::Please zap the other edit I emailed you about as well. [[User:davidwr|davidwr]]/<small><small>([[User_talk:davidwr|talk]])/([[Special:Contributions/Davidwr|contribs]])</small></small> 04:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
::Please zap the other edit I emailed you about as well. [[User:davidwr|davidwr]]/<small><small>([[User_talk:davidwr|talk]])/([[Special:Contributions/Davidwr|contribs]])</small></small> 04:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
:::{{Done}}. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 05:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
:::{{Done}}. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 05:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
== Notice ==
This message is made for notifying you about a discussion on [[WP:ARE#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_NomanPK44]] for appeal. [[User:NomanPK44|NomanPK44]] ([[User talk:NomanPK44|talk]]) 18:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[[User:Srijanx22|Srijanx22]] ([[User_talk:Srijanx22|talk]]) 14:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Revision as of 18:25, 12 February 2021
If you have the capacity to tremble with indignation every time that an injustice is committed in the world, then we are comrades. – Che.
El C, contrary to your edit summary- I noticed you were gone, and missed seeing you on recent changes. You are one of my favourite editors. This is for you. Regards, dvdrw04:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Free hat! Today, while cheekadeepetting, this lady who saw us from a far, came over and said: "Can I tell you something...? You're an angel of God."(!) To which I of course replied: "All hail Atheismo!" [nah, I said: "thank you, maddam, that's very kind of you" — what else could I say?] I took an especially neat cheekadeepetting photograph today: it remained visible between my thumb and index as it flew away, giving the illusion it was bee-sized! What an unexpected, and sweet, effect! El_C02:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
El C, I've been meaning to ask for ages. What is the link between revolutionary socialism and chimpunks? Did I miss that bit in Animal Farm? Is it something to do with resting the means of damn making from beavers? --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No link; but are you referring to Groundhog? (see left) There is a Groundhog-Chippie connection, which I was trying to further cultivate (see right). El_C11:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. There are a couple of admins I usually contact when I see something that needs to deleted, but unfortunately they let real life interfere with their admin duties. You are online a lot at the same times I am, so it's good to have another person to contact if needed. I generally only ask personally if it's both serious and urgent. - BilCat (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. I realize.my wording above presumes you'd be willing, and that I didn't actually ask, so thanks. :) - BilCat (talk) 04:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Romania
And all I got was this... Whoa!
I can live with your highly arbitrary closing summary of the RfC on the Talk page, so I do not want to persuade you to change it. However, you closed other on-going debates as well. Could you open the other debates? Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 05:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Good day, see? Take music and flowers to your liking ;) - It's great to see your name so often on my watchlist. One area where I often wait for admin action - not now - is WP:ITNN, where we nominate for recent deaths to be shown on th Main page, and often the time between an article found [Ready] and then is [Posted] seems [too] long to still call it recent. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see, sorry for touching some wound ;) - Same for me: last year, I nominated a great pianist for RD, after I first had create an article which took time, and then carried away to also make it decent, - and by then her death was so long ago that she wasn't mentioned at all. The more woman, and the more foreign, that danger seems imminent, and if I may bother you in case I seee it coming again, that would be great. At present, it's a man, listed 20 Feb (although who knows if that was the day?), and nobody even commented yet, so nothing to be concerned about right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated him, so am not the most independent to judge ;) - and I'm already busy with the next, a woman, but mostly not foreign. - I really think we have some unintended bias there: the most prominent figures (white U.S. males) get speedy attention, and appear soon at the top position, while the female foreigners - often reported late to start with - take so long to even be noticed that they get only a place towards the end, finally, - as long as we go by date of death and not "in at the top". Result: those who are promminent already get preferred showing, more in front, and longer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: sorry for the belated response — I overlooked your last message. Apologies for not being able to assist with that one. Please don't hesitate to list more. I'll try to be more cognizant of this thread next time, I promise. El_C03:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda’s corner is lovely. When I have more time in my life and can do things beyond blocking socks, I plan to spend time there getting some of the Holy Thursday hymns on the main page. Gerda, if it’s not too late to find one, let me know. The Pange Lingua is always a first choice, but if there are any others you can think of, I’m open. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely corner, thank you! Today is The day of music, two choirs singing. I'd like Beati improved - but it's in the evensong, perhaps I'll get to a few more lines. On IWD, I should also get Elinor Ross in better shape ... - but singing comes first. Listen to Beati by voces8, another article needing improvement. Singing comes first ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the ITNN page, 6 Mar, Carsten Bresch. We will possibly never know when he died, but should use 6 - when the world was informed - as the day by which we go. I may be alone with that view ;) - Lovely lively colours! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting, and I added "Posted", but don't want to pass credits. DYK you know that it is as easy as clicking on the words "credit" in the nom? Nice progress on the soprano, but out for singing (alto), second round. A good source for her death would be a nice addition, anyone. this is all Spanish to me, and the English one is a blog. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about you? - I asked the decliner for reasoning, but got no answer. I think it might be better if it's not a personal thing between them and me, so an independent pair of eyes might help. - I don't go via AfC, nor does my friend LouisAlain, but last year many of his translations were sent to draft space, for lack of refs, just because de and fr have different ideas about referencing. I try to rescue, that's all. Then get a ridiculous template on my talk recommending the Teahouse, and still see the ridiculous decline template recommending to seek help from an experienced editor, - the things we do to voluntary contributors ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for tagging me, El_C! Concerning Dimash: Oh wow, I really didn't expect that! But I'm happy you enjoy it! It's funny, it's not even a genre I usually listen to. But the first time I heard him 2 years ago, I immediately loved his music. I love his voice, his emotional interpretation; and his vocal skill, range and versatility are just enormous. And he seems to be a very nice and humble guy, which makes it even easier to like him. PS: "eclectic and esoteric variety"? Wow, that sounds interesting. Jasmin Ariane (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
♫ Welcome to the corner, Jasmin! Yes, I love Dimash's Sinful Passion, New Wave, SOS d'un terrien en détresse, Ogni Pietra (Olimpico), Opera 2, and more. Indeed, music-wise, I'm all over the place. Yesterday, I was listening to the Mahavishnu Orchestra, I'm listening to Charlie Byrd right now (because I love bossa nova, above all else), and I'm listening to the China Philharmonic Orchestra in the car currently. So, yeah, all over the place. Welcome, again! ♫ El_C16:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is stupid that this is still bothering me but here goes
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 Levivichharass/hound05:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El_C will not! No, it didn't bother me, it just seemed like somewhat of a non-sequitur, hence, a bit weird. Maybe that was the original intent...?¯\_(ツ)_/¯El_C05:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kurdish ArbCom Case
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)[reply]
Paradise Chronicle, I'll try to at least give it a cursory glance soon, but beyond that, I'm not sure whether the Committee will take a favourable view toward filing an additional case while the current one remains pending (and/or shortly thereafter). I think, at the present moment, the effort to seek for the Committee to institute a wide Kurdish-centred sanctions regime, probably ought to be exclusively undertaken via the current pending case. El_C01:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Problematic user
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'm not sure how to advise. Obviously, the optics are what they are. I suppose much would depend on the strength of the evidence. In any case, if you do end up filing an SPI report, please make sure to also note of having done so at the AE report. An AE report which I would still think ought to be your top priority at the present moment. El_C13:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this. I am going to focus on the AE report for now (albeit I am not allowed to add any more comments there unless asked). When I file the SPI I will then make it clear there there was an AE against me so that the SPI clerks can choose to apply healthy skepticism when assessing my evidence. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I realize what you're trying to say, Onceinawhile, but in the interest of precision, let me preface that I was never "un/happy," I just gave you my impression about the risk of bad optics working to your detriment. Are the optics better now, noting also the exchange you've had with Awilley (which I just now noticed, sorry)? Yes, they are. Certainly, waiting till all is said and done (and logged), would be the safer bet. I suppose the user facing the SPI complaint (courtesy ping: 11Fox11; no need to comment, though) could still go on to say: 'this is retaliatory, I have filed an AE complaint against the filing editor which is still pending and where they are facing sanctions.' Would that carry much weight at this point? Who knows. Probably not, though. El_C18:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Onceinawhile, maybe I'll just ask you about it here: earlier, Bearian voiced support for the title change by saying: 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_C10:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, thanks for this. The good news is that I think you can tell from my comment at the time that I did consider it to be a comment on my person, even if I was wrong to do so. The exchange helps me understand your sentiment on the other specific exchange we discussed at the AE; i.e. what I wrote I did not consider to be a comment on the editor themself, and did not intend it to be so, but the analogy here is a good reminder that when things are close to the line they can be easily extrapolated in the minds of reasonable people.
To answer your specific questions here, the logic in my mind at the time was "the editor is claiming that I chose to write something racist". The language used "Neutral and non-racist, as to opposed the current name" is the same as I would use if I was proposing to change the name of article about an African-American person whose article has been created with the n-word in brackets after the subject's name. In the scenario, I think we would all agree that the original author of such an article, would, in fact, be racist. The truth is, when we judge these questions, we cannot help but be influenced by our own judgements as to whether we think the actual decision to write something is in-and-of-itself a racist action.
Onceinawhile, the AGF imperative should drive one to consider that when someone else says: "this title is racist," they, as the author of that title, should actually read it as basically saying: "this title is racist, but I of course acknowledge that the title's author did not purposefully construct it with racist intent." This, of course, is in contradistinction to racist titles that are actually correct as such (in an encyclopedic sense), like with the alternate title for And Then There Were None. In other words, the editor making the "racist title" argument is not actually required to add such a lengthy qualification in that instance. Rather, per AGF (within reason), this notion of attacking the idea rather than the person is an intent which is automatically assumed, unless there's something (anything) to indicate otherwise. Hope that makes sense. El_C18:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, thanks for helping me think through this. OK I agree that AGF requires that conclusion, in both directions. I think the slight nuance, which equally applies to my characterization of certain statements made by other editors as anti-Palestinian, is (1) AGF applies to us as Wikipedians but does not apply to the world at large who can read our discussions freely, and (2) racism is a charge of such great magnitude that reducing ambiguity is often warranted.
I guess what I am trying to say is that I agree that, to take the specific example above, I should not have assumed the comment applied to me personally, but it is also reasonable for me to have hoped for or asked for a clarification given the magnitude of the potential charge in the eyes of those who do not need to AGF. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Onceinawhile, happy to help! To your point: unless you mean it as a matter of principle, I think you're greatly overestimating the readership of article talk pages, even top-tier ones, which West Bank bantustans clearly isn't. Granted, when one says that this or that thing is "racist," it isn't to their credit when they fail to substantiate that (whatsoever, even with a "per X" reference point). So, indeed, certainly not ideal. But, at the same time, not an attack, either. El_C21:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[2]? 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 [3][4] but only in their final comment on 8 Jan [5], 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)[reply]
I now note a further post from Drsmoo. Its speculations are entirely incorrect, and lay bare the failure to WP:AGF which plagued some of the discussion at the article (I am pleased to note that since this comment the statement has been toned down a little). I can provide a response to each of the charges made, but I have probably already overstayed my invitation at your talk page, so will only do so if you wish me to do so. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Onceinawhile, you seem to have slipped through the cracks (though thankfully not for too long). I'll review your comments momentarily, but it may take me a little while (I've yet to have had the opportunity to even read them). El_C23:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Onceinawhile, I think I'm up to speed now. Honestly, I'm sorta hoping to wrap this AE complaint up. Neither side is probably going to be fully satisfied, but hopefully, it is an outcome everyone could still live with. Consequently, I don't really want to get into the content or editing history weeds of the entire thing. You crossed the line a number of times in the dispute over this article, which you created, and I don't think it's particularly useful to argue whether your use of the {{done}} template, for example, did or did not constitute OWN behaviour. The point is that it was inappropriate, and yes, presumptuous. And you also edited inside of Levivich's comment field (a no-no), which ended up fragmenting it. As for Drsmoo, I think they have legitimate grievances, though it is indeed better that they moderated their tone. Anyway, wouldn't it be best for all concerned if we were to just move on? El_C00:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, thanks for this. Yes none of this is a particularly good use of time. Opposing editors have the ability to repackage even the best of behaviors into some nefarious conspiracy. I work hard to build on two messy, unconstructive and no consensus discussions, by creating two well-structured discussions that result in an emerging consensus => this is sold as disruptive. I respond to an editor's constructive comments in what I consider to be the gold standard manner (using the done template, and editing inside others' comments is how I frequently respond to bulleted comments, for example it is how I have done it at multiple GA and FA reviews, e.g. here, here and here) => this is sold to be own and presumptuous.
Unfortunately Drsmoo's latest comments, although duly toned down, still misrepresented the situation. The context is as follows:
After the failure of Shrike's RM, I opened the RfC, which Drsmoo then did this to: [8][9][10][11]. All this came from a failure to AGF; I worked hard to create a table to make the discussion easy, but Drsmoo believed I had an underlying motive which I still struggle to comprehend. As I explained there were many names where the proposer had not "spelt out every word in a searchable format". The list was supposed to be fulsome, Drsmoo seemed to be proposing a painstaking verification exercise to confirm whether every single proposed name was a reasonable extrapolation, but ultimately did not follow through. The way the RfC discussion ultimately went showed that Drsmoo had nothing to worry about, and that my table was helpful after all. Given the absence of good faith being assumed, if I had put no proposed names, I would have been criticized for creating chaos and making no progress on the prior discussions. If I had put some but not all, I would have been criticized for cherry picking.
All of this is showing the truth behind Brandolini's law (an article which I revived...); I don't enjoy being on the receiving end of these misleading attacks on my character and behavior. It is a massive waste of time.
You will have seen other editors under the AE spotlight use the "fight fire with fire" tactic instead, in which I would turn around and make equivalent cases of poor behavior against Shrike, Levivich and Drsmoo. Which I am sure you can imagine I have strong views on. I have seen others use that very successfully, but I don't think it is conducive to lowering the temperature, which I think is the real goal here, so I do not propose to go in that direction unless you tell me otherwise. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look, Onceinawhile, I don't feel I've really signed up for this to be a daily thing. Frankly, it's taking too long and I just don't want to keep doing this anymore. So, I'm going to let another admin handle the AE complaint and related disputes therein. I believe I've positively contributed more than enough —far beyond the call of duty— to the overall matter. I'll also note this to 11Fox11, who below is complaining that the SPI report you filed about them is "retaliatory" (User_talk:El_C#Onceinawhile). Anyway, I'd appreciate if both of you were to air your grievances about each other (and others) somewhere else other than my talk page. Oh, and about comment fragmentation, WP:TPO is rather clear on the matter: 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_C13:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, would you consider striking or toning down this, since it was made before you heard or evaluated my explanation? I respect your decision to step aside; I am simply concerned that a quick-on-the-draw new admin may act on your initial comment without realizing. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Onceinawhile, I'm not actually inclined to amend anything at this time, largely because I do feel I have largely addressed your explanation (a few comments up). If you still feel I fell short in that, you are of course welcome to explain away why it is otherwise. Hope that makes sense. Good luck! El_C00:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. The comment you are referring to was then addressed by me but I think you had checked out by then (if you can face reading it, surely you see that the way I edited does not breach the intent of the section of TPO that you quoted as it did not “... confuse[ ] who said what...” and that it was consistent which what I had learned as best practice from FA and GA discussions. And the bludgeon claim is just the other side of the coin of the fact that the accusing editor and many others did not engage in the discussion as they should have done - surely our goal here is to encourage not quash such engagement). I respect that you are checking out, but leaving that comment hanging without a full assessment leaves me in a very unfair situation. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Onceinawhile, FA/GA processes do not represent normal article talk page practices. I'm surprised that isn't something you've picked up on already. Anyway, that's quite besides the point. Frankly, I don't see why attaining precision at such a high level of magnification ought to really matter to you that much. I, for one, was ready to offer you a boon by closing the complaint with a logged warning only (accompanied by no other sanction). But since you're objecting, that obviously makes it difficult for me to proceed with that. Perhaps the admin who will evaluate the complaint next will see it different — in your favour or against, who knows. In any case, you are welcome to reference this very response if you wish to highlight any possible inaccuracies with my last assessment at the AE complaint. I still think it's probably close enough to a correct description of some of the misconduct exhibited on your part, and moreover, one which paints quite a positive impression of you, all considered. Extra positive in light of all the progress we've made here on my talk page, which honestly, you're kinda squandering right now. El_C00:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because I deeply believe that the greatest thing about this project is the ability to achieve real balance through discussion between those with opposing views. Unemotional, source-based discussion. In the wider discussion I made the mistake of getting emotional and I accept it, even though I was but one of many. But the misrepresentative Levivich claims are so diametrically opposed to the efforts I put into the project to consistently engage in real discussion, that I think upholding them has the potential to stifle the type of hard-earned collaboration that this project desperately needs more of. It can be really damaging as a precedent. Anyway, enough is enough. Please don’t reply to this; you are a volunteer too and it is your absolute right to disengage. I will remove this page from from watchlist. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez, really? Wow. That sucks. No, I never doubted that their intent was to be anything but helpful —nor at any time did I intimate that it was meant to be underhanded— I just wanted to emphasize that this was a violation. That arguments to the contrary are simply not sound. And that is also why I stressed in the AE report's closing summary that I did not intend for the warning to serve as a "blemish" on their record. I guess there was just no way to get this point across meaningfully without inflicting considerable damage...(?) That makes me sad. Anyway, thanks for updating me, Awilley. I'll take a look at your request at ARCA presently. Regards, El_C02:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just took a closer read of WP:EW. You quoted part of the following passage, leaving out the part that appears to show there was no vio on my part.
