wiki email sender, so as per your note, we should go to ArbCom regarding this. What should I do exactly? Thank You.( KIENGIR ( talk) 22:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC))
No one appreciates fine writing anymore. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello El C, thanks for the quick response semi'ing Ashwanth Ashokkumar. Just so you know, I think you missed revdelling three edits starting here. Again, thanks, and cheers! Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 19:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
picture of a baby squirrel. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Hey there. I see you have fully protected this article. While it does seem like there is too much of an edit war (although I am not justifying Random Haste's EW or use of unreliable sources inn the article), it is basically DE by returning socks of Fly787. Please see this. If you notice, these users have suddenly jumped into this article out of nowhere and have started citing many guidelines like WP:OR and WP:BURDEN. New users would generally (not always though) not know much of some guidelines esp something like WP:BURDEN. These socks have returned right after the recent block of one: Sayswalk. — LeoFrank Talk 18:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
[193]I watchlisted this user because they are obviously grinding an axe, so I was not the least bit surprised to see they were blocked, but surely you are aware that per WP:BLANKING they were in fact allowed to remove those comments, and also your revert did more than just restore your comments. Please be more careful. Beeblebrox ( talk) 15:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello again! I did not see the notification about you not doing protection request right now anymore on your page! So I humbly request, I would like to say indefinite semi-protected status is required for it, due to controversy we get a lot of IP's editing Sinn Féin and removing sourced content or changing the article based on there WP:POV, to straight vandalism due to the controversial nature of the page, this page has been worthy of protection for awhile now, however no admins really edit or check in on the page. You can view the history of the page and see! I am here to request "indefinite semi-protected" status for the page Sinn Féin, as upon lifting of the protection, I believe the same issue will arise again, if you can possibly do this, that would be amazing! B. M. L. Peters ( talk) 14:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello sorry for bothering you I saw you from your block on Chris O’hare page You blocked him for a week but now he is continuing his disruptive editing I provided the sources on Jacques Saadé talk page and dourved my edits Now he removed it and is threatening that he’ll report me 4353Phone ( talk) 19:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Chris intimidates Wikipedians by saying that he’ll report them. Just like he did to me multiple times, This leads some editors to avoid reverting his disruptive edits because they don’t have the time arguing for hours.
I hope restrictive actions be taken on him. 4353Phone ( talk) 23:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
[195] - Can I edit pages that are within my general areas of interest and were not visited by this user for a few weeks? Just to be extra careful, I would first post/ask something on article talk page. Whatever you might think, the discussions between this user and me were generally polite, honest and on the subject. The only action that was wrong on his part I believe was his submission of AE report. But this is now a "dead horse" territory I hope. My very best wishes ( talk) 23:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I think you wanted to be notified when the protection had elaspsed. -- JBchrch ( talk) 17:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you protected the page Axis powers, but the IP requesting protection just said there was a typo. Thanks, Cupcake547 ( talk) 17:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC).
A lot of traffic on WP:RFPP. How's that "Write 'There's a backlog at RFPP' on AN every Wednesday" bot request coming along? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C! As you are the protecting admin, Twinkle told me to come here first. I think it would be appropriate to reduce/remove the extended-confirmed protection on Dark Emu (book). Talk page discussions appear to have died down and there has been little recent disruptive editing (or editing at all). Perhaps semi-protection to keep IP vandals out, or complete unprotection. Thank you! Ganesha811 ( talk) 00:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, El C,
Just FYI but the protection you issued for this article expires April 2nd. I noticed because the BLM page had the same general protection period and it just expired.
By the way, it's a little confusing to know where the bottom of this page is to leave a message. You might use a larger header for the bottom portion that is not really part of your talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 01:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
...could you please look into this Talk page comment? You blocked the editor from Pentagon UFO videos here, and although that notice did not explicitly mention the article Talk page, the user has indirectly returned to the page with their promotion of fringe content fully intact. I suspect a broader block is needed. Thanks. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 14:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
if you were joking with the edit summary of "some nonsense about a feed store (I dunno)".... Sooooo, just in case you really didn't know - though, of course, I know admins know all about everything possible that there is to Wiki-know - but, just in case, this thread could help. Cheers, Shearonink ( talk) 16:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you recently protected the page Bayley (wrestler). I wanted to let you know that I added the template for the protection. PedigreeWWEFigz87V2 ( talk) 19:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I just wanted to let you know that EdDakhla is back (you'll never guess which article they are targetting). The IP they are using is from the same geolocation as ones they used previously (listed in the SPI). Regards. M.Bitton ( talk) 00:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
El C,
Sorry to bother you but looking to see if you can put your editor hat on and assist with potential translation issues of Maimonides at Talk:Messiah_in_Judaism. If you can not assist, can you direct me to another editor that can help?
Would have preferred not dropping this message on an admin's page as not looking to drop a hammer of doom on the well-intentioned editor (though that may happen regardless), but you were the first editor I could recall that was bilingual. Slywriter ( talk) 12:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I was recently doing a review of all the page restrictions I've placed or taken ownership of over the years, and I noticed that a majority of the pages were no longer battlegrounds and didn't require restrictions anymore. I was looking backwards a couple of months on the article history and talk page looking for major diputes, and for the most part things were pretty quiet. I've removed the BRD restrictions from about 70% of the articles that I had put them on, and the 1RR restrictions from probably 90% of pages.
I figured while I was at it I might as well try to track down the other pages with active sanctions and see if the admins who placed them might also be interested in doing a similar review. The following list might not be complete, but it's the best I could come up with by tracking usages of the American Politics AE template. (Perhaps you can compare it to whatever system you have for tracking your active sanctions.) For convenience I'll put links to the edit notice page and the talk page.
I'm hoping that removing some of these restrictions can help restore some sense of normalcy to the topic area. In any case I hope this list is helpful. ~ Awilley ( talk) 23:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Because then I get to avoid going through incremental increases in protection durations (i.e. before reaching a "perennial problem" stage), when that isn't what's called for due to AE matters. For better or worse, there are AE protection items which are difficult to put a clock on. Also, for best recordkeeping practices (related to that and beyond). Anyway, it's not a trap and it isn't my understanding that logging these AE protections, which they are, hinders other admins from up/downgrading or lifting them when that makes sense. The common practice at WP:RFPU is to ping the protecting admin, unless inactive. So, what's the issue exactly? Is there a problem? Has there been a problem? Because I have yet to encounter one. El_C 00:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
You are one of the most funniest and wholesome peoples on this site, I really like you for that :), this site deserves more people like you. Powering everyone ( talk) 08:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
"El C, no, you are not." — Ched ( talk) 01:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C,
I noticed a suspicious ip removing content re Mede - Kurdish connection (this is not about the content, but behavioral evidence)
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/46.245.43.132
Same location with the suspected ip sock of indefinitely blocked Armanqur:
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/80.191.203.92
Same location (Tabriz) and similar content removals (Kurdish-Mede connection) made me think that the blocked user who created strawman "Kurdish" role accounts ( /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Dirokakurdi) in the past (for the same Mede - Kurdish thing) probably evaded his block.
To refresh your memory: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:El_C&diff=prev&oldid=1006682889
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:El_C&diff=prev&oldid=1007284670#Stale_users
176.54.36.176 ( talk) 14:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi El_C, at the Battle of Chawinda, there is no actual edit-warring going on. All my editing has been on issues unrelated to the dispute. I had reverted the disputed content only once. The discussion is proceeding on the talk page, as it normaly should.
I would appreciate if you can unlock it, because the article is badly in need of fixing various things. Thanks. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 11:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Can you please delete the last two edits I reverted? Seems like an egregious BLP violation to me. AeschyIus ( talk) 13:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I am trying to construe "compuets" as broadly as possible, but I'm still finding the empty set! — MarkH21 talk 15:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
After you set Radio Free Asia to protected status until the talk page discussion concluded, some uninvolved users appear to have come in and significantly altered the intro to the article. Should those be reverted until discussion concludes? I am not extended confirmed and relatively new so I apologize if this is inappropriate. Deku link ( talk) 08:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey there El C, Just wanted to let you know that I'm working on the ' Arab states of the Persian Gulf' since it's currently a hot mess. I have shared my thoughts here on why that article is in its current state and started a discussion on how to fix it to comply with Wikipedia standards. Furthermore, as it's apparent from the article history that it's a chaotic edit waring ground I sincerely believe that the vandalism is a symptom not a cause in the current state of the article. In the talk page I've discussed why the grouping list doesn't comply with WP:Notability, how the article is confusing cultural, geographical and socio-political identity. And most importantly why it doesn't adhere to WP standard especially when compared with other regional socio-political organizations articles (The EU being the best example). A Contemporary Nomad ( talk) 22:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey there @ El C! I know that you're not interested in the ' Arab states of the Persian Gulf' article or its topic. But I wanted to let you know that I've made it my current wiki-objective to fix the article and minimize the WP:Warring by addressing its core issues in a multi-part series. I have opened part one of the series in the article talk page. Developing the discussion layout on Wikipedia processes like WP:ARA and WP:DR. I know it might seem excessive for a discussion but I feel it's very necessary to reach a consensus and document the process for future talks. I've also included field research alongside a wiki history on the article. Just wanted to let you know. Thanks — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ( 💬 Talk) 03:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Can you please check this page history and block IP, thank you so much -- Mishary94 ( talk) 02:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for ending that, it was getting rather tiresome. 106.69.53.60 ( talk) 11:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
You asked IP 136.158.59.173 for reasons to delete the speed claims section and they lied to you, repeating the same lie as the sockmaster Sennen goroshi in the threads above, that the manufacturer never pushed the absurd speed claims. The argument that the article has a long history of controversy is due only to the relentless trolling by several sock puppet accounts. The bad faith demonstrated by that is reason to indef block the IP and definitely revert their last deletion instead of giving them what they wanted. — Dennis Bratland ( talk) 16:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Also how many reverts was that? They blew past the 3RR by at least three reverts, and for that reason alone the article belongs back on the stable version, not the one they edit warred to achieve. — Dennis Bratland ( talk) 16:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Please consider unlocking the Brian Gallagher article as now the disruptive and opinion based edits are locked in place. I edited to remove opinion and biased sources leaving just the AP link with all necessary background information. To leave the quoted opinion up in particular is not appropriate. Param3ter2 ( talk) 22:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Does this constitute a breach of Mzajac's topic ban?-- Ermenrich ( talk) 16:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
It is not editorializing when the article is well cited and representative of the rest of the article. Appealing to editors with the same privileges or greater to override El C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:c001:4a40:d87c:717c:a09d:1c84 ( talk • contribs)
Hi there, El_C! I'm wondering if this kind of reply [ [198]] can be considered unacceptable as part of a content dispute? I really admit it's not the most productive way to conveince the community during a wp:BRD process, especially when the same editor displays wp:NINJA in various cases. Alexikoua ( talk) 06:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Not only the diff presented by Alexikoua, but also stuff like rv get over it he was Albanian and GET OVER IT. This behavior needs to stop. Khirurg ( talk) 15:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The Venetian commander of Nauplion, Bartolomeo Minio (1479-1483), stressed that the Albanian stratioti were unreliable contrary to the Greek units which he considered loyal.I checked the source ( details) and the author wrote that
The Venetian commander of Nauplion, Bartolomeo Minio (1479-1483), didn't trust the Albanians because they created problems unlike the Greeks who were more obedient.In the notes of the same page:
Sometimes Bartholomeo Minio speaks favorably of the Albanian stratiotiAlexikoua left out some parts of the source because they didn't support the particular narrative which he put forward to the article. I consider myself too old to get frustrated about it, but I do understand without supporting it why someone who reads Alexikoua's comments about ethnic purity and then reads his edits might respond like Iaof2017.-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 17:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Bartolomeo Minio (1479-1483) stressed that the Albanian stratioti were unreliable contrary to the Greeksto
Bartolomeo Minio (1479-1483) appear to be considered less trustworthy because they caused problems to the Venetians unlike the Greeks. Shall I accuse of you of "misusing bibliography" now? Shall I SCREAM at you in ALLCAPS, because I am not "too old"? Interpretation of bibliography is subjective. SCREAMING in ALLCAPS is not. Ant it will stop, either the good way, or the hard way. Khirurg ( talk) 18:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Sometimes Bartholomeo Minio speaks favorably of the Albanian stratiotiin order to keep only a very specific part of the source. Is that a
faithful rendition? Side comment: The authors writes
Bartolomeo Minio (1479-1483), didn't trust the Albanians because they created problems unlike the Greeks who were more obedient.and I cited it as
considered less trustworthy...
Some families intermarried with each other, while other times disputes erupted as in 1525 when both Greeks and Albanians asked to served only under the leadership of their own commanders.In the reports of the Venetian commander of Nauplion, Bartolomeo Minio (1479-1483) appear to be considered less trustworthy because they caused problems to the Venetians unlike the Greeks.I forgot to add "they" to make it correct in English, but I didn't leave out any part of the narrative of the source. You're comparing a grammar mistake with a radical division between the source and the edits. Alexikoua kept only the part about negative attitudes towards Albanians and didn't write anything about the positive part which created a more nuanced narrative. Alexikoua used the source to reproduce specific narratives about attitudes towards Albanians. And you think that the real problem has to do with Iaof2017's replies - an Albanian who has read many times the same use of bibliography and narratives by Alexikoua. I don't support strong verbal reactions because they won't change Alexikoua's editing, but I understand the source of their frustration. -- Maleschreiber ( talk) 19:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
ALL CAPS and enlarged fonts may be considered shouting and are rarely appropriate. Bolding may be used to highlight key words or phrases but should be used judiciously. Italics are often used for emphasis or clarity but should be avoided for long passages. Do not do that again. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 18:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
If you think I made a threat, report it. Threats should not tolarated or ignored. The same kind of warning I made above is made by you every now and then in content disputes against editors who disagree with you. If you do not like that, then do not do it to others. I am again asking you to not use allcaps when discussing with me. I see it as shouting and indeed it is. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 19:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
This is the second most tragic thing to happen in my life... El_C 18:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
It would appear as though the message of the AN/I thread has fallen upon deaf ears... DÅRTHBØTTØ ( T• C) 17:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The section I added has been removed: [211]. What shall I do? Am I allowed to edit this page? Am I allowed to add at David Ben Gurion that he ate pork? Chesdovi ( talk) 21:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello sir, one of my new section on Sasha Banks article was removed by an extended confirm user [213]. There was nothing problem with the section. I also included reliable sources. You can see Becky Lynch also have similar section, Charlotte Flair's article also have similar section. I don't think there's any problem with the section. If they think grammar is problem they should correct it without removing entire section. I request you to re add the section. Thank you Rtyggu ( talk) 12:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Another editor accuses me of violating my topic ban at wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#B.Lukashyk and POV. I don’t believe I have written about the topic there by linking to diffs of their statements about another editor. Please give your opinion. Thanks. — Michael Z. 13:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello El C. I have say thank you for protected this article for 6 months because of high level of IP vandalism in State v. Chauvin. But, you must think again, you protected the article under WP:ARBAP2 sanctions, but in the talk page, the article is under WP:ARBBLP sanctions, so you arbitration enforcement log placement is wrong because the article contains about Biographics of living persons, whenever is alive or dead, and the article is prone to violations of BLP policy by adding cause of death, gender, etc. So, you should re-log the article again under BLP DS. I hope you can read the message. Thank you. 36.77.95.2 ( talk) 03:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I'm writing to you as you have advised that a single disruptive user is not a sufficient reason for page protection. The vandalism continues, so what would be the right way to stop it? Alaexis ¿question? 05:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
they hit EC. TAXIDICAE💰 14:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Shalom! The title of the articles you protected is less important, but the fabrication in the content is important. User:Maudslay II's edits are introducing a fabrication in this article that sources do no support:
[217], says Israel planted a bomb. But the Washington Post used as a source says this is a claim by Shiite leaders, while Israel denies this and cites an internal Shiite rivalry.
[218], places responsibility on Israel as a fact. But Washington Post and New York Times do not say this. This also describes this as Category:Zionist terrorism, which is inappropriate.
[219], this too describes this as part of Template:Israel massacres in Lebanon. But all the reliable sources are Shiites say this, Israel says that.
-- Geshem Bracha ( talk) 15:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi El_C, can you renew the protection on Chairman of the State Administration Council? ― Tartan357 Talk 19:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Can you renew the protection on Commander-in-Chief of Defence Services? ― Tartan357 Talk 16:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Hey El C,
Can you renew the semi-protection on
Myint Swe? There was some IP vandalism after the last protection expired. Thanks. ―
Tartan357
Talk
06:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I really do not want to engage into an edit war with the Belarusians, therefore I suggest to lock the article of Pahonia once again as they persistently inserts information unrelated with Lithuania into the section "Grand Duchy of Lithuania" (e.g. Muscovian/Russian seals of Alexander Nevsky, Dmitry Donskoy) and this way starts an edit war. See these edits: one, two, three. There are absolutely no doubts that they are purposefully pushing propaganda when they mix the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Grand Duchy of Moscow, and Novgorod Republic in a "Grand Duchy of Lithuania" section of an article about the coat of arms of Lithuania. These three massive states were not related with each other (they almost constantly were enemies, rivals) and term Pahonia is exclusively associated with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Saint George (widely used among the Ruthenians, Muscovians) is not related with Pahonia as Pahonia developed independently in Lithuania from a soldier/knight and evolved into a horse rider. -- Pofka ( talk) 19:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Pofka, my talk page isn't a noticeboard, but you're treating it as if it is. I don't like that. El_C 14:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey El C. Hope, you are keeping well.? This title is salted. Can you unprotect to allow promotion of draft into mainspace? Draft:Smile Foundation is well cited. I have checked it for notability. It should be moved to mainspace after some minor copy-editing. -- Gazal world ( talk) 17:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, got confused by a different IP, thanks for blocking! Giant Snowman 17:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Back on 2020-06-02, you blocked Seguro64 from Killing of George Floyd and George Floyd protests. The first page has now moved to Murder of George Floyd. A few days after that partial block, George Floyd was created. This user has apparently been causing a bit of disruption on Talk:George Floyd. A quick look shows it's exactly the same sort of disruption as lead to the original block, but I'll note your block wasn't on the associated talk pages. That user has also blanked the notice to you, as is their right (though... it's a bit untoward), here. At this time, I'm tempted to simply leave things be. What are your thoughts? -- Yamla ( talk) 21:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi El_C, I wonder if I can get your help controlling an edit warrior ( current talk page, archive). He has edit-warred over practically everything ever since he came on the scene. The latest dispute is at Talk:Anglo-Manipur War#Background section, where again he reinstated the problematic content twice without changing anyting. He also gives me edit warring notices, probably copying the text of my own notices.
The problems of Manipur (princely state) are quite complicated. They can't be sorted out by somebody trying to bulldoze their way through them. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Chipmunkdavis does not read. Clearly, he was left told that the changes were endorsed by an administrator and came back with his message-excuse that he has as now like a tool, of "Rv [[wp:sandwiching image]]", "per very recent", "per "previous". User seems to have a serious problem with the issue of colonization of the Philippines (considering that it is the vast majority of the history of that country). -- Pedro158 ( talk) 18:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, tifinagh is berber alphabet, so why it's always deleted, i brought sources (many of its from berber academy) to prove this. Spectatorfrom ( talk) 22:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, tifinagh is berber alphabet, so why deleted it ? It's counter productive and i did nothing wrong, Spectatorfrom ( talk) 10:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
El C, after the 2020 United States presidential election page was unprotected, there are four instance of IP vandalism where they adding unsourced content regarding election count. Because it is one of most controversial election in history, please El C, please protect this page. Thank you. 114.125.60.96 ( talk) 00:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
El C please re-add the Semi protection to article of Al-Qaeda as I have reminded you regarding same. AadyaSingh10 ( talk) 08:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, which arbitration enforcement lead to the indefinite protection of 2007 Formula One World Championship? I've looked at every one and none point to needing to protect this article (and leave 2008 Formula One World Championship, etc unprotected). Further, I don't see much abuse in the history that would require any form of protection. Cheers, Anarchyte ( talk • work) 07:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C, due to your administrative activity in this area, combined with a lack of involvement in the specific case, you may be interested in closing the ANI discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal:_Extended-confirmed_protect_Talk:COVID-19_misinformation_indefinitely. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 05:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at it. I think the reason that many editors supported ECP of the talk page is that disruption is coming from off-site - at least Twitter and likely people coordinating on other sites and/or in real life with each other to disrupt the page. These people know the "10-4" rule for semi-protection, and while I'm sure they know the 500-30 rule, the disruptive accounts have basically all been over the 10-4 but below the 500-30. Furthermore, it's much easier for someone to remember to come back and disrupt after making 10 minor edits on one day, then being able to edit 4 days later than to remember 30 days later and make 500 unproblematic edits. You're right that this wasn't very well articulated by any of us so I don't really have a fault with the close. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 13:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey, El C. Hope you're well! Could you semi-protect Prizren Fortress? It has received much IP attention lately.-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 19:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Since this case is clear cut, I thought of bringing it here instead of opening a full-fledged AE report.
User:Jasksingh has been disruptive from the get-go and has been also blocked for sockpuppetry. He continues to make disruptive edits too often. The most recent examples are here:
Unless a 0RR restriction or a topic ban can be added, I don't see any chances of him making any improvement given his own talk page is full of unheeded warnings. Azuredivay ( talk) 04:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Not content with IP hopping to disrupt the project (sourced content removal and WP:OR addition), 94.79.208.142/16 (who also uses 109.161.162.190/16) is now resorting to personal attacks. Could you please have a look at this? Thanks. M.Bitton ( talk) 14:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Apparently the ping didn't get through so trying like this. Discussion at Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#Talk:Wikipedia. Cheers, RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 15:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Be back soon! In the meantime, enjoy new Guy Mazig track: Gone Dancing! El_C 00:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello El C! I recently blocked the above-named editor, as well as 9 other accounts, on the Simple English Wikipedia for sockpuppetry and abuse. Noticing that you have blocked this account as an LTA, it seems pertinent to inform you that some of the accounts I've blocked on simplewiki have edits here as well:
I am unfortunately unfamiliar with this LTA; is there a LTA page on this project I could look at, or a common name of the sockmaster? Best, Vermont ( talk) 22:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Are these sources not RS and correct to remove? Thanks OyMosby ( talk) 15:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello El C. I am Ken. I would like to request you for the restoration of the article Guruvayur Padmanabhan, which was deleted by you under the G5 criterion. This article was kept at AfD, and is about one of the historical elephant from Kerala. This article passes every notability criteria. So, I am ready to take full responsibility of the article, and hereby request for a restoration. Thank you. ( Deletion Log) Ken Tony Shall we discuss? 18:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
There is a RfC Rfc here on the talk page of List of Military Disasters. This has been going on for months and the arguing is getting less and less productive with all editors sticking strongly to their views. There appears to be canvasing as well given odd bursts of votes at times. I would ask @ Peacemaker67: as this area of military history is his specialty but he is an involved admin in the RfC. Would you be able to step in as here you can see the civility is taking a turn for the worst. If you are unable to, is there anyone you would recommend? I made an attempt to reach out to the user who initiated the RfC and was met with the usual nonsense insults. I tried. Thanks, OyMosby ( talk) 11:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
So I would like to offer a few reasons to why I am appealing the t-ban.
