User talk:El C: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:07, 18 June 2019

If you have the capacity to tremble with indignation every time that an injustice is committed in the world, then we are comrades. – Che.

Archived Discussions

Archive 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 9 11

For you

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, dvdrw 04:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Many chipthanks for the kind words. Greatly appreciated. Best, El_C 06:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I noticed and missed you! (Official circular here). Novickas (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Thought of you while uploading this picture [1]... for all of your work. Novickas (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! El_C 11:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sort of in a hole and am having difficulties submerging. Speaking of holes/that chippie, I got to do some visiting in its burro recently...

This is exactly the problem

This is exactly the problem. I didn't threaten anyone, so why are you warning me? I'm being honest that and saying it wouldn't be tolerated elsewhere. I didn't say anything about doing anything, I except asking for help. So just to really clarify this. I ask for help, am clearly upset, clearly feeling harassed/abused/soemthing, and you give me a warning. Do you honestly not see that as a huge problem? ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Later, adding even more festive decorations, and inspected the whiskers:

And some drinky-drinky as well as rubbing under chin:

Also, two days ago I got to rub a cheekadee's tummy(!); for a handsome reward, of course:

Love, El_C 11:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You look really good in your purple hat! Bishonen | talk 00:19, 4 November 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_C 02:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Capitano, where do you get a large enough sweater for a person with that hand? Bishonen | talk 20:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

And then there's Skunky! El_C 14:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oooo. Purdy!

Combine obvious love of animals with photography results in photographic win! — Coren ^(talk) 15:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Great to learn that peoples (plural!) like! Chickadee says hi! El_C 14:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons Greetings

Here's some peanuts for Hidey. He hasn't got any!

Hello. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, everyone! Happy 2009! El_C 12:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Groundhog Day

Happy day! Jehochman ^Talk 19:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chippies

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_C 11:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Love is in the air ....dooooo .....dooo.dooo ......doooo ......dooo.doooo ." --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Book?

Let me know when it is out, and you will up your sales by one. :-) KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4 Tality Fractal

1. Four Facets of existence: 1. Matter 2. Energy 3. Space 4. Time

2. Four Dimensions: 1. 1D 2. 2D 3. 3D 4. 4 D (temporal)

3. Four Fundamental interactions: 1. Strong 2. EM 3. Weak 4. Gravity

4. Four States of matter: 1. Solid 2. Liquid 3. Gas 4. Plasma

El_C 07:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rev-dels

Just for information at the moment: are you able to do revision deletions? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Affirmative. El_C 20:46, 16 May 2019 (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]

Yes, by all means. If I'm around, please don't hesitate. El_C 02:30, 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]

Edit Tag on Gaza Strip

Sorry. I thought it was an error that it kept changing. I apologize for the inconvenience. I just don't think the article is accurate and is misinformation. Gotmax (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no worries. As I mentioned, you are free to continue the conversation notwithstanding the tag having been responded to. El_C 23:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GretLomborg

Sorry for over-reacting last night. Thanks for not responding equally. WP:ANI#Compromised account - GretLomborg ? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. El_C 16:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inquisition

I am a new user to Wikipedia so I don't know a lot about the proper protocols. I wrote something on Talk:Inquisition a while back and have heard or seen nothing. You were the last person to edit the page,and I'm not sure who to contact about this issue other than that; unless someone "owns" that page and makes the most edits.

The issue is on the article Inquisition

There is a mistranslationCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).. Bp. Grosseteste is quoted as saying heresy is "an opinion created by human reason, founded on the Scriptures, contrary to the teachings of Christ, publicly avowed and obstinately held." The citation is to an edition of Matthew Paris's Chronicle maiorum; however, that source actually reads: "Heresias est sententia humano sensu electa, Scriptura Sacrae contraria, palam edocta, pertinaciter defensa."

The false English version (unless there is some other place that it is found; but every place that I find it cites the 1872 edition of Paris, or is circular) cited above is ubiquitous and appears in many books, etc. when searching the Internet. But it is flatly wrong on it's face.

I actually emailed a professor who's done work on Grosseteste but haven't heard anything back from him.

Wondering what to do. Plenty of "reliable sources" have the English quote but it is objectively wrong, again, unless they are citing the wrong source.

What to do?

Thanks for your patience in reading this again I am a complete n00b to Wiki and don't know how to go about diplomatically dealing with an issue like this especially considering a lot of reputable sources seem to have gotten the quote wrong too.

Regards, Pavel

PavelCristovic (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this goes beyond my familiarity with the material. I suggest you draft a Request for comment to get the attention of other outside editors. El_C 21:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @PavelCristovic: From a quick look at that talk page, one problem is that your section was posted at the top of the talk page, rather than at the bottom, as you did on this talk page. Wikipedia prefers that now topics be posted at the bottom of the talk page, and that's were regular users look for new comments. This is a very common issue with new users, so it's nothing to be embarrassed about. I'll just move it to the bottom for you, and we'll see if that helps bring in some comments. (I don't know anything about the topic either.) If it doesn't, then a Request for comment can be tried. - BilCat (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a very basic comment at the article's talk page on how to handle this kind of situation. That I way I don't fill up El C's talk page with comments :) - BilCat (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks and update

Thanks so much for the welcome and help. I've responded to your response on the Inquisition talk page, proposed a possible solution; ought we wait for more people to respond then? PavelCristovic (talk) 08:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Sure, give it a day or two. I'm confident you will get some input. El_C 08:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I realize now this was probably not addressed to me! El_C 08:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's still your advice that I built on, so no worries. :) - BilCat (talk) 10:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Romania

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]

Ah, the thanks I get! El_C 05:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And all I got was a ^^^

El_C 06:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I think you're doing a good job. This barnstar is meant to be a counterbalance to a likely unbalanced criticism-appreciation ratio. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated! I try keep my error ratio low, but I often fail. Good to have something to aspire to, though! Thanks again. El_C 22:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, El C. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 22:55, 30 May 2019 (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.