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.
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)[reply]
Mandruss, respectfully, seeing as the matter is now before the Committee at ARCA, I would rather not split the discussion further and prefer to address any concerns at that venue. El_C03:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The entire AE report is now under Committee review at ARCA, so that is where I prefer to discuss any of its components (whatsoever) at this time. El_C03:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The heading is Amendment request: Warning of Objective3000. Information about amendment request: Remove the warning to Objective3000 (leaving only a warning for Mandruss). My warning does not appear to be under discussion there at all. So I can't discuss this there, and I can't discuss it here, either, and it looks for all appearances that I was completely innocent. I'd say that sorta sucks, wouldn't you? How about I fucking retire from this place too? ―Mandruss☎03:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that would be most unfortunate. I still disagree about your interpretation of the actual scope of the ARCA review, but okay, I'll try to sum up my position for you here, as well. When you had explicitly refused to self-revert, you in effect acknowledged that 1RR was in effect. Then, when you self-reverted after Objective3000 offered to revert the edit back, that was the violation. Hope that makes sense. El_C04:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not make sense. I just noted above that 1RR is suspended at that article, and I noted same in the AE complaint. Given that 1RR is suspended, how could I have in effect acknowledged that 1RR was in effect? One of us is seriously confused here. ―Mandruss☎04:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mandruss, two things. First, you made no mention of this suspension when you refused to self-revert. Then, when you did actually self-revert following Objective3000's offer to revert the edit back, I count that as an acknowledgment of it being in effect. Secondly, I don't see how any such suspension can be seen to be in place, in the first place. Both Template:Editnotices/Page/Donald Trump on the article and Template:Editnotices/Group/Talk:Donald Trump on the article talk page are quite unambiguous about that. El_C04:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I never acknowledged any 1RR, and I never would have done so knowing full well that 1RR was suspended. 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)[reply]
Right, I realize you may not have acknowledged it explicitly, but in my view, your actions speak to it. Also, this is now the second time where I have asked you to cut down on the snark. I realize this is upsetting, but unless you are able to keep it in check, maybe it's better to just table this for another day. El_C04:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yer damn right I'm upset. Under these entirely unacceptable conditions I consider it a show of restraint to limit myself to mere snark. Tabled indefinitely. ―Mandruss☎04:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you feel that way. It's too bad, because I was hoping this can be discussed in a purely matter-of-fact way. But if not, then not. Anyway, not to be unduly repetitive, but the matter is still pending at ARCA, so if you believe that I have faltered, you are free to seek any remedy from the Committee that would see me censured or admonished. El_C05:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 5) I thought of coming here first but I didn't want it to come off as "reconsider or else I'll file an ARCA" because I hate it when people use that as a (usually empty) threat. For what it's worth, I'm still not clear on why you think the edit restriction was circumvented. The edit restriction is clear: one revert per editor per 24 hours. That leaves open the possibility of tag-teaming. Was there tag teaming? Yes. Was the tag teaming disruptive? Not really. It removed recently-added contentious material restoring the Status Quo in the Lead of a highly visible article. Did it break any Wikipedia policies? No. Did it violate any discretionary sanctions? No. Did it circumvent any sanctions? So far as I can see, no, and I'm struggling to understand why you say yes. Perhaps you could help me by specifying which sanction was circumvented?Nevermind, given the above~Awilley (talk)03:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing there about "one revert per editor per 24 hours," which sounds a lot like 1RR to me, and 1RR is suspended by Awilley. If what IS there is equivalent to 1RR, what did it mean to suspend 1RR if we are still limited to one revert per 24 hours? This is supposedly "clear"? ―Mandruss☎04:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Mandruss, I was a bit too terse in my summary of the sanction above. It's linked to the content, so it should be "each editor can only revert the same content once per 24 hours". With a discussion requirement. You get up to three reverts every day, but you can't make the same revert twice. ~Awilley (talk)04:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El_C: It's pretty simple. Don't add or remove the same content more than one time per 24 hours. Mandruss removed the same content twice: that's a violation. Objective removed the content once: no violation. The other two users each added the content once: no violation. @PackMecEng, that is the effect of the following sanction: "If a change you make to this article is reverted, you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours." ~Awilley (talk)04:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay I was confused by your use of quotation marks, made me think it was actually written down somewhere. So the AE log says one thing, the edit notice says another, the talk page yet another, and you use wording not found in any. I think there might be an issue somewhere. PackMecEng (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think PackMecEng's observation pretty much nails it, Awilley. Beyond that, I echo what others have argued before: that you tend to overrely on sanction customization, which, at times, appears to be somewhat esoteric in nature and unclear, or otherwise less than consistent. El_C05:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
IP, the problem with that line of reasoning (which I encounter often enough) is that the fact that this page hasn't experienced any disruption for months may well be attributed to the very protection which you are seeking to lift. More pointedly, no, I don't really conceive of the protection being lifted any time soon. Probably not for years. I might be persuaded to test the waters by downgrading it, but I don't see that happening in the foreseeable future, either. El_C00:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps the disruption ended due to whatever parties privy to vandalism, no longer exist on wikipedia. Time does make people move on to the next thing. May I suggest first downgrading it to [Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] and then perhaps taking it down further a month from now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.238.106.82 (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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 EdDakhla16:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, what do you know? Well, good for you. I would emphasize a few things to you: I'd stress that you need to respect and observe the spirit of WP:ONUS in your edits, overall; that you need to engage other editors in good faith as a basic imperative; and finally, that if you are going to file any sort of a report (about anything), it should be relatively brief — since this is a volunteer project, you are unlikely to see much if any volunteer resources expended otherwise (generally, a good rule of thumb could be seen in the word limit stipulated at WP:AE). Anyway, good luck! El_C16:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: for the record, EdDakhla's indef has been reinstated and I also learned something new about global locks. El_C22:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Request to strike
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)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're referring to exactly, Mandruss. But, regardless, not only am I party to the appeal itself, but I am also not an Arbitration Committee clerk (full list here). El_C22:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will look into contacting a clerk. If you're interested, the vio and my first request are the only two occurrences of "wp:own" on the page. ―Mandruss☎22:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Mandruss, I read it now. I agree that as far as criticisms go, it is rather scathing, and that it may possibly even be deemed an WP:ASPERSION — but my sense is that it does not rise to the level of a personal attack outright. El_C23:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The policy explicitly prohibits serious accusations without serious evidence. OWN is a serious accusation. There is no evidence presented, let alone serious evidence. Some people see that kind of thing, lack the critical thinking skills to completely dismiss it absent serious evidence, and can't help making a mental note that the target (I) might have issues with article ownership. Surely that can't be allowed in a context like that clarification request. ―Mandruss☎23:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mandruss, fair enough. You may well be right that, unless substantiated further, the accusation ought to be stricken. I guess we'll wait and see what the investigating clerk says. But it wouldn't surprise me if that will also end up being their conclusion. El_C23:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The investigating clerk said they probably can't get to it until tomorrow. Meanwhile the unsubstantiated accusation remains unstricken on the page, 29 hours and counting. ―Mandruss☎23:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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. El_C23:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest problem at WP, IMO, is that one of the five pillars, WP:5P4, is long lost. This has also corrupted the drama boards, and even ARCA, where "enemies" come to attack one another. I realize the world, at least the corner in which I reside, has gone nuts. But, we are here to document the world -- not emulate it. (Always liked the chipmunk and Che quote at the top of this page.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Objective3000, for dropping by and sharing your perspective. Here's hoping there's a light at the end of that tunnel. For my part, I hope you know that I really did try to be both accommodating and gentle with my action. Which still remains very much my intent. Glad you like the Chippies & Che quote!El_C01:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hey, Mandruss. I already pinged you my response to that at the ARCA page, but I'd still like to take the opportinity to also thank you for that most poignant Shakespeare quote. I am quoting it in full here for any passing reader:
Hey, you thought of it, which counts for plenty. Yup, that is indeed a risk — gotta resist the urge to overuse! El_C23:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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: ([13]), ([14]), ([15]), ([16]), ([17]), ([18]), ([19]), ([20]), 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))[reply]
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.
Don't presume to instruct me to treat everyone with kindness when you're snarking at me in the exact same post. Now, in isolation, I wouldn't care that you're snarking at me, but it sticks in my craw that you're lecturing me about kindness at the same time. I'm aware of the mote in my eye; are you aware of the one in yours? WP:CHEERS, --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Floquenbeam, briefly: you're absolutely right. That "boldface" comment was pure snark (I have stricken it). I stumbled, hypocritically, there, so I apologize to you for that. While I was earnest about my plea, obviously, I need to do better and to be better, myself. I promise to work on that. El_C19:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where you got this weird "apologize and try to do better" habit, but this is the INTERNET, so don't try that shit on me. I expect to be treated in the standard way; accused of being a Nazi Pedophile Bedwetter Science Denier. I mean, what would happen if we all started being nice to each other? Get off my lawn, you damn kids! --Guy Macon (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Guy Macon, hey, "safe space!" Kinda sucks, though, when one moment I was writing something that, at the time, felt like a gentle poke in jest, but on closer read is, indeed, a remark that serves to diminish someone else's pain, for what? To make myself feel better? I hate to be that person. I don't want to be that person. El_C23:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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:
filing a fake retaliatory report against me. This also contains a blatant falsehood, I have made over 1,000 mainspace edits yet Onceinwhile says I only made 186. This false statement is a personal attack.
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)[reply]
I'm sorry, 11Fox11, but, as I also just told Onceinawhile elsewhere on this talk page (User_talk:El_C#Advice), this dispute is taking too much of my time, like pretty much daily, so at this point I'm inclined to just let another admin deal with it. I note that I did tell them about the risk that filing the SPI may be perceived as "retaliatory" so long as the AE report remains open. Mind you, I also told them that if their evidence was strong, it would be probably fine to file it beforehand. But in fairness, when I said that to them, the AE report seemed just about done. Now I'm not so sure anymore. Anyway, too much attrition for me at this time. I will point out, however, that WP:CANVASS is about advertising something to like-minded users, which their notice did not (though I don't think I've ever seen an SPI report advertised on a Wikiproject before). I'd also point out the general lack of utility in seeking an WP:APOLOGY. I'll end this by repeating what I also just said to Onceinawhile above: I hope it all works out okay. Regards, El_C13:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Aza24. Doing alright, thanks for asking. Sorry, though, this isn't an area of the project with which I am familiar. Regards, El_C13:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I got you beat, Gerda! Take that — enjoy that #6 spot! You can maybe take comfort in knowing that six is actually my lucky number (for real, since childhood). El_C22:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do know! Kinda funny how most of the thanks each of us got not only involved separate topics, but even separate areas of the project... El_C22:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Following good advice (Bish?), I only click serious thanks, not when someone did something revealing stupidity - but I like when it goes to user's I normally don't associate with good deeds. You seem to know all, so probably also that a user saw major deterioration of Wikipedia because I thanked a certain user ;) - the edit I had thanked for was an apology. (A diff would be hard because she vanished.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Same. I'm pretty selective about the thanks I hand out, too. No, sorry, I don't know who you mean, actually. El_C22:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, will listen! - Happy Wikipedia 20, - proud of a little bit on the Main page today, and 5 years ago, and 10 years ago, look: create a new style - revive - complete! I sang in the revival. Look for his name in my 2016 archive for another bitter-sweet story which involved BWV 56, given in the same concert. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Handled, I think. Cool, I like that pic. That's an interesting-looking church, with nice stained glass windows. Thanks for sharing! El_C18:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
go to my talk, look at the credit, - it tells you that you need 5k to make the stats, and then check views (available also there) - I decorated my talk today for the birthday of a friend who was born in China, therefore Innisfree Garden is my topic to expand (where we went together in 1996, - I didn't get far with the expansion yet), and we are both pictured with a Christmas tree in 2019, - you can still listen to the radio broadcast ;) - a popular station, so nothing too serious, playlist here --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fram moved it to draft, explained on User talk:LouisAlain, Grimes2 and I added refs and expanded, I believe it's ready for Main space but would prefer someone else did it. It wasn't made a mock AfC, so there's no button to push, just a move or not. It doesn't take an admin even ;) - I came to share Vision pictured (not by me), with Arik Brauer in the news, so art in Vienna twice. The Glory you gave me is exceptionally clever and sadly sooo true. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Now mainspaced. And you did need an admin to move it, unless you were to copy-paste move. Anyway, congrats! El_C15:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! Again, thanks for letting me be part of it. A bitter-sweet milestone that cuts deep. I liked your heartfelt note very much. As for me, as per usual, trawling YouTube for near-forgotten performances that sooth the soul — listening to this at present (worthwhile featuring here, methinks). Congrats again! El_C15:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
flowers for flowers, and another bitter-sweet story: when Werner Bardenhewer turned 90 on 30 Jan 2019, I had a DYK for him as a surprise gift. He spent the day in seclusion in Africa. End of Feb he held a mass of thanksgiving at Mariä Heimsuchung, and scheduled a song I didn't know yet, Herr, unser Herr. After mass, he said we should talk some day about the WP entry, and smiled. - It was the last time I talked to him, memorial service pictured (by me, from the choir singing position, as the flowers, and he). As it happens, a DYK about strength for courage today, and the garden. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, great story! I read the biography about him with great interest. Sounds like he was an exceptionally outstanding man, truly. Also, wow, Gerda, you are a champ! Not to get soppy, but you humble me. El_C21:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
... what's that, "soppy"? - the next one died, not that I knew him, but looks like I should do something about Wilhelm Knabe --- don't say that again about humbling, - that was so great about Jerome, that he never made you feel like he was any superior, - just doing equally what we can do for the articles. ... and someone passed the source about him that was needed for the holy "notability", and turned out to be a professor at M.I.T. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But in this case my opinion is that you were thoughtful and well considered here [[21]]. 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)[reply]
Hey, thanks, Springee. I appreciate you saying that. I confess to have been aiming at a 'dose of reality with a soft touch' kind of close (also with respect to the author of that ANI complaint, see: User_talk:PailSimon#Time_to_decelerate). Anyway, I encounter AN/ANI reports that feature !votes for and against the censure of an admin with a certain regularity. And I always find it a bit curious to see such efforts, at least in part, also being undertaken by editors and admins who really ought to know better — perhaps many of them just tend to forget...?