Since my tban being imposed, I have done around 700 edits, and to have really only 1 'unconstructive' violation edit, I would say that is good evidence to show that I have changed. I am sorry for the problems and multiple discussions I caused on Wikipedia and I promise to not even think about creating US politics articles. In all reality, I am more of appealing the ban to be able to edit articles that I can improve and not cause disruption. In theory, I cannot edit majority of weather articles and even articles I started all because a politician did something like declared a state of emergency. I love editing weather articles...I even get pinged for weather discussions/!votes [229] and I started Tornado outbreak sequence of March 24–28, 2021 post tban. But because of Governors doing things like states of emergency's, those articles are now off limits to me. I don't want to cause problems in the realm of US politics, but honestly, the tban is extremely sad for me, knowing I am able to create articles, then a few edits later, not be able to edit the articles I want to edit due to a 100% uncontroversial thing like a state of emergency being declared.
In closing, as I have said already, I promise to not cause any disruptive edits in terms of post 1992 US politics on Wikipedia and I only want to help improve Wikipedia for the better. Thank you for reading and considering my appeal.
Looks like Ronildarius ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should have List of laser applications added to the page blocks you placed. - MrOllie ( talk) 12:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
There is a serious problem brewing on Emmanuel Mormoris (assuming you're an administrator). Ultranationalists are trying to "conquer" the page (see 1, 2, 3) and plan on using their "sock card" to lock out newcomers and "exterminate" opposition to their control. 173.54.31.24 ( talk) 00:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
User talk:Bruhsmillah. Left a message for you (in case ping does not go through)
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs)
14:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I happened upon your edit summary ( [230]) that you wanted a reminder after a month. Ding ding🔔! ◢ Ganbaruby! ( talk) 15:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, This edit may be relevant to your warning. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 13:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
It still bothers me that it bothered you, so by way of explanation, I quote
Illeism#In everyday speech: Illeism in everyday speech can have a variety of intentions depending on context ... third person self-referral can be associated with
self-irony and not taking oneself too
seriously (since the excessive use of pronoun "I" is often seen as a sign of
narcissism and
egocentrism), as well as with
eccentricity in general. Psychological studies show that thinking and speaking of oneself in the third person increases
wisdom and has a positive effect on one's mental state because an individual who does so is more
intellectually humble, more capable of
empathy and understanding the perspectives of others, and is able to distance emotionally from one's own problems.
Levivich hopes El C comes around to the third person :-D
Levivich
harass/
hound
05:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C, I also support an ArbCom Case on the general Kurdish issue. Could you look at User:Paradise Chronicle/ArbComCase and tell me what you think? I'll file a case right away, if you approve it. I opened the page upon advice of Levivich. As to my count, it has 440 words so far. I'll add some more diffs if requested, but they can also be provided during the discussion. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 00:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Could you please take a look at
this. This user has some strong feelings about Brazil and they think that WP is a good place to express that. They've written things like "brazil sucks" and "brazil stinks". Thank you. -
Daveout
(talk)
02:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Throughout the two months of discussion at the bantustans article, I have suspected a particular editor of being a sockpuppet of a well known banned user. I think I now have enough evidence to go to SPI, but the editor is the same one who opened the AE and I feel it would look like an inappropriate motivation. And to be honest there is obviously some related motivation. We see suspected socks all the time, but I rarely bother to do anything because it is a huge amount of effort to build a case and I would rather spend time elsewhere. So I am a bit torn and would appreciate any sage advice. Onceinawhile ( talk) 12:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C, thanks again for the below. Now that this all seems to have settled, are you happy for me to submit the SPI? Onceinawhile ( talk) 17:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Neutral and non-racist, as to opposed the current name— to which you responded with:
I consider that an unacceptable attack. Please retract it or explain yourself( diff). Now, my read of that exchange is that they do not actually owe you an explanation, because how is that even an attack (not to mention an "unacceptable" one)? They are allowed to advance the viewpoint that the current title is racist. While I struggle to see how it is racist (at least in the classical sense of the word), that is not a comment on your person to be construed as an attack. They may be in error (in thinking that it's racist), you may be in error (in thinking that it isn't), but either way, holding those competing views is allowed. See, there's a difference between saying "you are a racist" or "you are being racist," or even "you possess some (any) racist views." [You'd be like "no, I'm an anti-racist!"] But it's another thing entirely to say (by implication): "as a construct, the position you hold has the (inadvertent) effect of being racist." Maybe at first glance, it seems like a minor distinction, but they're actually worlds apart. One attacks the person, while the other attacks the idea. El_C 10:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C, sorry to keep going here but I am conscious of
this late comment; should you wish to act on it please could I respond to it formally at the AE (I am currently over my limit)
[1]? It misrepresents the discussion, and the steam has run out of the thread so I doubt others will reply now. Of the 53 editors who commented at the article, many were drive-by comments who did not follow up and brought no sources; the alleging editor themself made 56 comments
[2]
[3] but only in their final comment on 8 Jan
[4], two days after the start of this AE, did they refer to source material. The RfC and RM that I started were done so thoughtfully and neutrally, made an effort to encourage discussion by painstakingly pinging everyone both times, and successfully allowed us to reach an emerging consensus, unlike the prior discussions. The editor admits this (removing the negative framing): Onceinawhile started the... RFC... which... had a clear result... and then they closed that RFC themselves and started the RM, which again has a clear result
. Re my use of the done template, I in fact wrote proper explanations for each tick, to which, still a month later, the user has chosen not to respond in any constructive manner. If you look at my comments you will not see a single sentiment of anything close to
WP:OWN; I have been here far too long to misunderstand how consensus works. The overall difference of opinion on talk page style between me and this other editor is described neatly in
WP:ALLARGUMENTS.
Onceinawhile (
talk)
08:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points. This confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent.Finally, I realize you've hit the word limit at AE, but I suppose you could ask for a word extension of reasonable length (for my part, I have no immediate objections). Anyway, I hope it all works out okay. Best wishes, El_C 13:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Statement_by_Objective3000_2. I'm really sorry to do that. I hate escalating stuff, but it has apparently caused Objective3000 to retire, and the more I look at it the more I think it's really unfair to someone whose only intention was to help resolve the problem. ~ Awilley ( talk) 02:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I did two reverts, not "more than three". I'd like to know where you see a vio, please. Note that 1RR is suspended there. ― Mandruss ☎ 03:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period.
in effect acknowledged that 1RR was in effect? One of us is seriously confused here. ― Mandruss ☎ 04:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't see how any such suspension can be seen to be in effect- Then you may follow either the wikilink that I provided in the AE complaint, or the identical one that I provided near the bottom of this subsection. Or you could just have a higher level of awareness of what's going on at an article where you propose to issue logged warnings. ― Mandruss ☎ 04:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
The edit restriction is clear: one revert per editor per 24 hours.Where do you see that? ― Mandruss ☎ 04:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
"each editor can only revert the same content once per 24 hours"where is that written? PackMecEng ( talk) 04:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Since this page has been unaltered for months, can you please remove the unlock for this page as it's been over a year since you placed this lock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.238.106.82 ( talk) 04:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to let you know that the global lock request for me and two other editors has been closed (section was removed) and dismissed. I will be going back to my normal edits of interest (with more caution of course). Thanks EdDakhla 16:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Update: for the record, EdDakhla's indef has been reinstated and I also learned something new about global locks. El_C 22:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
SPECIFICO's NPA vio has been on the page at ARCA for 28 hours. I posted a request to strike 27 hours ago at ARCA, including a ping, and posted another request to strike 21 hours ago at his UTP. He has neither stricken nor even responded to my requests despite having edited four times after the first request. Can you please strike the accusation? If so, perhaps we can avoid the need to pursue a sanction for his bad faith behavior. Thank you. ― Mandruss ☎ 22:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Honestly, I wouldn't really stress over it being displayed for a day or two if I were you. That's unlikely to have a lasting impact.If you say so. If the ARCA request is closed before the unsubstantiated accusation is stricken, thereby enshrining it in the permanent record, may I be more "stressed" then? ― Mandruss ☎ 10:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Good Lord, what madness rules in brainsick men
When for so slight and frivolous a cause
Such factious emulations shall arise
Dubingiai massacre, Pawłokoma massacre, Sahryń massacre. All related to a recently created category that is likley controversy-prone, already got a brand new SPA here too: [11]. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
long-term IP disruption, more users expressed as well in the talk not having consensus for the edits pushed. Since almost 1,5 half months, but recently very extensively: ( [12]), ( [13]), ( [14]), ( [15]), ( [16]), ( [17]), ( [18]), ( [19]), with impossible edit logs. Already blocked recently for this (10 days ago), but no change. Unfortunately fails WP:LISTEN, extensively, please handle it. Thank You( KIENGIR ( talk) 11:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC))
Hey, can I ask for closure of a discussion which is listed at the AN but receives no feedback from the admins? -- Mhhossein talk 12:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry everyone above, I'm halfway out the door, but I'm hoping to be able to get to your requests later in the day. But before I go, I believe there's some urgency in me responding to the criticism with the manner in which I conducted myself in the discussion I link to above.
I'll preface by saying that, I suppose, when one is pissed, there is a tendency not to bother reading anything too closely (
Floquenbeam,
Bishonen). And that seems as good a time as any to highlight (which to say, self-aggrandize) my lengthy
email excerpts post (see, I can use boldface, too!), with thanks to
Guy Macon and
Valjean who did actually read it and even liked it!
Where to begin? First, Floquenbeam's assertion that I threatened to block anyone who criticizes [
Atsme's ] bad faith debating techniques
, is just plainly untrue. A substantive argument against someone's reliance on misleading debating techniques is absolutely allowed. Would I prefer for good faith to still be presumed in that instance? Of course. But, if one feels all evidence is to the contrary about it not being expressed in good faith, I believe that they are absolutely allowed to say that, too. Maybe some will view it as a somewhat subtle distinction, but to me, that's a world of difference from engaging in personal attacks outright. It is even different from an aspersion, since presumably, such an argument substantiates its bad faith claims. In short, sad, but one has to do what they must.
And look, I realize all of this is easier to grasp intellectually than it is to apply in practice, but my position is that, on the project, if one (say, MastCell) deems another editor's (say, Atsme) words to be, well, just so terrible that the immediate impulse is to insult them (and I mean in an especially hurtful way), that actually does the opposite of helping anything (well, beyond whatever immediate emotional satisfaction is derived from that). Because, if the offending statements really are that terrible, then efforts to ban or block the offending editor may as well commence (dispassionately), and/or the offending comments may as well be redacted and expunged from the record.
Above,
Objective3000 bemoans how one of the five pillars,
WP:5P4, is long lost
, to which I respond with here's hoping there's a light at the end of that tunnel
. I still have faith that, ultimately, light will peer through the dark clouds. How could I go on otherwise? Not sure what else I can say or do at this point except to make an emphatic plea that appeals to everyone's better nature. So, to that: please treat each other with kindness, even and especially against all odds. A friendly gesture, even when it offers a potent critique, will almost always produce a better outcome than a response that is driven by anger and therefore expressed with venom.
Much love, everyone! El_C 18:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
"SEDITION!" El_C 01:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
"SEASONS OF TRUMP" El_C 15:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
"Hammer of God!" El_C 22:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
"PUMPKIN POPSUMS!" El_C 13:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
If Onceinawhile's many offensive Holocaust comparisons and personal attacks against more than 5 editors (in the original report) are not sufficient, they are continuing their battleground conduct while this request is open and in parallel with their conciliatory discussions with you on user talk:
Onceinawhile did not apologise for calling editors who disagree with him racist. Onceinawhile did not apologise for making offensive Holocaust comparisons. 11Fox11 ( talk) 05:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C, I hope this message finds you well. The Wikipedia:Good article nominations currently has a disambiguation link at the "You can help" in the backlog section – this should almost certainly go to Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions#Reviewing though I have no idea how to access whatever template/subpage this backlog notice is in. Got no response on the GAN talk page, was hoping you could help. Best - Aza24 ( talk) 05:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Hello, El C! You are receiving this barnstar because, according to
this database query, you were the #5 most thanked Wikipedian of 2020, with 1667 entries in
Special:Log/thanks! Thank you again for your contributions!
![]() |
BTW, since we're all gathered here, anyway,
Gerda, allow to present the first 2nd music video spam of the new year:
Everything's better with a cat or two!
El_C
19:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
colours.Indeed, so nice — listening. El_C 17:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Gerda, at the risk of repetition: everything's better with a cat, still! El_C 17:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for help with the Jerome Kohl article, and your flowers that made me blush and cry a bit, because ... he is remembered in friendship - more on my talk -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
But in this case my opinion is that you were thoughtful and well considered here [ [20]]. I honestly feel like that was a very thorny issue and it could have been very easy for someone to leave that feeling like the closer picked a side or didn't listen to either side. I think you showed a degree of consideration of all views which allowed all to feel they were heard even if they didn't get the overall outcome they may have wanted. It's a degree of care that more should exercise these days. Even those who are "wrong" may have some level of legitimate grievance and it helps a great deal when they know that their grievance has been understood. But, as the heading says, this is just my opinion. Someone around here will think I'm wrong. :) Springee ( talk) 14:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
The Amendment request, Amendment request: Warning of Objective3000, has been closed and archived. A permalink to the now closed amendment request can be viewed here.
For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Revolving Personality Construct is back at it again. He just deleted all sourced materials from the last edit, including references from multiple sources.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Chengdu_J-20&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Shenyang_WS-10&action=history
I am not an auto confirmed user and can not revert his vandal. Could you please help.
By the way, he even removed the semi protection you added.
-- 2601:152:4400:5580:4851:5FDA:F8C5:9A5D ( talk) 23:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Greetings, thanks for your feedback on my request for enforcement. As you pointed out, I modified the formatting, but I did so because I'm not complaining about a particular user. I made as minimal changes to the formatting as possible, just taking out any parts that referred to a complaint about another user. Does that satisfy? If not, how would you recommend proceeding. Benevolent human ( talk) 02:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Seems, after a long break Vnkd have made a comeback. He erased the last warning and launched accusations on me. Mr.User200 ( talk) 03:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C, I don't know if these edits: [21] cross the line or not, but it seems like they're really pushing it. They were made right in the middle of the discussion you were having at User talk:Reinhearted#Notice about prohibited WP:ARBPIA editing. I can't tell exactly what the purpose of them is, but it sure looks like they want to establish that kebabs are exclusively an Arab food in origin (see also e.g. [22]), and that somehow Jews stole them... Reinhearted seems somewhat fixated on that general idea. -- IamNotU ( talk) 17:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Erm, also that: [23]. -- IamNotU ( talk) 17:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
not of Israeli originaddition: that edit seems both accurate as well an unrelated to ARBPIA in any meaningful way. El_C 19:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
not of Israeli originedit is accurate, I guess it seems like they're dancing on the edge of the volcano. I suppose that's allowed. I also agree that ARBPIA has been handled pretty well, but I do find it a bit difficult to judge, being mainly involved via food articles, what's under it and what isn't. For example, there's an edit notice on hummus, that says the article is under 1RR/500/30. But autoconfirmed users can edit it (which is ok with me). So is it? Can I make another revert there today, that's nothing to do with Israel? Same with za'atar, though the notice looks different, and falafel has another slightly different one that talks about a portion of the article, but there's no indication which. It seems like everyone just ignores these. When you tell people they can't edit about (or engage in) Arab-Israeli disputes over food, they tend not to believe it, as happened with both the editors who got warnings yesterday. -- IamNotU ( talk) 22:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
yes, those pages are subject to 1RR, always, do you mean the whole page is subject to it, or just the related content? The edit notice on hummus seems to indicate that it's the entire page, as though it's a "primary article", while the one on falafel says only a portion has related content. My take has been that hummus isn't a primary article, but just has an outdated template, and should instead have the same one as falafel. In other words, users with less than 500 edits aren't prohibited from editing hummus, and we don't have to stick to 1RR, as long as the edits or reverts aren't conflict-related. Is that about right? What would be the procedure to get an edit notice updated? Make an edit request on the article's talk page? It seems like not a great idea to have an edit notice telling people they're not allowed to edit when they actually should be, and people becoming accustomed to just ignoring those edit notices. PS, regardless of all that, it looks to me like Reinhearted has taken a dive into the volcano: [24]. -- IamNotU ( talk) 21:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the edit notices. So it looks like Reinhearted remains unclear on the concept of ARBPIA after the block expired; their first action after complaining about harassment by you was to edit the same sentence they were blocked for: [27]. I dunno. I thought about trying to explain it to them, but am doubtful that they're open to hearing it... -- IamNotU ( talk) 00:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi El_C. I made another comment at AE, but when I hit submit, I saw that you had just closed the request. Can you please take a look at it? ― Tartan357 Talk 20:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for collapsing the RfD thread. Unfortunately, AnonQuixote has continued to insist I've made personal attacks, adding a comment in the collapsed section. I don't wish to comment there further. ― Tartan357 Talk 03:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, can I ask why you reverted this diff? I think Tartan357 made a valid point which is now in the collapsed discussion. If you prefer I can reword the comment to not mention the other user, but just state it as a potential counterargument to my prior comment. AnonQuixote ( talk) 07:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to make you aware of an RFC I started so it's not misconstrued an attempt to get around the BLP/N consensus -- this is about the wording used on Wikipedia (as opposed to previous discussions about linking). RFC is here: Talk:Sedition § RFC - Can Wikipedia state that Trump was impeached for sedition? AnonQuixote ( talk) 09:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I think retroactively changing your decision in order to silence me would be a clear abuse of your position as an administrator. However, I really don't want to antagonize you or turn this into a slap fight that I'm certain to lose, since you have all the power and I have just my words. Allow me to clarify further why I think the RfC should be reinstated.
Thinking about how the BLP/N discussion went, I believe that the problem was that the question I wanted to ask was not the question that was discussed and resolved. In reality, before asking "Should we link from 'incitement of insurrection' to Sedition?", I think we should have established a clear consensus on the question "Can Wikipedia explicitly state that Trump was impeached for sedition?"
So I believe this RfC is necessary before proceeding to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. If you think aspects of the RfC should be changed on procedural grounds (like which article it belongs on), let's discuss that. However, I do not think it is fair to completely shut down the RfC as this effectively makes it impossible to challenge the BLP/N decision, while leaving the central point of contention (the question asked by the RfC) unresolved. Respectfully, AnonQuixote ( talk) 10:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
User_talk:Tartan357#Apology. El_C 17:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'd like to notify you about Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_AnonQuixote. AnonQuixote ( talk) 01:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
And wow I'm so sorry you get that kind of treatment. ~Gwennie🐈⦅ 💬 📋⦆ 04:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Not wanting to edit a closed discussion there, but I can't help but notice his comment from the diffs linked there: If my edits were so bad, I would have been blocked already
. You'd think people would know better than to goad the universe, but... -
The Bushranger
One ping only
19:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello El C, The IP you blocked for two years as 86.9.95.201 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is block evading, as 86.8.101.221 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) by inserting the usual unsourced changes to BBC and other TV pages. They are still operating from the same Bath area of the UK and seem to take no notice of previous warnings and blocks. Regards, David, David J Johnson ( talk) 20:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey El C. I noticed that Talk:Joe Biden has an FAQ banner that appears when you are editing. I don't know how this works but was wondering if you could make the FAQs at Talk:Elon Musk do the same thing. I didn't really know who to ask about this. Thanks! ~ HAL 333 00:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
Michael Flynn is under "consensus required" restriction. The page sanction was originally applied by Coffee to Michael T. Flynn, but it seems that, after a page move, you added an edit notice that matches the current title. I'm assuming that makes you the enforcing administrator.
I would ask you to either enforce the "consensus required" sanction or – if possible – remove the sanction altogether because it is just a pain in the ass.
Here's a recent example (all edits involve the same content):
I think that NorthBySouthBaranof is the only editor who was specifically aware of discretionary sanctions (per DS alert) and hence the only one who can be sanctioned for the violation. I tried to send DS alerts to everyone involved who was not already aware. In their last revert NorthBySouthBaranof also used rollback.
I will make one revert and then go offline. Have fun untangling this mess! Politrukki ( talk) 01:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
the enforcing administrator(italics is my emphasis), but I assure that this isn't actually a thing on the project. Anyway, not sure how an edit I made in 2017 is pertinent to anything. I am not familiar with the editing history of this article, nor to be honest, am I that interested to investigate it further at this time. If you wish to see a sanction lifted or modified, the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard is at your disposal. El_C 01:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
It could be argued that as an administrator who created the edit notice (an action that did not reverse previous AE action out of process) you placed a sanction, thus becoming the enforcing administrator. But perhaps it would be more reasonable to say that adding an edit notice was clerical in nature – similar to labelling a sanction – and hence you were not "placing a sanction". The latter interpretation would be obvious had you moved the notice page rather than creating a fork.If Coffee is still the enforcing administrator – who cannot enforce their sanctions due to being desysoped in April 2018 – it means that any administrator can unilateraly modify sanctions placed by Coffee. In which case I would prefer discussing removing the sanction with another administrator. Much of my reasoning for removing "consensus required" restriction from Flynn's bio would consist of examples of disruptive edits. I would like to focus on discussing sub-par edits, not editors. I see in my crystal ball that similar conversation at AE or AN could be easily derailed to discussion about editors. Anyway, this is just my thinking and I will not ask you, or perhaps anyone, to reconsider. Politrukki ( talk) 21:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)The enforcing administrator is the administrator who places sanctions authorised in this procedure.
have fun untangling this mess, and so on, to be quite off-putting. So, please take note. El_C 02:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
"have fun"comment. I have tried, believe me. Perhaps we are communicating at cross purposes. I simply said that as an attempt to lighten the mood. It was not meant to be taken as any kind of personal comment. Politrukki ( talk) 21:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome, Politrukki. Yeah, I get that you were trying to say 'brace yourself,' and so on in jest, but what I meant is that you presumed I was obliged to look at it, which I was not. But, no, nothing amiss about saying that otherwise. But, anyway, it isn't just because it could be seen as a clerical action or whatever, but also because an admin doesn't necessarily gets wedded to an AE sanction they impose. If another admin wishes to reverse a sanction of theirs, that's different, but in so far as the sanction itself being in effect, it isn't an obligation on the admin who imposed it. An AE sanction is recorded in the log — all admins are encouraged to enforce the sanctions recorded therein. Hope that makes sense. As for the indefinite semi, I stand by it. Of course, indefinite isn't infinite, but for the foreseeable future, I doubt I'm gonna lift it. At this moment in time, I'm just not convinced it makes sense in setting it to expire. Regards, El_C 22:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, USER El C. A question, please.