BilCat (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Please keep me updated. El_C 23:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz

Don't say you weren't warned. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My familiarity with them may, indeed, be glancing, but calling them a "cancer on Wikipedia" was not in anyone's best interests. I don't understand why a discussion, be it about content, conduct or a combination of both, needs to devolve like that. There simply is no excuse. El_C 02:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, are you aware of this: [2]? "He's a cancer on Wikipedia" is so far outside collegiality, and this is a repeat offense, at AE, targeting Icewhiz in particular and admin generally. In light of what happened just a couple months ago, I'd ask you to consider picking up where Sandstein left off rather than issuing a warning. – Levivich 04:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was unaware, and am troubled by the sheer levels of aggression displayed in that exchange. Still, I'm not gonna rescind my warning and supplant it with a block at this time. Certainly, any further violations of NPA will be met with immediate sanctions. I promise to be undaunted about that. El_C 05:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If my stalker wishes to play "show and tell", he should be honest enough to show more than the end result of a long-running dispute. You might find this enlightening. Or not. I was topic-banned, and an administrator "let me off with a warning" for violating the topic ban before he had imposed it. And guess who told him that I had violated the topic ban? The corrupt and incompetent administrator didn't look for himself, he just swallowed the whole thing hook, line, and sinker.

I don't know how old you are or what part of the world you live in, but I think you overreacted wildly to what I wrote yesterday. Perhaps you're not aware that the phrase has been well-known in the U.S. for 45 years and is being used more and more these days.[3] — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My age and location are not relevant. Calling someone cancer is a personal attack. Calling someone corrupt is also a personal attack, which you have now been blocked for. El_C 20:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know why you are seemingly unwilling to entertain the notion that your perception of this is off base. He did not call anybody "cancer". He said "a cancer on Wikipedia". That is not the same, and the phrase is indeed well-known and found in respectable places, such as say a headline in the Washington Post. Or The Independent. It isnt a kind thing to say, but it is not the type of attack that merits your harsh response. And perhaps maybe not pay attention to people playing hall monitor and running to an admin's talk page to make a complaint. Because we have places like WP:ANI where they can complain and not try to seek out a sympathetic admin to do their bidding. nableezy - 21:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sympathetic and I'm not unsympathetic. And please don't refer to actions I take as "fascist" (a little bit or otherwise) — that is highly insulting. I quoted both attacks in full on ANI and I stand by my block. The place to challenge it is there. El_C 22:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so I cannot criticize an official action taken by a person with enhanced privileges? Theres a word I would use for that view, though apparently it is verboten. I havent said anything about the block here, I was here complaining about your seemingly dogmatic view on the phrasing "is a cancer on". nableezy - 22:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is not criticism, that is an attack. You are free to take issue with my interpretation at the Incidents report. Doing so here, where it receives much less exposure, seems counter-productive. El_C 22:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El C, with all due respect (and I mean that), you are wrong. I think it is "bad word here" to say that an admin, or the police, or whatever authority figure, cannot be criticized as "corrupt" for their official actions. You blocked somebody for "attacking" an admin as an admin (corrupt can only be a reference to the use of elevated powers that admins possess). And calling it that is a criticism of your action, not an attack on you. But that misses the point even. I didnt even say anything about your block here. My comment above, which you still havent replied to, is about your claiming the phrasing "is a cancer on Wikipedia" is some outrageous attack. It is not. Here is George Conway writing that Trump is "a cancer on the presidency". Hell, here is LA Weekly writing that Classic Rock "is a cancer on our society". The ACLU: secrecy is a cancer on our democracy. Your response to my saying this has been I'm not gonna argue over this as I feel it is self-evident. Im sorry, but no, it is not self-evident, and refusing to even attempt to address the issue and instead say this is my decision and my decision is final is, well, I cant say that bad word here. nableezy - 22:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being corrupt is a personal defect and we do not allow attacks on one's person. And characterizing an action I take as "fascist" is also an attack. You can level criticism without having the need to employ such an offensive term. Anyway, again, and not to be repetitive, you are free to bring this up to review on the Incidents report — attempting to do so here, on my own user talk page, where it sees relatively little exposure, seems counter-productive. El_C 22:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El C, I am not challenging the block. I do not get why you continue to say if I want to challenge it I should do it elsewhere. Im not challenging it here, Im not challenging it there, Im not challenging it anywhere. What I am challenging is your position on the phrasing is a cancer on, something that you, at ANI, said that you were not going to argue over it and it was self-evident. Ive given you several examples of that phrase being used, you have completely ignored it. Even now, again, you completely ignore the point I made in the comment above. You have made a series of pronouncements here that just quite simply do not stand up to any scrutiny. Saying that disallowing the criticizing of admins is fascist is not a personal attack. There is nothing personal about you that I am attacking. You dislike the word? Im sorry, but that doesnt transform a criticism of an action into an attack on a person. "Being corrupt is a personal defect and we do not allow attacks on one's person"? No, being corrupt is not a personal defect (incompetency sure, and if you had made that the issue there would be less of a dispute). Corruption: dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery. Conduct by those in power. I am starting to agree with you on the futility of my commenting here though, as you dont seem willing to actually engage with any of the things that I am saying, instead ignoring those points entirely. nableezy - 23:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I disagree with you. And you are right, I am not inclined to further this discourse at this time. Which you may also bring up to review, if you so wish. El_C 23:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok this is getting out of hand