Because what can a closing admin actually do when they deem the result of such discussions to lean toward admin censure (which of course wasn't the prevailing view in this discussion, but I mean, in general). Pretty much nothing at all. They won't get anywhere at WP:BNB, declaring, for example, that: 'there has been a community decision to suspend the sysop flag of this or that admin for x length.' The bureaucrats would just summarily decline that. The only time they would take any action of the sort (which is to say, the only time they are allowed to) is when instructed by the Committee. And that's it. There isn't any other avenue on the English Wikipedia for admin censure outside of that. None whatsoever. So, my stance is that if one is going to propose anything along those lines, they may as well do so before a body which possesses the authority to act. Nice to see you. Thanks for dropping by. El_C16:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting you mention it, El C. The community can't revoke an individual admin's sysop flag, but it can implement implement social prohibitions ("bans") on any editor's editing, right? For example, here is a case where the community placed arbitrary limits on a then-admin's editing to privileged tools. And this is an ArbCom decision limiting an admin from using their tools in certain areas. Would it be within the realm of possibility for the community to implement a social prohibition on a sysop's use of tools, without being able to revoke their technical access to them? I don't know if there's any past case of something similar? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as sanctioning admins goes otherwise, generally speaking, Wikipedia:Super Mario effect is a bit unfortunate. There seems to be a gap, at least felt, between the cases ANI will accept, and the cases ArbCom will accept, where no venue can do anything about admin-caused disruption not rising to the level of blatant TOOLMISUSE. Not that the Drmies case was an example of it, but there are others. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it gets hazy. I recently topic banned admin Mzajac from a topic area, citing WP:ARBEE. What if he were to use admin tools in that same banned topic area (which I'm sure he wouldn't), would I block him for that? I'm not actually sure. But I definitely would right away let the Committee know that it happened. In answer to your question about community mandate, specifically about admin tool restriction, my read is that it is still something which the Committee would need to give its final approval to in order for the remedy to take effect. El_C15:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking more like enforced by blocks or indeed by the Committee taking a dim view. Though the former is probably also of questionable possibility. Interesting to contemplate the legitimacy (and enforceability) of such a remedy, though! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There have been discussions in the past where there was consensus that a community sanction forbidding an admin from using administrative privileges was equivalent to removing the privileges, and so this was not within the scope of the community to enact. More recently this was discussed.... somewhere that I can't remember now. Some of the upset participants were in favour of being able to sanction admins in this way; I argued for the community's previously held position. Not sure what the current arbitration committee would think. isaacl (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Isaacl, right, my understanding of WP:DESYSOP2019 (of which I have a cursory familiarity only) is that there was support for having a community WP:DESYSOP procedure outside of Committee purview, but that failure to agree on what such a procedure would look like, meant that nothing happened, with ArbCom remaining the only game in town. El_C20:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, being unable to agree on a mechanism is the perennial stumbling block . I believe the conversation I am thinking of took place after that one (I could be misremembering, though). Personally I think the community should officially enact an additional procedure for removing administrative privileges if that's what it wants, rather than look for a workaround. I appreciate, though, that others think that the community should be able to impose whatever restrictions it reaches by its usual consensus process. isaacl (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Amendment request: Warning of Objective3000 closed and archived
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.
Persistent vandalism on WS-10 and J-20 page by Revolving Personality Construct
Revolving Personality Construct is back at it again. He just deleted all sourced materials from the last edit, including references from multiple sources.
IP, you are free to engage the article talk page, including by proposing edit requests, but it is disruption on your part, in fact, which prompted me to protect those pages. Also, you are mistaken, the protection cannot be altered by Revolving Personality Construct due to them not being a sysop. Finally, please do not continue to term good faith edits as vandalism —see what vandalism is not— because that counts as a personal attack, which is not allowed. El_C23:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Admin. I tried to "reason" with him on the talk page per his request. I provided many sources and he deleted all the referenced materials including the sources themselves. How does this not constitute to vandalism and disruptive editing? He never made any constructive edits on those pages.
Finally, he can not win an argument and he accused me of being a sock puppet. Is this personal attack and false accusation?
Because that is not how vandalism is defined on Wikipedia —see WP:VANDALISM for the actual definition— that is a content dispute. I doubt your claim that "he never made any constructive edits on those pages" is true, but even if it was, it's probably not helpful to exclaim that in passing, anyway. You need to follow dispute resolution if there's a valid point you wish to get across, and it should come with proof (evidence in the form of diffs). And, no, WP:SPI is very much the place to request such investigations, so them filing a report there about you isn't a personal attack. Whether it is "confirmed" or is proven to be a "false accusation" or simply "indeterminate" remains to be seen. El_C01:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your revert
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)[reply]
It's generally a bad idea to revert an admin on an admin noticeboard. The point is that it is your responsibility to ensure the correct formatting (it's alright to keep unneeded parameters blank, but in this case, you had entire sections missing) and to follow noticeboard procedure (like no threaded discussion, for example). I'll see what I can do, though. El_C02:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, will keep that in mind going forward. You admonished me "no threaded discussion on the noticeboard", and I'm happy to oblige - but what does that mean? Benevolent human (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. It just means keep comments to your own section of the report — where I moved your previous comments to. El_C03:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't know about the user page convention. To give context, you had earlier said "It's generally a bad idea to revert an admin on an admin noticeboard", but I didn't know that you were an admin. That was the intention of the edits. Searching around, I now see I could have checked Wikipedia:List of administrators, but a lot of new users don't know about that. Anyway, consider whether the changes I suggested might benefit you in the way I'm describing, and in the future I'll suggest such things on a user talk page like this instead of directly editing user pages. Thanks for the wiki-etiquette tip. Benevolent human (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, it's all good. I'm just saying, I'd have preferred it if you were to assume that I already know what I'm doing —if only to ask if that's a change I'd like— which would have been the courteous thing to do. For future reference, the user rights button will tell you everything you need to know about any user's permissions: like Special:UserRights/El_C or Special:UserRights/Benevolent human. El_C02:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dont want to start another discussion about this topic, but is this alowed?. Since he is requesting another admin opinion and filling an unblock request, could him errase your responce and mine?.Mr.User200 (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, I don't know if these edits: [22] 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. [23]), and that somehow Jews stole them... Reinhearted seems somewhat fixated on that general idea. --IamNotU (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IamNotU, that isn't my read of those edits. I don't see how they go on to imply that "somehow Jews stole them," nor beyond that, how these edits are actually of an ARBPIA nature (as in pertaining to or serving to exacerbate components of the conflict in any way). As well, them claiming the preeminence of Iraq and Arabs — I just don't see why that ought to be viewed in contradistinction to Israel necessarily (as opposed to, say, Iran or India, and so on). El_C17:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well fair enough, that's why I asked. I was trying to understand why they would have made that change to the Israel section, and it seemed like it was to imply that kebabs were not traditionally part of Jewish cuisine in Arab countries prior to migration. But I guess it's too subtle to complain, so AGF. I do still have the impression from their other edits that there's a serious problem with their ability to edit neutrally regarding this topic. I hang out a lot in Middle Eastern food topics, and I'm finding it a bit exhausting dealing with them. --IamNotU (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IamNotU, hey, no harm in asking. I, too, found it quite taxing just going about explaining to them that: 1. WP:ARBPIA edits are subject to the WP:500-30 tenure; and 2. that some of their edits crossed a line there. I think I was able to get my point across, though, eventually. Anyway, perhaps you're right about impending problems. I suppose time will tell the extent of it and therefore the appropriate response (if any). But as for their not of Israeli origin addition: that edit seems both accurate as well an unrelated to ARBPIA in any meaningful way. El_C19:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair to them, the related content provisions of ARBPIA are slightly confusing and can feel arbitrary to people even when understood. I mean, the difference between that editor being authorised and unauthorised to make such edits is spending 1 day doing anti-vandalism reverting, or being naturally very edit inefficient. But rules are rules, I guess. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, I think the 500-30 tenure, when explained according to the "primary articles" and "related content" concepts, isn't actually that difficult to grasp. Compare that to the Manning naming dispute, for example, which I noted yesterday (having encountered it for the first time then) to have found rather incomprehensible (diff). I guess what I'm trying to say is that ARBPIA has seen extensive refinement over the years. I was encouraged that a lot of my complaints were addressed by the then-outgoing Committee in WP:ARBPIA4, whom I therefore commended (diff). They did good work there, I think. El_C19:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I agree the not of Israeli origin edit 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)[reply]
IamNotU, haha — ask GizzyCatBella what's it like to dance at the edge of a volcano! She's probably the preeminent expert when it comes to that sort of perilous acrobatics (she's free and clear now, btw). Anyway, you just need to use your judgment about whether an edit meaningfully connect to or has sufficient connotations with the conflict. Granted, there's no surefire way to do this that I know of. In answer to your WP:1RR question: yes, those pages are subject to 1RR, always: Template:Editnotices/Page/Falafel and Template:Editnotices/Page/Za'atara make it abundantly clear, as does the older Template:Editnotices/Page/Hummus, which says essentially the same thing. As for the WP:ECP question: not being rigid about protection was one of the positive outcome of WP:ARBPIA4, although unfortunately, the pertinent templates didn't undergo any suitable customization to align with that development. El_C22:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I stopped going to restaurants last winter. The one thing I broke down and got from takeout was a shawarma. It was the highlight of my summer. Or maybe it was a doner kebab. Aren't they the same thing? Wait... --IamNotU (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the latter is sorta the template for the former...? I just wish I could get some decent shakshuka around here, like even during non-pandemic times. Mind you, I guess it isn't that hard to make it home. El_C00:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OMG! Yes!! I was dancing at the very, very, very top of the volcano for two years! (or more) Not fun years but a good lesson, actually... Yeah, use your judgment about whether an edit meaningfully connects to or has sufficient connotations with the conflict, but if not %100 sure, don't make an edit...don't revert... etc. :) - GizzyCatBella🍁00:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El C, I asked about making a second revert in e.g. the hummus article if it's nothing to do with Israel. When you answered: 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: [25]. --IamNotU (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, cool — we get "related content" in the mainspace edit notices now? Good stuff. Anyway, I am authorizing you to modify the edit notice/s accordingly. As for Reinhearted, indeed, they have flown too close to the sun this time. Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. El_C21:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. I changed the talk page notices for hummus and za'atar by adding the "relatedcontent=yes" parameter. I'd need template editor permission to change the edit notices, so I just made edit requests for them. The za'atar edit notice was mistakenly redirected to the one for za'atara, it should get straightened out now... --IamNotU (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Sorry if it wasn't clear in the edit request, but the edit notice for za'atar (a plant/spice) is mistakenly redirected to the edit notice for za'atara, a town near Bethlehem. Direct link here: [26]. You changed the latter, but it should have been the former. As far as I can tell, both are meant to have ARBPIA edit notices. For za'atar the plant/spice, I don't think it would be considered a primary article, but it has some related content and disruption because there has been a lot of controversy about it. See: [27]. I don't know whether towns are usually considered primary articles or not... --IamNotU (talk) 14:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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: [28]. 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)[reply]
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? ― Tartan357Talk20:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Tartan357, as I just noted in that RfD (diff), AnonQuixote has every right to their views. I'm at a bit at a loss of why you expect them to tow the line as far as their opinion (as opposed to their mainspace editing) is concerned. El_C20:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, Tartan357, I'm afraid I do not subscribe to that logic. It's an open discussion. They have every right to reiterate a viewpoint, even if another forum deemed it to have been outside consensus. El_C20:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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. ― Tartan357Talk03:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I mean, you are asking, even though I think my edit summary was pretty unambiguous. I'll state the obvious, then: you need to leave that exchange alone. I collapsed it for a reason. El_C07:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if you think it's better to not bring up that point at all, that's fine by me. I was just trying to be fair to the other editor whose comment was quashed. Cheers, AnonQuixote (talk) 09:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the Sedition article currently states: "Following the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, president Donald Trump was impeached for seditious acts." which is why I started the RfC there. AnonQuixote (talk) 09:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it does — in a breath. But such a query, if anything, belongs on the more focused Trump impeachment page/s. Anyway, regardless, I do construe it as such, which is why I removed it. The BLPN discussion wasn't just about the piping, it also confirmed sedition as the target link. You claimed that it was "not supported by reliable sources and is potentially libelous" — other participants disagreed. Now you are free to participate in related discussions pertaining to this (like the RfD, for example), but launching a new dispute resolution request to circumvent the BLPN decision is inappropriate. Because what you're taking exception to is still "sedition." You're just trying to get at it from a different angle. But, no, if you think that closure was problematic, WP:CLOSECHALLENGE ought to be your next step. El_C09:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the BLP/N discussion settled the question of what wording to use on Wikipedia. The close statement was that "There is a clear consensus that the piping of "Incitement of insurrection" to the Sedition article is supported." What is the correct process to dispute your removal of the RfC? AnonQuixote (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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?"
If the answer to that question is "yes" then there is clearly no point in challenging the BLP/N decision.
If the answer to that question is "no" then I believe there is a strong case for challenging the BLP/N consensus and I intend to do so.