I received an alert/message that my TALK page has recently been "pp-protected". I have no idea what that means. The message about it said "stop being a nuisance" and something about IPs. I am not aware of having behaved like a nuisance to anyone! Do I need to fix something or apologize to anyone? If yes, what do I need to fix, and to whom do I need to apologize, and for what? What does being "pp-protected" mean and will it affect my ability to edit articles? Please explain in simple, non-technical language, as if you were talking to a six-year-old child. That way I MIGHT be able to understand the answer (although my sixth birthday was a long long time ago). Does it have anything to do with the fact that an unregistered weirdo has lately been leaving messages on my TALK page? Well, please advise, preferably on my TALK page.
Thank you very much, HandsomeMrToad ( talk) 10:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
stop being a nuisance, IPs( diff, diff), which I thought was pretty clearly addressed to them.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Anyway, certainly, if you want the semiprotrection to be lifted (or extended, for that matter), that's easy enough to do. Whatever works for you. Let me know. El_C 15:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I see you closed my ANI about accusations of sockpuppetry by britishfinance and alexbrn.
Why am I being warned about "unsubstantiated reports"? The ANI was hijacked by the whole 'lab leak' discussion as I was cocerned about and warned about. The original complaint stands and is substantiated by their own words in making this accusation.
I have been accused of sockpuppeting multiple times now for no reason on pages with sanctions. No action is being taken? This line of reasoning can be applied in the future to discredit accounts that any editor disgrees with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinglelingy ( talk • contribs) 22:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Wow, that is a lot of text. Also, those are not diffs (again, see
WP:DIFF). More below.
El_C
23:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
|
---|
It was clear until the page was hijacked under pretense of wp:boomerang and I could have made it more clear if any admin needed clarification or better links/diffs/whatever. What did I do wrong? My account reputation was unfairly and inaccurately smeared in talk discussion on sanctioned pages. The procedure for sockpuppet accusations was not followed and the smear continued on my ANI. This is wrong. Dinglelingy ( talk) 23:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "huh Dinglelingy, that's an odd response. Are you ScrupulousScribe (now blocked)? Alexbrn (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)"
"Your link to an obvious conspiracy theory website shows that NinjaRobotPirate's earlier concern at your unblock request that you should be topic banned is well-founded. I am concerned that if NinjaRobotPirate checks Dinglelingy, who has been pushing the same material on Wuhan Institute of Virology, that more substantive action may be appropriate. You now have consumed large amounts of editing time constantly pushing theories regarding COVID lab leaks on Wikipedia (i.e. WP:NOTHERE territory). Britishfinance (talk) 12:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)"
3.) /info/en/?search=Talk:Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology#break "Yes indeed. The problem here is that we seem to have some WP:PROFRINGE types, and possible socks,[13] who have a POV and are casting around to try to find sources to support that POV, rather than more disinterestedly looking for good sources as an initial step. Alexbrn (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)"
|
conducive to 'spirited debate', I said it was
within the bounds of a spirited debate(italics is my emphasis). Sometime, one just has to quote. El_C 01:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I meant that they might not have understood the particular sensitivity, rollback use being something that was brought up in the case. I agree with you that it would have been unnecessary regardless of any specifics; it seems to be something they think needs doing when a user dies - an odd area to decide to gnome in, but presumably they thought the were being helpful. GirthSummit (blether) 12:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi. A "new editor" (IP) with a familiar interest for maps is POV pushing and edit warring on Outline of Morocco. Will it be possible for you to have a look? Thanks. M.Bitton ( talk) 16:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
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/Kurds and Kurdistan. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 5, 2021, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/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 16:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Admin. attention will be needed at this sensitive article Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians. Sourced material is removed without any good explanation. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards.lol Ktrimi991 ( talk) 17:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
But why? Do you see what is going on in recent months? There is a rising trend of hatred towards the editors who were labeled as pro-Serbian, simultaneous pressure to change many articles, but also long-term abuse, disclosure of personal information, off-wiki harassment, threats... I have the impression that a group of editors is constantly following me. They always appear in articles with a similar topic, unconditionally supporting each other. This time, three editors came to the article after me even though they had never contributed or participated in the discussion before. Where did they come from in that article at that very moment? And again with identical changes and arguments. It happens literally day by day. Furthermore, I've noticed a strange form of WP:HOUNDING, which included some kind of “countermoves”. More precisely, similar changes to the articles that the user seems to have perceived as a kind of parallel events. I’ve even seen editors literally copy my sentences, just enter other personalities or states.
Many times, I was labeled both as a neoliberal anti-Serbian editor and as a Serbian nationalist POV pusher and propagandist. Has any of the admins ever reacted? Maleschreiber has already put a target on my back here, but it is easy to check what kind of labels he put on me. I just don't want to be a plaintiff. I'm always preferred dialogue. In every Balkan topic, several editors have been labeled as Serbian ultranationalists, are accused of canvassing, etc. Has any of the admins ever reacted? I have personally reported about five times for various forms of harassment (some example: [31] [32] [33]), but without any response. Sometimes, I don't feel safe here, especially since the admins on Balkan topics show less and less impartiality and timeliness. However, I wrote the most negative and critical articles about politics and leaders in Serbia. Apparently, many editors who were labeled as pro-Serbian were the subject of a smear campaign, even banned, while others were forgiven for 10 times more serious violations. There is eve evidence that certain editors use racist and genocide-inspired hypotheses as arguments and sources, and nothing happened. Even this time, Ktrimi991 reverted the page three times, and that version is protected and locked, not the one that contained well-sourced content.
So please, don't turn a blind eye to what is happening. I'm always in the mood for discussion and cooperation. I have changed my own contributions a million times, while on the other hand I only face putting tags and giving up any conversation. I apologize for the inconvenience. Thank you.-- WEBDuB ( talk) 19:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't matterwith
Kind regards, but it is what it is, I suppose. El_C 19:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
there is no reason to dispute it, but you are not justified in repeatedly acting (as in edit warring) upon this sort of premise in a way that is contrary to the spirit of WP:ONUS. I could always use WP:ACDS to force ONUS on repeat offenders by imposing Consensus required on the page in question, or even on select individual editors themselves. So, I hope everyone keeps that in mind as far as a general mode of operation concerning editing disputes in the Balkans topic area are concerned. Finally, I'm not aware of (or at least not able to immediately recall) any previous reports you've filed, so I obviously am unable to comment further on that at present. Thanks for kind words. They are appreciated. El_C 21:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
[A]nd the admins somehow always decide to lock the page on the anti-Serbian narrative. WEBDuB, listen to yourself. That is such a bizarre thing to say. There are (guestimating) 1000ish admins in total; probably less than 500 of them are active-ish; probably less than 25 deal with WP:ACDS, in general, and the Balkans topic area, in particular. I doubt you'd be able to find even one admin on the English Wikipedia that has a strong leaning either toward a pro- or anti-Serbian viewpoint — I certainly don't. It's quite a niche area of history to almost all admins (most of whom are from the US), I would wager. Sure is to me. See, when you say things like that, you make me doubt whether you are a good fit for this topic area... El_C 23:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
To be clear, Ktrimi removed (without consensus) the section that had existed for years. It was added to the article 3 days ago by you [34]. If 3 days are "years", only in that scenario you are right. What kind of Maths is that? Another admin, @ Peacemaker67: asked you some days ago to provide evidence on your claims about "a wave of hatred" and "long-term abuse, disclosure of personal information, off-wiki harassment, threats" [35]. Take that advice seriously. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 00:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Webdub, in 2017 the article did not mention Kosovo. Kosovo was first added on on 16 January 2018. It was reverted by me a week later, and the other side did not reach consensus on the talk page for inclusion. A blocked editor tried to add Kosovo again on 5 July 2018 and it was immediately reverted. A new discussion on the talk page did not produce consensus for inclusion. On 18 April 2019 you tried to add Kosovo, it was reverted. Although you did not get consensus on the talk page at the time, you gave it another try a few days ago. You will probably give another try later, the result is already known though. Bye, Ktrimi991 ( talk) 15:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C - hope all is well. Thanks for blocking this editor a few days ago. However, this new editor is obviously the same person evading their block. Adding this text is exactly the same as the first account, and targeting this article. Please could you take a look, or if you want me to log an WP:SPI case, please give me a ping/note. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me
![]() |
Input |
~ Just saying Hi El C! ~~ ~mitch~ ( talk) 15:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC) |
Since we exchanged a few posts recently the choice fell on you as I want to ask, how do you check redirects, is there any alternative for a tool that has been unavailable for some time, and which could be used by regular editors?-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99° 18:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
This is to avoid an accidental perception of the request as being based on legalistic non-wiki reasons. Based on this slight accommodation in the process, and if indeed there comes a legal outcome, the opposers in a subsequent RM will try to snowball it claiming that legalistic reasons are not wiki reasons, and reframe the whole argument as misguidedly based on the articles of impeachment as the be-all-end-all (they will say: "nothing changed"); if there is yet no outcome, they will try to snowball it claiming that "obviously" it's too soon and/or unmerited and that it's implicit that we should wait for a legal outcome. None of this has to do with the reasons for the request (the actual arguments of the support side, expressed in the posts of most supporters) with are just standard naming conventions reasons. Thanks for consideration — Alalch Emis 18:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
If I understand, AE is only the right venue if there was an arbcom case and a corresponding ds/alert, not for general sanctions (even though gs/alerts show up as ds/alerts in logs)? Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 19:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry to bother you but I am a noob. Lala migos removes any "bad" material about Dutch-based kickboxers, including their Legal Issues and Failed Drug Tests. This is not normal, the UFC fighters have the same.
The main focus is the page of Badr Hari, is Lala migos connected to /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Atlaslion1912 and /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Hozmaster? It seems so because there are mobile phone edits.
I don't know how to report him, but I would do it. Many users are complaining, he's consistently doing that.
I personally think these are all sockpuppets, he probably switched to Mobile from PC. See this case, the same edits on Badr Hari from different sockpuppets, manipulating the page. Basically hiding the truth. Straatmeester's sockpuppetry
Any warnings probably will not fix the problem, he keeps returning.
Zbreller ( talk) 20:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello El C, I must be getting paranoid - but it does seem that the BBC IP is again at work, although in different parts of the UK (this has happened before), by inserting unsourced material. The IP's concerned are 80.6.219.77 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 2a00:23c8:1789:ec01:2187:40ab:f06b:11a3 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Would be glad of your view/action. Regards, David J Johnson ( talk) 12:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm so sorry. I intended to delete that section from the Genocides in history (before World War I) article. In the meantime, there was a problem with link redirection. Or I simply missed the article I was in. Please, I really didn't have any bad intentions. I have already apologized and explained that I will not get into disputes. I think the sanction is too strict. I promise it won't happen again. That was a totally stupid mistake. I hope you will understand. After all, I don't see what it all has to do with Balkan topics. I'm so sorry you linked these situations that have nothing to do with each other. If I had noticed that I was on the wrong article, I would have corrected the mistake myself. I really don't think I deserved a ban like this. Please understand. I’m sure I didn’t break any serious rules.-- WEBDuB ( talk) 15:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Each of my reports with a handful of evidence in the form of diffs for 10 times more serious violations was completely ignored, and now I am the target. During the first next problem, I will prepare evidence for each editor individually.Sorry, it's too much for me at this point. Maybe appeal in six months, I might be open to granting that request contingent on productive editing elsewhere. El_C 16:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Please do not comment in a way that would lead
WEBDuB to violate their topic ban,
Ktrimi991.
El_C
19:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
|
---|
|
To be clear, I didn't write the request there, but someone else copied the appeal from WP:ARCA where there was no word limit. What should I do in that case? Also, after the warning, I didn't accuse any editor of anything. I referred to reports that have been ignored by admins for months (that really hurts!), even if they were IPs reports. There is no proof that I linked the IPs to the regular editors. Certainly not after your warning. I hope you looked at this section. Thanks.-- WEBDuB ( talk) 22:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I know you might not expect to hear this, but Flyer22's death has been hard on a lot of people. It wasn't just her friends on wiki that have to grief here. I genuinely wanted to see her be better and act better because she was a great editor. WanderingWanda is dealing with that, and they are dealing with knowing Flyer22 died resenting them to the bitter end. Everytime I think about that I start to cry, and I can't imagine it is any easier for Wander (in fact, I know it isn't).
I don't agree with this close. You probably know at this point I look up to a lot of your work on that board, and I consider you one of the best admins on the project because of it (if not, you do now). However, this was not the right close. No one except the filer agreed with you, and the AGF reading of WanderingWanda's comments would imply that any insensitivity was unintended (as they stated).
There are really important reasons I needed to say this. While the community is still coming to terms with the death of a beloved community member, certain people have gone on to attack people for their participation in the Workshop phase of the case. I feel as though I have been made responsible for an editor's death.
Why is this okay? – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 18:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
MJL, Valereee, and El C, the truth is that we have a rotten dispute-resolution system, and it has been causing deep distress for years. The people who run it seem not to understand how upsetting and all-consuming it is to be at the centre of one of those Arb cases, including the workshops, or perhaps particularly those. Now an editor has died in the middle of a case. Whether her death was hastened by it, or she would have died then anyway, we don't know. The only thing that seems clear is that the last few weeks of her life were a misery because she was consumed by it.
I was similarly concerned when Kevin Gorman died in 2016 a few months after his last holiday season was taken up by a case. Several of us asked the ArbCom to at least postpone it until January. Kevin had had health issues for a long time, and I am not saying I believe he died because of the case, but he was distressed by it and I have to wonder whether the stress made things worse for him.
We can't let this happen to anyone else. At the very least, we have to abolish the workshops. But I think we should take this opportunity to find a new final dispute-resolution mechanism. Would the WMF help with a grant, can we find professionals to help, and so on. We need to be talking about those issues and come up with ideas and proposals. I'm going to ping Littleolive oil because I've discussed the issue of stress in cases with her (in general, not this case), and Montanabw. Don't feel you have to comment; I just want to make sure you see this. SarahSV (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Look,
Montanabw,
Barkeep49 had already collapsed that at
WT:ACN. Frankly, I don't want it on my talk page, either.
El_C
22:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
|
---|
|
It doesn't look like you were ever actually notified of this appeal in the first place, but there is an appeal of a sanction you placed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_WEBDuB. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Would you please look at the Dabaqabad thread at ANI. I've had a look myself, and my gut feeling is that both editors are at fault, with Dabaqabad being the worst of the two. A problem I'm having is that links provided are meta links (used editing with a mobile phone?) which make it harder for me to do further investigation from those links. Mjroots ( talk) 19:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello El C!
I noticed you closed the discussion on the report I filed, and I was wondering why? No administrators responded to the discussion before it was closed and it doesn't appear to be resolved. If there's something different I can do in the future please let me know, if not would it be possible to reopen the discussion?
Thank you! Jonmaxras ( talk) 20:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
SPA not listening. This has been an issue last year, the talk entry I opened were not engaged, once already an admin acted. Since a longer while, user:S002282000 does not stop, ignore all edit log messages, warnings ( [42]), 15 reverts since October [ [43]], other users also reverted....please intervene, Thank you( KIENGIR ( talk) 22:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC))
[45]. Very WP:SPA-like, and slow-wars in replacing Polish/Prussian with German, he always gets reverted but returns after a while. I think this pattern matches some older accounts from the past but I can't recall exactly which (ping User:Volunteer Marek, User:Oliszydlowski, User:MyMoloboaccount - maybe you recall which accounts displayed similar pattern in the past?). Is there anything an admin can do here? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, El-C,
I've run into a problem that I'm not sure how to resolve and I see you've been recently active so you might see this. I deleted a user page on the request of the editor but it contained a userbox that was used by quite a lot of other editors. And now, if you look at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user, you can see that 68 user pages are listed for CSD U1 deletion because of this tagged userbox. But clearly the editors are not requesting that their user pages be deleted as some aren't even active any more.
Unfortunately, there are some admins who don't ask a lot of questions when they see pages tagged for deletion. Will these user pages eventually lost their inappropriate CSD tag now that the page with the userbox has been deleted? Any advice from you or a friendly talk page stalker? I'm keeping the category open in a tab on my laptop in case these pages need to be restored as categories do not maintain lists of their previous contents once they've been emptied. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 06:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
Forgive me for being inexperienced, but I wanted to ask a couple follow-up questions based on my comment at AN and the discussion there regarding the table. One of the problems I think that discussion is having is that many people (I won't name names here) are using it to "relitigate" the insurrection discussion - which you placed a discretionary sanction against for one month. Unfortunately, some of these people seem like the only reason they are participating in that talk page is to attempt to put the article at the only title they feel is correct, and this goes beyond a reasonable assumption of good faith. I also note that many people are saying things such as "truly accurate" and/or "watered down" - which are refusing to accept that the policy that is being discussed is WP:COMMONNAME. I won't say most, because I don't think it is most, but a significant minority (maybe 30% or so) of the comments are based solely on reasons similar to not liking the proposal or at best based on attempts at proving what the name "should" be for reasons other than reliable source name usage. I understand that your moratorium is solely on the proposal of "insurrection" for one month - but I will now get into my questions. 1) Based on your DS, would it be possible to strike or remove completely comments which solely or virtually completely advocate for an "insurrection" title in this discussion as an arbitration enforcement? If so, what would be the best way about getting an admin to do that. If not, can they be struck as moot given the DS you placed so as to not derail discussion further? 2) Given your DS, can the insurrection part of the table be removed completely, even if the table is allowed to stay? 3) Under (general, not your specific moratorium) DS, would it be possible for an admin or admins to "monitor" the discussion and strike comments that are solely based on things such as "x is the only accurate term" or "I don't like y"? 4) Would warnings/sanctions be appropriate for editors who are advocating for "insurrection" here (assuming they are or should be aware of the DS, such as having participated in the previous discussion), given that such comments are blatantly unhelpful and useless in this current discussion?
Thanks for your attention here - I think the discussion is getting off track primarily because of the poor structure of this RM (ideally would've been started with multiple options instead of as a single option RM with multiple others added later) - but I think it may be able to be brought back if the DS you placed is enforced and comments that are clearly not based in policy are struck/removed before they turn into long discussions. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 02:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
How to find out if a notable people addition is tiktok disruption or a legitimate edit? Steve M 03:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I think GW's point is that there is already an AP topic ban currently in place, and that IHTS is violating it. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 16:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
They're now on Raju jeyamohan02, already blocked on Commons, similar edit here on Shivani Narayanan. That's been their main target, would you mind semi-protecting it to at least slow them down? Ravensfire ( talk) 17:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
You might want to read this. Slatersteven ( talk) 19:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, El C. I wanted to ask you about Template removal. Currently, on Talk:Beit Shearim, there is a discussion between myself and another editor on the relevance of removing a Template that says, "This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, etc." Please go there and review our exchange of comments. Currently, I am in disagreement with the editor on the Template's relevance. Am I handling the issue correctly, or should we wait for a third opinion? Please advise. Davidbena ( talk) 23:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, you closed the WP:ANI#Armatura report and recommended it to be taken to WP:AE. I was wondering if I was allowed to copy-paste the material of the original report into a new WP:AE report or was that not-allowed? Cheers. — CuriousGolden (T· C) 17:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
You closed it with the rationale that “this report is too lengthy”. What did you mean by that? The original report by CuriousGolden, or how long it became eventually? Is there any precedence for such a closure? ◅ Sebastian 11:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
OK, now at last we're getting to a point that may actually end up constructive for the project. Do I understand you correctly that you believe that closing this case with no action somehow was constructive, while my suggestion to close it with certain actions was “self-defeating”? What makes you think so? The “no action” approach has been tried many times before, so far without result. That is why I tried a more thorough approach. ◅ Sebastian 17:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
There may be a dissonance here. Because, why were you even waiting for other admins for, like, a week after having posted all of that, in the first place? If, as an uninvolved admin, you're satisfied with your own investigation, just impose whatever remedies you see fit (ACDS or otherwise), and that would be that. But waiting for someone to parse something like 30+ disparate points, to me, that comes across as neither respectful to the prospective outside reviewer, nor reasonably expedient, for that matter, in resolving the dispute. El_C 20:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi. This article has suffered from persistent vandalism and sockpuppetry in the past until it was semi-protected by Ad_Orientem for 3 months. Unsurprisingly, the usual vandalism from the usual suspects started again as soon as the protection expired and is now becoming a time sink. Will it be possible for you to semi-protect it again? Thanks. M.Bitton ( talk) 14:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C, how have you been? I am on "wikibreak" actually as I need to focus on real life stuff and to reflect on some things on Wikipedia - maybe change editing topics or practices etc. Anyways, as I have been seeing Balkan editors from all sides during the years to accuse each other of "off-Wiki collaboration" and "tag-teaming", is that edit summary without bringing evidence (not the first by the editor) acceptable? I ask because this kind of claim has become a habit among a part of Balkan editors. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 16:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Is it ok for a user to edit war [50], lecture others to "find consensus on tp" (while avoiding participating in the tp discussion themselves), all the while claiming to be "busy in rl" (presumably "too busy" to discuss in the talkpage discussion, but apparently not "too busy" to edit-war)? Khirurg ( talk) 18:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
People find some consensus on tp between you and make changes— that sentence just isn't entirely comprehensible to me. El_C 18:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
People, find some consensus on tp between you, and make changes. Khirurg ( talk) 18:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Template talk:Southern Illyria Labeled MapIt's color blind in terms of ethnicity. And Khirurg replies: Highly disingenous. The name automatically implies everything in it is "Illyrian", and shows "Illyrians" all in the same font and color. Anyone seeing that map will be led to believe that the tribes listed therein are Illyrian. Nope. How should I respond to that?-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 18:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate that. A number of editors usually ask for my help on a number of topics (including really fraught ones that are covered by WP:ACDS or WP:GS) pretty much on a daily basis, so I do expect a certain level of... finesse (I guess...?) — because I am otherwise stretched thin, nearly always. El_C 19:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for this (boring) dispute coming again to your tp but, if possible, can you post a reminder there about WP:Civility or DS regarding the Balkans? The discussion has degraded to that degree that I decided to not participate at all - for me they are free to do whatever they want. If you have time and desire, just read a few comments, such as the last 10, to see a good example of what a discussion should not be. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 23:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
do not open new discussions with the usual warnings and threats, as it will bring you no benefit.[57] which is exactly the kind of problematic approach where one editor disregards any concerns of other editors for the cost of edit warring to the article's well-being. Since Ktrimi seemed too concerned about User:Alexikoua's conduct, I want to remind him that his attitude is also problematic and there is room for improvement. Just my two cents. Good day.