Though I realize the temptation to vent, as mentioned, I'd rather deal with this on AE than on my own talk page. El_C 16:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El C, can you please do something about Icewhiz making odious accusations against me like he did here? I did not do any "Jew marking", wtf that means. As I already explained - and you pointed out the same thing to him - I restored his removal of SIX PARAGRAPHS, which effectively blanked the article. Somewhere in these six paragraphs was an indication of the subject's ethnicity (which may or may not be relevant to the subject's notability - regardless, I don't much care whether it's there or not one bit, and I removed it here). Icewhiz NEVER indicated that this was his problem with the text. Neither on talk nor in the edit summary. It's pretty damn obvious of what he is trying to insinuate here by making this false accusation and I'm not going to sit here and let him spread lies about me like that. I am going to lose my temper (and he might very well be trying to provoke me with this), as I think anyone decent would when being falsely accused of such things. He needs to strike that crap, or you or another admin needs to do something about this per WP:ASPERSIONS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, that crap needs to be oversighted. And how the hell is he not indef'd for making false accusations like that??? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal summary: "mostly added by blocked sock. A number of NPOV, MOS, V, and SYNTH issue" (Ethnicity (which I highlighted), half the article being SYNTH (events / people loosely related), POV, several bits failing V - e.g. "Romkowski himself taught Różański everything about torture" - source says - that Różański said that Romkowski was one of his instructors - I spent time looking at the article and sources (even though WP:REVERTBAN may apply, I examined the content carefully - it needs a pretty big rewrite). VM chose to revert. It should have been clear to him he was re-instating content added by a block sock (clearly stated in the edit summary). WP:PROXYING is crystal clear: "Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content.". VM is fully responsible for all the content he restored - which includes multiple problems - including "Jew marking" in the first sentence of the lede. Icewhiz (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do any "Jew marking". Fuck off.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing someone of "jew marking" is a very very very serious accusation. It's already been explained to Icewhiz MULTIPLE TIMES what happened here - he deleted six paragraphs, I restored it, at no point did he indicate that his problem was with the mention of the subject's ethnicity (there's not a single comment from Icewhiz on the talk page (afaict) and it's not in the edit summary either). For him to persist in this false accusation of "jew marking" is beyond the pale. It is not just a personal attack but an extremely grievous smear. That's why it needs to be over sighted. And this is exactly the kind of crap that deserves an indef ban, until he figures out that you can't go around baselessly accusing people of stuff like that. Why the hell is he allowed to get away with this? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW - per WP:AGF, I actually think VM probably did not vet what he restored - which included clear and obvious "Jew marking" in the first sentence of the lead - "Roman Romkowski born Natan Grünspan-Kikiel,[1] (May 22, 1907 – July 1, 1965) was a Polish communist official of Jewish background trained...". However - per WP:PROXYING he is still fully responsible for the content - as if he had written this himself. Furthermore - if he hadn't vetted the content (and just reverted this along with several other edits of mine (I have some 24 revert bells still up on the top of the wiki screen)) - this is a WP:CIR and WP:AGF issue from VM's side. I will note that if he had actually spent time and vetted this (as he seems to claim he has done in - diff at AE - "it is exceedingly unlikely that VM vetted the content he was restoring " - oh ffs, there is such a thing as having more than one browser tab open.....) - the conclusion here if far less charitable. Icewhiz (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to strike your bullshit accusation. Now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking by IP hopper

Hi El, could you take a look at these IPs: Special:Contributions/140.213.1.27, Special:Contributions/140.213.1.34, and Special:Contributions/140.213.0.222? There have been others in this range this week too, and maybe last week. The IP is adding unnecessary links with the summary "Add cites", but the IPs change so much I doubt they'll ever see a message. Do you have any thoughts on how to deal with this situation? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. If it's feasible, perhaps the range could be blocked for a few days with a note in the block log, but range blocking goes outside my level of expertise. El_C 17:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and I totally understand. I'll keep asking around, or possibly take it to ANI. - BilCat (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VM

I saw your note on the AE page about possibly applying the no personal comments sanction that was applied to Sashirolls to volunteer Marek. I wanted to mention that VM is already subject to that sanction, however it's only for the American politics topic area. I could be fooling myself, but I do think it has had an effect. I can't recall any recent complaints about personal attacks from them in the AP topic area. ~Awilley (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks for letting me know. I was unaware. Perhaps, then, it's best to apply it to all areas. But that and other decisions are (or likely soon will be) at the hands of the Committee now. El_C 21:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It may be too late for this case, but there definitely is something to be said for resolving things at the lowest level possible. That's what I was trying to achieve with the custom sanction in the first place. Give people a roadmap for how to deal with unhelpful personal comments so it doesn't bubble up to AN/I or AE every couple of months. ~Awilley (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, yes, such conduct problems are best nipped in the bud. In practice, it seems to rarely happen, though. El_C 00:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) fwiw, this is actually a good example as to why I think most of the sanctions at User:Awilley/Discretionary sanctions are bad ideas. Specialized sanctions tend to not work, are confusing to both the enforcing administrators and the user being sanctioned, and eventually end up doing more harm than good. I'd be highly inclined to grant any appeal coming from one of those sanctions on the grounds of that an unclear sanction is no sanction. Namely, if it takes me as a somewhat experienced administrator ten minutes to figure out what is and isn't allowed, I don't think it is fair to hold other users to the standard.