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)[reply]
I wanted to add, I appreciate your fair and levelheaded contributions to this whole dispute so far, which is why I'm dismayed to see what appears to be less and less of a presumption of good faith with each subsequent interaction. My initial actions were borderline edit warring, however I'm sincerely trying to find a way to fix what I see as a significant issue through appropriate consensus-making channels. AnonQuixote (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you would have the right of appeal. And if you were to prove persuasive in that endeavor, I would be powerless to do anything about it. Anyway, you can think that I'm abusing my position —you can think whatever you wish— but I amend closed AE requests often enough as a matter of course (to indicate that sanctions have been added or lifted or adjusted or whatever). For the last few years, I've probably been the admin most active in the area of Arbitration enforcement, and I don't recall that practice ever facing a serious challenge before. Also, what you call me trying to "silence" you, I call me trying to stop you from bludgeoning. Look, I'm sorry you feel that you may have missed your mark at BLPN, but I'm afraid that's really on you. You are free to raise the issue of "sedition" at Talk:Second impeachment of Donald Trump, for example, but not by launching an RfC right now. I'd rather that there would be a general sense of what other editors think about that question before jumping to launch a new dispute resolution request. This is a volunteer project and I am trying to prevent a timesink from occurring for naught, which is what I'm fairly certain such an RfC would be at this time. While I get the impulse to tilt at windmills (pun intended), when it comes to this topic, I'd rather if you were to test the waters through normal discussion first. Depending how that goes, we can maybe revisit soon. El_C10:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My goal with creating the RfC was to determine consensus, I didn't think it was necessary to have a dispute first! As I understand it, the benefit of the RfC process is that it can bring in a larger pool of uninvolved, experienced editors than a talk page discussion. I have a feeling that the question about wording will need to be answered sooner or later, regardless. In any case, I'll raise the issue about the specific sentence in the sedition article on Talk:Sedition first. AnonQuixote (talk) 12:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, works for me. A good place to start as any, I suppose. Anyway, the dispute pretty much already exists, as can be seen in the aforementioned BLPN and RfD and AE (direct links) discussions. Pretending otherwise is naïve, at best. El_C16:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El C, I supported AQ's proposal in part at Talk:Sedition, and they immediately implemented their preferred text (including the part I objected to), claiming a talk page consensus. Shortly after, an oppose !vote came in. I reverted the edit as being without consensus; I think a temporary topic ban on Trump's impeachment might be warranted at this point. ― Tartan357Talk06:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, Tartan357, first you partially support, then you seem to change your mind and go on to fully support...? Now AnonQuixote's edit (which was premature, on that I agree) seemingly prompted by that very same support somehow becomes, in your mind, a problem worthy of a topic ban? What is going on here? It almost looks like you're trying to trip up AnonQuixote, which I take a rather dim view of.El_C07:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El C, not trying to trip them up, but it seemed like the whole point of the above conversation is that they need to engage in discussion before they make edits. ― Tartan357Talk07:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't think it warrants any action, I defer to your judgement. It seemed to me, though, that they were agreeing to hold off on changing "sedition" to "incitement of insurrection" until after they'd had a significant amount of discussion and gotten a clear talk page consensus. ― Tartan357Talk07:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well I was actually prepared to topic ban, had the template ready and everything — then, on closer look, I've seen your article talk page partial support -cum- full support, and was like: nope. Anyway, possibly there's nothing in the above where I tell them, explicitly, that they should not to be WP:BOLD on the mainspace regarding this matter...? Didn't think I needed to say that outright, yet here we are. So, I am now telling you, straight up, AnonQuixote: don't be WP:BOLD on the mainspace regarding this matter. But, as for you, Tartan357, unwittingly or otherwise, you've turned the whole exchange into something quite murky, so what would have been pretty much a straight-forward topic ban, got turned into a pass for AnonQuixote. But this is a last chance saloon for you, AnonQuixote. The notion that you'd jump to change key text on the basis of one, single comment in support — that is questionable, at best. Please take note. El_C07:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On the talk page, I was trying to be open to their ideas and nurture some discussion, but got annoyed when I saw that they'd changed the article already. As for coming back here, I think the previous bludgeoning and false accusations of personal attacks made me overreactive. I apologize to AQ if they read this. I hadn't even thought that it could look like I were trying to trip them up, and reading that honestly made me feel pretty bad. This is my first time dealing with this particular kind of disruption. ― Tartan357Talk07:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, it doesn't look like AnonQuixote is taking it anywhere good, in any case... Anyway, one final chance, I guess. El_C07:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My edit was clearly constructive and I went above and beyond normal WP:BRR practice by discussing first and getting tentative support before even making the edit. I'm not how I was supposed to foresee that another editor would disagree after my edit. It seems like I'm being unfairly discriminated against at this point. AnonQuixote (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Teehee. Don't be sorry. Stuff like that simply does not phase me. Anyway, I've blocked almost 8,000 users, protected almost 6,000 pages and deleted over 3,500 revisions. I've seen everything under the sun, including highly illegal and disturbing material — which is where one's mettle is actually tested. So, name calling and such, it's really as impactful as it is juvenile. In other words, easy to WP:DENY and move on without much of a fleeting thought. Best wishes, El_C05:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El C, I mean I've only done RCP before for stretches of like a day or two at a time (to avoid burnout) and I've seen some stuff, but if you're truly seen that much, you'll be a candidate for oversighter in no time. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬📋｠ 05:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not to boast, but I think I'm a viable candidate right now. In fact, I think I've been one for years. I just never wanted any additional permissions. Revdeletion works well enough for me. I'm not really interested in having to weigh the nuances of what should be revdeleted versus what should be suppressed. And I am likewise disinterested in acquiring CU. I don't want that available to me as an option, either, having to weigh when and when not to use it. Would just rather not have either of those in my toolset from the outset. Anyway, there isn't anything further that I need in order to do what I do on the project which the sysop flag doesn't already enable. That has been true since I acquired it in 2005, and I doubt it's gonna change. El_C05:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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 BushrangerOne ping only19:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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! ~ HAL33300:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That was the page notice template, which I just deleted because it has been blank for a while now by virtue of Talk:Joe Biden/FAQ having been blanked. What a weird, malformed distraction to have for the talk page of such a key biography.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Anyway, gone, for now. As for having a page notice template that featured a FAQ show up upon editing Talk:Elon Musk or other talk pages, I've never heard of that ever being a thing on Wikipedia. Seems highly unorthodox, at the very least, so, sorry, I'm not really inclined to facilitate anything like that at this time. Best, El_C00:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Uh, I don't really intend to do so at this time, although I did just indef semi the page as an AE action — hopefully, that will help in some way...? Also, I'm not sure where you get the notion of someone being 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_C01:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, semi-protection helps a bit, but I am generally not a fan of indefinite protections unless there are specific reasons. Thanks anyway. This edit-war was started by one IP editor, but the editors who were pushing unverifiable material were autoconfirmed editors who should have known better. All things considered, a temporary semi-protection could be justified.Page sanctions may be appealed to "the enforcing administrator", before taking a trip to AE or AN (second step), or ARCA (final step) and per WP:AC/DS#Definitions:
The enforcing administrator is the administrator who places sanctions authorised in this procedure.
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)[reply]
Your article talk page comment looks excellent. Many thanks.I'm not sure I understand how you interpreted my "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)[reply]
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_C22:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is "pp-protected"?
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.
(watching:) HandsomeMrToad, nothing wrong with you, just this IP dropped you the same rather nonsense message 3 times, reverted 3 times (twice by me), and will no longer be able because the page is protected against such attacks. If you say that you want to deal with such messages, the protection can end, of course. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HandsomeMrToad, that's right, Gerda asked me to intervene (diff). The message (well, messages) said: 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_C15:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks - accusations of sockpuppetry by User: Britishfinance
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)[reply]
Dinglelingy, you are being warned about unsubstantiated reports, because you submitted an unsubstantiated report. I don't do allegations that are absent actual proof. And I like my evidence in the form of diffs, with clear summaries and quotes attached. If you're gonna do it, do it right. El_C22:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"huh Dinglelingy, that's an odd response. Are you ScrupulousScribe (now blocked)? Alexbrn (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)"
I am not and I do not appreciate the completely unfounded and inaccurate accusation. Seems my suggestions were ignored. A reminder of the rules: Assume good faith, Be polite and avoid personal attacks, Be welcoming to newcomers. I suggest you follow them. Dinglelingy (talk) 19:14, 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)"
Wow, unbelievable! I have had enough of these type of attacks. Admins, this is the second editor who has blatantly violated the fundamental rules of Assume good faith, Be polite, and avoid personal attacks in reference to my account. As this page is sanctioned I request immediate action to discourage others from using this means of discrediting my account as well as other editors to facilitate their point of view. This is totally unacceptable behavior. NinjaRobotPirate,Boing! said Zebedee The only thing I have been 'pushing' is for adherence to Wikipedia standards of behaviour and consistency in the editorial process. I do not agree with all of ScrupulousScribe's arguments/sources, but I do agree with his concerns about consistency in sourcing requirements and maintaining a NPOV on the topic. Too many of you are piling on to dismiss him out of hand rather than working with him on acceptable updates. I have tried to facilitate consensus on those points in the most appropriate place as anyone with a NPOV will agree with if they read my comments. The whole reason I got involved in this discussion was because of inappropriate behavior on this page, inappropriate behavior that unfortunately has continued with editor's like Britishfinance throwing around threats, and personal attacks. Everyone should be ashamed by this behavior and in allowing it to continue. Dinglelingy (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
"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)"
Unbelievable you are resorting to this tactic again after I spend all this time trying to walk you through an argument that's over your head. What a waste. Thucydides411 It's peer reviewed and I have not seen anyone attack it's integrity. If you want to attack their credibility, that's your prerogative. What am I going to do, I got nothing.Dinglelingy (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Dinglelingy, I'm not seeing personal attacks in the lengthy segment of text that I collapsed directly above. Everything said there seems to be within the bounds of a spirited debate. If you wish to challenge my close, you are welcome to pursue WP:CLOSECHALLENGE further. But, otherwise — sorry, I'm not really interested in relitigating the closed report at this time. El_C23:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing my account of sockpuppeting is not a personal attack and within the bounds of spirited dabate? There never was litigation of the closed report, you closed it asserting it was unsubstantiated, which it is not. I will follow procedure. Dinglelingy (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't view it as an accusation, outright, on Britishfinance's part, not to mention having it rise to the level of a personal attack. Also, I thought it was clear that the word "relitigate" was used to convey rehashing the contents of the closed complaint. Oh well. Anyway, for sure, do as you see fit. El_C00:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." WP:NPA#WHATIS If you are not going to do anything about the closure of my complaint then I have no choice. I have done nothing wrong in my edits and I am surprised you take the view that this type of behavior is conducive to within the bounds of 'spirited debate' contrary to well established policy and common sense. Dinglelingy (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you do as you see fit. The point is that there is a balance that editors must strike, between WP:AGF and WP:PACT, a balance which I have found was not exceeded in any serious way so as to merit further action. El_C01:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, also, Dinglelingy, I didn't say it was 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_C01:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
El C, I don't disagree with you. I guess I was trying to frame the same message in a way they might be able to take on board. Believe me, I'm deeply upset about what has happened, and I was gobsmacked when I saw that proposal. Looking at those diffs though, it looks like people have acted on their requests like that in the past - someone really ought to have suggested to them before now that it's unnecessary, but they haven't, so now they're in the position of believing that they're doing something useful. GirthSummit (blether)12:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Girth Summit, I understand what you're saying, but I still very much disagree. As far as interests (or should I say, fixations?) go, it's already super-weird enough. So, to then have GZWDer act like an outright ghoul about it, my immediate impulse is most definitely to strongly chastise them, unequivocally and in no uncertain terms. That's why I still think your softly-softly approach was a mistake. Possibly, it was what prompted GZWDer's following up with that bizarre VPP post (diff), for which I was very, very close to blocking them over. In short, there's a time for niceties and a time to be firm — to me, this brainmelter clearly belonged to the latter category. El_C14:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I expressed myself in such a way as to suggest that I was disagreeing with your position, or with your approach - what I said was intended to supplement your comments, certainly not to contradict them. When I said they should leave it where it was, I was trying to tell them that they should not attempt to start an RfC on the matter, or take any further steps at all with regard to the matter. Perhaps I need to take a more direct approach with my communication. GirthSummit (blether)15:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sadko, doesn't look like much has happened so far to require immediate attention. That said, I don't understand why you fail to respect the spirit of WP:ONUS. I'm sorry to say, but that is not a good look. El_C16:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One editor wants to add content on the destruction but at the same time removes content on the renovation [29]. They are free to seek consensus via DRN or a RfC. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are right actually. The WP:DRN page says that 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)[reply]
Haha! Never noticed that. Someone is lacking in confidence, methinks. Sorry, DRN volunteers, all in good fun! But seriously, your forum sucks! (Guess I just can't help myself.) El_C17:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, El C. Hope you're well. I started the discussion on 19/01 but I haven't placed the article on my watchlist and I didn't know about the very bad discussion that has emerged. WEBDuB has accused Ktrimi of hounding[30], Ahmet Q. and others of writing articles about evil Serbs (removed) and then accused me of paranoid accusations. Not the first time this happens since they have repeated even worse accusations against other editors[31] without any of the substantial evidence which was required in that discussion. I'm open to listening to other editors and producing a new synthesis (not the Bob Avakian one :P ), but productive discussions operate under certain rules.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He received some minor hype among students who are just now getting into the Maoist theory sphere and then got a lot of criticism because he supported Biden (popular vs. united front, democracy vs. fascism etc. etc.) It's interesting from an anthropological perspective how theoretical currents go in and out of fashion and then resurge. --Maleschreiber (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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: [32][33][34]), 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)[reply]
I'm not turning a blind eye, but these are editors in good standing who are regulars of the topic area — you should not compare them to fly-over IPs and so on. As I already noted elsewhere about this very topic area (Balkans) in this very talk page, I get the sense that the opposing sides are rather evenly matched (diff). You should expect multiple editors to have multiple related articles already on their respective watchlists. So, please observe the spirit of WP:AGF instead of jumping to bad faith conclusions. Not to be a broken record, but that (too) is not a good look. El_C19:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You should expect multiple editors to have multiple related articles already on their respective watchlists. - I expect that in most cases, but I'm sure it's clear to you that this time it's not about that. Especially when the editors who contribute the most, for example, to the Croats-related topics continue “the battle” with me on Kosovo topics, even though they have never been on those articles. I am the one who always assume good faith and calls for it. But my patience has limits, especially when I am constantly harassed. Please take a look at the reports and evidence that I have provided. Thank you for contributing to the atmosphere on these hot topics.--WEBDuB (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look at what exactly? Sorry, but to be frank, you're being quite longwinded above and I don't really have the time to examine walls of texts too closely. I'm just too busy, I'm afraid. If you are able to condense, I'll try to have a look (though no guarantees). Anyway, to your point: no, I don't buy that argument. Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians is an important subject, so expect it to already be on multiple editors' watchlists, even if they never edited it before (I have almost 100,000 pages on my watchlist and I assure you that I've only edited a very small percentage of them). El_C19:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All right, you don't have to. Sorry for taking the time. I don't matter, I hope that other editors will not go through such harassment. I will do my best not to be the source of the problem, I promise. Kind regards. --WEBDuB (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, WEBDuB, I don't have to. As in it is a bit presumptuous of you to expect me to have time to spare for anything but the most concise and pointed evidence and summaries. Not sure I'm able to square away I don't matter with Kind regards, but it is what it is, I suppose. El_C19:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) :::::I'm unfamiliar with old disputes, so I tagged WEBDuB's edits. Now, apparently WEBDuB tried to place a similar narrative in 2019 and Ktrimi removed it in 2019 and 2020. Why did WEBDuB think that such an editing narrative would gain consensus in 2021 when it was excluded in 2019 and 2020? If an editor knows that it's WP:BRD because they've tried a similar thing before, the logical step is to stop and avoid placing any other reverts if it's not accepted. And I'm not even saying this as a form of disapproval - it's just the rational thing to do.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is now much better sourced and cited. There is no reason to dispute it. There are no right or wrong narratives, but Wikipedia policies. Moreover, I did not add that narrative. I just expanded the existing one, and Ktrimi removed the stable version during his massive edits of Kosovo-related articles. Again, pleaste stop with label me with WRD and such things. @El C: I don't expect anything. You do a great job in general, but I'm used to my reports with evidence of serious harassment being ignored. I stopped believing a long time ago that the admins would react.--WEBDuB (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WEBDuB, you are entitled to think (as in argue) that 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_C21:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I say all the time. I always try to reach a consensus through discussion. No one wants to discuss specific sources and claims, but a group of editors completely delete the section and go on the offensive, sticking labels and providing some changes from a few years ago that are irrelevant now. The contet was only removed without explanation. That doesn't follow the WP:CRP. The section on Kosovo has been removed without consensus. Sorry again for this situation. I hope that a quality discussion will develop on the talk page of the article.--WEBDuB (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, WEBDuB, but I think you got it backward. It was added without consensus. The WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN are actually on you, as the editor advocating for the contending version, to establish consensus for it. It isn't on those who advocate for the longstanding version, even though they must participate in good faith once challenged. If there is an impasse, as mentioned in the section directly above, there are dispute resolution requests that you may avail yourself of (like WP:RFC and WP:RSN). Once such requests are properly closed, consensus (or lack thereof) becomes codified, at least for a long while. Needless to say, it is customary that the status quo ante (longstanding) version would be the version that gets displayed in the interim. Any serious violations in the topic area may gain priority attention at the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard, so participants may submit reports there with a greater expectation of a concrete outcome (compared to WP:AN, WP:ANI and WP:AN3, which are less focused and generally less effective for these matters). El_C22:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. To be clear, Ktrimi removed (without consensus) the section that had existed for years. When I tried to return it, I was labeled and accused. Why didn't you or any of the admins react in this way then? That is the key question. I know all the policies well, but we always get stuck in double standards. I did not run to accuse anyone, but I opened the discussion and provided the sources several months ago and no one objected. In the meantime, I found even better sources, which no one has essentially disputed even now. The editors just show up to reverse the changes, and the admins somehow always decide to lock the page on the anti-Serbian narrative. While a kind of ultimate supermajority is required to show relevant historical events in which the suffering of Serbs is accidentally mentioned. To conclude, I'm not saying I didn't make a mistake during my work, but I think you all made a mistake now by putting me on a pillar of shame.--WEBDuB (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay, if that is the case, I am the one who has it backward. Indeed, that would make your version the longstanding version and theirs the contending one (sorry, I am unable to immediately confirm this to be so). El_C22:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[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_C23:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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 [35]. 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" [36]. Take that advice seriously. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, Balkan disputes should the funniest thing on Wikipedia. People fighting over tiny details on obscure articles that only their writers will ever read, opening months-long RfCs where the only participants are those involved in the dispute. The Creator of the Universe might be laughing while watching from above. :P Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I see it carefully, that Mittens cat is similar to a cat that sneakily comes to eat my cat's food. I would like to hit it on its evil head.lol (not seriously, of course). Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ktrimi991: No, it existed before 2019, when you removed it during the massive changes to articles. Take that advice seriously. - As I said, I prоvided evidence and filed reports many times, but it was ignored. To be honest, only the oversight team helped a few times. Thanks for caring.--WEBDuB (talk) 10:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks, again, for providing actual evidence, Ktrimi991. WEBDuB, I am warning you right now: the next time you present any (Balkans-related) grievances absent actual proof (evidence in the form of diffs), I am likely to just impose an indefinite broadly construedtopic ban from the topic area on you, and that would be that. Some significant correction on your part is expected and is contingent on you being allowed to continue editing in this fraught topic area. Please reflect and take note. Thank you. El_C15:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really shocked. 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. Ok, I'll be more careful. I apologize if I have ever offended anyone or, at least, taken too much time. Honestly, I wish everyone all the best. I hope we will cooperate nicely.--WEBDuB (talk) 10:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Recent block + sock