Please see this ( [58]), the situation is not as most of the participants identified (I focused only the Axis/Allies related articles, which I follow). I just notify you to help, given the rapid events in more articles that are hard to follow and evaluate by those who are not daily engaged in the plethora of intermediary edits and talk page content. Cheers! (a lot of issues, why people ain't calm in January... :/).( KIENGIR ( talk) 19:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC))
I posted my explanation here --> [59] - GizzyCatBella 🍁 05:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C, I am having a tough time in understanding the scope of Arbitration enforcement and your response. So allow me to have a discussion here. Are you saying that the topic may be under the scope of Arbitration Enforcement, but sanction do not apply because the content being added/removed in the linked edit does not relate to India-Pakistan? Excuse me if I am still getting this wrong. -- Walrus Ji ( talk) 19:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Please take a look at this thread User_talk:Joshua_Jonathan#Alert. I have two questions. Was it a right call to alert that user about DS even though his edits are not about the conflict. 2. if the offending editor continued adding the same content, could he be reported to WP:AE or will it be judged out of scope. I think it is important for me to better understand this grey area of the scope, to avoid misunderstanding and time waste in filing future AE reports. Walrus Ji ( talk) 13:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey, El C. Hope you're well and that you managed to get some time off during the weekend. You protected
Predrag Bošković on 20 January. As soon as the protection ended, the edit-war began again. The bigger problem is that the dispute is about a potential BLP violation
[60]
[61]
[62]. A tabloid - rival to Bošković's party - alleged in 2001 that he was a Serbian nationalist and a member of a paramilitary death squad (
White Eagles) at the age of 20-25. The Whie Eagles were involved in many massacres in Bosnia and their members have been convicted of war crimes. Bošković who self-identifies as a Montenegrin apparently has never been indicted or involved in events linked to
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. The tabloid allegation made it into the article as The general public learned about Boskovic in mid-2001 when, as president of the DPS Youth Club and a member of the
Parliament of Montenegro, he announced a lawsuit against the newspaper
Dan for a text claiming he was a volunteer in the
Croatian War of Independence as a member of the
Serbian National Renewal and a paramilitary
White Eagles unit. Up to this day, he has not filed a lawsuit against Dan.
Is there a specific talkpage template about BLP which could notify editors that they should be careful about allegations which potentially have very serious legal repercussions? --
Maleschreiber (
talk)
19:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by China - I just restored all of the text that was removed in huge blocks as follows:
*10:55, January 31, 2021 Thucydides411 talk contribs [+] 11,970 bytes −2,869 Cut out extremely POV essay about China in general during the pandemic, and shorten to statement that state media has made some false claims. undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit *10:52, January 31, 2021 Thucydides411 talk contribs [+] 14,839 bytes −937 →Accusations of downplaying early signs: This again has nothing to do with misinformation. undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit *10:52, January 31, 2021 Thucydides411 talk contribs [+] 15,776 bytes −597 →Accusations of downplaying early signs: Macron's "worries" do not render the National Health Commission's numbers "misinformation" undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit *10:51, January 31, 2021 Thucydides411 talk contribs [+] 16,373 bytes −465 →Accusations of downplaying early signs: This is extremely misleading. The increased numbers were "revealed" by the government, similarly to how many countries have periodically "revealed" increased tallies. undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit *10:49, January 31, 2021 Thucydides411 talk contribs [+] 16,838 bytes −1,082 →Accusations of downplaying early signs: Remove conspiracy theory about urns undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit *10:48, January 31, 2021 Thucydides411 talk contribs [+] 17,920 bytes −3,866 This is not an example of misinformation. undothank Tags: Mobile edit*
I worked very hard to expand the article while the AfD was still open, and spent alot of time researching to find high quality RS for in-text attribution. It was all removed as demonstrated above. After I restored it, I explained what I did on the article TP. Just wanted you to be apprised because my intent is to entice the other editors to collaborate rather than take it upon themselves in a WP:0WN style behavior to push their POV. The editor who removed all of the above content, Thucydides411, adamantly opposed keeping the article and as you can see by the edit summaries, his reasons are not backed by RS or policy. Atsme 💬 📧 20:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
understand that this is a sensitive topic for you being Chinese, but Wikipedia is not censored), and how it's suspicious that I have some proficiency in Mandarin (
on WP:RS/N revealed that you have a high level of fluency in Mandarin Chinese, and while I agree that language proficiency isn't something a Wikipedia editor should normally have to disclose, I find it highly unusual in your case [...]). See [63]. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 21:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
The PP has ended, and Thucydides411 has returned to removing well-sourced information leaving false edit summaries. The material complies with WP:PAG and MOS:LEAD, but he picked-up where he left off at the time of PP, and resumed his reverting behavior that clearly conflicts with our policies. I restored the material, but I'm of the mind that Thucydides is not quite understanding the context of disinformation based on his edit summaries. For example, he appears to be fixated on the material about the urns. His edit summary misrepresents the context: The story about the urns itself is very likely disinformation, which makes its inclusion here ironic. The context of the urns is proper not ironic, and the material is cited to Time Magazine, Bloomberg, and the BBC, to name a few RS. I have attempted to explain the context to him but it has been futile and more like a WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT issue. Atsme 💬 📧 14:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Listen, you two, I'd rather not host this content dispute on my talk page any longer at this juncture. Thanks and good luck! El_C 16:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
El C, would you look at this IP editor? [ [66]] (record of clearing talk page [ [67]]). It looks like their recent edits are meant to antagonize an editor who you recently tban'ed. Comments like this are unproductive [ [68]] and these are clearly designed to tban dance on another editor [ [69]], [ [70]], [ [71]], [ [72]]. Edits like this are simply NOTHERE [ [73]]. Thanks Springee ( talk) 14:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
CaptainEek has posted on AdmiralEek's userpage and talk page claiming it as their account. Am I missing something? Pahunkat ( talk) 17:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
That's a legit alternate account of User:CaptainEek, according to the user page.-- P-K3 ( talk) 17:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Howdy El C! I appreciate your protectiveness, but you have just blocked my alt account. I'm working at a new job with less than secure internet and lots of people who could possibly be at my computer, so I'm not using my OS/CU super sensitive account there :) I'm using my phone to be the Captain if I have to, but its bloody annoying to type on it. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 17:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
For your work. Shiny bonjour. 18:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC) |
Can you unprotect the Tigray War page? Wowzers122 ( talk) 23:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C. Since the topic ban concerns not just WWII but " Polish political history, as broadly construed as you can imagine", can you clarify the following for me. I am in the process of expanding an article on the Ćmielów Porcelain Factory, which as far as I can tell has nothing to do with WWII or Polish political history. But in the process I added a relevant tidbit of info to a biography about the 18th century nobleman who founded it ( [74]). But then I noticed that noble was also a politician, even if removed from WWII era by a century and a half. Nonetheless, if my topic ban concerns not just WWII but, independently, as a second topic area, also non-WWII Polish political history (all the way to Mieszko I?), I realized that my edit could possibly have violated the topic ban. To be safe, I reverted myself. Could you clarify if this article ( Jacek Małachowski) is indeed within the scope of the topic ban? And if so, should I also revert my edits to the Porcelain Factory, where I added information about said founder? I will do my best to abide by the restriction, but I'd appreciate some clarification and guidance here (I was initially under the impression the topic ban is focused on Poland and WWII topic area, but having re-read it I am not so sure...). To be safe, I will stop all my editing until I receive a clarification. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nil Einne ( talk • contribs)
Some Anon IP have been playing with User:Vnkd Talk Page. See here. Mr.User200 ( talk) 16:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C, To follow up on your comment at the arbitration case, I thought I'd bring to your attention the whitewashing taking place by user Des Vallee at AANES and other pages. This diff and comment from a more reasonable user (Applodion) on their edits explains what I am talking about. You're welcome to use that at the case too. While writing this I found out they just received a block. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 23:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
[Original message read:] If you can show that either myself, NinjaRobotPirate, Floquenbeam or Fram (to name the latest) were/are "trigger happy," then making that assertion would certainly be your prerogative. But otherwise stating it just as snark in passing, I'm not sure that's helping anyone or anything. El_C 21:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Message seen. Don't want to argue, but it is my opinion that the block was ill-judged and fails to meet the requirements of WP:BLOCK as it is clearly not a preventive but a punitive measure.Well, RandomCanadian, maybe I'm speaking into the ether here, but it seems to me that: either you argue or you don't. Either you engage in snark, or you don't. Anyway, my approach to some WP:AEL/ WP:RESTRICT sanctions is that "preventative" has to be understood in the context of: the rate of violations in relation to the date of the latest violation (i.e. risk of repetition); though, generally, with weeks-rather-than-months serving as its upper limit. But I do not view it as a normal, say, WP:EW block or one that's otherwise conventional. It has to do with interpreting WP:HARASS, which I find is more tricky. Other admins' mileage may vary, which is what unblock requests are for. Just in case you're interested, or even reading. El_C 03:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I think
this incident may merit a little more attention. The OP claims Today I plan to create many articles about political heroes during
2021 Myanmar coup d'état and members of the dictator family
, and a quick check of their talkpage reveals a pretty telling username change a couple of years ago. Pop that old username into Google or Wikipedia itself, and you get an alarming COI red flag.
Grandpallama (
talk)
18:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello. This picture here originates from the same source as the picture you removed here. That is the Museum of Revolution of the Peoples of Yugoslavia, and its copyright usage remains unclear.
It is used as the picture in the infobox in the Chetnik war crimes in World War II article. I think it should be removed, based on the same reasoning as on the Persecution of Eastern Orthodox article. -- Griboski ( talk) 19:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the closure of this incident.
I hope, you'll reconsider this incident again. Magnus Dominus ( talk) 07:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Could you look this user talkpage history? He is quite disruptive and has lot of warnings but he blanked 2 times his talkpage and contines disrupting wiki. Shadow4dark ( talk) 14:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi. EdDakhla ( their sock) is back right after the IP's block expired to engage in more of the same. Regards. M.Bitton ( talk) 17:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Could you please block 65.153.77.106 and semi the article for a few hours? The IP-hopping BLP vandal is at it again. Pahunkat ( talk) 20:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello admin, can 65.153.77.106 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) be blocked as soon as possible? -- Ashley yoursmile! 20:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
You SEMIed it it based on a request from a LLLLLLLLTA. Looking at the article history, that editor was making substantially bad edits whereas IPs and others were making reasonably constructive edits (including fixing the requestor's mistakes). Maybe unprotect? DMacks ( talk) 22:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I would have taken this to the user's talk page, but for obvious reasons I don't think that would be a good idea, so here I am. I don't believe this quite conforms with Wikipedia standards. – 2. O. Boxing 17:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey, El C. Hope you're well. An IP started adding a Greek translation of toponyms across many villages in Albania - inhabited by a Greek community and also many that have a small Greek community or none at all. I reverted some of the IP's edits, particularly in places where very few Greeks or none at all live. Many editors have reverted the IP's edits and have warned them on their talkpage. Now, Khirurg began reverting back the IP edits [75] without any consensus and claiming that somehow I'm following him [76] because I restored some articles to the pre-IP version which he is trying to make into the new WP:STABLE without discussion. These WP:LEDE name changes can create a very tendentious situation and I don't think that they should be decided via who does the most reverts.-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 01:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry about car trouble, and no friends. Really, nobody? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I asked you a long time ago not to comment on “my” talk page, and that position hasn’t changed. Your comments are, as El_C put it, sincerely not welcomed. Commenting when you’ve asked not to can be taken for harassment, and that is exactly what it will be every time you do it. I have deleted similar messages from you in the recent past ( example), so why this hasn’t sunk in yet, I really don’t know. I will make it crystal clear here for you, yet again: do not comment on the SchroCat talk page again. 213.205.194.182 ( talk) 20:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Easy answer: Three elected delegates put something in the days, which may be by their choice (they take turnes monthly), or by requests WP:TFAR. Everybody can work on the blurbs that lie in the future. The delegates have the tricky job to have only one bird and one hurricane per month ;) - On TFAR, you see two suggestions by me for the articles of others, and one that made me slow down work on BWV 1, because the only possible day for it in 2021 is wanted by someone else. In the old days, people would then fight, with a point system of relevance, newness, recent similaraties etc, but I just slow down. Support whatever you like there! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Regarding your close of the Zvikorn report on AE, I have always been perplexed by what, exactly, "previous version reverted to" means on AN3. I don't often file reports there, but I did file two recently, and, as usual, I really didn't understand what was being asked of me. When you have a free moment, could you explain it? Ping me if you do, please -- and thanks. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 05:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, El C. I am asking you to look at the section "Depopulated" vs. "Displaced" in the Talk:Beit Shearim article where I have asked you to decide in my case if this article falls under my Narrow Topic Ban issued here on 18 August 2020. Please give me your fair and undivided judgment. Be well. Davidbena ( talk) 08:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
And ONLY if you have time. Please take a look at this page Witold Pilecki, the ongoing discussion [81], new account edits in breach of ARBCOM restriction [82] following a revert without concensus reached, (discussion ongoing) to the version of the restricted account, by another fresh account that (I think) just passed the restriction threshold [83]. Links to discussions [84], [85] Note that Bob not Snob participates in both discussions, so is aware of them. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 13:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
KY-Acc ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Hi El C, this user has recently resumed his personal attacks towards me because I reverted his WP:TENDENTIOUS edit at Karabakh Khanate:
His previous one: [88]
Here are some other examples of his WP:TENDENTIOUS edits.
He is clearly WP:NOT HERE imo. -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 09:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for closing my ANI case! I think you missed two accounts, though (the last and third-to-last in the given list of socks). Especially the former has been active in the talk page abuse I mentioned. Also, should this vandal return with a new account, would I be able to request TPA revocation alongside the SPI case? Regards, IceWelder [ ✉] 18:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Please welcome, Richardmouser, everyone! El_C 00:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey, the LTA from this thread appears to still be using one of their IPs at Zara Noor Abbas. I'm not able to file an SPI right this moment, but do you think you could please block the range in the interim? Thanks, M Imtiaz ( talk · contribs) 11:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
We have a novice user, that more or less try to cooperate, however I raised an obvious question ( [92]) for which I get a correct answer ( [93])...besides this, I ignored a third IP editing which may be the same user logging out...with all of good faith could you explain him/treat the situation about the validity of multiple accounts? (did he forget his password, or?) Thank You( KIENGIR ( talk) 13:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC))
Hi. User:XForceX is the sockpuppet of User:InellectualThinker. - Aybeg ( talk) 20:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi EL C, could you look in on Talk:Wright Flyer#Colorized photo? It's. a verrrrry long discussion, mostly from one user. I'm not sure where to go with this one. Thanks. BilCat ( talk) 23:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
You don't have it easy do you... have a kitten. It may help,
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
06:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Since the above discussion was cut short, I'm going to further expand and expound about some of my thoughts on the matter. When DGG said to Sarah: And it's curious that what we personally believe is always the mainstream
— I didn't like that. Speaking as someone whose social philosophy views are in no small measure outside the mainstream (to which I'm acutely aware), when it comes to depictions of
Holocaust historiography, as representing a social scientific consensus approach, that's all I actually want. Yes, I agree with DGG that APL content should also feature some components that touch on popular sentiments, but I think it's absolutely key that these are carefully qualified by the real
WP:APLRS — and it is this body of work which needs to form the central basis for any overarching wikivoice presentation.
So, I'm dissapointed when I see gaming that injects substandard sources in contravention of these sourcing requirements, like so (noting own comment, obviously): Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Volunteer_(book).
The whitewashing coming from Poland serving to minimize Polish culpability (or involvement, call it what you will) in the Holocaust, is not just despicable and reprehensible, it also injects itself into a scholarly discourse where it does not belong in a deeply insidious way. So, I'm thinking maybe Sarah is right, after all, about me supporting the respective appeals of GCB and VM having been a huge mistake on my part.
I mean, my conscience is clear about having advocated for their appeals to be granted on the basis of sheer merit (giving a 2nd chance coupled by abuse amelioration). But my conscience is not clear about the real damage resulting from those appeals being lifted, which they now both bring about, eroding verifiability for this key subject by advancing a fringe view (and who cares how popular that fringe view might be in one country, to the point of it even being legislated outright!).
Anyway, in theory, to combat that, we have APLRS, which is meant to serve as barrier against substandard material. Just like we do with WP:MEDRS for medical content. Both of these enhanced sourcing standards are equally important, in my view, and serve as a great credit to the Committee and community that passed them, respectively.
So, I definitely have regrets, and though I try not to lament them, it is a struggle, I admit. El_C 17:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
User Armanqur has been edit warring over the same Kurds-related section for a long time. Their very first edit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Contributions/Armanqur&dir=prev&target=Armanqur
They were blocked 1 week for socking at Medes:
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Armanqur#October_2020_2
Their strawman sock at talk page of Medes:
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Dirokakurdi
They continue socking and edit warring over the same section:
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/80.191.203.92
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Armanqur
The ip uses the same arguments with Armanqur's arguments on talk page and has similar edit summaries. They also remove modern Iranologists and linguists (Limbert, McKenzie, Daryaee, Russel) and some Medieval historians' notes which provide better context for the reader as to why the association between 2 is regarded as "old" by James R Russel.
Creating strawman socks to demonize opposing editors, removing useful contents from the section, edit warring through his ips and his account is disruptive. Please lock the page. 176.54.37.31 ( talk) 05:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Paradise Chronicle, Semsûrî, please know that you can expect swift and decisive action for this kind of disruption. Hopefully, the conclusion of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan will bring further relief. El_C 06:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
El C many editors have been edit warring over the same content which was added by User Khorler:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Medes&diff=1003824309&oldid=1003439589
Now one more user has become a part of the same edit war and removed modern scholars, historians and Iranologists' opinions (Limbert, Daryaee, McKenzie, Russel, etc) from the section again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Medes&diff=1007069765&oldid=1006810936
Instead of removing the specific outdated content he mentioned, the user outright removed everything completely (including the opinions by modern experts). Was it a constructive edit? I'll notify some other editors editing related topics. I don't have a time to follow up the page but an admin or a capable editor should definitely do. 176.54.39.53 ( talk) 12:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
"It is not our responsibility as readers and fellow editors to filter whatever may be good out of the heaps of problematic content."
It is a basic policy:
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Editing_policy
"Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia."
I would copy edit the unencylopedic style and preserve the sourced content from modern experts.
176.54.39.53 ( talk) 23:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation El C. I have checked the policies you mentioned. Policies regarding onus and burden seem to be about insistence of including the problematic content (in this case certain outdated sources). It is not the case here. It is about removal of large amount of appropriate content (Limbert, McKenzie, Russel, Daryaee, full quote of Bruinessen etc) leaving the page unbalanced. Moreover at least 2 unverifiable and unreliable sources re inserted (probably by a mistake). Sparing a few minutes to filter the content would leave wikipedia articles in a better quality.
Anyway my intent was to raise awareness about the long term edit warring on the page and thank you for your actions. Good night
176.54.39.53 ( talk) 23:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
excuse me, today I am strained, sorry I have no power to provide more diffs, but more of use recognized a troll that is keeping vandalizing articles, post unnecessary templates and warnings and meanwhile playing fool, and tire more editors, including me ( [94])...and SPI is already opened, clearly WP:NOTHERE. If you check the recent edits or the discussions at the joke article the user created Szekely moustache and the nomination for deletion discussion, more user demands an action..I am afraid patiently waiting for the SPI evaluation will not be enough...
@ Borsoka:, @ Super Dromaeosaurus:, I kindly asked El_C's closer attention, to make one step forward, the user just trolled me heavily filled with personal insults....enough!( KIENGIR ( talk) 17:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC))
Hi. I noticed that 71.232.135.186 has just restored EdDakhla's rant [96], using the same strange choice of word ("inquiry" instead of "enquiry") that was used previously by T.Khattabi when they reverted your edit [97]. Is this too much of a coincidence to be a coincidence? Regards. M.Bitton ( talk) 18:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't know the ins and outs of Wikipedia. Question: If someone places a 3RR warning (or any warning) in error, what is the appeals process? Thanks. Art Smart Chart/ Heart 18:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, Could you remove the RfD notice from January 6th so it works again? I can't do it because the redirect has been fully protected. Thanks. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 20:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your close; I'm glad you saw my point of view on this being vandalism. I was quite shocked when I went to AIV and was told that it was not vandalism, and then told at ANI that I was edit warring. ― Tartan357 Talk 02:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C! I appreciate your closure of the ANI discussion that I replied to. I didn't mean to "sidestep" anything, however. I felt that, upon looking, that the dispute was content-related, and that the basis of the problem was edit warring. I'm obviously no expert on the article subject, but I thought that what I did was the right thing to do. :-) ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 03:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Oshwah, no, it is absolutely exempt by virtue of it being vandalism-like (once explained) and, as I mention, should be initially responded with something like {{ uw-error2}} (seriously, click on that link and see what it says). Again, a plain fabrication does not constitute a content dispute. Never have, never will. El_C 03:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
This just happened again at Win Myint. I reverted and gave a level 2 warning, as you suggested. ― Tartan357 Talk 03:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi El_C, while the reported IP was stale, the user you blocked here has an IP account which they have flitted in and out of using since creating their account. They were warned about it here (and simultaneously here) and confirm they are the same user here. That IP was missed by the reporting editor at ANI. Incidentally, the accusations here, according to the person's own account, most likely refer to the "personal attacks" whose tenor can be sampled from what they mass deleted, labelling them as personal attacks. The direct accusation toward me of hounding refers to this article; its tiny editing history shows who was following whom with little effort (I started editing the article 3 months before they created their account; edit immediately preceding theirs was by me). Cambial foliage❧ 03:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
There is a second AfD ongoing that has aroused weird controversy, including sockpuppetry at the first AfD to keep, and now (alleged) canvassing to the second to delete. If you or experienced stalkers of your talk page could bring some thoughts here, it would be good. I hope this is not canvassing because I am not telling anybody how to vote on the AfD but if it is canvassing, I apologize. HouseOfChange ( talk) 15:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey El C, User:Seyoumamhara has merged the information in the Humera massacre article with information in the Mai Kadra massacre article without reason. Which could be a simple mistake but then in the War crimes in the Tigray War page, he removed mentions of war crimes committed by Ethiopia and Eritrea against Tigrayans in the introduction and instead said they were committed by TPLF forces against Amhara.
Finally, in the Humera article (the city itself), he changed the city to be apart of the Amhara Region and not the Tigray region. And also changed the mention of the Humera massacre to say that it was committed by TPLF-allied forces against Amhara. Also made unsourced edits like changing the majority ethnic group in the city to be Amhara and not Tigrayan. He changed the text under Monuments section to say "The Amhara population living in the area destroyed a monument named after qeshi gebru she is known for her bravery to kill amharas brutally a former foot soldier of tigray people liberation front TPLF after liberating thier home land after 50 years of tigray colonisation of the area in Nov,2020." The original text was "Statue of anti-patriarchal feminist Mulu Gebreegziabher. It was destroyed by two Neftenya vandals, under the eyes of Ethiopian soldiers, in November 2020."