Old fashioned IBANS tend to work better because people actually understand what they mean and they are cross-topic area. My views on ds have been quite divergent from Awilley's in the past, so take it worth, but I thought it worth commenting since I really don't think we should be spreading that group of sanctions farther than where they've already been applied. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In Awilley's defense, their note to enforcing administrators does make it clear that these are intended for "low-level disruptive behavior." But I can also see why custom DS, in general, may be confusing to enforcing admins and users subjected to these alike. I'm not certain as to the level of success applying these specialized DS have had, but in the case of VM (in the area of AP), Awilley intimates that they did have a positive impact. El_C 18:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I get that, but the type of disruption that it is apparently intended for is stuff that I don't think should be sanctioned for at all. DS topic areas have DS for a reason, and that usually means that you're going to have some degree of tension that boils up whether or not we like it. It's the same principle behind why I hated Coffee's civility enforcement sanction: there's already a policy on this, if they violate it and it is bad enough, block or TBAN, but don't hand out a sanction that basically just says we're going to block you if you violate policy but only if specific steps are taken to give you the chance to unviolate it.

Anyway, my musings on it since it has been used at AE recently and there's discussion about expanding it. I'm no stranger to being in minority positions, so won't be offended if I'm told I'm crazy, but thought it was worth noting my dissent from the idea that they were helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, dissent is always welcomed on this user talk page! At any rate, I don't think you are crazy. These are compelling points. But there is something to be said when a method, even if it may be flawed in principle, produces results. To what extent that's true here, though, I just don't feel I'm informed enough to weigh on at this time. El_C 18:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: Your comment about this being an example of how specialized sanctions don't work motivated me to actually look at the data. There are many ways to measure success, but most of them aren't easy to quantify. In the case of Volunteer Marek there's a decently large data set in the form of Arbitration Enforcement requests. I see that as a measure of how many times things got heated enough that somebody was motivated enough to request administrative intervention in a very public and time-consuming way. My list will be short on details, but I'll at least include the topic area.

2016

2017

2018

No personal comments sanction applied for AP2 19 Aug 2018

EE (suspected topic ban violation)

2019

ARBPIA
EE

You are free to draw your own conclusions, but one conclusion I wouldn't draw from this data is that the "no personal comments" sanction didn't work. Since 2016 VM has been reported on average 3 times per year in the AP2 topic area. In the period from Aug 2018 to June 2019 after the sanction was applied there have been zero AE requests from the AP2 topic area. Correlation isn't causation and all, so we can't say from this that the sanction was a success, but according to this metric we can't say it's a failure either.

The other data point I was able to find was the sanction in action. Here an IP (most likely someone evading a block) asked VM to remove a comment that violated the sanction. VM removed the comment and that was the end of the matter. ~Awilley (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation of it is that it’s twofold: the reporting criteria is so convoluted that no one does reporting, and that’s also around the time that the Polish-Jewish dispute heated up, so it’s taken a while for AE to get the brunt of it, and now that it’s been punted to ArbCom, it’s unlikely to come there. Nothing you said above shows any effectiveness of this sanction. My point is that since there’s discussion of extending it elsewhere shows how ineffective it is: it’s pushing the claimed disruption to other areas and the wording is so specific that it actually makes it significantly more difficult to sanction because it adds policy on top of existing policy. Anyway, I stand by my comment that it hasn’t worked, and that I can’t think of a single instance where it would be helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a person is like a water balloon filled with a fixed amount of disruption...squeeze it in one area and it pops out in another area. In any case the purpose of the sanction is not to add a layer of bureaucracy on top of enforcing clear personal attacks or civility issues. It's for dealing with low-level unhelpful personal comments that normally don't rise to the level of being sanctionable. Like "I'm not surprised the Trump supporters are trying to whitewash this article." That's not something we typically block or topic-ban for, but it is still disruptive, engendering conflict, and discouraging collaboration. Normally unhelpful comments like that result in further off-topic bickering, off-topic tangential threads on article talk pages, and some spread into the usertalk space. The ideal outcome is for the person who made the unhelpful comment to simply strike/retract it, which gives the attacked person a sense of closure, and everybody can then move on. That's the path of least drama. Direct administrative intervention, (or alternatively waiting for the conflict to boil over into AN/I or AE) is not the path of least drama. ~Awilley (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miki Filigranski