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. LugnutsFire Walk with Me
Blockedindefinitely. Hey, Lugnuts. All's well, thanks for asking. Nah, I don't know that an SPI will help at this point. But if they return again, maybe list all the articles they're fixated on (if it's a reasonably-sized list), so that they can be semiprotected...? Regards, El_C10:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. Guess who's back! Very similar username to the original blocked account. Evidence such as this where the first account over-links to Australia, which this new account does here, albeit to South Africa. I'm starting a log to list the common pages, per your earlier advice. Thanks again. LugnutsFire Walk with Me13:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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 ౪99°18:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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 Emis18:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Alalch Emis, but I'm not sure that is something that makes sense for me to preempt at this time. Users are entitled to argue whatever they wish, the substance of which the respective closer of any future request will be tasked in determining. I think over-qualifying this (purported "non-wiki reasons" or whatever) at this point in time will only add confusion rather than provide clarification. El_C18:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alalch Emis, I'm wary to say this, but I'll still add that, if pressed, "significant legal outcome," in my mind, is likely to involve either the conviction of the former president and/or the expulsion of members of Congress. But who really knows what else could come to the fore... El_C19:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, tx for the quick reply. I think it was a bad idea to add this unnecessary condition to nullify the moratorium as 1 month isn't long and people will latch onto it (they are entitled to but it's bad and intellectually dishonest/lazy), because your closer stands on top of the discussion and many people don't read the rest. This potentially distorts the perception of the support arguments. Just a subtle matter of tactics. — Alalch Emis19:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Alalch Emis, well, peering into the future is always a tricky proposition, I find, so that was a key component that I felt I had to seriously weigh and address. Thanks for dropping by and sharing your perspective. El_C19:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should clarify: I did not ask you to repeat what I told you here as an addendum to your closer, but to "expand on the decision", simply to state your reason for that decision publicly there. Might as well be a couple of words, a guideline, whatever. — Alalch Emis19:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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, —PaleoNeonate – 19:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, as well as for the cordial handling of my error. Hmm I'm doubting the usefulness of gs/alerts (vs ds/alerts) considering this (and that we have the other uw- templates), I'll read the available docs on it. —PaleoNeonate – 05:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, PaleoNeonate. Well, DS and GS topic areas are more fraught, so with admins getting more enforcement discretion, awareness criteria are likewise enhanced accordingly. Whereas uw- could be used for disputes that do or do not involve DS and GS topic areas, but they generally represent lesser admin discretion about the scope of sanctions. Anyway, from what I gathered, the alert requirement of the modern GS has taken its que from DS' WP:AWARE. El_C05:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting help
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.
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.
Oshwah investigated the case, but he's offline since some days ago. Thanks if you help! This is really annoying what are the fan boys doing. Zbreller (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Zbreller, I mean, if it happens again, you can just list the pages that needs to be semiprotected for a few months and we can go from there. Otherwise, Atlaslion1912 and Hozmaster blocked as obvious socks; Lala migos was already globally locked, so I didn't bother. Sorry, I'm not able to immediately parse much beyond that at this time. Regards, El_C21:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So these are socks. Ok, thanks a lot. I don't care if he returns, even if he has more users. Just not to manipulate pages like that. Don't try to manipulate a page with your multiple accounts, and also don't remove info even if it's bad for image. Nobody even agreed for that. Zbreller (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Zbreller, yes, pretty obviously WP:SOCKy (or WP:MEATy, doesn't matter). That is quite the onslaught, though, so we may not have heard the last of them. M.Bitton, again, I have no familiarity with any of this. I just learned about it now. So, no idea who the master is or anything else of the sort. El_C22:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Because it removed tons of content about Bosnia and Herzegovina. But that isn't even the main point. I've given you a final warning yesterday against continuing with evidence-less grievances. You replied with "shock," which is okayish, I guess, but then to have that immediately followed by more evidence-less grievances — that doesn't fly with me. Enough is enough. El_C15:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But it was really a random and stupid mistake. I wanted to delete it from the Genocides in history (before World War I) article because those courts were made later. I complied with everything from your warning, except for this nonsense. I did not enter into any dispute. Please understand me.
This move with the genocide article was completely misinterpreted. With numerous changes, I condemned the denial of the Srebrenica genocide and all nationalist moves by Serbian politicians (it can be seen in the articles about Aleksandar Vučić, Ana Brnabić, Tomislav Nikolić, Bosnian genocide denial, Overthrow of Slobodan Milošević...). No one can attribute nationalist label or POV-pushing or anything like that to me. but then to have that immediately followed by more evidence-less grievances - I have previously left links with my reports where there is evidence in the form of diffs (some example: [37][38][39]). I have indeed often been in trouble for ignoring these reports, and now I am banned for an accidental mistake with no evidence of serious rule violations on the topic area.--WEBDuB (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those are diffs which you have already cited in the discussion above, but ones I also have already addressed by noting that they were about IPs, not regular editors (in good standing) of the topic area — a matter which you continue to conflate. Like with your latest comment, which reads: 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_C16:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WEBDuB, about the Genocides in history issue, specifically: I am more than happy to take your word for it that it was a WP:CIR rather than a WP:TE problem. Anyway, the point is that you were given a sort of last chance saloon for the topic area, but what I saw happen the next day (today) was kinda the last straw for me. Anyway, what's done is done, as far as the sanction is concerned. I mean, you're welcome to try to persuade me to reverse my decision, but I'm letting you know that as much as I'd like to keep an open mind, I struggle to conceive of a reason to do so at this juncture. Beyond that, there's also Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal (appeal to a quorum of uninvolved admins) which is available for you to make use of at any time. El_C17:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want to be boring, but WEBDuB I am curious to know what do you understand with "pro-Serbian" editor? I ask because you keep using that term in such cases as: "rising trend of hatred towards the editors who were labeled as pro-Serbian", "orchestrated smear campaign against the editors who were labeled as pro-Serbian" ([40]), "wave of hatred towards the editors who were labeled as pro-Serbian" ([41]), "harassment of editors who mark themselves as pro-Serbian" ([42]). Who are those "pro-Serbian" editors and, as a result, who are the "anti-Serbian" ones? If indeed there is a "pro-Serbians vs anti-Serbians" war on Wiki, it is a big serious problem, and your evidence is very welcome. Thank you, Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not make such divisions and I loathe all prejudices and nationalisms. I talked about the editors who were accused and labeled as pro-Serbian by other editors.--WEBDuB (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Opps, sorry. My advice to WEBDuB is to reflect and to contribute to other areas, some of which are certainly more interesting than the Balkans. Maybe they are able to return to the Balkans later after 6 months or so - a time period long enough to reflect on past mistakes. Also, El C thanks for being patient with the long messy Balkans discussions that come to your tp. Frankly, you are probably the only admin around these days willing to help in such cases. Cheers to both, Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Look, okay..
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.
To interject, because I think it's important (more important from a human and real-life-takes-precedent perspective than any of this): MJL, WW, et al. should know that Flyer was not dwelling on or stressed by you in particular during her last days. Her angst was about the overall dogpiling and attempts to bend her defense of neutrality about various sources and viewpoints into supposed support of/agreement with those viewpoints. She was upset that the case was turning into a recast-in-a-bad-light railroad, and was not angry at or dwelling on any particular person (not an evidence presenter and not an Arb). It had more to do with process failure than particular individuals. It's important to realize that her main hobby was WP (even more than I knew – she'd been bedridden since before the case started according to Halo, and basically had a choice between passively watching TV or getting actively online), so it was distressing to her to have her "e-home" seem to turn against her. If anyone thinks she was cursing them individually with her last breath, please put that idea out of your mind. Halo says (and means it to be disclosed on-wiki) that the family "doesn't want them [ArbCom] or anyone else to feel at fault." — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 08:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC); quote added 09:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MJL, first, thanks for the kind words. I appreciate that. But, in this instance, I disagree with you. I had not spoken about there having been bad intent behind the contested comments. My close makes zero commentary on any possible motivation. But, the comments themselves, were grossly insensitive, which was shocking to me. To me, that is just a fact. One which I feel was important to emphasize. Not much more I wish to add to that at this time, except to spell-out my hope is that the potency of my aforementioned statement leads to greater reflection. Best, El_C18:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[Thank you for the ping] I think you can move your thoughts on the comments do the "Result concerning WanderingWanda" subsection and not make them so prominent. It isn't fair after only four hours of open discussion that such a harsh admonishment gets written of a user before they could even respond when the commenters thus far did not unanimously agree to such a sentiment. Am I wrong? –MJL‐Talk‐☖18:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MJL, again, I disagree and do not wish to dilute anything at this point by modifying. I think my dismay is appropriate, but if more individuals feel the same way as you do, and certainly if suggested by the Committee itself, I'm certainly willing to revisit that stance. El_C18:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like MJL, I'm feeling a little sorry for WW. I think it's quite possible this person is feeling absolutely terrible and their comments were affected by all sorts of emotions and cognitive dissonance. I don't think your dismay is inappropriate; I was dismayed, too. Like MJL, I'd prefer not to have I'll just use this closing summary to express how utterly shocked I am by WanderingWanda's gross insensitivity. I'll stop at that because I'm almost certain to regret saying anything further about that. visible when collapsed. I don't feel hugely strongly about it; actions do have consequences, and sometimes those consequences are that we get strongly criticized and discover we need to look at ourselves in the mirror a little harder. But you asked about others' thoughts, and that's my two cents, which is probably about what it's worth. —valereee (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did and that's fair enough. I mean, I, as well, feel bad for WW —whom I like and always been friendly with— and I don't wish to add to their distress, but they need to exercise better judgment. Especially at a time like this. Because that crossed a line. But, sure, in the interest of lowering the temperature: Done. El_C21:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Just a comment that the dispute resolution system on WP forgets there are real people on the other side ofnthe keyboard, and they have real emotions and genuine stressors. There was an article in WIRED recently that poked fun at WP as a gigantic MMORG, but the distressing thing is some people do treat it like one, and treat other editors as if they are merely characters, not living human beings. It’s particularly awful when the trolls descend on a case with expressions of false disbelief and fake concern. The system needs some definite reforms. Montanabw(talk)22:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, as always, for your wisdom, Sarah. Absolutely, I'm all for brainstorming (and beyond) concepts outside of the current box. And if we do need WMF resources to facilitate that, I think they can spare it (and I'm confident they'd be open to doing so). I admit to not really having too sound of an appreciation for Wokrshops, and so on, though. Believe it or not, myself, I've never been that involved in an Arbitration case before and I have a rather fleeting familiarity with the process — which I realize might be strange as I probably undertake more Committee-authorized action than anyone else (as WP:AE and WP:AEL bear out), save for possibly the Committee clerks themselves. So, though I do try to do my part for these acutely contested topic areas, when it comes to the Arbitration cases themselves, I usually stay away (beyond a statement here and there). Mostly, because it seems like such a chore. El_C22:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) In the interests of what Montana wrote, I've just re-read my post, and I want to make clear that I am not blaming any individual or group of individuals for any part of this. This is a systemic issue that we have had for years, and we all slot into place and carry out our roles. The only way to look is forward and to change the system as a community. SarahSV(talk)22:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't read it that way, Sarah, and I have collapsed Montanabw's comment because I don't feel it furthers the discussion positively at the moment. El_C22:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El C, your page is taking a long time for me to load (probably my computer's fault), and so my replies are a bit behind. My comment above was written before you hatted, and also wasn't a reply to Montana. I don't agree with hatting it by the way. SarahSV(talk)23:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah, respectfully, this is my talk page, where I get to set the tone. But by all means, this discussion doesn't need to happen here necessarily. I'll do some archiving momentarily. El_C23:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. No disrespect intended, but I just don't want that kind of vitriol to be included in this conversation (here on my talk page). El_C15:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would wager there's a lot of leeway in leveling allegations (in which the proof may not always align), which is coupled with being under the microscope of an intensive investigation. This of course isn't the reason why I, myself, usually stay away — again, the reason for that is because it seems like a tedious process that's super-boring. El_C22:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. So if one has faith in ArbCom to be competent and not misled by misleading presentations of evidence and typical nonsense, there’s nothing to worry about? Kinda in the same way that an ANI where the filer is immediately boomeranged is little to sweat over. The fear/stress is due to a worry that ArbCom may be mislead? Or is it the inherent nature of the allegations, regardless of whether they’re believed? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ProcrastinatingReader, not to state the obvious, but it isn't easy to predict what the Committee would do at any given time. It isn't easy to predict what anyone would do. That's just a fundamental facet of the human condition. El_C00:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's also important to remember that the ArbCom elections are simply a popularity contest. ArbCom is nothing like the Supreme Court, where a lifetime of legal (i.e., dispute reolution) work is required, and appointees will be carefully vetted for their decision-making judgement, etc. There are no qualification, formal or otherwise, for becoming an Arb (other than some barebones tenure ones so we're sure they're not a newly arrived sock/troll). "If one has faith in ArbCom to [anything at all]" is a big "if", and that has a great deal to do with why RfArb is more stressful than other noticeboards. Another is that there's basically no appeal from it (technically one could attempt appeal to Jimbo or WMF, but as far as I know, no attempt to do so has ever succeeded). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 08:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Thinking off the top of my head, we need (a) to abolish workshops as a first step; (b) maybe apply to the WMF for a grant to investigate arbitration systems? (c) Wikipedians with legal and other relevant background to get involved in this discussion so that we don't try to reinvent the wheel. SarahSV(talk)22:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Montana's comment was hatted. If you've never taken part in an arbitration then it may be hard to understand the problems those who have face. Unless those issues are aired and faced we can't fix anything. Arbitration was designed many years ago, and hasn't been updated too much since then. It's possible it doesn't handle well the Wikipedia today given the number of editors, increased sophistication of editors- its interesting reading some old discussions on policy for example to see how far editors have come in terms of understanding, and the online communities and presence we all have now. As Sarah said this is not to blame anyone arbs included, I assume all are doing their best with what they have and know, but as Montana said to inform ourselves about how others feel when at the wrong or even right end of a sanction or reprimand. We are an online community and as such we owe it to ourselves to protect all of us in situations where our humanity is hidden, forgotten, or misunderstood. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I don't want to talk about that hatting anymore, so anyone else who wishes to bring it up, I'd appreciate if you were to do so elsewhere. El_C00:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding abolishing arb case Workshops, I'll repeat what I said at SMcCandlish's talk page. The Workshop "seems to accomplish nothing whatsoever except to engender massive amounts of ill-will, to enable dogpile harassment, and to permit circumvention of the evidence word count limits by posting it at the workshop. The Arbs did not need walls of text from the rabble, and never have. This would really streamline the process and make it much less of a hell than it currently is." Crossroads-talk-00:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Littleolive oil, I agree that the problem lies in our WP:ARBCOM being an old system, not intended to accommodate what WP has become. A lot is known about social media and the stress that's caused by being put under its spotlight, so this is a much bigger issue than us. We need help to dismantle it and find something safer. For example, we could have a dispute-resolution wiki, and we could develop the notion of standing so that only involved people get to see and take part in each dispute. SarahSV(talk)00:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah, yes. It's an old system in a rapidly changing world. We are judging people based on very little evidence in many cases and then the door is open for anyone "off the street" to jump on the pile. We are also judging three dimenionsal conduct with two dimensional evidence. I've seen the arbs exhaust themselves in case that were so long and involved I'm surprised they were able to function by the end. The system doesn't work anymore. There's no shame in admitting we have to do something else. Littleolive oil (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm peering too far into the future with this, but when envisioning a fundamental alteration to the DR of acute cases on the project, I think there's two key things to consider (and Sarah has hinted on this already): should it be kept in-house (or in-houseish), and if not, will there be strong resistance from the community by virtue of that alone. El_C01:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even something like the WP:UTRS model — it works okay because the acute cases it deals with are generally of a simple nature. But what do you do with complex ones that, as Littleolive oil mentions above, may take forever to get through and in the process exhaust all concerned? Possibly, that is indicative of the limit to which you can tax volunteer resources on the project — in any conceivable set up, Arbitration model or whatever. Should there be a layer of paid professionals to pick up some of the slack? If so, what would it take to get consensus to seeing that implemented? Unless the Foundation were to impose it by fiat, which honestly, I'm not really seeing them being inclined to do (not getting the sense of them being more Wikipedia-activist at this time, in general, though I suppose who really knows). Questions, questions. El_C02:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But I do also get what Sarah is saying (I think) about how perhaps limiting case participations only to those involved could be one of the things that could turn the tide. Maybe. Who knows. These are all uncharted realms after all. Ultimately, however we define the Wikipedia DR, it is its own thing. If it is altered, whatever it ends up becoming, will likely remain distinctly its own thing. Sure, there are legal and academic procedures and panels that serve as templates, but at the end of the day, the project is a unique thing all on its own. El_C02:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I intend to wait a couple of weeks then come up with a proposal to get rid of the workshop phase. That's the step that makes the process really hard to get through, because it means there's a relentless spotlight on you from the initial request for arbitration through to the close, with no break, which can mean 2–3 months of people talking about you. SarahSV(talk)16:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, Sarah. For sure, one step at a time by order of priority makes sense. If you're able to remember, please alert me when you table that proposal. I'm interested notwithstanding my ignorance about much of this. El_C16:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion close
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?