IP 213.55.85.126 has the same problem but is on a different side of the coin. He undid some of Seyoumamhara's edits but still removed information. Changed the monuments section to "The Amhara barbarian ethnic group has demolished the Tigray heroine monument,qeshi gebru,collaborating with the Eritrean troops in Nov,2020." Calling an ethic group barbaric seems like hate speech. Finally, he removed the entire history section of the article and once again called Amharans barbarians in his edit summary. Wowzers122 ( talk) 22:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry El C, but the personal attacks continue. I know, water off ducks back and all but seriously? Polyamorph ( talk) 10:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
If I inadvertently undid your removal of your comment in this edit please forgive me - I am using the beta edit conflict resolution tool and it showed zero change on the left side (before my edit) and so I selected my comment to be added - it did not display any other changes so I figured it must've been an edit on another part of the page that was conflicting. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 20:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C, I'm having an issue with a user here at [102] who is attempting to push the name of 'Persia' onto the lede as one of its synonyms, even more or less no sources uses the word 'Persia' to refer to the region (it goes without saying that the term is a synonym for Iran). I've attempted to discuss with the user at it [103], but to no avail, as the user is more interested in me than the topic itself (getting lowkey WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE vibes). I'm thinking about taking this to WP:ANI, but I think that it will be ignored/won't reach a outcome. Thoughts? -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 21:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
As can be for example seen here among all other edits here, me edits are removed with accusations of pov pushing and twisting wording when I followed the source. The person even literally deleted and copied what I wrote again. Subtly leaving out the fact that Yoemans said that the anti-Catholic angle he could see. Could you step in to deal with the constant edit waring and accusations? It’s getting to be too much. OyMosby ( talk) 01:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
El C you wrote that the ip was stale:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:El_C&diff=1006684630&oldid=1006684233
When does an account or an ip become stale? Just not to report stale accounts again. I still believe that the ip is from Armanqur tho.
Regards
176.54.39.53 ( talk) 06:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your answers El C. I believe the ip is from the blocked account because;
-both the account and the ip edit warred over the same content
-both the account and the ip resisted against using the talk page
-the account's confirmed sockpuppetry in the same page through a strawman role account
-somewhat similar arguments and edit summaries
I hope all the pov-pushers (from both sides) disappear from the page. Thank you for locking the page.
Have a nice day.
176.54.39.53 ( talk) 08:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I am at work atm and will not have enough time to follow up this case but in case you may want to follow up it, i am dropping the link below:
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Armanqur#Indefinite_block
Thank you again.
176.54.39.53 ( talk) 08:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, El C. The article about Ajet Sopi Bllata, who was an Albanian rebel who lived in present-day Serbia, was CSD-ed by user Amanuensis Balkanicus who has twice AfD-ed the same article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajet Sopi Bllata, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajet Sopi Bllata (2nd nomination) but it wasn't deleted. User Maleschreiber made changes the second time and it was saved. Amanuensis Balkanicus CSD-ed now because in 2016 it was created by a sock. If since then, it was twice saved via AfD and saw changes the second time it wasn't deleted, is it ok for the same person who AfD-ed it two times in the span of 4 years to ask for CSD 5 after both of their reports didn't result in deletion? Ahmet Q. ( talk) 00:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
... and your translations too, which almost read like original poetry, given that I didn't understand the Hebrew lyrics. Thanks for sharing! DanCherek ( talk) 05:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey, there is a (very naive} cycle of reverts on the Dafina Zeqiri article between some IPs and a registered editor. It is a pity that an editor who has written 31 GAs gives that attention to that. Can you make a short protection or sth similar? Ktrimi991 ( talk) 15:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C, fyi Reinhearted has been evading your block, which expires in a few days, in order to continue their edit-war at Falafel among other things. I made an SPI report a couple of weeks ago: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Reinhearted. Thought you might be interested, if not, no problem... -- IamNotU ( talk) 12:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello admin, can this IP 23.233.138.142 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) be blocked as soon as possible? -- Ashley yoursmile! 13:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
In the open Kurds and Kurdistan arbitration case, the proposed decision has now been posted. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. You were notified as you made comments in the case request. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 16:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Palestinian enclaves#This talk page is toxic. This is the same talk page that previously lead to a warning with the holocaust references and baseless allegations of racism. Unfortunately, the general toxicity of this talk page has continued unabated. I'm wondering if there are any steps that could be taken to cool things down there, as it is essentially impossible to go 5 minutes without receiving a hostile and uncivil reply on that page. Drsmoo ( talk) 18:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to be sleepless tonight over the Cliff Notes' joke. I guess it asks for a gloss on T E Lawrence saying 'outrageous' on the outskirts of Damascus? Well that's not, as far as I checked, in his great memoir Seven Pillars of Wisdom, but by hearsay exclaimed by Peter O'Toole playing that role in David Lean's 1962 film Lawrence of Arabia. And no, I can't say I personally remembered it from that date, though I recall the scene. What happened was, when I happened to use the term comically, my cousin told me (in mid 1983) that this was the adjective used by O'Toole qua Lawrence at that dramatic moment. So it may be indeed my latest addition to the immense archives of apocrypha in circulation. Thanks for making me remember the details of this. Now I'm going to be sleepless until I find a video of the film to check where the truth lies (which truth often does:), alas Nishidani ( talk) 20:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Noting that I have imposed the Consensus required restriction for this page. I have also warned Wikieditor19920 to dial it back, under penalty of imminent sanctions. El_C 18:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
For the sakes of completion, I'll just note that I have logged a warning to both Wikieditor19920 and Onceinawhile. El_C 23:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Piggybacking above. One or several of these steps apply: Alert, Caution, Warning, Final warning, Sanctions. There can be some back and forth. Less is more. El_C 04:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello El C- I'm trying to figure out the best approach to get a new editor on a campaign to slow down and communicate with others. Hoping you might be able to point me in the right direction. I'm assuming that posting on a noticeboard would be premature at this point. The editor has been active for a little more than a day, making similar changes across many articles related to Catholic clergy and buildings: contributions, talk. Thanks in advance for any tips. Eric talk 17:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C, would you be able to review an edit warring & content issue relating to a possible hoax image that seems to be motivated by Turkish nationalism? One editor inserted the image across multiple Wikipedias and another keeps edit warring to keep the image in the article space here at en-wiki. I've written a short contextual summary and gathered several relevant links on my talk page. Given the topic, nobody wants to touch my reports at AN/EW or sanction the editor involved (the first report was archived without action). If you're unable to do this, do you happen to know any admins with expertise in regional history/nationalism who would be able to assist? Thanks for your help, Jr8825 • Talk 22:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Can you take a look at the recent edits at Lorestan Province by user Rizorius? [104] The local Kurdish name of the province is being removed despite a large population of the province being Kurdish. The editor is making a false equivalence comparing it with having the German name at Paris. Conversely, an unverifiable and ridiculous survey that contradicts the info in the 'demographics'-section is being added. -- Semsûrî ( talk) 23:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I do not feel inclined to unblock, but I do feel that you should have asked someone else to impose the block, as a best practice. It would have eliminated unneeded Sturm und Drang and would have served as a reality check. She did almost step back with that trope business, but that could be read as attempted salvage. Also, I don't think there is much distinction between being "XYZist" and using an "XYZist trope". Having said that, I believe this user should edit in less emotionally volatile areas and I believe she may not be compatible. Best, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
There has been a lot of discussion around this and there is now a very wide consensus in support of the section as it currently stands. A handful of transphobes trying to whitewash it aren't going to convince anyone otherwise( diff).
esteemed selfis not a nice thing to say, I find. I'm not sure why they choose to address me in such a manner, also calling my comment above
hilarious, and so on, but I feel that it is uncalled for, and I wish for it to stop. El_C 02:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
No comments in this thread except for reviewing admins, please. The matter is pending review, still. El_C 00:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
My final UTRS message (plus new addition) reads as follows:
Since there's seems to be a cloud over this block, now raised by
GW, I have unblocked Awoma.
. [Added now: not to mention a "sexist trope."]
User_talk:Awoma#Unblocked
But, GW, again, for the record, I said: "I truly am sorry you feel that way." And I truly meant it. I'm still puzzled it backfired or was viewed as a non-apology apologyI mean, how else do I convey that better? I really am racking my brain over this.
El_C
00:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
While it's true that "I'm sorry you feel that way" can be a non-apology, and I've certainly seen the phrase used in response to accusations that a person is sexist, I don't think I've ever seen someone argue that the phrase itself is a sexist trope. I tried googling for "'i'm sorry you feel that way' sexist" in case I'm just behind the times, but it's all discussions of someone being called out for saying something sexist and then using the phrase as a non-apology. While Awoma may well personally believe that the phrase is sexist, I wouldn't say it's widely considered to be. That said, I do think a better response would have been to ask why they felt that way about the phrase or just move on. It also seems to me that if El C thought a block was appropriate, it probably should've been handled by another admin.
if I admin imposes, say, an WP:ARBPIA sanction and the sanctioned editor accuses me of using "Zionist racist tropes" or "Palestinian terrorist tropes" or whatever due to something innocuous I said, then I think that, if warnings to that effect remain unheeded, I'm entitled to apply additional sanctions, despite it being directed toward me. Not sure why it should be any different in the ARBGG topic area [realm], or any [other] DS/GS topic areas, for that matter.
As someone who has invested a fair amount of time and energy negotiating the terrain of apologizing, my suggestion would be that "I understand that you feel singled out by my admin conduct" (or whatever the apology is for) ". I am sorry." - or some similar formulation - is more likely to be heard by the recipient. For one thing, "I am sorry you feel that way" leaves "that way" doing a lot of the work, and doesn't acknowledge anything in particular that the person apologizing is actually apologizing for. Taking a stab at what the hurt is about - even if the first try doesn't 100% capture the respondent's actual cause of hurt - will come across as more authentic than vagueries, IMO. Newimpartial ( talk) 17:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I made you feel that wayseem to concede too much responsibility for the other person's feelings. In such cases, "I understand that you feel X, and I am sorry about that" might at times offer a more authentic take. But YMMV, of course. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I'm not whether this is acceptable. What do you think? Regards. M.Bitton ( talk) 01:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Palestinian enclaves#This talk page is toxic. This is the same talk page that previously lead to a warning with the holocaust references and baseless allegations of racism. Unfortunately, the general toxicity of this talk page has continued unabated. I'm wondering if there are any steps that could be taken to cool things down there, as it is essentially impossible to go 5 minutes without receiving a hostile and uncivil reply on that page. Drsmoo ( talk) 18:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to be sleepless tonight over the Cliff Notes' joke. I guess it asks for a gloss on T E Lawrence saying 'outrageous' on the outskirts of Damascus? Well that's not, as far as I checked, in his great memoir Seven Pillars of Wisdom, but by hearsay exclaimed by Peter O'Toole playing that role in David Lean's 1962 film Lawrence of Arabia. And no, I can't say I personally remembered it from that date, though I recall the scene. What happened was, when I happened to use the term comically, my cousin told me (in mid 1983) that this was the adjective used by O'Toole qua Lawrence at that dramatic moment. So it may be indeed my latest addition to the immense archives of apocrypha in circulation. Thanks for making me remember the details of this. Now I'm going to be sleepless until I find a video of the film to check where the truth lies (which truth often does:), alas Nishidani ( talk) 20:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Noting that I have imposed the Consensus required restriction for this page. I have also warned Wikieditor19920 to dial it back, under penalty of imminent sanctions. El_C 18:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
For the sakes of completion, I'll just note that I have logged a warning to both Wikieditor19920 and Onceinawhile. El_C 23:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Piggybacking above. One or several of these steps apply: Alert, Caution, Warning, Final warning, Sanctions. There can be some back and forth. Less is more. El_C 04:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello El C- I'm trying to figure out the best approach to get a new editor on a campaign to slow down and communicate with others. Hoping you might be able to point me in the right direction. I'm assuming that posting on a noticeboard would be premature at this point. The editor has been active for a little more than a day, making similar changes across many articles related to Catholic clergy and buildings: contributions, talk. Thanks in advance for any tips. Eric talk 17:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C, would you be able to review an edit warring & content issue relating to a possible hoax image that seems to be motivated by Turkish nationalism? One editor inserted the image across multiple Wikipedias and another keeps edit warring to keep the image in the article space here at en-wiki. I've written a short contextual summary and gathered several relevant links on my talk page. Given the topic, nobody wants to touch my reports at AN/EW or sanction the editor involved (the first report was archived without action). If you're unable to do this, do you happen to know any admins with expertise in regional history/nationalism who would be able to assist? Thanks for your help, Jr8825 • Talk 22:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Can you take a look at the recent edits at Lorestan Province by user Rizorius? [105] The local Kurdish name of the province is being removed despite a large population of the province being Kurdish. The editor is making a false equivalence comparing it with having the German name at Paris. Conversely, an unverifiable and ridiculous survey that contradicts the info in the 'demographics'-section is being added. -- Semsûrî ( talk) 23:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I do not feel inclined to unblock, but I do feel that you should have asked someone else to impose the block, as a best practice. It would have eliminated unneeded Sturm und Drang and would have served as a reality check. She did almost step back with that trope business, but that could be read as attempted salvage. Also, I don't think there is much distinction between being "XYZist" and using an "XYZist trope". Having said that, I believe this user should edit in less emotionally volatile areas and I believe she may not be compatible. Best, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
There has been a lot of discussion around this and there is now a very wide consensus in support of the section as it currently stands. A handful of transphobes trying to whitewash it aren't going to convince anyone otherwise( diff).
esteemed selfis not a nice thing to say, I find. I'm not sure why they choose to address me in such a manner, also calling my comment above
hilarious, and so on, but I feel that it is uncalled for, and I wish for it to stop. El_C 02:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
No comments in this thread except for reviewing admins, please. The matter is pending review, still. El_C 00:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
My final UTRS message (plus new addition) reads as follows:
Since there's seems to be a cloud over this block, now raised by
GW, I have unblocked Awoma.
. [Added now: not to mention a "sexist trope."]
User_talk:Awoma#Unblocked
But, GW, again, for the record, I said: "I truly am sorry you feel that way." And I truly meant it. I'm still puzzled it backfired or was viewed as a non-apology apologyI mean, how else do I convey that better? I really am racking my brain over this.
El_C
00:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
While it's true that "I'm sorry you feel that way" can be a non-apology, and I've certainly seen the phrase used in response to accusations that a person is sexist, I don't think I've ever seen someone argue that the phrase itself is a sexist trope. I tried googling for "'i'm sorry you feel that way' sexist" in case I'm just behind the times, but it's all discussions of someone being called out for saying something sexist and then using the phrase as a non-apology. While Awoma may well personally believe that the phrase is sexist, I wouldn't say it's widely considered to be. That said, I do think a better response would have been to ask why they felt that way about the phrase or just move on. It also seems to me that if El C thought a block was appropriate, it probably should've been handled by another admin.
if I admin imposes, say, an WP:ARBPIA sanction and the sanctioned editor accuses me of using "Zionist racist tropes" or "Palestinian terrorist tropes" or whatever due to something innocuous I said, then I think that, if warnings to that effect remain unheeded, I'm entitled to apply additional sanctions, despite it being directed toward me. Not sure why it should be any different in the ARBGG topic area [realm], or any [other] DS/GS topic areas, for that matter.
As someone who has invested a fair amount of time and energy negotiating the terrain of apologizing, my suggestion would be that "I understand that you feel singled out by my admin conduct" (or whatever the apology is for) ". I am sorry." - or some similar formulation - is more likely to be heard by the recipient. For one thing, "I am sorry you feel that way" leaves "that way" doing a lot of the work, and doesn't acknowledge anything in particular that the person apologizing is actually apologizing for. Taking a stab at what the hurt is about - even if the first try doesn't 100% capture the respondent's actual cause of hurt - will come across as more authentic than vagueries, IMO. Newimpartial ( talk) 17:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I made you feel that wayseem to concede too much responsibility for the other person's feelings. In such cases, "I understand that you feel X, and I am sorry about that" might at times offer a more authentic take. But YMMV, of course. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I'm not whether this is acceptable. What do you think? Regards. M.Bitton ( talk) 01:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello admin, can you please revoke the talk page access of Focus Training Academy, who have been blocked for advertising and promotion? They are currently making promotional edits to their talk page. -- Ashley yoursmile! 08:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
What did you mean in your reason when you unblocked LightningComplexFire from an indefinite block y? What does it mean to “I live to serve”? – Cupper52 Discuss! 13:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
I'm not certain that I need to explain exactly why you deserve this barnstar, suffice it to say that you spend a lot more time cleaning up WP:AN and WP:ANI than any admin should be honorably required to do. One hopes that perhaps watching the soothing, spinning star will help you relax some. :-) WaltCip-( talk) 15:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC) |
Ronging rogue ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Our friend with the ungulate fixation is at it again. Please smite when convenient. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 18:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey, I copied you in something, so you can learn some Dutch. Saflieni sounds like they're very upset. Drmies ( talk) 03:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
This message is made for notifying you about a discussion on WP:ARE#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_NomanPK44 for appeal. NomanPK44 ( talk) 18:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
"he seems to be at his wits end at this time" about sums it up. The worst of the behavior has stopped, but there's two factions that are numerically balanced, and neither is willing to budge an inch on any aspect of the article whatsoever (you'd think a more readable page with the same content would be something everyone's interested in, but no). So the talk page has just devolved into endless stone-walling, and unless and until an uninvolved user with no opinions on the content is willing to try to rewrite the page, I don't think any progress is likely to be made... Vanamonde ( Talk) 19:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I read your closure op my AE request. I have just one practical question. Where and how should these IP's be reported? T v x1 22:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Regarding this, you might want to do the same to the other two accounts listed here. There is also a list of similar names here that haven't been used in awhile but which may need watching. Also, this does not bode well. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 23:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C,
I thought I should post something here because my name has come up in some of your recent discussions. I was previously known as Mclarenfan17, and I have largely been retired for the past six months. I have been intermittently active over the past few weeks, mostly because of virus restrictions.
I have noticed that I was referred to you because of arbitration enforcement. An editor, Tvx1, claims that I have been editing from an IP address to circumvent an arbitration ruling. I think these claims are being made in bad faith as the editor in question had a habit of wikilawyering, which was noted in the arbitration hearing. Case in point, this edit that he made around the time he went to arbitration enforcement. It ignores a consensus that was established on the article talk page, a discussion that the editor did not take part in. He is well aware that there is a small number of editors on the article, and so appears to be using arbitration enforcement to try and stop me from making any edits to the article and allowing him to ignore the consensus. 1.129.108.95 ( talk) 00:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Maybe I'm using the wrong word here. In registering an account, I specifically had to request one. I had to fill in a form with my preferred username and e-mail address, and it would be sent off to someone to review and approve. I was directed to Wikipedia:Request an account, possibly because of my dynamic IP. The first time I did it was shortly after I forgot the Mclarenfan17 password. I did not get an e-mail about it for about six weeks.
Well, my concern here is that the arbitration enforcement message was posted on the 12th. You closed the discussion on the 18th and described me as persona non grata on the project because I was not taking part in the discussions. What would you suggest that I do here? I cannot participate because I am waiting to hear back about an account, and get in trouble because I'm not participating. But if I do participate while waiting on an account, I get in trouble for circumventing the rules. By the time the account is approved, the decision has already been made.
Now, I did everything in good faith. When the issue was raised, I owned my actions. I could have ignored it and pretended it was someone else, but I didn't. The person who filed the report was clearly on a fishing trip (and had previously been told as much) - they had no concrete evidence to support their claim and ArbCom recognised that they have a history of wikilawyering, using the rules to punish editors they disagree with. I have been transparent at every step of the process, and so all I am asking is some reason to believe that if I follow the instructions of the arbitrators that I won't just have a different rule thrown at me.
So let's say for the sake of argument that I apply for a new account right now and that it takes six weeks. And in six weeks, I go straight to arbitration to deal with this. How do I know that I'm not going to be told "you had your chance to deal with this six weeks ago" and then get slapped with further santions despite following instructions to the letter? 1.144.105.203 ( talk) 02:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C,
I have decided that I am not going to register a new account. From this point forward, you may consider me fully retired. My reasoning for this is simple: in the weeks after I forgot my password, I noticed that my mental health improved. In the time since I resumed editing—even on the small scale that I did it—my mental health declined. I attribute this to one person: Tvx1. Truth be told, dealing with him was always exhausting, and I am disappointed to note that many editors of WP:F1 and WP:MOTOR have adopted his tactics in their editing practice. These WikiProjects were once well-organised with dedicated editors who worked collaboratively. Now they are toxic, run by bullies who toe the line of Wikipedia policies. See, for example, this edit by Fecotank, who seems to think that if an editor has been banned at any point, then he is free to disregard any contributions that they have made regardless of whether or not those contributions had anything to do with said ban (and in this case, these contributions were made before this Arbitration case). Disagree with someone—especially Tvx1—and you will likely be referred to ANI for daring to disagree in the first place. If you raise concerns about his activities, they will run to their favourite admins and plead their case, convincing them that it is a bad-faith move by the other editor. If you propose a change that one editor does not like—even if everyone else is on-board—then be prepared for that editor to drag the discussion out and force a WP:NOCONSENSUS, preventing the change from taking hold. Case in point, in a recent discussion, Tvx1 emphasised the importance of articles complying with MOS:DTT. From the way he presents this argument, you would think it is something he is passionate about, but that article is the only article that he cares about complying with MOS:DTT. And he only started caring about it once he suspected I was active again. His agenda is obvious: he cannot stand the thought of someone being able to influence the direction of an article when that same person disagrees with him on other issues. Knowing that others take pride in their work, he aims to destroy that. He is toxic, agressive and condescending and he is almost certainly reading this (watch his contributions page and see which admin's talk page he posts to). He should have been banned years ago, but he has been very careful to observe policies. I hope that someone keeps a very close eye on him because he keeps getting away with this stuff, which has only emboldened him and dragged the community down with him. There is no collaboration within WP:F1 and WP:MOTOR anymore. Just an attitude of "we will not negotiate with terrorists", and it is solely down to his influence. I have had enough, and I know other editors have, too. He will likely take my retirement as vindication, but it is quite clear that this latest chapter started because he wanted to change a consensus. Unable to convince other editors, he instead decided to get one banned, paving the way for a new discussion. He needs to be stopped. 1.129.111.253 ( talk) 22:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
There was a consensus [106] of many Wikipedia users to oppose the edit Casperti just made again, [107] even though these were exactly the types of edits which got him topic banned. [108] The ANI thread confirms it. [109]
Now after coming off from the temporary topic ban, it seems that nothing has changed.