Within hours of you unblocking her today, she continued edit warring on pages related to the Subic/Frankopan family, in particular the Frankopan family page. I have tried removing the unsourced, biased and defamatory edits but she reverts them immediately. I have posted on the talk page and invited her several times to post there to sort it out, to no avail. This has been going on a long time with multiple articles about the Frankopan/Subic family (she engaged in edit warring with multiple people on the pages of Ingrid Detter de Frankopan and her two children, Peter Frankopan and Lady Nicholas Windsor due to defamatory and biased statements she kept putting in the articles about them, in violation of WP:BLP). Could someone please read the section she has written on the Frankopan Family page ('Doimi de Lupis's name claiming')? I have listed the numerous problems with it at the bottom of the article's Talk page, but she won't engage there. Frankly, I can't figure out how to make an edit warring report myself, so I apologize if it is inappropriate to post this here (Miki keeps telling me she's reporting me whenever I disagree with her edits, but since I have never received a warning or any kind of notice or contact from any admin., she's either not really doing it or not getting the result she wants, idk), I lost my temper tonight in the editing war and that's not appropriate of me, either - I really do want the Frankopan articles to be unbiased, NPOV, and properly sourced, but it appears hopeless and I am getting nowhere and am way too frustrated at this point).Lilipo25 (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean: they do seem to be responding. Anyway, the Edit warring noticeboard has instructions about reporting edit warring and the same goes for the BLP noticeboard with regards to living persons violations. Sorry, but you're not giving me enough to immediately work with — if you want me to look further into this, please provide me evidence in the form of diffs. El_C 02:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant on the Frankopan family article, where the edit war is and where she hasn't engaged on the Talk page. I have posted a list of the problems with her edits there. I will attempt again (maybe tomorrow) to do a report on the BLP noticeboard. Maybe I was just too frustrated tonight to figure it out, idk.

I'm not sure if this is what you mean: [4] [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilipo25 (talk • contribs)

But they responded there, too, at length. Okay, let me know when the report is up and I'll try to have a look. Sorry, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to learn from those two diffs. El_C 02:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, this is the same editor I warned you the other day for personal attacks on me ("like today to deal with lying and accusations by a user ([6], [7], [8], [9])"). I made an extensive reply [10] at the article's talk page. The editor is making false claims, the information is well and reliably sourced, not defamatory, and it was reverted back previously by confirmed editors for the exact reasoning. I really do not understand the editor's oppsession with this family members. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 03:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please inform the editor to be more WP:CIVIL in discussions, to focus on content and not on editors. I really do not want to waste time reporting it at the noticeboard for behavior.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 03:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I missed it, but where exatcly is the personal attack you are claiming was directed at you here? El_C 03:11, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miki literally JUST made the reply in the last hour - it wasn't there when I contacted you before. She has called me a "liar" and worse repeatedly, which is in fact a Personal Attack, and if she "warned you" about me the other day, why was I never contacted by you or any admin about it? Surely if I had done something wrong, I would have received at least a warning. After all, Miki was given a 60-hour ban after reporting a different user. (Also, the claims she is making in the articles are NOT fact, they are opinion and they are defamatory. I have outlined why twice now on the Talk page of the Frankopan family article, but as I said before, I will try to report that under WP:BLP)Lilipo25 (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my recollection, you were not named in that warning. And even if you were, I'm under no obligation to report to you. El_C 03:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, wasn't trying to imply that you had to report to me - I just didn't understand why if I had been reported by Miki as she said, I wouldn't have heard something so I could respond. Anyway, at least she's engaging on the Talk page now, so maybe we can get somewhere there in improving the article. Thanks for your help. Lilipo25 (talk) 03:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is a good part of the information on the Frankopan family article, and all the information in individual member articles, were written by other editors. It is attributing to me "statements", "slanderous statements" and other when most of them I did not even write. That is my "biased opinion", that I am "bashing", or now again ([11]), talking about how I "disapprove" (instead of the sources) and that is "smacks of a personal vendetta".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 03:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there's an absence of assuming good faith, but I'm not seeing anything that rises to the level of a personal attack. That said, it isn't nice to be accused of something you didn't do. El_C 03:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How should be interpreted part "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence..."? Is not repeatedly accusing me for some personal "vendetta"? If anything, the PERSONAL lead has a statement which the editor is not following, "Comment on content, not on the contributor". --Miki Filigranski (talk) 03:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It should be interpreted as a personal comment and an assumption of bad faith which nonetheless does not rise to the level of a personal attack. El_C 04:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just...I don't even know what to do here. I am trying to engage and work this out on the Talk page of the article right now. We are still discussing it, and Miki is edit warring WHILE we're still talking. She just reverted a bunch of edits again, including deleting the ONE quote from the Frankopan family about the issue which I had managed to get in there, again, for the third time today. How is this good faith? Sigh. Lilipo25 (talk) 04:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean you don't know what to do? I told you where to report edit warring or living persons policy violations. El_C 04:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did make a BLP report as you suggested, but I don't think it's appropriate for Miki to make a public diagnosis there of what she has determined is my psychological disorder, based upon my not agreeing with her editing of a Wikipedia article. Announcing that I suffer from psychological projection - complete with link to the Wikipedia article on it - seems like WP:PERSONAL .( I hope I am linking this right - apologies if I am not): Special:Diff/900021517/900025446 Lilipo25 (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the term projection intellectually, I'm not sure psychologically is appropriate, but that may be a bit too nuanced. El_C 00:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't say that I personally see any 'nuance' in her linking to the article about an actual psychological problem rather than just saying I was "projecting", but thanks for looking at it anyway (and sorry to keep dragging you into this mess - I will try to stay on the BLP page now until this reaches some kind of resolution) Lilipo25 (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not discussing with the editor any more because it became annoying how much is constantly misinterpreting both the content and editors have to say.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. We are in good faith engaging and working it out at the talk page. I am making bold edits according to discussion, they are good intermediate solutions. I already explained the editor, however in return I am not getting WP:TALK#OBJECTIVE comments yet one and the same personal points of view. I also noted the editor not one time to start a dispute resolution if is still unsatisfied. It is like the editor wants to force out a specific revision without a proper substantiation.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 04:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've blocked the wrong IP