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 ([43]), 15 reverts since October [[44]], other users also reverted....please intervene, Thank you(KIENGIR (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Piotrus, probably nothing at the moment, at least not until they're nominally warned. Even if only with {{uw-error2}} and up. Intuitively, feels like a likely indef, though a chunk of unreverted edits from Sept-Oct also give me pause (possibly those slipped through the cracks?). El_C04:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, this catched my eye as it was just below the issue I opened above. I've also met with the users edits, and not always it was problematic, nevertheless, the editor has little experience (btw. I don't recall similar account in the past years). I would say, let's go with standard, friendly warnings in case and see how it will be received by the user.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Sorry I was briefly unavailable. I have already reported Tinno Canst once to the administration board. He received a warning, however, the result of the dispute was inconclusive. There are sadly hundreds of articles relating to Poland which he edited, or vandalised should I say, and are in need of repair. Oliszydlowski (talk) 02:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Problem with CSD tags and user pages
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. LizRead!Talk!06:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Liz, no idea. I'm generally terrible at that technical stuff. For example, protected a bunch of AfDs yesterday but forgot to add the <noinclude>. Or, as I noted yesterday, I don't even understand what Wikidata is. Best, El_C14:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'm actually wary of interfering further in the discussion in any way at this point, mostly as I barely had a chance to glance at it. But I did notice that the "insurrection" option on the table (a table I am far from a fan of, by any stretch) does make mention of the moratorium, which I guess is okayish...? I mean, the moratorium's terms are what they are, meaning that the page simply will not be moved until the moratorium's conditions are met, or I rescind it outright. The rules of WP:ACDS even preclude any other admin from over-ruling me. Only the Committee may do so, and possibly, also a quorum of uninvolved admins at WP:AE. But other admins with more time on their hands are encouraged to review the talk page closely and are, of course, free to act as they see fit (again, so long as those actions don't contradict the terms of the moratorium itself). In the final analysis, if there's an RM which outright asks about moving the page to "insurrection" as its main question/s (in its lead), that would be an obvious no-no. But a more passing mention of it on the table (such as it is)... not sure I'm ready to impose anything to curtail that component of the table (as opposed to the entire table itself) at this juncture. Because, as far as I'm concerned, editors are free (within reason) to argue that the moratorium I've established is dumb and wrong and that we should still go with an "insurrection" move right away. I have no intention to censor anything like that — though I would stress again that, with respect to applying anything like a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE to the moratorium itself, the normal rules do not apply (by virtue of it being a logged ACDS action). Hope that makes sense. Best, El_C03:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it does - basically, the DS will apply regardless, which I figured as much but confirmation is good. That being said, I guess my goal here is to try and come up with some "ideas" that would help prevent the discussion from being derailed by "insurrection" discussion. I understand you don't really want to get involved more, so I won't push the IDLI discussion with you - but if you know any admins who may want to take a look at that please feel free to invite them to my comments here. I think it's a clusterfuck nobody wants to get involved in and I don't blame anyone for wanting so - but I worry that it'll result in another "no consensus" just because of the derailing by repeated "i don't like that title" or "this is the better title (for no policy based reason)" and derailing from "insurrection" discussion. Thanks again for the response - and for your thoughtful close of the original discussion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Sorry, I'm also wary of naming any other admins — not because I can't think of any, but more because I don't want to put anyone on the spot. Spare time is a valuable commodity, so I would rather not impose in any way when it comes to taking on a challenge as formidable as this page (in any capacity). It's probably just a limitation inherent to the fundamental nature of a volunteer project, I suppose, to be able to allocate volunteer resources effectively. Not sure I have a solution to that. Not sure that there is a solution to that. El_C03:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was just in the middle of typing a statement saying that since returning to activity in mid 2020 IHTS has hundreds of positive contributions to chess topics and that these two talk posts appear to be his only transgressions since then. I do wish you'd left it open a little longer before jumping straight to an indef.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just poor reading comprehension on my part, I'm afraid.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Anyway, AE complaint re-opened. As mentioned there, not sure there's a realistic alternative to an indef, but who knows. El_C17:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Thanks. I realize this editor has been given a lot of chances, but until today I thought he had been keeping out of trouble and just doing what he is best at. Sigh.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Argh, relentless, aren't they? Maybe a mass semiprotecting of a bunch of those pages will drive the point home...? Hopefully. El_C18:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. I suppose it can be seen as an appeal of sort. I don't mind having an AE 3O like this handled by Doug. I trust him implicitly and am happy to have him take the lead in deciding on this. El_C19:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I see that they did attempt to ping me, but I never gotten a ping alert for it. Weird. Anyway, thanks again for letting me know. El_C20:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template removal
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)[reply]
Davidbena, if it it's just one, single tag, where the grounds for placing it are being actively discussed, then you should not be removing it. Only when such discussion has become stale can you safely remove it. I think getting to the heart of the content matter that saw the tag being placed in the first place is the way to go. Sure, whatever dispute resolution step makes sense, including dispute resolution requests such as WP:3O, WP:RFC, WP:RSN, and so on. Hope this helps! El_C23:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CuriousGolden, you can certainly copy components of it, but the entire submission needs to adhere to the structure and word-count that is prescribed for that noticeboard. But, again, if you have nothing recent to report, I wouldn't even bother filing a complaint there at this time. To put that in perspective for you: the most recent incident needs to have happened, at the latest, weeks ago (definitely not months). El_C17:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do have something recent additions. So I think I'll just create a new report with the new additions and link to the report at ANI for most of the other part of the report. Would that be fine? — CuriousGolden(T·C)17:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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? ◅ Sebastian11:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When I say "report," I always mean its totality, otherwise I use the word "OP." Yes, too lengthy and containing nothing recent, just like the now-withdrawn AE report. Anyway, as mentioned there, there was a sanction imposed on Jan 24, so that is the action. "Precedent"? Do you mean have I (and others) closed AN/ANI reports for inordinate length and inaccessibility and stale-ness? Yes, many times. Myself, I even brought up the notion in the latest ANI reform discussion a few days ago: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Holy_wall_of_text!_On_word_count. El_C13:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sanction imposed on Jan 24, is not the action, since that addressed a different case.
“lengthy”: Yes, people complain about walls of text, and the section you are pointing to is, at 2300 words, itself such a wall. That is however not a precedent for the argument that such walls of text should result in no action. Ending up with no action specifically on the big problems would be silly and grossly unfair (see the Che quote on top of this page) for a number of reasons.
“stale”: I presume you are using that word in meaning 3. Granted, it apparently was not interesting to most administrators, but that has been so from the start, as I mentioned in finding #22. Whether other admins are interested or not, this is about a real existing problem, which understandably is not solved as long as no action is taken.
For these reasons, as well as for the fact that an admin already put in the time to write recommended consequences, I am questioning your decision to close this case with no action for no reason other than that it was “lengthy”. If you disagree with the recommended consequences, please explain your reasons in the case, instead of single-handedly changing them to no action. ◅ Sebastian15:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That the IBAN was insufficient (unrelated?) was not made clear. Anyway, you can think what you wish, but my action/s stands. WP:CLOSECHALLENGE further if you wish dispute that, but it's my view that this would not be time well spent. Again, no outsider seem to have been able follow this AE-centred ANI rabbit hole of a report, which is why it was referred to the better structured (and brief!) WP:AE noticeboard. No specific recent incidents were cited there, so it was withdrawn by the OP. I'm sorry, but your lengthy list of "recommended consequences" overrelied on micromanaging and seemed unrealistic. Not to mention your "findings" — 24 individual notes, really? I'm not sure you're appreciating that this is a volunteer project. Nobody can be expected to spare the time for such a magnified view, except possibly at an WP:RFAR's workshop, and likely not even there. So please adjust your expectations accordingly. El_C15:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get involved here, but I just want to clear out that I withdrew my report at AE after I was told by El C that my report was problematic and didn't refer to a single case. So, I imagined it'd be closed with No Action regardless if that was the case. — CuriousGolden(T·C)15:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that unless there is something recent to report, it is exceedingly rare to see corrective action applied to the reported editor. El_C15:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm a volunteer here. And yes, I put in a lot of my time for this. Not because it was fun or because I had nothing better to do, but because it was a problem for the project that needed to be solved, and someone had to do it. So, did it ever cross your mind to think how a volunteer might feel when such an effort gets negated with a snap remark? ◅ Sebastian16:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, SebastianHelm, I think I was reasonably polite, but I am not actually here to hold your hand. The timesink that these AE-centred AN and ANI mega-threads (another example from earlier in the month) constitute is something I intend to curtail with great vigor. Not really interested to just let those reports bloat with insiders going on and on while outsiders are effectively shutout, until the thread gets archived with no action, anyway. If you got a problem with that stance, you are free to bring it to wider review. El_C16:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If, by “outsiders are effectively shutout”, you mean that it takes an inordinate (or almost prohibitive) effort for an ousider before they can form an informed opinion, then I agree wholeheartedly with you. That is exactly why I ended up spending so much time on the case. ◅ Sebastian16:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But the outcome of that amounted to the very same problem being repeated. A bit of a self-defeating exercise, methinks. El_C16:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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. ◅ Sebastian17:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying you need to be more succinct, by prioritizing both the egregious as well as the recent, if you wish to be realistic about any uninvolved admin investigating and possibly taking action. El_C17:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While this doesn't answer my question, it could have been an interesting point in a discussion about the optimal action to be taken – if it had come while the case was still open. That said, I'm taking exception to the patronizing way you are talking about “any uninvolved admin investigating”. Are you not aware that you're talking to just such a person – and, by contrast, what investigation did you do? ◅ Sebastian20:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm aware. And being straight-forward isn't "patronizing" in my book. Your approach to ACDS disputes is deeply flawed if you think a 24-point "finding" and a 9-point "recommended consequences" is likely to advance resolution to such protracted disputes. What investigation did I do? A nominal one, which suffices. Again, these AE-centred AN/ANI mega-threads are not feasible, and the sooner you come to terms with that, the better. El_C20:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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_C20:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be even more upfront about it. Indeed, you are a longstanding admin, but nonetheless you're not coming across as a particularly experienced one (yes, even though you became one in 2007, only 2 years after me). For example, you've blocked a total of, like, maybe 30 users — I've blocked nearly 8,000. You've protected less than 20 pages in total — I've protected nearly 6,000. So, while I do respect my admin colleagues (as I do all editors) as a matter of course, if one of them is doing something wrong (due to inexperience or for whatever other reason), I'm going to tell them about it. I'll be polite, of course, but I won't dilute the potency of my point. And I don't think being reflexively defensive as a response to that is conducive to making any sort of progress, anywhere (whatsoever). El_C21:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thank you for your input and advice to the editor. As I noted a few days ago, you are probably the only admin who is willing to help Balkan editors solve their disputes. Hopefully the Balkan topics will become less toxic. Meanwhile I am staying away from some time and reflect on some things - I too have made my mistakes. One thing I regret is getting involved in several content disputes at the same time. That is not productive. Cheers and keep up the good work, Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Khirurg, definitely warning-worthy. Also, had to look up Scardus — I guess it's a mountain range...? (I would have guessed food again, although maybe that just indicates that I need a snack!) El_C16:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El C, a very interesting thing about the dispute is that it doesn't have a functional meaning. There were no borders in antiquity, landmarks were used as general transboundary points. Nobody lived permanently on those mountains before the introduction of New World crops. The potato is the unsung hero which claimed these mountainous lands for humanity. Flags and states came later. If a particular landmark wasn't perceived as a "border", there wouldn't be a dispute. --Maleschreiber (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that's weird. I suppose, so long as there isn't any messy transclusions happening, we're okay for the moment. Though, it is a bit concerning to have the lockpad display when the page isn't yet protected. El_C17:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. I just tested it by lifting the protection and the padlock vanished — so that wasn't you doing anything. I guess templates get padlocks automatically displayed whenever protection is applied, which is news to me. El_C17:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are right. I have done many weird things throughout the years on Wikipedia, and do not want to expand the list of them anymore. :P Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now I seem to vaguely recall that actually being a thing. I guess it's just been a while since I protected a template, so maybe I just plain forgot. El_C18:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it ok for a user to edit war [51], 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)[reply]
I, actually, am unable to parse People find some consensus on tp between you and make changes — that sentence just isn't entirely comprehensible to me. El_C18:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:STABLE version of the article is the one which El C protected and Ktrimi reverted to. There is no right or wrong version when an admin protects an article, but there is a WP:STABLE which was challenged with numerous edits/reverts by two editors. Khirurg, your only comment on the talkpage before El C protected it was[52] but you reverted twice a version which wasn't the product of an emerging consensus. Now that El C has protected the article we are finally having a discussion but it presupposes a common set of rules. Khirurg claims that the map shouldn't depict populations of different ethnicity in the same colour[53]. I reply to him that the map is not an ethnic, cultural, linguistic map but a geographical one as its name highlights (Template talk:Southern Illyria Labeled Map It'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)[reply]
(edit conflict) Ah, the magic of punctuation! Anyway, it's always best for those who advocate for the contending version not to continue edit warring against those who support the longstanding version, at least without reaching, at minimum, some form of WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS. El_C18:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The longstanding version is this one from December [54], before Maleschreiber and Bato started "expanding it" two days ago[55]. And Ktrimi edit-warred without any tp participation, claiming to be "too busy" (just not "too busy" to edit war at the right time). What kind of behavior is that? Khirurg (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's behaviour that's... not great. Sorry, I'm unable to immediately discern what's what when it comes to the various reversions on that template. (Also, in general, please cite diffs rather than old revisions.) El_C18:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Khirurg, where did I say that I am busy to post on the talk page? Stop putting words in my mouth. I am checking the sources one by one before making my own proposal. Focus on the content dispute instead of accusing other editors without facts. How many editors have you accused so far today? As for the "right" version, the discussion on the tp, and maybe a RfC, will decide which is that. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look, folks, all this back-and-forth sniping — I'd rather not host that on my talk page. There are a number of noticeboards where you can report problems as you see fit. El_C18:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You're right El C. I'm sorry for the abuse of your talkpage as hosting space for disputes. Thanks for taking the time to work on the Balkans topic area.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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_C19:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template talk:Southern Illyria Labeled Map
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)[reply]
Thank your for your response. Always ready to help :) I still think that a general reminder on the tp of the template would be good though. The discussion has become messy there, as it happens in that area of Wikipedia on a daily basis. Hence I am on a Wikibreak at the moment, and will not edit Balkan stuff for a few months. Busy in rl and willing to reflect on several things. After all, Wikipedia has more interesting and productive things for editors to do than participating in messy disputes on obscure topics that very few (if any) readers care about. They just keep getting wrong reactions out of their editors. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, the edit warring on that page that you protected some time ago started again, although the RfC has not been closed yet. Hopefully one day it will be closed. lol If possible, you keeping an eye on it would be great. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I went on and and added this WP:ARBEE Talk Page warning [56], to help remind editors that this Illyria topic area article, which has seen an unfortunate surge of edit warring in the recent past, is subject to discretionary sanctions. I reflected this on the discussion below as well [57] due to my concerns that editors may again sideline the discussion and resort to edit warring to get things done instead of seeking consensus first. Its unfortunate that Ktrimi991 just responded to me now with "do not open new discussions with the usual warnings and threats, as it will bring you no benefit.[58] 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.