He started a DRN thread on 11 February (see WP:STICK) to dispute the same content from Pashtuns and it was speedily closed. [110] He invited only 1 editor (who didn't even participate in ANI) instead of inviting me and other 3 editors who vehemently disputed his edits to Pashtun.
He continues to misrepresent sources on that article per his recent edit. The Census link he uses mentions the number of Pushto speakers in India, but not the number of Pushtuns (Pushto speakers ≠ Pushtuns). A reliable source says that over 100,000 Pushtuns were granted Indian citizenship in the Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir alone and Casperti was pointed this out many times. [111] Repeating entirely same conduct that led the topic ban is surely WP:DE. Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk) 03:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
If that was an appeal, it is declined. If it was just a query about the ban, it was explained as best I could.
El_C
07:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
|
---|
Hello El_C, I recently noticed your message on my Talk page [112]. I have neither engaged in a edit conflict, only what I did was picking up the issue we were facing 8 months ago here in the dispute resolution:
Please read the Resolution board for more info: [116]
|
Hi El C, I was going to write to Ymblanter but then I read the banner (I hope everything is ok), so I thought I would contact you. I would like to give you a report of what is happening on Navalny's article (and not only), because I consider it quite particular and of a certain gravity.
Extended content
|
---|
Since February 3, I have been forced to protect the article from the removal of the controversial content of the past of this politician (approximately 6 years of documented nationalist militancy from 2007 to 2013). I started fighting with the sockpuppet User:LauraWilliamson and User:Nicoljaus, and now I'm continuing with User:Nicoljaus and User:My very best wishes. In particular User:My very best wishes removed with confidence a huge amount of data [119] [120] (only the controversial ones, making the article a sort of LinkedIn profile, where only the positive aspects are shown), then justifying them in this way: "the page is very big, and we should focus on facts of his biography" [121] Here I summarize all the parts of the article that are in the process of being destroyed or that have already been destroyed:
The point of view of
User:My very best wishes is this one:"He is mostly known as an anti-corruption activist, and yes, involved in Russian politics in general ("smart voting"), etc. But he never was an officially registered presidential candidate, for example. Given that, his views on various political events that had happen many years ago are unimportant"
At first he removed everything. [125] Then, when the part was restored, he removed [126] any reference to the fact that it was a campaign launched by the nationalists (as it was written on the RS)
On the issue of the two NAROD videos we have opened a discussion [127] that reached surreal levels. User:My very best wishes states that "not every sourced defamatory content about living persons belongs to WP". He is literally accusing some of the biggest newspapers of the world journalism of having produced defamatory content. I understand a little Russian, I went to see those original videos, the journalists did nothing but correctly report what they saw, without adding anything else.
Just to underline how User:My very best wishes doesn't care about the facts themselves, but about the protection of Navalny's reputation, he took a part of the text already inserted, where Navalny defined himself as a "democratic nationalist "and deliberately distorted the meaning of it without even reading what the source said. [131]. Since the discussion started, has started also leaving me incomprehensible (perhaps derisive) messages on my talk page, citing my first edits on Wikipedia. [132] Or by reverting [133] my old edits, [134] showing that he taken the matter a little bit too personally. On the other user User:Nicoljaus that is backing the deletions on Navalny's article (he is not the one to implement them, I must admit this), I have some doubts about how he behave, I'm sure he is in good faith, but he seems to be defending Navalny from a political point of view, constantly talking about the Kremlin's influence on the media [135], with phrases like "The Kremlin has spent a lot of money to demonize Navalny, regarding the Georgian question" and "Despite the Kremlin's best efforts to demonize his opponent, only a few publications follows this narrative.", or accusing me of adding "bad things" on the article. These are answers given in the face of the my hard work of search for all the multiple western RS brought. Not fair in my opinion. This looks to me like a whitewashing operation mainly carried out by a user, and backed by a user who supports Navalny. I may be wrong, but I have spent enough days in these discussions to understand that I am not facing interlocutors who want to find a way to report the info with neutrality. The topics that have been put into question are now numerous, I don't even know if I should open an RFC (I still don't know how to open those RFC) for each of these points listed. I'm afraid this thing will go on indefinitely and I can't handle it alone. My impression is that we are facing a clash of tons of RS against smoky "Undue weight" accusations everywhere. UPDATES 15 February 2021
|
If I'm right, I'm asking you to help me. I invite you to check my edits, about 220 almost on Navalny's discussion [138]. I've spent days turning the web upside down searching RS, and now I'm really exhausted... I really don't have the energy left to handle this alone. If instead I'm wrong, I apologize to everyone.-- Mhorg ( talk) 19:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC) - modified 15 February
Not wishing to host this dispute on my talk page at this time.
El_C
08:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
|
---|
|
Hi El C, I already asked
User:Robert_McClenon
[143] the question of the 500 words. I still don't understand if they affect both the diffs section and the space for my answers below together. Actually, the diff part is below 500 words... but I had to answer a lot to defend myself from accusations.
Speaking of wikihounding... MVBW has precisely targeted my old changes to revert them, just to annoy me. Isn't this stalking or wikihounding? Thank you.--
Mhorg (
talk)
17:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C, how have you been? I just took a look at my watchlist after an absence of almost two weeks, just to see that several IPs of the same range have been making disruptive edits on articles of settlements in southern Albania. Their disruption includes removal of sourced content and modifications that counter with what the used sources say. Since they are being continuously reverted by several editors, including User:Bes-ART and User:Maleschreiber, I wonder why nobody has made a report somewhere already. The IPs include [146] [147] [148]. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 23:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding Kurds and Kurdistan has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi El_C, another autoconfirmed editor is declaring
Win Myint to still be president and
Aung San Suu Kyi to still be state counsellor of Myanmar, reverting past my {{
uw-error2}}
warning and
declaring my revert to be "illegal". I'll keep reverting and have explained myself at user and article talk, but I may need your help. ―
Tartan357
Talk
02:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
All of them look like sockpuppets of blocked HistoriaTurce and HistoryOfTurkic. See their edits an rants on the talk pages. Wario-Man talk 11:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Have you seen this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Syrian_Kurdistan&type=revision&diff=1008148155&oldid=1007929627
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Arab_Belt&type=revision&diff=1008148981&oldid=1007875763
This is happening right now.
+ this from earlier that flew under the radar: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds_and_Kurdistan/Proposed_decision#Comments_by_Attar-Aram_syria
This is like 6 times now she has violated her topic ban. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 21:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C, could you please look into the sabotage of the Arab Belt page done by GPinkerton here just hours before they are indefinitely banned? This wild POV pushing is obviously a hopeless provocation from a sinking user to launch an edit-war in an effort to sink other users with them. They even nominated the article as GA. I am staying away from it, but was hoping you could intervene given that this is a huge violation of their current post-1532 Middle East tban. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 21:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Also noting per the section above this ("Block evasion?"), that my internet is proving a bit spotty today for me to want to engage in too intensive use of admin tools, regardless of anything. El_C 21:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
I appreciate your work and I hope you make good use of the sanctions from the ArbCom case I opened. GPinkerton ( talk) 22:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC) |
Hi El C. You blocked Mdgds for a week after my report at ANI due to their repeated addition of unsourced information. It seems they waited out their block and have resumed their mass unsourced editing again. I did bring it up on their talk page but then thought you may prefer I bring it up here. Could I trouble you to cast an eye please. Rob van vee 05:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
El_C, is it acceptable to put blocks of the AE requests into collapsed blocks? The issue I'm trying to illustrate is not that any single event crosses the line but the long term behavior is the problem. My concern is with fewer diffs all this looks like a small thing vs a wide spread pattern. Thanks. Springee ( talk) 11:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/180.242.214.144
If you look at this person's contributions, they have been nothing but disruptive.
For the Kebaya page, they removed over 23 thousand bytes of information.
For pages relating to geographical regions, they've removed Chinese Indonesians from the demographics in the infoboxes.
Lastly, they've also removed mentions of the Betawi language as being a Malay dialect (something that is disputed).
Would appreciate swift action. Thanks. Sisuvia ( talk) 16:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Your wish is
my command.
. I will be out of pocket for most of the day CELEBRATING.
Atsme
💬
📧
17:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
BTW, Atsme, if you wish to address me as Skeet Simpson or Buzz Knudson or even Buck Flower ( YouTube diff) — I'm actually good with that! El_C 21:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C, there's some material I believe needs to be said regarding the arbitration request but it's sensitive and I think it would be best if I communicated it to you personally rather than post it publicly on Wiki. Would it be possible to email you about this? Thank you Noteduck ( talk) 04:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | |
Four years! |
---|
There's a cat on my talk. No ping - today. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Okay, now read in full. Glad to see that Hammersoft and Drmies (courtesy spam-pings) have the matter well in hand. I'll also note that their comments shed light on facets to this with which I was previously unaware. Anyway, looks like a significant outcome is all but certain, so hopefully, that will do much to alleviate tension in the topic area, which, though I am largely ignorant of, seems to revolve mostly on FS and Mathsci by way of their longstanding IBAN. Looking promising, at any rate. El_C 18:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
He violated topic ban again even after the less than a day old warning against it. [152] Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk) 17:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi El_C, can you semi-protect Soe Win (general)? ― Tartan357 Talk 17:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi El_C, can you semi-protect Win Myint? ― Tartan357 Talk 22:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Can you semi-protect Wunna Maung Lwin? ― Tartan357 Talk 12:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
El_C, we may need to semi-protect Talk:Aung San Suu Kyi for a short period of time. It's being filled with edit requests all asking to declare her still in office, with some potential socking going on. ― Tartan357 Talk 00:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Can you semi-protect Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Myanmar)? ― Tartan357 Talk 03:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Can you semi-protect 2021 Myanmar protests? IPs have been adding unsourced content, editing tendentiously, and making weird formatting changes. ― Tartan357 Talk 20:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Can you renew the semi-protection on Min Aung Hlaing? ― Tartan357 Talk 18:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Can you semi-protect State Administration Council? ― Tartan357 Talk 17:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Can you renew the semi-protection on Thet Thet Khine? It was vandalized immediately after the last protection expired. ― Tartan357 Talk 20:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Can you renew the protection on President of Myanmar? ― Tartan357 Talk 18:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi El_C, there's an editor, S2K-Lynx, who's been adding unsourced content, making test edits, and introducing bizarre formatting changes to articles related to the Myanmar coup for several days now. I've warned them for all of these things numerous times (they've since removed some of the warnings from their talk page), but they have not engaged me and have simply carried on editing disruptively. Can you block them? Thanks. ― Tartan357 Talk 03:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi El_C, Rolf h nelson has edited Talk:Aung San Suu Kyi/FAQ to introduce doubt to it. Please advise. ― Tartan357 Talk 17:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi El_C, it looks like I'm going to need your help at Vice-President of Myanmar. There are multiple editors repeatedly adding egregious fabrications. ― Tartan357 Talk 06:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Following on from this where you protected several motor sport articles to shut down a long time IP hopper, can you do likewise for 2021 Supercars Championship? IP hopper has deleted the same text twice in the past 2 days [156] [157]that he deleted about half a dozen times in December. May want to consider 2021 Super2 Series and 2022 Supercars Championship as inevitably he will move on to edit warring at these articles. Fecotank ( talk) 10:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C, sorry to bring this here, but ANI has been locked, so I can't respond there [158]. The issue seems to be over what steps can and should be taken to protect the articles, given that the promotional/copyright issues are slow-moving and long-term. I don't know what alternatives are at your discretion re: level and length of protection; as well, each article has experienced different amounts of disruption.-Mr. Harris' bio was one of the more egregious promotional pieces I'd seen, all the more so for having sat relatively fallow for so long. Your thoughts welcome, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 18:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, El_C, I opened a WP:AN thread, WP:AN#WP:AE understaffed by admins. I mentioned you there, so I am letting you know, in case you want to comment. Thanks, Nsk92 ( talk) 19:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
He has replied to you at talk page. It is the passive aggressive behavior.
When I point out flaws in his writing and sources, he thanked me for my time and asked me to find better sources. TrangaBellam ( talk) 19:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, since you're aware of the situation about the lab leak i'd like if you could TBAN me from Covid stuff so that the thread at WP:ANI can stop. I'm reacting very badly to their comments and it's starting to affect me irl. It's just too much at this point. They're just commenting about me and slandering my (yes limited) contributions and they don't seem to answer my questions. Thank you. Feynstein ( talk) 20:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi! Of this user. He started with kickboxer Benjamin Adegbuyi, currently removing the description of other fighters but from the UFC. Special:Contributions/Belevalo I tried to talk with him nicely, but he has moved now his attention from ice hockey to other sports. Unfortunately. .karellian-24 ( talk) 20:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey C, On Feb 11, you blocked JG4236 ( talk · contribs) for a week for a persistent, long-term pattern of adding unsourced material with tons and tons of warnings. Since that block, the editor is back to his old tricks: [159], [160], [161], [162] and [163] among others. Could you have a look? Toddst1 ( talk) 21:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
El_C I saw your comment/advice here [164]. I have shorten it here at "Answer Casperti to Johnuniq" at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Casperti. It was indeed blurry and vague from my side I guess. Frustration led to that I guess. Thank you. PS Can I delete that larger text? -- Casperti ( talk) 19:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C. First I hope you're doing well
I had a question about 1RR restrictions for pages. The pages I am specifically concerned with are Uyghur genocide and Slavery. How does an editor request that a 1RR restriction be placed on a page? I have no experience on this, so this might not even be possible (or advisable). I always appreciate your counsel.
Best wishes from Los Angeles, // Timothy :: talk 19:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Is editing against a talk page consensus a "content issue" or is it something that can be raised at AE in a topic covered by discretionary sanctions? nableezy - 21:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
treading on tenterhooks does improve the dancing of aged pins.
Perhaps this dark hilarity is now easier to understand. Newimpartial ( talk) 02:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Maybe they were and I missed them, somehow...?Yes, that. No further need for humour, thankfully. Newimpartial ( talk) 02:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Yup, confirming. Briefly glanced at the diffs you've provided during the July 8 and July 30 discussions on my talk page (archives 18 and 19, respectively) and there was no mention of that attack. El_C 02:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I simply stated (accurately) that it this term(cis)
is not considered a personal attack on WP, unlike such other terms as "misogynist" and accusations of "smacking a woman into place", which you have lobbed at me repeatedly. It is true that the relevant diff ( this one) was provided in the previous comment I added to your Talk page. Rest assured that I did not separate the quote from the diff when I posted to GS in early July, FWIW. Newimpartial ( talk) 04:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
[Jeez, Newimpartial, you are taxing me today.] Anyway, now I realize what happened. You did say that (being labeled a "misogynist," etc.), but you did not support it with a diff, which is all I was looking for a few minutes ago. Anyway, so, on 21:09, 19 April 2020, Lilipo25 removes the entire section along with everyone's comments (!), before I got a chance to read your "relevant" comment. I almost certainly didn't notice either of these changes, just because my talk page is, well, super-busy. Like, I had to go with a 25,000 edit range (which takes like 30 seconds to load) just to get to April 2020! Or, put another way, there have been hundreds of edits to my talk page this week alone, even with the notice at the bottom of my talk page that's meant to deter the sheer volume of these. El_C 05:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Newimpartial, in conclusion: if you go forward from the point you cited that diff ( here) all the way until Llilipo25 went on to remove everything ( here), you'll see that I simply wasn't around to notice any of it happening. And that's that. El_C 05:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Also, I can't believe that a few hours ago I said: Also, no luck required. Doing nothing is a breeze
(
diff). That shows me to test the gods of chance...
El_C
07:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
In gratitude for following up on arcane and complex disruption to Wikipedia articles. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 04:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC) |
Per [165]. When I was young, many years ago, I was walking on Gun Hill Road in the Bronx, when an old man passed by. My memory is that he was shirtless (though that may be a romantic embellishment provided by time), laughing to himself, and announcing, "I'm the old sea captain!" So I mean, why not? 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 19:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
SR, just as a follow up, because I think you missed it, but I did actually soften that statement a few minutes later in the interest of accuracy. Anyway, hope you get to see this. // Salsa dance! El_C 18:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Please replace Mika's copy of her suggested text, which you deleted from my talk page, or at least replace her surrounding message. Thank you. Pam D 18:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, hope you're fine. I just noticed what is written on the bottom, however, I wanted to ask your opinion and advice on an issue (I waited even two weeks to come up, since I have been as well very busy after a strained period, which lasts still :( )...I listened a few of the musics offered....please tell me when I may have your attention, or when I should return...at least I hope with you everything is ok!( KIENGIR ( talk) 01:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC))
Hello,
Thank you for deleting those revisions and protecting the page. I was wondering if you could also delete this revision https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1009376237 that was an accidental restoration of the deleted content. CAMERAwMUSTACHE ( talk) 15:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C, hope you're well. I would like to ask you if it is possible to semi-protect the Tayna article, there have been several IPs making disruptive edits in the last months. I would welcome your response, thanks!-- Lorik17 ( talk) 17:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you :) Lorik17 ( talk) 18:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Mentioned user was TBANed by you under AA2 sanctions, and has since edited in Articles in the area that he was sanctioned [167] [168] (I tried to provide ordinary diff instead of mobile diffs). I think that he didn't understand the "Broadly construed" part of the sanction, he might need a bit of guidance on this. - Kevo327 ( talk) 17:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I know you are busy, but what is this person trying to do? He cleans up also the name of Romania. Nothing against anyone, but it might be wrong. Special:Contributions/MB .karellian-24 ( talk) 02:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
I just wanted to ask if you could help with a repeat vandalism on Somalia, previously you gave the same user a 48 hour ban for removing sources. They are doing the same thing again, I have reverted back to the official source for the time being.
Previous case which you banned the user for 48 hours - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1057#Dabaqabad
Could you kindly look into it, I have also reported it for Vandalism but since you have previously dealt with it, I thought I would inform you also.
Thank you. Hurbad ( talk) 15:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for getting back to me ( diff).
I have since reverted it. Hurbad ( talk) 16:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Update: upon further thought, I decided to place a revert-talk page requirement on Dabaqabad ( diff), as a logged AE action. El_C 18:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Even if I had wanted to start a conflict of interest discussion about Tenebrae, I would not have since I have been told that the Arbitration Committee is looking into it. Although my question was prompted by the accusations against Tenebrae, it was, as I clearly said, a general question. I have no idea why you would want to mention Tenebrae in that context. You pretty much said "It's Tenebrae who did all that bad stuff mentioned earlier". What were you thinking? Mo Billings ( talk) 18:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi there El C - per WP:OUT, I really think you should redact the username you posted in COIN - doing so makes it very easy to find the article that links a person to that username. Without the username being posted, the description in the original COIN post is generic enough that it would be quite difficult to find the article. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 14:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I see an [edit] button next to the section header. Maybe refresh to page? Beyond My Ken ( talk) 20:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
We both semi-protected ANI, within 1 second of each other, and both for 6 hours (which isn't a dropdown default). Great minds think alike (or summat like that, I forget). Black Kite (talk) 01:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
On a social website, we moderators agreed that (bar a rare sighting of Trollus jocosus, a threatened species) we could always be funnier than trolls. The site had an age limit of 13, but required an explicit admission of age before we could take action. One annoying but not sanctionable user, to emphasise how obvious his political points were, started signing his posts "six-year-old boy". Who was I to argue? Narky Blert ( talk) 19:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I saw you semi protected Pop Smoke's article back in September 2020. It looks like it expires in a few hours. I think you should semi protect it again as he has new music and his debut posthumous acting for Boogie is out in the United States now. [169] [170] [171] The Ultimate Boss ( talk) 04:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Mind extending the protection a wee bit (there's a posthumous film the subject is involved in, at least until then, and then maybe a bit more). The subject recently died, and an editor on talk page has reasonable concerns that it might get IP vandalism and infobox warring, so... Cheers, RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 05:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
El_C
13:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
... and now I don't have to check back on the page. TY. :-) [172]. — Ched ( talk) 19:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC) (but I do really appreciate the courtesy) — Ched ( talk) 19:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi EI C, hope you are doing well! There is a problem on the Croatisation. Now there is an edit war there. The banned puppet account added pov content and as you can see here they have an agenda against Croats. Your inout on this situation would be welcomed. I usually see the same editors defending puppet edits mass wipe edits by other sock accounts that get blocked ignore whatever the content is. Much appropriate. OyMosby ( talk) 19:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
On another page There is also a pupoet IP solely removing info they don’t like on the Bleiburg Reparations Page page referring to Chetnik Genocidal atrocities and numbers as “ranting”. I’m beyond words. Also deleted Reliable sources while complaints of “not sourced” caims even though they are. Please take a look. Thank you. OyMosby ( talk) 22:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Done.
El_C
23:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for WP:REVDELing those IP edits. I thought of requesting it, but couldn't remember the right criteria offhand. I also hate giving people an excuse to cry "censorship". But calling people "feminazis" obviously has no place on WP. Good call. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 23:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello El C I hope you're good. I just wanted to ask if you could help with repeated vandalism on Anxhela Peristeri. There are few editors [173] [174] [175] [176] who try to add inaccurate and false informations related to the origin of the singer. This inaccuracy was taken from an interview here [177] during which she did not confirmed that however, there are also no reliable Albanian sources who discusses her "Greek" origin. Thank you!-- Lorik17 ( talk) 14:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Hallo, thanks for your comment. I agree with you completely, but if - as in this case, which I think is crystal clear - the topic is subject to discretionary sanctions, the underlying problem is that these are not applied from the start. I, who belongs to neither the Capulets nor the Montagues, (my only fault is having a page on my watchlist) :-) contacted an administrator a few hours before someone else opened a thread at AN/I against the same user, but all I got was a notice about discretionary sanction on my discussion page. 16:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC) P.S. I only replied here because I don't want the thread in question to double in length again. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alessandro57 ( talk • contribs)
Sir, this user is making legal threats, should I warn them? The user has previously tried to remove large chunks of sourced content. - Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 16:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
The clarification request you filed, Clarification request: Discretionary sanctions, has been closed and archived. You can view a permalink of the here. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 19:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
There's a new account ( CrnogorskiKralj ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) which as we speak is replacing the Montenegrin language template with Serbian in every article about settlements in Montenegro. This needs attention because it is getting out of hand. There are almost 500 articles which it has changed.-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 23:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Whoa, 1,000 contested edits in 24 hours is absolutely bonkers! Shut down. BTW, thanks
Ktrimi991 — I see you!