Hello. I was the anon ed at Special:Contributions/82.0.246.193. A few hours ago, I made just four edits:

A minute after that last one, you blocked me for a week for "Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy". This appears to have been a case of mistaken identity. The actual racist vandal, at Special:Contributions/84.0.182.85, was then blocked by User:Widr a minute later. I tried to ping to you from my talk page to raise the matter, but you've not yet responded. Can you please unblock me at Special:Contributions/82.0.246.193? Thanks. 82.132.234.17 (talk) 02:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. My sincere apologies — I made a mistake. El_C 02:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! 82.0.246.193 (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

Why did you revert me with this edit? Genuinely curious. Thunderchunder (talk) 06:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was nothing but a provocation. Why are you even involving yourself in that Incidents report? Considering how few edits you've contributed to the project, that seems more than suspect. El_C 06:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can see the reasoning for that. I saw what I thought was a clear pattern of regular disruption and proposed a solution. Chalk it up to inexperience or brain atrophy (And, yes, CT scans have shown faster than normal atrophy on the left side of my brain!), but I'll do my best not to throw myself into the ring like that going forward. Thunderchunder (talk) 06:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please retract

Would you please retract the personal attack User:BarcrMac made against me and Kazemita1? --Mhhossein ^talk 10:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, it isn't the most civil thing to say, but I don't think it rises to a personal attack. I'm not going to defend it, but what they're actually saying is that your bludgeoning has become hysterical — not that you're necessarily a hysterical person. Sorry, I just am not comfortable redacting lapses in civility, and I do so very rarely, if at all. El_C 15:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see, but I don't think leaving the material even without letting the user know about the "lapses in civility" would be constructive for the project.--Mhhossein ^talk 11:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But you did let them know. Now they know. El_C 16:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but it was so much better if another editor did. No problem... --Mhhossein ^talk 06:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please, take a look

Hi User:El C. Excuse me to bothering you, but several days ago you have blocked an user called User:Anti political shills who was using multiple accounts. What about this case? Regards. Jingiby (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 15:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmedo Semsurî

First, I apologize because of my last inappropriate used phrases that you warned me later. User Ahmedo Semsurî recently had several edits that I beleive they are not constructive and good. For example he has redirected page Iraqi Lurs to page Feyli Lurs without any logic and reasonings. I asked hm in the talk page the reason for redirection but he failed to bring any reaonable testimony.[12] Now he has reverted several times my edits and every time he sladered me of vandalism and ..... Please have a look over these pages to see our communication and reasoning. I expect you to help to reach a simple solution. BestSHADEGAN (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my best, but I'm not sure how simple this is going to be. At the event, I already fully-protected the page earlier today and, as mentioned, I expect you both to approach your disputes by being especially mindful of the due weight that's represented in reliable sources. El_C 19:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I need your help in editing Israel Adesanya's page

Hello there you recently blocked me over a dispute I had with the user user: sfinlayson and I just want you to hear my side of the story and also contribute to the matter. Israel Adesanya is a Nigerian who moved to New Zealand at the age of 13 and he is a current UFC champion. Isreal Adesanya is a Nigerian and it only shows that he his a New Zealander on his page so I simply tried to change that to reflect that he is both but the user: sfinlayson reverted what I did and stated that I needed a reliable source saying that he is Nigerian and I replied by saying he is a Nigerian Because he was born in Nigeria and he only moved to New Zealand when he was 13. I also said moving to New Zealand doesn't change the fact that he his Nigerian. I then asked him What qualifies as a reliable source and gave the definition of who is a Nigerian by birth I said: "He is Nigerian by birth and this is my source ^[1] Every person born in Nigeria after the date of independence (October 1, 1960), either of whose parents or any of whose grandparents belongs or belonged to a community indigenous to Nigeria is a Nigerian" He then withdrew from reverting my edit. Secondly his profile says Nigerian-born New Zealander professional fighter... I changed it Nigerian-New Zealand professional fighter... because saying Nigerian born makes it seem like he is not Nigerian anymore or he is Officially representing New Zealander but that is not the case. UFC is an individual sport and he isn't officially representing New-Zealand he his only a New-Zealand citizen. If anything he is actually representing Nigeria because anyone that watches is fight will know that he has a Nigerian Flag beside is name during is fights also his official UFC profile says his home town is Lagos not Auckland New Zealand. The user: Rsfinlayson is a New Zealander and wants his page to only recognize him as a New Zealander and I was only trying to establish the fact that he is Nigerian also. He was even recently in Nigeria to present his championship belt to the governor of Ogun state because that is his state of origin. Please I would like you to help me change is page because I don't want to be in an editing war with that user. I would like you to include that he is a Nigerian-Zealander on his page and also a Nigerian-New Zealand professional fighter.... Thank you very much have a nicve day.OmoYoruba45 (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigerian_nationality_law

Sorry, but that's not how it works. What you need to do is try to build consensus on the article talk page for your changes. If you need further outside input, consider launching a Request for comment or pursue other forms of Dispute resolution. The point is you have to convince other editors that your changes improve the article. El_C 02:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Causes of transsexuality article