Edit: about the "edit warring" Ktrimi mentioned: it is just the removal of the disputed content which was added without any WP:CONSENSUS. We already let it stay in the article for 2 months but that was as far as it can get without the necessary support for inclusion. If it has to be added, it should wait for the RfC to conclude about it. Not before. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)19:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not complain about Alexikoua specifically, and the edit warring did not involve your edits only. And yeah, when you discuss a content dispute do not mention reports and sanctions every now and then. As I wrote above, I am not interested in editing Balkan topics for a few months, so do not ping me again. Bye, Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notification
Please see this ([59]), 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))[reply]
Okay, thanks, noted. Not sure how to best have outsiders be able to parse any of that, but here's hoping. Also, although I can't really commit to anything at this time, by all means, please feel free to update me on any further developments. El_C20:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Walrus Ji, not at all. Happy to have you here. In answer to your question: what I was getting at is that for the sanctions to come into effect, there has to be either a page that sufficiently features the conflict between India and Pakistan, or edits that do the same. We have neither here. Hope that makes sense. Regards, El_C19:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that clarifies it further. I filed this report as I understand that the Indian Government and Indian Media are calling these protestors as Pakistani agents / Khalistanis. The article in question elaborates the conflict between the Protestors (i.e. Pakistani Agents (allegedly)) with the Indian security forces. The edit diff that I linked as evidence as has phrases like "deployed 15 companies of para military forces" and " died after being shot in the head by the police". So, is this still not sufficient to be considered as the said conflict? --Walrus Ji (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Walrus Ji, that's right, it is not. More often than not, Indian authorities will claim that any major domestic development has a Pakistani-inspired facet to it (and likewise, vice versa for Pakistani domestic developments and their similar stance), but that does not make it so — that is, actual level of prominence of the conflict outside of the sheer propaganda leveled by either country against the other, and so on. Not saying such an influence isn't real, but both countries often tend to greatly exaggerate its impact. El_C19:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El C, I see. I felt that such an extension would come under "broadly construed" language used in the sanction statement. Sorry for the confusion and wasting everyone's time. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
BLP
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[61][62][63]. 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)[reply]
I think that the talkpage will remain blank even if the edit-war restarts - the wondrous world of the Balkans topic area. This seems to be correct: lawsuit announced, but never filed. Overall, my main concern is about sourcing. I don't know what's the middle ground between allegations and reportable allegations and WP:LIBEL, which I had forgotten about until you mentioned it. But that should probably be the topic of a wider community discussion which may establish a guideline which will stop edit wars about wartime allegations in the Balkans topic area. As always, thanks of the very quick response! --Maleschreiber (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Any concerns should be presented at the article talk page, first and foremost. I will take a dim view of anyone continuing to edit war over this addition while neglecting to do so. Please update me as needed. Regards, El_C20:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
*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)[reply]
Atsme, okay...? I mean, I think the situation calls for a dispute resolution request at this point, like WP:3O, WP:RFC. WP:RSN, etc., to bring more outside input to the dispute — but noted. If you're asking me to weigh in with the extra-authority inherent in WP:GS/COVID19, I'm not inclined to do so at the moment, if only because this dispute seems to involve content of complexity and length that I find a bit daunting right now. Kind regards, El_C20:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I and Alexbrn have objected that most of the content in the article is not actually about misinfomation. For example, one passage I removed introduces a conspiracy theory from Chinese social media about large numbers of urns being shipped to Wuhan, and then contrasts that with the Chinese National Health Commission's statistics, as if to imply that the conspiracy theorists were correct and the NHC's statistics were misinformation.
While we're here, I should mention that ScrupulousScribe has been making some strange (I think offensive) statements on the talk page about how I'm "sensitive" over this issue because I'm supposedly Chinese (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 [64]. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Jeez, it's only been a week and almost 30 sections and subsections below this space?(!) What is happening on my talk page?(!) Re-naming to Grand Central Station! El_C14:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
🥇 Our best admins are neutral admins which makes them popular admins, and that explains Grand Central Station in a nutshell. 🐿 Atsme💬📧14:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Atsme: Please strike your accusation of leaving false edit summaries, unless you're willing to substantiate it. As for the urn story, yes, it is very likely disinformation. It originated with the New Tang Dynasty (Falun Gong's main media outlet - see the original tweet), and was picked up by the US government outlet Radio Free Asia ([65]) and Vice ([66]). A few other outlets reported on the existence of the urn theory on social media, but the story itself was never substantiated. The content of the story (that tens of thousands of people died in Wuhan of coronavirus) is rendered virtually impossible by multiple subsequent studies (e.g., in the journal Nature) showing a low seroprevalence in Wuhan (on the order of 3% to 4%).
Atsme, you've added this urn story to the article about misinformation by China, juxtaposing it with the death figures to imply that the urn conspiracy theory provides the true figures while the National Health Commission's figures are misinformation. The irony here is that the urn conspiracy theory itself is very likely disinformation, given its implausibility and provenance (Falun Gong and Radio Free Asia). It should not be used to imply that the death figures from Wuhan are misinformation. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've already substantiated everything, and I suggest that you read the material that is cited to RS, not the sources you've been mentioning, which you accumulated in an OR effort without a single RS stating what you have alleged, not to mention noncompliance with WP:SYNTH. Please stop pinging me about information based on your OR and POV. Atsme💬📧16:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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_C16:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El C, would you look at this IP editor? [[67]] (record of clearing talk page [[68]]). It looks like their recent edits are meant to antagonize an editor who you recently tban'ed. Comments like this are unproductive [[69]] and these are clearly designed to tban dance on another editor [[70]], [[71]], [[72]], [[73]]. Edits like this are simply NOTHERE [[74]]. Thanks Springee (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓17:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- just saw this thread! I fondly remember the good ole days: And so the admiral ordered, Weigh anchor and hoist the mizzen! The crew responded, Aye, AdmiralEek!! But where's our captain? The admiral responded, Taking a caulk. The captain was a bit squiffy, so heave ho or you'll hang from the yardarm!Atsme💬📧14:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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 ([75]). 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 here06:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, El C. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Sure, but otherwise, your userpage isn't easy to parse, due to the fact that you actually use it. I edit mine like once a decade. El_C18:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. There's a YouTube video at the bottom of the page, but it's just some people talking in German (which I don't-Opa-understand) alongside some German folk music (not my cup of tea). Then, you link to Nikkimaria's talk page as an ill with numbers and stuff, but it still only links to their main user talk page. Quite confusing. El_C13:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
entirely my fault, I thought I had the video in the article, but no, only on the talk of Martinevans123, and when I'm absent-minded, I confuse ill and diff, Nikkimaria. But hurray, I just expanded the soprano, sufficiently I hope. Need fresh air now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't really like that song. Didn't dislike it either. Was just kinda meh. Personally, I prefer the Israeli children songs I grew up on, like הילדה הכי יפה בגן, for example. El_C16:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Degenhardt would have been delighted! Not a song to be liked, - did you read the quote which I translated (improving on Deeple) per the talk request. Song talk about unpleasant smells, ending with a crime and a corpse swimming ... while the surviving grubby children keep singing that you better don't play with them. - Thanks for yours. Did you read my advice for M? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not. Quoted where? Also, after Opa, I'm afraid to ask, but what's a "Deeple"? Yes, I saw it. Sound advise, but I'm still concerned that further cognizance will nonetheless be needed in order to avoid utter disaster in the future. El_C16:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
my next mistake, DeepL - as you know everything about me you'll know that I am an infobox warrior who had to be restricted by arbcom to prevent utter disaster in the future. For 2 years I was too proud to appeal. I should have known SBHB's advice in the case, but then we might not have gotten to Beethoven ;) - RfC for Ian Fleming, and I stay away, I stay away, I don't play that game any more - please, be never afraid to ask! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The church pic - as you will have seen - is in my user infobox for 2021. I don't know the singer personally, but she sang for us several times, Bach's great works (all explained if you follow the link, also (below there) that some like to receive my thanks and appreciation), and she sang recently in cantata services that I pictured (her page). On all these pictures, she is too small for "about her", and my lead is smaller "about me", of course. - I knew nothing about the translator, but she was a red link on Deaths in 2021. The bitter-sweetness is between her and her ex-husband, a novelist with an article who wrote her obit. (They had four children when they were divorced, and now he has ten.) - The delegate called me to task for the Bach cantata, so I will have to not follow spontaneous impulses for a few days, - hope no one dies whose article has to be written. In the cantata, BWV 1, I have a problem. The article was all built on one source (and all other Bach cantatas at the time also, btw) which one user denies reliability. I wanted to keep it, supporting it for all facts - only recordings, anyway - by a second source, trying to be faithful to the article history and to retain what editors did before me. He removed it. Quite generally, I have a problem with expansions which ignore what former editors achieved, see BWV 53 and Ian Fleming for recently mentioned examples. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It does not look "despicable" to me, but I am far from an authority. This is not an area with which I am familiar. El_C18:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks Valereee and El C for the advice, but this user is new to the area, and would be unfair to drag them into an ArbCom case as a party given the number of disruptive edits they have done, so I will give them some time and the benefit of the doubt for now. I just wanted to bring to El C's attention (and you too Valereee) that this might be a coming problem and confirm El C's point about these random, disruptive users attracted to this topic. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[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_C21:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[Undo message read:] 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_C03:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ANI Closing
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)[reply]
Sort of retired, anyway, since they're still chiming in on the talkpage of the article in question. More eyes are on it at this point, though. Grandpallama (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Will do. By the way there is an expired RfC on the Chetnik war crimes in World War II talk page ("Genocide question"). If you could close it, it would be appreciated. --Griboski (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with the closure of this incident.
Being a lengthy incident shouldn't be a problem as long as the length of the text is supported with appropiate different diffs and links. I provided around 20 diffs and 30 links which clearly support the incident.
I only wanted to inform editors in the talk pages of those two articles in question (not like I copy-pasted the same thing on thousands of articles) since they both suffer the same problem and the situation requires talk page discussion. I did not post the exact same discussion but a bit modified one, to suit the other article's needs. I'm surprised it was seen as a problem by you.
This situation has been brought to me and quite a few others by another editor in the first place, about two weeks ago. Then apperantly discussions about this topic took place in those users' talk pages 1, 2, 3. Also, after I reviewed those three articles, I've found out that the same discussions have already been apperantly happening in the edit summaries, to this day, albeit short ones. So, I'm baffled you think this issue didn't see any discussion, recently.
Also, I don't think there's a dispute here, like you claimed in the closure. There's a clear violation of the Wikipedia policies, denial of a consensus, which was agreed upon after an rfc at RSN, no less. I feel like a fool since I'm quiet active at RSN, thinking rfcs there change things.
Last but not least, seeing all those time of mine, reviewing the history of those articles and editors, writing a detailed, "lengthy" incident post which was supported by 30 diffs or links, thrown away to trash can in such a quick manner was extremely disheartening and disappointing. I felt like I wasted huge time of mine for nothing but trying to help an editor at first, other editors later and the whole Wikipedia eventually, in a topic I wasn't really interested in the first place.