El_C
01:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
User:Tarik289 has returned, under the name of User:Tarik298. - Kevo327 ( talk) 13:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Hey El C, I see that you've p-blocked Soyoko for two weeks. While I sort of understand, I also just wanted to note that I don't think a pblock is completely appropriate given the admin who left a final warning is also calling for an outright block. I also don't think two weeks is going to give them the necessary perspective and their disruption isn't completely limited to mainspace. Would you be willing to reconsider this? I get the impression that the pblock is not so much a "while under discussion" block based on the wording but if it is, please let me know. CUPIDICAE💕 13:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to bring it to your attention that despite a block, User:Rtr315 has continued the exact same behavior of violating WP:ONUS, WP:RS WP:OR and WP:CIRCULAR. These actions continue to be disruptive and I request that action be taken to enforce Wikipedia's policies. Thank you, Chariotrider555 ( talk) 15:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Why would an IP address revert this on my talkpage? Clownshking ( talk) 16:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Please explain to me wp:undue issue in Jovan Rašković article. I have two sources [179] which say that mother of Jovan Rašković is Croat and father was judge in NDH. Can I do something to prevent wp:undue issue? Or for some reason such information should not be included in the article, maybe this information is not important or more sources for confirmation is needed? I don't understand entirely that rule, so explain to me in more detail if you have time. What exactly undue problem means in this case? Thank you. Mikola22 ( talk) 10:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
This user page User talk:185.205.142.78 should be looked at. From the ANI discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Current Burmese case 2 I tink there is either some socking or canvassing happening. // Timothy :: talk 13:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C, thanks for semi-protecting the Emraan Hashmi article and for deleting the BLP violations! I noticed that the article was pending changes protected when I edited and my edits were caught up in it until a bot had to approve my edits. Could I request the Pending changes reviewer rights to avoid this in the future pleae? (Some articles I've come across during RCP are also pending changes protected so this permission would help a lot too). Thanks! Some1 ( talk) 16:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
I humbly request Semi-protected status for the Liberal Democrats (UK) Wikipage due to vandalism and sock puppetry! B. M. L. Peters ( talk) 01:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I hope you are well. I have done as you suggested, and appealed; please see WP:AE. Kind regards, J.Turner99 ( talk) 21:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
I would like to request to decrease the semi-protection level of Pangako, Ikaw Lang for 1 week since you protected it. I replaced the edit with proper source, the page was redirect because it has no proper source last February 14, 2021. Thank You! SeanJ 2007 ( talk) 12:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Hey El C, I just applied a DS sanction here in response to this edit (exacerbated by the others around it), and logged it here. This is the first time I've applied a DS sanction - would you be willing to check that I've completed all the paperwork correctly? Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 11:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh, GS, just noticed this: you should not be closing requests at WP:ARCA (or any arbitration pages). That is the exclusive domain of the arbitrators and clerks. El_C 14:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
G— I'll take that save! (And hold onto it for dear life!) For sure, glad I could help (until I went to visit outer space, at least). El_C 15:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Today: Carmen for TFA, with Bizet's music " expressing the emotions and suffering of his characters" as Brian worded it. Miss him. Miss too many. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
enjoy the music -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
BTW, I did an Us already, so how about a You? El_C 23:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi - since you were involved in the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Volunteer (book), I am letting you know that I have requested clarification from the Arbitration Committee about how we should interpret the wording of the remedy at WP:APLRS. If you wish to comment on the request, it is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Antisemitism in Poland#Article sourcing expectations. Best GirthSummit (blether) 15:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Your comment here made me wonder - was MEDRS community imposed/decided or ArbCom imposed? Volunteer Marek 16:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
In case you didn't know about the tool - you may want to try Special:Mute/USERNAMEHERE - will let you avoid some notifications. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 18:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I hope you’re doing well. Would it be convenient for you to briefly explain to me something about the ban on Balkans topic area? May I edit articles for the 2020 Summer Olympics, Eurovision Song Contest 2021, 93rd Academy Awards, 2021 ATP Tour etc? These events undoubtedly have participants from the Balkans, but by strict definition they do not belong to Balkans pages. Especially, am I allowed to update the results and other data on participants from the Balkans? Does the ban apply to Novak Djokovic career statistics and other non-political Balkans individuals (sports, culture, science)? Of course, I understand that I should not get involved in disputes about ethnic origin, controversial parts, etc. I'm thinking specifically of undisputed sports results, festival awards, etc. Could you please clarify this for me? I'd appreciate your reply. Best regards. -- WEBDuB ( talk) 16:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
If you are unfamiliar with the wonder of goats, I suggest the video:
Are goats OP? Recently the general public has come to recognize the wonder of goats, with GOAT serving as a
backronym for "Greatest Of All Time". Unfortunately, society still has a ways to go in recognizing the contributions of our caprine symbiotes. Like goats, your work here is important but underappreciated. Our sanctions regimes are functional largely because of your work to enforce them, and despite the flak you receive, your work is truly appreciated. Perhaps the "C" in "El_C" stands for "Caprine", and
you were a goat all along? Either way, enjoy the new lawn mower accompanying goat!
—
Wug·
a·po·des
07:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, ZaniGiovanni made a personal attack on my page and when reverted and replied to, wrote this. What should the appropriate course of action be? Cheers. — CuriousGolden (T· C) 16:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Now that my IBAN partner has left Wikipedia, and then been indef blocked and had TPA revoked for NOTHERE behaviour - including personal attacks in violation of the IBAN - I would ask that the IBAN between us be voided. That would allow me to edit certain pages without going into convolutions about their edit histories. If the editor in question is unblocked for some reason, I will consider myself under a voluntary 1-way IBAN while awaiting further developments, but given the circumstances of the indef, I do not see this scenario as likely. Anyway, you could just let me know here, at your leisure, what you decide. Thanks. Newimpartial ( talk) 16:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, hope you're fine. I just noticed what is written on the bottom, however, I wanted to ask your opinion and advice on an issue (I waited even two weeks to come up, since I have been as well very busy after a strained period, which lasts still :( )...I listened a few of the musics offered....please tell me when I may have your attention, or when I should return...at least I hope with you everything is ok!( KIENGIR ( talk) 01:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC))
Oh, Thanks, I did not know you already read it, I thought you would add a preliminary opinion, but ok, I'll spell out then my problem (or better I summarize since it should seem obvious). Well, I just noticed they will renew the trilogy, with the most advanced graphics, correcting bugs, and to convert the first parts control system akin the second one...although would be happy if Andromeda would continue in a better shape, if they really abandoned the original storyline...
Back to Sol, Earth:
- "In general": I was very sad of the witch-hunt I suffered, nobody really wished to have serious arguments, I've got mostly ad hominem or emotionally motivated arguments towards the subject as well, and pure straw-man argumentations almost for every professional demonstrations, furthermore the number & actual stance of participants a discussion should never influence it's outcome, if it is not well or thouroughly discussed, or the problem solved in accordance our policies and guidelines (as well). Hence the very early closure, even wished to be boosted by AN was execptional, given there are less "core important" discussions taking much more longer and there have been not such a fuss (but even important ones, in ten years I experienced even week/month long threads)
- Problem 1: Majority of the participants erroneusly considered the subject would be denying the connection between Fascism or Nazism, and they adamantly tried to prove something that was not even the catch, the closer's comment perfectly reflected this error - and suggest he did not read/understood the discussion -, so I contest closing (even this "Virginia" remark is hard (?) to be interpreted, since such user/username did not participate in the discussion, if it was meant to be a(n) (pejorative) insult, twice as bad, since would be a pure boomerang). Nazism is a form of Fascism (as well here Nazism is a subcat of it), and the first defining, appropriate qualifier to designate the ideology/system etc. Since the Elton John example was ignored, there is even better, beetle is a subgroup of insects, but it does not mean that ever insect would be beetle, similary if I wish to define a human, it's enough the designate with the first-defining order mammals, but I don't have/need to add that it stems/belongs/subgroup of Tetrapods.
- Problem 2: even is Problem 1 is enough to demonstrate the error, the discussion went to that direction what the sources say, a user after a hard digging shown two sources containing Fascist state...after I have shown three sources contanining Nazi state....according to our rules - since they preached we say what RS say - they should have either accept or make a scrutiny which is more prevalent and go on, etc.! This did not happen, but I've got serious deterioration and straw man arguments, and an overly pressure to falsely identify my conduct as a problematic behavior (= translation: they identified this was of argumentation with RS may result the same boomerang as before, so all efforts was put on charge on my witch hunting, like I would not hear/accept the other users opinions and what I would do would be disruptive and tendentious, etc., despite I also disproved all of such trials, since a content dispute is a content dispute, not a beauty contest or an exit poll, especially if I follow those policy line they introduced)
- Problem 3: after I came to realize the Jolly Joker - after the discussion has been unfortunately successfully deteriorated from the point -, besides Problem1&Problem2, the whole addition to the Government parameter of the infobox was in fact even semantically erroneus, since a government is not a state ( [182]), hence regardless of the other points of the debate, it has to be reverted, but they've got very mad at me and the ad-hominem campaign has been intensified, like I would be the bad who should revise his thinking because so many users are disagreeing, blabla and the same panels, they've got so afraid that started to rush to close the discussion ASAP (= translation: "since it cannot happen one user would make a fool of all of us, after this already strained hotch-potch against him, since the decoy was taken by the majority already that he is "baddish"...)
Epilogue: I became very sad and I feel like this, very disappointed as a said, since any good-faith/professional editor who knows the subject and/or have an elementary logic, or just even conduct or practises of guidelines/policies in WP about content issues, clearly identifies my argumentations and points are valid and correct. What happened here, could not happen at Chess or Deutsch–Jozsa algorithm articles. Etc., I don't explain further, I think/hope you fully understand me, and I need it very much, since this issue has to be remedied...this bold edit was the cause of everything ( [183]), unfortunately contrary the edit log, the user added someting else, the problem :( .( KIENGIR ( talk) 12:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC))
Nazism is fascism that was developed in Germany, with added racist principles.
Fascism, Nazism— that's it! Anyway, again, as someone who has studied and taught the subject, through the prism of Holocaust historiography and beyond, that description aligns with what I know to be mainstream scholarly consensus (myself, I place more of a stress on the role of class in my own analysis, but that goes beyond the scope of this note at the moment).
Thanks goes to Wikipediocracy for the interesting pointer to the "CR&S Office Hour" Zoom meetup back in June: YouTube link, which I had missed. Thanks, especially, to Vigilant for the OP and to SR for the bump. It's about an hour long, but well worth viewing in full. Possibly, everyone else knew about it except for me...?
BTW, Osborne, not sure why you're spreading misinformation about me. I was was opposed to SR's original siteban, as well as having supported their appeal a couple of months ago (first to do so, in fact). I was dissapointed that the appeal did not succeed, but remain hopeful that one day it will. Anyway, sometime, it's best to state the salient facts, for the record, especially against patently false assertions. El_C 17:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/trickle-down-economics-doesnt-work,-says-joe-biden-6X190Do6
The trifecta:
El_C 21:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Lyrics:
|
---|
"Bound":
|
Hi, El C. To the best of my knowledge, we have "hashed-out" all issues relating to "unbalance" in the article Beit She'arim (Roman-era Jewish village). Therefore, can I ask you to remove the "Unbalanced tag"? Since the tag was first placed there in January of 2021, more than six editors have worked on the article to alleviate the "perceived" problems. Davidbena ( talk) 22:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Hey El C,
Could you please remove this per WP:ATTACK, and revdel these [Links removed for privacy] per WP:CRD? Thanks. François Robere ( talk) 16:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, re
this edit. Removal of the {{
archive top}}
/{{
archive bottom}}
, essentially reverting
these edits, was OK if
Mikehawk10 (
talk ·
contribs) said that it was OK. But rather than adding a new {{
rfc}}
, which caused Legobot to assume a totally new RfC, you should have reverted
this edit (so that the same rfcid was used) and immediately inserted your relisting comment between the original statement and original signature. Something like this:
Legobot looks for the {{
rfc}}
tag, and from that point scans forward to the next valid timestamp. Everything in between is taken as the RfC statement, hence
this result. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
21:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
|rfcid=
. A number of processes use this as a unique key, for example to decide if a user should not be sent a
WP:FRS message (because they already had one). So if Legobot generates a new rfcid, people might be messaged twice about the same rfc. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
17:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)For someone who is not taking any new requests for help, you seem to resolve more editor conflict problems in a day than I do in a week. You can't help yourself but help out people who come to you with problems, can you, El C? Don't worry, I won't tell anyone. We're lucky to have you. Liz Read! Talk! 05:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you ECP protected this article, but I don't think that was the correct decision. While the organization is opposed to intermarriage and is an active org, it doesn't have anything really to do with the IP Conflict. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C, I'm concerned about the activity of the new editor, Traineek. Their first edits were a series of extremely POV and unsourced (or poorly) sourced information ( [185], [186], [187] just a few examples...) which were all subsequently reverted. They then edit-warred far past the limitations of WP:3R and continue to exhibit serious battle ground behavior on The talk page. Surely something can be done here?? Aza24 ( talk) 16:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Happy St. Patrick's Day! I hope your St. Patrick's Day is enjoyable and safe. Hopefully next year there will be more festive celebrations. Best wishes from Los Angeles. // Timothy :: talk |
Greetings,
It seems you have previously edited article Black sea or some article which is linked/ connected to Black sea article.
Thanks and warm regards
Bookku ( talk) 11:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello El C, could Merrywalker ( talk · contribs) be blocked as soon as convenient? They are an LTA. Thanks, Pahunkat ( talk) 14:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi El_C!
Sorry to bug your but I have a general question regarding the scope WP:BLP. The policy states that it applies to all Wikipedia pages. Does this include talk pages? My reading is that it does, but I wanted to check with a much more experienced person to make sure I am reading it right.
Thanks, — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 05:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC) — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 05:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Can you please Semi-Protect his article for a while? It has recently been vandalized by a handful of vandals, in addition to suffering from unsourced/misleading changes. The article also covers an unfolding natural disaster in the United States, so it's probably going to continue drawing attention for a while. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 ( talk) 15:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
That page was hijacked. I had restored the correct version and requested protection. Are you sure it should have been deleted? MB 16:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
likely NN businessman. Which was my assessment, as well. El_C 16:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Please consider unlocking this page so disruptive editing cannot be made by those with Extended Protection status.
User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz tampered with the personal relationship section of both Gurbaksh Chahal and Rubina Bajwa by simply removing it outright. This user was later blocked on February 22nd (Per consensus at ANI (discussion); violation of civility-related editing restriction) after he made his changes.
For Gurbaksh Chahal, on January 18 his reason was →Personal life: no current source
For Rubina Bajwa, on January 18 his reasons were →Personal life: noncurrent gossip, no significance indicated
I did not know just because he saw a citation of article that was not recent enough, he had the ability to remove relationship status in its entirety? Their relationship status has been reportedly quite heavily in Indian media. Was there ever an article mentioning a break up? This was clearly done not in good faith.
I was able to revert the changes for Rubina Bajwa but since I do not have EP status, I could not make the changes to his page. I have requested others to revert the changes, with no luck. I believe it is only fair to open up this page so it can be monitored and protected by the entire wikipedia community when any user makes changes that are considered disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.238.106.82 ( talk) 14:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
The only thing about this is that heralds tend to precede their main event, whereas SineBot would let the entire apocalypse happen and then follow up with something like " — Preceding unsigned death and destruction added by the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (talk • contribs)". DanCherek ( talk) 03:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
For protecting thousands of pages, for endlessly leaving comments at AN and ANI, for being valuable to a whole admin area that very few can bear to edit it, for other things. Courtesy of WikiProject Giving Users Barnstars Because They Deserve Them. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 10:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC) |
The removal of Romanian content simply because it is Romanian has no place on Wikipedia. Please revert and delete revision Special:Diff/1013415724 so viewers do not get offended.-- Frobozz1 ( talk) 19:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Hey! I just saw the text on your talk page about not accepting new requests right now, so I'm sorry if my recent ping on the Talk:Zangezur Mountains page was one of those requests that you're not open to at the moment. One of the editors in the discussion pinged me and asked for help to get admin input and so I thought I'd ping you since you dealt with a dispute concerning the involved editors previously. AntonSamuel ( talk) 14:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I was wondering what the reason was for your protecting an article here. [188] In particular, given the directly before insertion of OR, non-RS supported accusations relating to a living person, as (now) indicated here. [189] -- 2603:7000:2143:8500:245F:81DC:F4FB:745E ( talk) 23:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed the issue at ani in the past hour that resulted in a warning for outing. I just wanted to point out that on the "outee"/ reg'd account's tp is a comment that clearly and easily leads anyone to an edit by the "outee" stating that they are also a specific ip user. Why do I bring this up? First, (jtbc), I have nothing to do with that ani, any of the user's or pages involved. I just noticed it while posting at another ani just above. I was just curious if, given that you now have this disclosure info, is that warning still justified? Did user "jb" still violate wp:outing? (I don't blame you for warning them at the time as you didn't have this info then.) The only reason I ask is because if I find a similar disclosure between an ip and a reg'd account, and I then warn them about ewlo, I wouldn't want to run afoul of outing myself. Sorry about the lengthy post. Any feedback would be appreciated. Cheers - wolf 23:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Note that in locking the Rubin Carter page, you are leaving an edit which not only reverses a long standing edit that had already gained talk page consensus, but which removed the very notice of the talk page consensus, which I suspect, is the best possible outcome the vandal could have hoped for 69.116.78.233 ( talk) 23:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I thought you'd like to know it was delicious, although there was a last minute switch from the chips to mushrooms. It's a shame that you kept it off ANI but I understand. 90.209.118.28 ( talk) 00:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C -- I saw the request for an uninvolved admin to have a look at this debacle discussion and just got done reading through it all and the relevant offshoots (I think). I saw you've taken a few administrative actions, though, so I didn't want to step on your toes if you were planning to close. Seems there's consensus at least for a topic ban; less convinced a block is going to do the trick. Conversation among other editors on the article talk page about the content dispute (insofar as there is one without him) seems like it can continue. I'm happy to dive in and close it as such, or I am happy to defer to you, or I can butt out entirely, or if you think there's a better path forward, I'm all ears. Just seems to me this has taken enough of everyone's time. Best,
Go
Phightins
!
00:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello El C. Earlier in March you enforced a Post-1992 US Politic T-Ban on me for 6 months. While patrolling new pages, I accidentally tagged a non-notable article with PROD (And still should be PROD), but I didn't read in detail and Fram messaged me on my talk page. He apparently was a canadit in an election in 2020, which made my PROD notice a violation on the T-Ban. I am sorry for that. I don't want to violate the T-Ban again so I won't link the article in question (See my talk page to see message from Fram about it). I did self-revert the PROD notice on the article since it was a T-Ban violation. Can I ask for the edits to be "swept under the rug" and become hidden edits? It was an unintentional T-Ban violation and my recent edits show that, however, I know there are users that will use that to get me in trouble well after the T-Ban expires. Thanks for the help or any advice you give about this. Elijahandskip ( talk) 10:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
RandomCanadian has given you a bonbon! Bonbons promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bonbon, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Much obliged! - Cheers,
RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 23:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Huasteca, a Mexican-based user and nationalist who mainly and frequently targets El Salvador's ethnic composition and edit these pages according to his own personal racial views, yet only apply these views in the Salvadorans pages and not the Mexican demographic pages, he neglect to answer why he makes exception to all Latin American pages except for the one's relation to El Salvador. This user makes changes in the Demographics of El Salvador as well and removes sources that don't fit his personal racial agenda despite advices to find better sources rather than going into a erasing rampage. I tried to act civil with this user but he persistently keep editing Salvadoran pages with valuable information for weeks. When confronted with reliable sources he dismiss these and begins on a edit warring rampage over and over again. When Sources are presented, he erases them out of spite. This user seems to be infatuated with race in El Salvador and seems to be bent on erasing African, Indigenous and European contributions in El Salvador. Cobaltous ( talk) 02:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Commander! I won't be lenghty. What prompted me to write you is this ( [191]), but this is the premilinary ( [192]). One user still did not answer me who sent the e-emails to co-odinate against me, as well I don't know their content yet, will wait still. However it's better if more administrators have insight, I am really fed up that a novice user hounding me with a bogus campaign, I have been quite patient, however the recurrent denial of basic policies, or not understading them today already reached that point that is untenable. To prevent @ Ymblanter: of any concern, please also overview, or follow the events. Lying is a WP civility issue as well, which I graciously ignored to use against the novice user, better with extreme patience I tried to explain and enlight of the things with good faith, but had no success. Enough what is enough. If you have any questions just ask, very sad again, that instead of useful editing I have waste time on this :/. Have a nice day!( KIENGIR ( talk) 14:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC))
I've just got my answer, the user won't willing to disclose the off-wiki email sender, so as per your note, we should go to ArbCom regarding this. What should I do exactly? Thank You.( KIENGIR ( talk) 22:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC))
No one appreciates fine writing anymore. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello El C, thanks for the quick response semi'ing Ashwanth Ashokkumar. Just so you know, I think you missed revdelling three edits starting here. Again, thanks, and cheers! Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 19:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
picture of a baby squirrel. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Hey there. I see you have fully protected this article. While it does seem like there is too much of an edit war (although I am not justifying Random Haste's EW or use of unreliable sources inn the article), it is basically DE by returning socks of Fly787. Please see this. If you notice, these users have suddenly jumped into this article out of nowhere and have started citing many guidelines like WP:OR and WP:BURDEN. New users would generally (not always though) not know much of some guidelines esp something like WP:BURDEN. These socks have returned right after the recent block of one: Sayswalk. — LeoFrank Talk 18:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
[193]I watchlisted this user because they are obviously grinding an axe, so I was not the least bit surprised to see they were blocked, but surely you are aware that per WP:BLANKING they were in fact allowed to remove those comments, and also your revert did more than just restore your comments. Please be more careful. Beeblebrox ( talk) 15:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello again! I did not see the notification about you not doing protection request right now anymore on your page! So I humbly request, I would like to say indefinite semi-protected status is required for it, due to controversy we get a lot of IP's editing Sinn Féin and removing sourced content or changing the article based on there WP:POV, to straight vandalism due to the controversial nature of the page, this page has been worthy of protection for awhile now, however no admins really edit or check in on the page. You can view the history of the page and see! I am here to request "indefinite semi-protected" status for the page Sinn Féin, as upon lifting of the protection, I believe the same issue will arise again, if you can possibly do this, that would be amazing! B. M. L. Peters ( talk) 14:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello sorry for bothering you I saw you from your block on Chris O’hare page You blocked him for a week but now he is continuing his disruptive editing I provided the sources on Jacques Saadé talk page and dourved my edits Now he removed it and is threatening that he’ll report me 4353Phone ( talk) 19:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Chris intimidates Wikipedians by saying that he’ll report them. Just like he did to me multiple times, This leads some editors to avoid reverting his disruptive edits because they don’t have the time arguing for hours.