This article might need to be semi-protected if the IP continues. With the watchers there, I wasn't surprised to see that the IP hadn't been reverted for their blanking. But I obviously will revert. And I can easily improve the sourcing on the WP:MEDRS level. Anyway, the IP is removing material based on their personal opinions. If autogynephilia wasn't still relevant, this section would not exist. And even if the typology, which is supported by a number of researchers, including Anne Lawrence, who is transgender herself, was outdated, it would still belong in the article with respect to the research that has been done on the topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And, yes, I know that Lawrence is retired. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think that removing material supported by MEDRS without providing equal, or better yet, greater-quality MEDRS in turn which supports such a removal — well, that borders on vandalism, no matter how articulate the edit summary is. Anyway, for now, it doesn't look like anything is happening. But strengthening the MEDRS component for those sections is probably a good preemptive move. A talk page note summarizing the issue is also a good idea. El_C 02:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work at WP:ANRFC

Hi El C. In response to your comments here and here, like you, I find RfCs to usually to be more interesting than MfDs. I am grateful for your excellent work at WP:ANRFC. Thank you for taking the time to read these contentious RfCs and write detailed closing rationales so the RfC participants understand why you assessed the consensus the way you did. Cunard (talk) 04:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cunard, I greatly appreciate your kind words! It was an interesting undertaking. This is probably not the last you ANRFC regulars have seen of me! El_C 04:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's great to hear! Based on the quality work you've done in the past, I (and likely other ANRFC regulars) would love to see more of you at WP:ANRFC! Cunard (talk) 05:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP you encountered at RW Emerson

[13] now that they are also at Lemba I doubt they'll go away quickly. Doug Weller talk 06:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timing seems a bit idiosyncratic, but regardless, there comes a point where synthesis and original research becomes disruptive. I tried to make it clear to them that they need to apply due weight to the available reliable sources — that their changes must be shown to represent the scholarly and mainstream consensus. El_C 06:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Herodotus

How do you want to verify non-existing? Autograph was lost .It is impossible to verify it. If you mean something other you wrote - explain it too please. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 08:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking whether this had been mentioned in the historiography, or whether this is based on your own original research. El_C 08:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George Tiller

El C, it appears you prevented me from editing George Tiller's page. I believe this is incorrect and an abuse of power. My two minor edits were implemented to make the page more neutral, as the term "extremist" is subjective and is open to interpretation, whereas the word "activist" in not in dispute.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dj2570 (talk • contribs)

I prevented you from edit warring. You are free to try to gain consensus on the article talk page for your changes. At the event, when an activist shoots another person on the basis of such activism, they become an extremist by definition. I'm not sure how that can be in dispute. Regardless, you are also free to appeal my decision to protect the article in any forum you see fit. El_C 02:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But why prevent me from "edit warring" and not the other editor (who was presumably engaged in warring as well). Is it because you agree with the other editor's preferred language? This is nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dj2570 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because you're the one who introduced the changes and we have special rules when it comes the abortion set of articles. El_C 02:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A) I was simply reverting it back to how it was written in 2015. B) Can you please refer me to the precise rule that I'm violating. Considering that Wikipedia cautions against using terms such as "extremist," it is abundantly clear that you are using your power to stifle neutral language in favor of subjective language with which you agree.

Also, on the article talk page, there is NO consensus. It appears there is much back and forth on this issue. Given that, why on earth is subjective language being used in favor of neutral language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dj2570 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dj2570, maybe you live out in the Wild West or something, but even where I live it's considered extreme to shoot someone for such political reasons. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just not comfortable with new users edit warring in the abortion articles (especially with little explanation, as a minor edit, no less), so mainly that was my position. It was disruptive, plain and simple. El_C 03:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They made the point on the talk page. Let's see if Dj2570 can get a consensus there; it's pretty clear to me that there is one, on the talk page and in the history. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me the consensus, because there isn't one. It seems the language in question is hotly contested (based on the talk page). Moreover, you are missing the point entirely. If 95% of people believe Madonna is a "talented" singer, that does not mean that she should be described as talented in an encyclopedia article, as the word "talented" is subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dj2570 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All points which you are welcome to make on the article talk page. At the event, what should be mentioned has to do with applying due weight to the available reliable sources (and perhaps your view will end up prevailing on that front) — but I'm not sure that resorting to a more nebulous conception of subjectivity is that useful here. El_C 03:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I take issue with your use of the word "nebuolus", as it is used to unfairly discredit my argument and is (oddly enough) subjective. In any event, there is NO consensus. If you look at the article's talk page, this is a hotly-contested issue wherein no consensus has been reached. Why then, are we favoring non-neutral terms to neutral ones? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dj2570 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I use the word nebuolus to describe your conception of subjective terminology because, by Wikipedia standards, it is. And I would rather continue to discuss this on the article talk page rather than on my user talk page. Again, if you take issue with me invoking Arbitration enforcement in regards to that article, you are free to appeal this in any forum you see fit. El_C 03:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue to address concerns in the talk page, but you continue to ignore the fact that there is NO consensus. If there is no consensus (based on the talk page, I am clearly not the only one with this viewpoint), then why do your views trump? I am very disheartened by this process. It appears that you wield your administrative powers wildly and without just cause. In any event, what options do I have to appeal your decision? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dj2570 (talk • contribs) 09:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was an Arbitration enforcement decision, so you may appeal it to the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. El_C 15:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Amendment Request archived

This is a courtesy notice that "Reopening Closed AE Actions" at ARCA has been archived. You may view the final discussion here. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Amanda. El_C 03:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict

Hi El C, we edit conflicted. I was adding something while you were posting. Could you please go read it before closing? Thanks! - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 23:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelo Caetano