Magnus Dominus, you greatly overestimate the availability of volunteer resources with a report that is so exceedingly lengthy, it is virtually inaccessible to any outside reviewer. The top of ANI explicitly says, in boldface, be brief. If you're unable to condense and prioritize both egregious and recent items, your report is almost certain to go nowhere. If anything, I just spared you the time that your report would have languished without any meaningful outside intervention. Intervention which would not have been forthcoming, certainly for such a narrow issue. Sorry that this reality may be harsh, but it is what it is. El_C13:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit, I miss the part about be brief. It was a fault on my part but still I feel you could give it a true shot just for the respect for the time that was spent on it. Anyways, I get you. Thank you for looking into it, even just for a moment or not.Magnus Dominus (talk) 13:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thank you very much. They are also using this IP to engage in cross wiki edit warring (managing to get it blocked on some of them). I guess, they'll never learn. Regards. M.Bitton (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
And at least that edit left the article relatively in tact. But they also reverted an IP who basically just broke everything. So, who cares if it was an LTA. The stability of a biography about a recently deceased person is what's paramount. Anyway, I'm not sure where you're getting "reasonably constructive edits" from exactly... El_C23:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Userpage
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.Boxing17:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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[76] without any consensus and claiming that somehow I'm following him [77] 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)[reply]
You very well know that virtually all these villages are almost entirely inhabited by ethnic Greeks, and that this is sourced, and the source is present in the articles in question. The "many editors" is just Bes-ART (talk·contribs), who went reverting every single one of the IP edits indiscriminately, without care and without explanation [78]. This amounts to unexplained removal of sourced info. You also participated in this, for example here [79] (almost entirely Greek) and here [80] (25-50% Greek). In the latter edit, you justified your revert on the ground that the original addition was made by an IP editor; as if that somehow justifies blanket reverting. IP editors have the same editing rights as you do, and that's not an excuse to revert them. And yes, you reverted me within 3 minutes at an article you had never edited before [81], which leads me to wonder how often you sit there refreshing my contribs log. I must say I'm flattered. Now instead of the usual admin-shopping, how about you explain based on wiki policy why the alternate name of minority-inhabited villages should be summarily removed. Let's hear it. Khirurg (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first edits made by this IP were all erroneous, biased, and often using references that did not in fact mention the subject of the change at all. In some cases using the 2011 Census which in fact did not mention the ethnicity of the population by villages but only by Counties. Not to mention the fact that many members here on the one hand oppose the use of this census data but in some articles are interested in using it. Therefore this census will either be used for all articles or will not be used in any of them. Looking at the first edits I reverted all the articles to their previous status regardless of whether they are OK in some articles or not. Having said that, for me, it is ok to put the name in Greek in those where there is a significant percentage of the population of this ethnicity or other ethnicities. But let's use a certain standard because although there is nothing wrong with using the Greek alphabet in the infobox, it would be better to use transliteration in the Latin alphabet or only in the Greek one and not both together. This makes Infobox look ugly. Bes-ARTTalk10:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was monitoring the IP's edits again to see if they were edit-warring and then saw that you began to restore them. This is not the way to put forward edits which don't have a consensus. I'm OK with the Aliko edit, but you have no consensus for the edit on Delvinë and many other ones which concern villages where Greek is spoken by a small community only. Edit-warring is not the way to include edits which weren't part of the WP:STABLE. --Maleschreiber (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Maleschreiber, I'm not well! My car got majorly dinged a couple of days ago (no one hurt thankfully; I wasn't actually there), which is gonna be expensive and is a real drag. Plus, nobody wants to be my friend lately, it seems. Sorry, don't know if I'm up for an insane Balkans run right now. At the risk of reusing the same lame joke twice in matter of minutes, perhaps someone else can step up this time...? Best wishes to all, El_C01:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear about your car, El_C! My youngest son had a mXXXn slam into his car while it was parked on the street. Luckily the mXXXn's insurance totaled it and gave him a hefty check. Good luck dealing with insurance! --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Kansas Bear. The insurance folks are all really nice people, the problem is that they're just not especially competent, which is adding to my stress levels. Oh well. C'est la vie!El_C01:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, just what I needed. You said something nice today, DYK? "Maybe a week, ten days, at most." A month seems long for someone defending an invaded area, iban or not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can appreciate you looking out for a friend, Gerda, but Mathsci was blocked back in Nov (as opposed to a year ago), with that last block being for a full week. So, to me, a month seemed like a reasonable escalation. Weird how both cases involve the same admin, NinjaRobotPirate (I'm a fan), talk about criss-crossing paths, again! El_C15:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See, I never want to be an admin, and - believe it or not - this horrible infobox warrior has never been blocked. But I mused at times what that time-out would teach me. Did you keep an eye on BWV 53? (I look away. I look away, but can't help seeing it's still busy. FS made a nice comment today - in the BWV 1 FAC - about I'd not recognize "my" article If he edited, which is soo true. Remember the Magnificat that was my kick-off for the year, until ...) Some suffer that better than others, it seems.) Eric Corbett would just sit blocks out (at least for I while), and that's what I probably I might do as well. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, I know probably the least about WP:ARBINFOBOX2 than all the other AE topic areas. I mostly engage the politics and history ones — although WP:ARBBLP and WP:ARBPS are key ones, too (with an occasional WP:ARBGG incident happening from time to time, as well). Anyway, my familiarity with that Arbitration case pretty much approaches zero. Sorry, no, I've not kept up with, well, anything really. I haven't loaded my (~100K) watchlist in, like, maybe 3 months now...? El_C16:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also know nothing about ARBINFOBOX2 ;) - I had enough after the first. Seriously. In a nutshell: I liked Carmen better as it is now than what it was in 2013 but I can't show you because it was just deleted. Just took seven yer to get resolved, but I will carry the label forever, probably. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nonono, there was no 1. The arbs probably thought they'd solve Teh Problem then, forever. The real problem: the case was requested by a friend of mine (as a surprise) to have someone look at the massive opposition that the introduction of {{infobox opera}} received. You can imagine: everybody jumped on the train with complaints about everything that ever went wrong with infooxes. In the end, after what I thought was a fruitful workshop phase, they restricted a few people (including me), and told everybody to find consensus on each article's talk page, which was the perfect invitation to have conflict and unkindness forever. I left the circus in 2015, due to health issues, but you will still find people claiming that I drove editors away. The most recent edition is Ian Fleming, where I was amused today about a cleverly worded edit, - look for "boilerplate spiel" ;) - Our cat IP - perfect match to the header higher up- responded, less amused, it seems (see user's talk, deleted). Thank you for the beautiful flowers!! I'll listen later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I listened, should have known which flower :) - I love what the orchestra is doing during his last word, these strange harmonies. He's not even looking at her, just focused on himself. I mentioned the opera today, DYK? (MarnetteD) ... memory lane --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
meow - everyday, I thank the author of today's featured article, DYK? - today I did it and wondered how long it would take to be reverted - 20 minutes - meow - it's funny and sad --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's too bad this animosity endures, but it is what it is. Oh well. It's probably best to leave them be —here, too— unwanted is unwanted, and that's that. El_C11:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay...? Sounds a bit mean of a mean it, honestly. Also, how does WP:TFAA even happen? What a mystery that process is! I, for one, can't make heads or cat's tails of it.¯\_(ツ)_/¯El_C13:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
TFA
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)[reply]
So, no magic Elves? Now the mystique is gone and I'm sad... Which instantly turns to seething rage and paranoia. Off I go to make a 3-hour documentary about how them damn commies stole my TFAA. Wait, who am I again? El_C14:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(I told you the formerly despised Wehwalt became delegate, no.) What can I do? I gave you flowers already. If you are yourself again, you could really help Nikkimaria at BWV 53, now that she is alone. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
BMK, that WP:AN3 paramter is simply asking that the filer demonstrates with respect to their list of diffs showcasing the alleged reverts, what version the earliest diff cited had reverted. Just so as to prove that it wasn't simply a bold edit that is being misconstured as a revert. Hope that makes sense. El_C14:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Beit Shearim
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)[reply]
Hi, David. As far as your topic ban is concerned —which seems to be the most elaborate topic ban I've ever seen on the project— it does not appear to be a violation, as it involves events well before 1948. Note, though, that a village displaced of its inhabitants reads awkwardly to me. Probably better to state it as: a village whose inhabitants had been displaced. Regards, El_C14:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you have time.
And ONLY if you have time. Please take a look at this page Witold Pilecki, the ongoing discussion [82], new account edits in breach of ARBCOM restriction[83] 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 [84]. Links to discussions[85],[86] Note that Bob not Snob participates in both discussions, so is aware of them. - GizzyCatBella🍁13:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ah, I didn't catch the one already blocked, just saw the one who wasn't and figured both that didn't pop up on my watchlist were not blocked. Thanks for clearing this up. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 18:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elsewhere, too. Protected three 2 pages that I immediately encountered. Seems to be some weird Hania Amir fixation...? Oh well. But why an SPI? Who do you suspect of being the master? El_C12:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, make that two. Not sure why I protected the same page twice at the same time (or that it was even possible), but meh-here-are! El_C12:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! The master is IrzaKhanz69, according to Pahunkat in the ANI thread linked above. (I don't know if I can necessarily blame them for the fixation part, of course; Hania is pretty attractive, and there's a reason I edit Kinza Hashmi so much...)Anyway, I managed to total my car about an hour and a half after messaging you, so forgive me if it takes me a while to reply further. Best, M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 14:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, no! My own car got majorly dinged too a few days ago (see this thread), but not totalled. What a drag. At least you're okay (I hope!). Sending positive thoughts your way! El_C14:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, I'm not sure whether to be sad or relieved that I'm not alone. I'm sorry for your loss...Yeah, I'm fine, thankfully; I don't think my car could say quite the same, though :-/Thanks for the cheer-up, though! It was exactly what I needed to brighten up my day at that point :-) M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 21:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oof, now that is totalled, the axel and everything. Impressive. Still, for me, $8K is nothing to sneeze at. Guess I'm rental-ing it for the next few weeks... Fun times.¯\_(ツ)_/¯El_C21:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have a novice user, that more or less try to cooperate, however I raised an obvious question ([93]) for which I get a correct answer ([94])...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))[reply]
Sorry, KIENGIR, not trying to be difficult, but what is preventing you from making those further inquiries and/or clarifications? Regards, El_C13:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean at this point my role ends, I don't know what to do, there are some policies about abusing multiple accounts, and maybe the user don't know this, I just want to prevent him/her from troubles in the future, and I was thinking I should not cope with content issues with him/her until this is not clarified (since such issues we should report to admins, even if it seems technical). What do you suggest? I could only tell what I did now for you, and likely the user would turn to an admin as well even not kowing the exact policies on this...(KIENGIR (talk) 14:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
KIENGIR, I think starting with something basic like {{uw-login}}, and maybe some otherwise basic explanations to that effect, would be best. Granted, we generally wish to centralize an individual contributions to the utmost, just for best recordkeeping practices, but this is still early days — obviously, it isn't like, say, SchroCat's use of an IP above or CaptainEek's use of AdmiralEeks above that. Rather, it's seems like somewhat ordinary growing pains fare. So, slow and easy; calm and friendly. Sorry, I'm feeling a bit stretched thin right now, so unless there's a need for more immediate intervention, I'd prefer you (or anyone else) were to handle the non-urgent end of it on your part as best you could first. Good luck! Best regards, El_C14:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I got distracted earlier! I'd run a CU looking into this, which came back Likely. Same IP, slightly browser. IP Seems to house a few other probably-unrelated accounts. SQLQuery me!00:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just glanced at it. Sorry, there's no way I'm doing that today! I'm burning both ends of the candles right now, so I gotta pace myself. El_C00:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chrisahn, right, you ask me, here, like so. But can you show that there is a lot of protracted edit warring going on? Because I'm wary of throttling a page that sees that much activity. Not sure why you pinged Octoberwoodland here. They are not an admin, so they do not have the authority to grant your request. El_C00:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, there hasn't been much edit warring. Just like Octoberwoodland, I thought the page was already under 1RR, and I thought it would be useful. But if you'd rather not do it yet, that's fine with me as well. If problems do arise, I'll come back here. But I hope it won't be necessary. :-) (The ping was just because Octoberwoodland started the discussion at Alalch Emis's talk page and might want to chime in here.) — Chrisahn (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just understood that moments ago (the ping). Anyway, in general, restrictions are added by need only. The general consensus among admins is to wait and see, and only if needed add 1RR. And if that isn't enough, only then move on to additional enhancements, like Consensus required (i.e. gradual escalation). Regards, El_C00:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is time I knew more about do's and don'ts applicable to infoboxes. Could you let me have the link to any WP that applies to Infoboxes as such? Qexigator (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some users get hot about infoboxes, while for others it's the normal thing to have. Before adding an infobox to an article without one, check for warnings in edit mode, and for discussions on the talk page. Recent example Ian Fleming, nonono. Those who made the article as nice as it is today don't like it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link to MOS:INFOBOX. This comfirms my experience when I have been looking at or editing other well-established articles on impottant topics: the infobox is 'to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored,,,The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance,' If well done, they can be very helpful when needed.' Qexigator (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
yes ;) - that pic was taken by my much-missed friend who made the good version for Ian Fleming, and my illustration for the infobox wars (see the link to the workshop, and in my 2020 talk archive). - On the other topic, Bach, we have now another ANI, by Smerus, Nikkimaria is fighting, I shake my head and try to look away, and Mathsci is still blocked. How many more editors in good standing are going to be burnt? - I like the singers music, but the images best when I see him, not graphics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's the second time today where I've had Che quoted back at me — looks like it's gonna be one of those days... Enjoy your outing! El_C11:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Back from sun and snow: sorry if that landed wrong. I was a bit in a rush, and reacted to "all roads lead to IF". I don't care about IF, at all, the number of my edits to his article is zero, the number of my edits to the talk page is zero. I had not thought of him in years until the ongoing RfC, and my edits will remain zero. I use his name as an example, because - with the RfC going - I can mention it, otherwise if I mentioned a name from the group someone would come and cry "canvassing".
I thought about the animosity, and what I can trace back (because I really don't understand it), and looked at what I wrote about Ian Fleming on the page deleted as a call to battle. I made a note of the name, that it was infobox person (red background indicating that it was lost) and the above-mentioned diff of a good version from 2012 piped to the date. That's all. I had forgotten until I looked it up now that my friend had made the good version. When we lost him (later that year) I spread the image all over the Wikipedias, even Hebrew (with some help from a friend from Jerusalem). My first reaction had been to leave, but then I didn't want to do his enemies that favour ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, that is some lovley greenery. So nice. Also, you can CANVASS me any day, Gerda, but should probably note my propensity to call (!)voter fraud whenever things don't go my way (diff). Anyway, trying to take it easy today, with the occasional bouts of critical drinking.El_C19:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, easy today, will explain "canvass" some other day, also why I think the animosity is inherited, because the listing described really doesn't explain it, - although I can see (now) that the red background - about as red as your top image - could be seen as inflammatory. But a reason to leave Wikipedia? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Easier today, with progress on BWV 1. Back to the beginning, Hebrew: we miss Yoninah, terribly, and one of the many things she would have done for me is adding the text of a psalm to the article, compare Psalm 45 and Psalm 43. The text can be found at the bottom, in External links. I could probably manage but would feel safer if someone did it who could actually read it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Oh, good, glad to hear it. Yup, I well know Yoninah for her top-tier contributions. I wouldn't count our losses yet, though. She's only been gone less than a month. Hopefully, she'll return soon. *Sending positive vibes*El_C11:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hello, El C. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is excitement!. Message added 03:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
El_C 08:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Posted the Corona virus outbreak, but upon (admittedly, perhaps somewhat prematurely) doing the same for the Kirk Douglas RD got a what-the-fuck-barbeque— it's a magical place! El_C 11:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
.png)
El_C 05:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Done. Mainspacified. And I didn't even visit the Teahouse! El_C 13:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely. El_C 03:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Austronesier, cool, thanks — sounds good. El_C 23:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
El_C 22:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Wow, St. Martin, Idstein has quite a captivating look to it. El_C 20:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of one week. El_C 03:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Fixed. El_C 14:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Already done. Already a step ahead of you. El_C 03:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Warned. Warning issued to Alexikoua. El_C 15:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- just saw this thread! I fondly remember the good ole days: And so the admiral ordered, Weigh anchor and hoist the mizzen! The crew responded, Aye, AdmiralEek!! But where's our captain? The admiral responded, Taking a caulk. The captain was a bit squiffy, so heave ho or you'll hang from the yardarm! Atsme 💬 📧 14:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Unprotected. Sure, no problem, Wowzers122. El_C 03:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Bitter-sweet groove (translation unavailable on request!).jpg)
El_C 19:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg)
Also, you're making me sound like the grim reaper, but I just want to pet a chipmunk! El_C 11:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Peter_Blume_Therock.jpeg){kind=link}