I hope restrictive actions be taken on him. 4353Phone ( talk) 23:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
[195] - Can I edit pages that are within my general areas of interest and were not visited by this user for a few weeks? Just to be extra careful, I would first post/ask something on article talk page. Whatever you might think, the discussions between this user and me were generally polite, honest and on the subject. The only action that was wrong on his part I believe was his submission of AE report. But this is now a "dead horse" territory I hope. My very best wishes ( talk) 23:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I think you wanted to be notified when the protection had elaspsed. -- JBchrch ( talk) 17:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you protected the page Axis powers, but the IP requesting protection just said there was a typo. Thanks, Cupcake547 ( talk) 17:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC).
A lot of traffic on WP:RFPP. How's that "Write 'There's a backlog at RFPP' on AN every Wednesday" bot request coming along? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C! As you are the protecting admin, Twinkle told me to come here first. I think it would be appropriate to reduce/remove the extended-confirmed protection on Dark Emu (book). Talk page discussions appear to have died down and there has been little recent disruptive editing (or editing at all). Perhaps semi-protection to keep IP vandals out, or complete unprotection. Thank you! Ganesha811 ( talk) 00:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, El C,
Just FYI but the protection you issued for this article expires April 2nd. I noticed because the BLM page had the same general protection period and it just expired.
By the way, it's a little confusing to know where the bottom of this page is to leave a message. You might use a larger header for the bottom portion that is not really part of your talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 01:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
...could you please look into this Talk page comment? You blocked the editor from Pentagon UFO videos here, and although that notice did not explicitly mention the article Talk page, the user has indirectly returned to the page with their promotion of fringe content fully intact. I suspect a broader block is needed. Thanks. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 14:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
if you were joking with the edit summary of "some nonsense about a feed store (I dunno)".... Sooooo, just in case you really didn't know - though, of course, I know admins know all about everything possible that there is to Wiki-know - but, just in case, this thread could help. Cheers, Shearonink ( talk) 16:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you recently protected the page Bayley (wrestler). I wanted to let you know that I added the template for the protection. PedigreeWWEFigz87V2 ( talk) 19:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I just wanted to let you know that EdDakhla is back (you'll never guess which article they are targetting). The IP they are using is from the same geolocation as ones they used previously (listed in the SPI). Regards. M.Bitton ( talk) 00:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
El C,
Sorry to bother you but looking to see if you can put your editor hat on and assist with potential translation issues of Maimonides at Talk:Messiah_in_Judaism. If you can not assist, can you direct me to another editor that can help?
Would have preferred not dropping this message on an admin's page as not looking to drop a hammer of doom on the well-intentioned editor (though that may happen regardless), but you were the first editor I could recall that was bilingual. Slywriter ( talk) 12:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I was recently doing a review of all the page restrictions I've placed or taken ownership of over the years, and I noticed that a majority of the pages were no longer battlegrounds and didn't require restrictions anymore. I was looking backwards a couple of months on the article history and talk page looking for major diputes, and for the most part things were pretty quiet. I've removed the BRD restrictions from about 70% of the articles that I had put them on, and the 1RR restrictions from probably 90% of pages.
I figured while I was at it I might as well try to track down the other pages with active sanctions and see if the admins who placed them might also be interested in doing a similar review. The following list might not be complete, but it's the best I could come up with by tracking usages of the American Politics AE template. (Perhaps you can compare it to whatever system you have for tracking your active sanctions.) For convenience I'll put links to the edit notice page and the talk page.
I'm hoping that removing some of these restrictions can help restore some sense of normalcy to the topic area. In any case I hope this list is helpful. ~ Awilley ( talk) 23:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Because then I get to avoid going through incremental increases in protection durations (i.e. before reaching a "perennial problem" stage), when that isn't what's called for due to AE matters. For better or worse, there are AE protection items which are difficult to put a clock on. Also, for best recordkeeping practices (related to that and beyond). Anyway, it's not a trap and it isn't my understanding that logging these AE protections, which they are, hinders other admins from up/downgrading or lifting them when that makes sense. The common practice at WP:RFPU is to ping the protecting admin, unless inactive. So, what's the issue exactly? Is there a problem? Has there been a problem? Because I have yet to encounter one. El_C 00:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
You are one of the most funniest and wholesome peoples on this site, I really like you for that :), this site deserves more people like you. Powering everyone ( talk) 08:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
"El C, no, you are not." — Ched ( talk) 01:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C,
I noticed a suspicious ip removing content re Mede - Kurdish connection (this is not about the content, but behavioral evidence)
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/46.245.43.132
Same location with the suspected ip sock of indefinitely blocked Armanqur:
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/80.191.203.92
Same location (Tabriz) and similar content removals (Kurdish-Mede connection) made me think that the blocked user who created strawman "Kurdish" role accounts ( /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Dirokakurdi) in the past (for the same Mede - Kurdish thing) probably evaded his block.
To refresh your memory: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:El_C&diff=prev&oldid=1006682889
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:El_C&diff=prev&oldid=1007284670#Stale_users
176.54.36.176 ( talk) 14:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi El_C, at the Battle of Chawinda, there is no actual edit-warring going on. All my editing has been on issues unrelated to the dispute. I had reverted the disputed content only once. The discussion is proceeding on the talk page, as it normaly should.
I would appreciate if you can unlock it, because the article is badly in need of fixing various things. Thanks. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 11:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Can you please delete the last two edits I reverted? Seems like an egregious BLP violation to me. AeschyIus ( talk) 13:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I am trying to construe "compuets" as broadly as possible, but I'm still finding the empty set! — MarkH21 talk 15:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
After you set Radio Free Asia to protected status until the talk page discussion concluded, some uninvolved users appear to have come in and significantly altered the intro to the article. Should those be reverted until discussion concludes? I am not extended confirmed and relatively new so I apologize if this is inappropriate. Deku link ( talk) 08:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey there El C, Just wanted to let you know that I'm working on the ' Arab states of the Persian Gulf' since it's currently a hot mess. I have shared my thoughts here on why that article is in its current state and started a discussion on how to fix it to comply with Wikipedia standards. Furthermore, as it's apparent from the article history that it's a chaotic edit waring ground I sincerely believe that the vandalism is a symptom not a cause in the current state of the article. In the talk page I've discussed why the grouping list doesn't comply with WP:Notability, how the article is confusing cultural, geographical and socio-political identity. And most importantly why it doesn't adhere to WP standard especially when compared with other regional socio-political organizations articles (The EU being the best example). A Contemporary Nomad ( talk) 22:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey there @ El C! I know that you're not interested in the ' Arab states of the Persian Gulf' article or its topic. But I wanted to let you know that I've made it my current wiki-objective to fix the article and minimize the WP:Warring by addressing its core issues in a multi-part series. I have opened part one of the series in the article talk page. Developing the discussion layout on Wikipedia processes like WP:ARA and WP:DR. I know it might seem excessive for a discussion but I feel it's very necessary to reach a consensus and document the process for future talks. I've also included field research alongside a wiki history on the article. Just wanted to let you know. Thanks — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ( 💬 Talk) 03:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Can you please check this page history and block IP, thank you so much -- Mishary94 ( talk) 02:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for ending that, it was getting rather tiresome. 106.69.53.60 ( talk) 11:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
You asked IP 136.158.59.173 for reasons to delete the speed claims section and they lied to you, repeating the same lie as the sockmaster Sennen goroshi in the threads above, that the manufacturer never pushed the absurd speed claims. The argument that the article has a long history of controversy is due only to the relentless trolling by several sock puppet accounts. The bad faith demonstrated by that is reason to indef block the IP and definitely revert their last deletion instead of giving them what they wanted. — Dennis Bratland ( talk) 16:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Also how many reverts was that? They blew past the 3RR by at least three reverts, and for that reason alone the article belongs back on the stable version, not the one they edit warred to achieve. — Dennis Bratland ( talk) 16:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Please consider unlocking the Brian Gallagher article as now the disruptive and opinion based edits are locked in place. I edited to remove opinion and biased sources leaving just the AP link with all necessary background information. To leave the quoted opinion up in particular is not appropriate. Param3ter2 ( talk) 22:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Does this constitute a breach of Mzajac's topic ban?-- Ermenrich ( talk) 16:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
It is not editorializing when the article is well cited and representative of the rest of the article. Appealing to editors with the same privileges or greater to override El C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:c001:4a40:d87c:717c:a09d:1c84 ( talk • contribs)
Hi there, El_C! I'm wondering if this kind of reply [ [198]] can be considered unacceptable as part of a content dispute? I really admit it's not the most productive way to conveince the community during a wp:BRD process, especially when the same editor displays wp:NINJA in various cases. Alexikoua ( talk) 06:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Not only the diff presented by Alexikoua, but also stuff like rv get over it he was Albanian and GET OVER IT. This behavior needs to stop. Khirurg ( talk) 15:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The Venetian commander of Nauplion, Bartolomeo Minio (1479-1483), stressed that the Albanian stratioti were unreliable contrary to the Greek units which he considered loyal.I checked the source ( details) and the author wrote that
The Venetian commander of Nauplion, Bartolomeo Minio (1479-1483), didn't trust the Albanians because they created problems unlike the Greeks who were more obedient.In the notes of the same page:
Sometimes Bartholomeo Minio speaks favorably of the Albanian stratiotiAlexikoua left out some parts of the source because they didn't support the particular narrative which he put forward to the article. I consider myself too old to get frustrated about it, but I do understand without supporting it why someone who reads Alexikoua's comments about ethnic purity and then reads his edits might respond like Iaof2017.-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 17:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Bartolomeo Minio (1479-1483) stressed that the Albanian stratioti were unreliable contrary to the Greeksto
Bartolomeo Minio (1479-1483) appear to be considered less trustworthy because they caused problems to the Venetians unlike the Greeks. Shall I accuse of you of "misusing bibliography" now? Shall I SCREAM at you in ALLCAPS, because I am not "too old"? Interpretation of bibliography is subjective. SCREAMING in ALLCAPS is not. Ant it will stop, either the good way, or the hard way. Khirurg ( talk) 18:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Sometimes Bartholomeo Minio speaks favorably of the Albanian stratiotiin order to keep only a very specific part of the source. Is that a
faithful rendition? Side comment: The authors writes
Bartolomeo Minio (1479-1483), didn't trust the Albanians because they created problems unlike the Greeks who were more obedient.and I cited it as
considered less trustworthy...
Some families intermarried with each other, while other times disputes erupted as in 1525 when both Greeks and Albanians asked to served only under the leadership of their own commanders.In the reports of the Venetian commander of Nauplion, Bartolomeo Minio (1479-1483) appear to be considered less trustworthy because they caused problems to the Venetians unlike the Greeks.I forgot to add "they" to make it correct in English, but I didn't leave out any part of the narrative of the source. You're comparing a grammar mistake with a radical division between the source and the edits. Alexikoua kept only the part about negative attitudes towards Albanians and didn't write anything about the positive part which created a more nuanced narrative. Alexikoua used the source to reproduce specific narratives about attitudes towards Albanians. And you think that the real problem has to do with Iaof2017's replies - an Albanian who has read many times the same use of bibliography and narratives by Alexikoua. I don't support strong verbal reactions because they won't change Alexikoua's editing, but I understand the source of their frustration. -- Maleschreiber ( talk) 19:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
ALL CAPS and enlarged fonts may be considered shouting and are rarely appropriate. Bolding may be used to highlight key words or phrases but should be used judiciously. Italics are often used for emphasis or clarity but should be avoided for long passages. Do not do that again. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 18:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
If you think I made a threat, report it. Threats should not tolarated or ignored. The same kind of warning I made above is made by you every now and then in content disputes against editors who disagree with you. If you do not like that, then do not do it to others. I am again asking you to not use allcaps when discussing with me. I see it as shouting and indeed it is. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 19:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
This is the second most tragic thing to happen in my life... El_C 18:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
It would appear as though the message of the AN/I thread has fallen upon deaf ears... DÅRTHBØTTØ ( T• C) 17:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The section I added has been removed: [211]. What shall I do? Am I allowed to edit this page? Am I allowed to add at David Ben Gurion that he ate pork? Chesdovi ( talk) 21:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello sir, one of my new section on Sasha Banks article was removed by an extended confirm user [213]. There was nothing problem with the section. I also included reliable sources. You can see Becky Lynch also have similar section, Charlotte Flair's article also have similar section. I don't think there's any problem with the section. If they think grammar is problem they should correct it without removing entire section. I request you to re add the section. Thank you Rtyggu ( talk) 12:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Another editor accuses me of violating my topic ban at wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#B.Lukashyk and POV. I don’t believe I have written about the topic there by linking to diffs of their statements about another editor. Please give your opinion. Thanks. — Michael Z. 13:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello El C. I have say thank you for protected this article for 6 months because of high level of IP vandalism in State v. Chauvin. But, you must think again, you protected the article under WP:ARBAP2 sanctions, but in the talk page, the article is under WP:ARBBLP sanctions, so you arbitration enforcement log placement is wrong because the article contains about Biographics of living persons, whenever is alive or dead, and the article is prone to violations of BLP policy by adding cause of death, gender, etc. So, you should re-log the article again under BLP DS. I hope you can read the message. Thank you. 36.77.95.2 ( talk) 03:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I'm writing to you as you have advised that a single disruptive user is not a sufficient reason for page protection. The vandalism continues, so what would be the right way to stop it? Alaexis ¿question? 05:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
they hit EC. TAXIDICAE💰 14:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Shalom! The title of the articles you protected is less important, but the fabrication in the content is important. User:Maudslay II's edits are introducing a fabrication in this article that sources do no support:
[217], says Israel planted a bomb. But the Washington Post used as a source says this is a claim by Shiite leaders, while Israel denies this and cites an internal Shiite rivalry.
[218], places responsibility on Israel as a fact. But Washington Post and New York Times do not say this. This also describes this as Category:Zionist terrorism, which is inappropriate.
[219], this too describes this as part of Template:Israel massacres in Lebanon. But all the reliable sources are Shiites say this, Israel says that.
-- Geshem Bracha ( talk) 15:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi El_C, can you renew the protection on Chairman of the State Administration Council? ― Tartan357 Talk 19:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Can you renew the protection on Commander-in-Chief of Defence Services? ― Tartan357 Talk 16:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Hey El C,
Can you renew the semi-protection on
Myint Swe? There was some IP vandalism after the last protection expired. Thanks. ―
Tartan357
Talk
06:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I really do not want to engage into an edit war with the Belarusians, therefore I suggest to lock the article of Pahonia once again as they persistently inserts information unrelated with Lithuania into the section "Grand Duchy of Lithuania" (e.g. Muscovian/Russian seals of Alexander Nevsky, Dmitry Donskoy) and this way starts an edit war. See these edits: one, two, three. There are absolutely no doubts that they are purposefully pushing propaganda when they mix the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Grand Duchy of Moscow, and Novgorod Republic in a "Grand Duchy of Lithuania" section of an article about the coat of arms of Lithuania. These three massive states were not related with each other (they almost constantly were enemies, rivals) and term Pahonia is exclusively associated with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Saint George (widely used among the Ruthenians, Muscovians) is not related with Pahonia as Pahonia developed independently in Lithuania from a soldier/knight and evolved into a horse rider. -- Pofka ( talk) 19:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Pofka, my talk page isn't a noticeboard, but you're treating it as if it is. I don't like that. El_C 14:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey El C. Hope, you are keeping well.? This title is salted. Can you unprotect to allow promotion of draft into mainspace? Draft:Smile Foundation is well cited. I have checked it for notability. It should be moved to mainspace after some minor copy-editing. -- Gazal world ( talk) 17:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, got confused by a different IP, thanks for blocking! Giant Snowman 17:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Back on 2020-06-02, you blocked Seguro64 from Killing of George Floyd and George Floyd protests. The first page has now moved to Murder of George Floyd. A few days after that partial block, George Floyd was created. This user has apparently been causing a bit of disruption on Talk:George Floyd. A quick look shows it's exactly the same sort of disruption as lead to the original block, but I'll note your block wasn't on the associated talk pages. That user has also blanked the notice to you, as is their right (though... it's a bit untoward), here. At this time, I'm tempted to simply leave things be. What are your thoughts? -- Yamla ( talk) 21:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi El_C, I wonder if I can get your help controlling an edit warrior ( current talk page, archive). He has edit-warred over practically everything ever since he came on the scene. The latest dispute is at Talk:Anglo-Manipur War#Background section, where again he reinstated the problematic content twice without changing anyting. He also gives me edit warring notices, probably copying the text of my own notices.
The problems of Manipur (princely state) are quite complicated. They can't be sorted out by somebody trying to bulldoze their way through them. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Chipmunkdavis does not read. Clearly, he was left told that the changes were endorsed by an administrator and came back with his message-excuse that he has as now like a tool, of "Rv [[wp:sandwiching image]]", "per very recent", "per "previous". User seems to have a serious problem with the issue of colonization of the Philippines (considering that it is the vast majority of the history of that country). -- Pedro158 ( talk) 18:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, tifinagh is berber alphabet, so why it's always deleted, i brought sources (many of its from berber academy) to prove this. Spectatorfrom ( talk) 22:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, tifinagh is berber alphabet, so why deleted it ? It's counter productive and i did nothing wrong, Spectatorfrom ( talk) 10:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
El C, after the 2020 United States presidential election page was unprotected, there are four instance of IP vandalism where they adding unsourced content regarding election count. Because it is one of most controversial election in history, please El C, please protect this page. Thank you. 114.125.60.96 ( talk) 00:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
El C please re-add the Semi protection to article of Al-Qaeda as I have reminded you regarding same. AadyaSingh10 ( talk) 08:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, which arbitration enforcement lead to the indefinite protection of 2007 Formula One World Championship? I've looked at every one and none point to needing to protect this article (and leave 2008 Formula One World Championship, etc unprotected). Further, I don't see much abuse in the history that would require any form of protection. Cheers, Anarchyte ( talk • work) 07:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C, due to your administrative activity in this area, combined with a lack of involvement in the specific case, you may be interested in closing the ANI discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal:_Extended-confirmed_protect_Talk:COVID-19_misinformation_indefinitely. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 05:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at it. I think the reason that many editors supported ECP of the talk page is that disruption is coming from off-site - at least Twitter and likely people coordinating on other sites and/or in real life with each other to disrupt the page. These people know the "10-4" rule for semi-protection, and while I'm sure they know the 500-30 rule, the disruptive accounts have basically all been over the 10-4 but below the 500-30. Furthermore, it's much easier for someone to remember to come back and disrupt after making 10 minor edits on one day, then being able to edit 4 days later than to remember 30 days later and make 500 unproblematic edits. You're right that this wasn't very well articulated by any of us so I don't really have a fault with the close. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 13:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey, El C. Hope you're well! Could you semi-protect Prizren Fortress? It has received much IP attention lately.-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 19:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Since this case is clear cut, I thought of bringing it here instead of opening a full-fledged AE report.
User:Jasksingh has been disruptive from the get-go and has been also blocked for sockpuppetry. He continues to make disruptive edits too often. The most recent examples are here:
Unless a 0RR restriction or a topic ban can be added, I don't see any chances of him making any improvement given his own talk page is full of unheeded warnings. Azuredivay ( talk) 04:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Not content with IP hopping to disrupt the project (sourced content removal and WP:OR addition), 94.79.208.142/16 (who also uses 109.161.162.190/16) is now resorting to personal attacks. Could you please have a look at this? Thanks. M.Bitton ( talk) 14:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Apparently the ping didn't get through so trying like this. Discussion at Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#Talk:Wikipedia. Cheers, RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 15:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Be back soon! In the meantime, enjoy new Guy Mazig track: Gone Dancing! El_C 00:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello El C! I recently blocked the above-named editor, as well as 9 other accounts, on the Simple English Wikipedia for sockpuppetry and abuse. Noticing that you have blocked this account as an LTA, it seems pertinent to inform you that some of the accounts I've blocked on simplewiki have edits here as well:
I am unfortunately unfamiliar with this LTA; is there a LTA page on this project I could look at, or a common name of the sockmaster? Best, Vermont ( talk) 22:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Are these sources not RS and correct to remove? Thanks OyMosby ( talk) 15:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello El C. I am Ken. I would like to request you for the restoration of the article Guruvayur Padmanabhan, which was deleted by you under the G5 criterion. This article was kept at AfD, and is about one of the historical elephant from Kerala. This article passes every notability criteria. So, I am ready to take full responsibility of the article, and hereby request for a restoration. Thank you. ( Deletion Log) Ken Tony Shall we discuss? 18:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
There is a RfC Rfc here on the talk page of List of Military Disasters. This has been going on for months and the arguing is getting less and less productive with all editors sticking strongly to their views. There appears to be canvasing as well given odd bursts of votes at times. I would ask @ Peacemaker67: as this area of military history is his specialty but he is an involved admin in the RfC. Would you be able to step in as here you can see the civility is taking a turn for the worst. If you are unable to, is there anyone you would recommend? I made an attempt to reach out to the user who initiated the RfC and was met with the usual nonsense insults. I tried. Thanks, OyMosby ( talk) 11:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
So I would like to offer a few reasons to why I am appealing the t-ban.
Since my tban being imposed, I have done around 700 edits, and to have really only 1 'unconstructive' violation edit, I would say that is good evidence to show that I have changed. I am sorry for the problems and multiple discussions I caused on Wikipedia and I promise to not even think about creating US politics articles. In all reality, I am more of appealing the ban to be able to edit articles that I can improve and not cause disruption. In theory, I cannot edit majority of weather articles and even articles I started all because a politician did something like declared a state of emergency. I love editing weather articles...I even get pinged for weather discussions/!votes [229] and I started Tornado outbreak sequence of March 24–28, 2021 post tban. But because of Governors doing things like states of emergency's, those articles are now off limits to me. I don't want to cause problems in the realm of US politics, but honestly, the tban is extremely sad for me, knowing I am able to create articles, then a few edits later, not be able to edit the articles I want to edit due to a 100% uncontroversial thing like a state of emergency being declared.
In closing, as I have said already, I promise to not cause any disruptive edits in terms of post 1992 US politics on Wikipedia and I only want to help improve Wikipedia for the better. Thank you for reading and considering my appeal.
Looks like Ronildarius ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should have List of laser applications added to the page blocks you placed. - MrOllie ( talk) 12:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
There is a serious problem brewing on Emmanuel Mormoris (assuming you're an administrator). Ultranationalists are trying to "conquer" the page (see 1, 2, 3) and plan on using their "sock card" to lock out newcomers and "exterminate" opposition to their control. 173.54.31.24 ( talk) 00:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
User talk:Bruhsmillah. Left a message for you (in case ping does not go through)
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs)
14:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I happened upon your edit summary ( [230]) that you wanted a reminder after a month. Ding ding🔔! ◢ Ganbaruby! ( talk) 15:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, This edit may be relevant to your warning. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 13:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)