Could you readd the categories "Portuguese fascists" and "Fascist rulers" in Marcelo Caetano's page? They were removed by JPratas and I can't readd it since it is protected. -- 177.135.49.132 (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's kinda the point, to prevent further edit warring. Everyone should reengage the discussion about the definition, trying to arrive at consensus. In other words, use your dispute resolution options instead of constantly pestering me about unprotecting those articles early. El_C 16:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Ambrose/Jon Moxley

If you take a look at the talk page of the Dean Ambrose article, there is a requested section. Basically, it has been requested that the article be moved back to Jon Moxley as that is his current ring name. Now, there are two editors, Wicka wicka and Moe Epsilon, who are have been going back and forth with each other. I have been thinking an admin should take a look at it. There have been some language used that is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Wicka wicka has been blocked before because of his behavior. That was for edit warring. If you look on his talk page, you'll see that StaticVapor politely left him message about what he has been doing. His response was not civil or polite. The going back and forth between them two needs to stop before it goes any further. They should be focusing on the content not editors. Oh and I left messages on both Wicka wicka and Moe Epsilon's talk pages telling them they should step away from Dean Ambrose/Jon Moxley talk page. Thanks. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 03:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I also said that much to them on the move discussion. That exchange, indeed, got out of hand, risking the stability and cohesiveness of the move request overall. Please keep me updated. El_C 04:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It has now been taken to the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Wicka wicka is trying to make himself look as if he has done nothing wrong. His argument on the noticeboard is that this person is a troll and others are siding with him because we are not taking sides. That's how I interpret it. He even went as far as to bring up sealioning to try and back up his argument. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 15:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and whoever brought it to the noticeboard did bother signing it. Edit: I see was GhostOfDanGurney who went to the noticeboard, but didn't sign it. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 15:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Test of impartiality

Hello. A while ago, you blocked me for edit warring in an article. You did so, even though the reverts were not performed within a 24 hour period and the content being reverted was slightly different each time. We now have a similar situation except that the content being reverted is exactly the same. I figured I should let you know:

.--Kazemita1 (talk) 11:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Come on Kazemita1, he was not blocked (or even warned) when he made six reverts in less than one day ( I call it a manual page protection, since he reverted most of the new changes!!!). In the article you mentioned, he had been edit warring against Pahlevun, me, you and Saff V. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this section header is pleasant. You're really motivating me to act in a particular way — not! First, it's not exactly the same: you were blocked for the repeated gaming of 3RR, which you were initially warned about. I see no such warning having been issued, in this case, which I've just learned about now. Second, this is not AN3 — this is my user talk page. Why don't you find another admin to test. El_C 13:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Justice is a heavy load to carry.--Kazemita1 (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense isn't. El_C 17:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kazemita1 and El C: Let's "Cool it down". "Post truth is a load of nonsense", Hahahaha...! --Mhhossein ^talk 14:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was cool, and I remain so. But I (still) just don't appreciate being put to the test. Realize this: I am not obliged to do anything (there are other admins and noticeboards to alert them of issues) — but ask politely and I may look into whatever, time permitting. But essentially telling me that if you don't do the following you fail the test, is not cool. I'd rather fail that test, then. Yes, even if "justice" suffers. After all, these are editing disputes that will eventually see resolution, one way or the other — certainly, lives are not on the line. So let's avoid being hyperbolic for naught. El_C 17:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for being cool. Yes, you're not obliged to do anything, and the user had to ask you politely to look into the case. I'm not defending the user, but Kazemita1 was blocked, and thought the other party was as guilty as him. Anyway, I liked your "lives are not on the line". Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, the material on Wikipedia, to quote myself earlier today "could mean the difference between life and death" — but that is not the case here. Indeed, the other party may be guilty as well, but now, that will be up to another admin to determine. El_C 08:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My explanation

Hey, did you see my explanation, which you had requested? Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. El_C 20:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey, i leave you this little message in order to thank you with my own words. As an admin, you have been very active on numerous articles i watch and your actions are appreciated. Also, i inform you that from now on, i watch your page to fight vandalism on it, if this bothers you, please let me know and i will remove your talk from my watchlist. Again, thank you and keep up the good work. Take care.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thanks! By all means, the more talk page watchers, the better. El_C 21:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Best.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Arrow comment on talk

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_the_Arrow&diff=next&oldid=900390175 I would appreciate you taking a look at this diff. An anonymous editor made a comment that in my opinion is not a personal attack.Buffs asked the editor to take it to his talk page however editors that choose to remain anonymous are unable to do that because Buffs page is semi-protected (for good reason as I understand it). I am not sure if you were aware of that or not. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asking someone if they considered taking a break from Wikipedia may be seen as hostile. Buffs read it — we don't need it for the record. El_C 21:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

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.Schazjmd (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User Ahmedo Semosurî

Hi El C! I hope you're having a great day and that you're doing well. I noticed that you blocked the user Ahmedo Semosurî for abusing multiple accounts. I was suspicious that something was going on with this user, but I couldn't find anything from the spot checking that I did. What other users and accounts is this account connected to? Who is the master sock here? Any information you can point me to would be great; I'm just curious and want to take a look. Just ping me in your response here (else I won't receive a notification). Thanks! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @Oshwah:. Master's unknown. Just someone's lame attempt to get the real Ahmedo Semsurî in trouble while they are blocked (by me, for 3RR), to make it seem like they evaded their block. Three attempts: first (Ahmetyall — AS' former username was Ahmetyal); two (Ahmedo_Samsurî); and three (Ahmedo_Semosurî). See my latest comment to 84.236.0.92, concerning their idée fixe. The whole thing is a massive time sink, involving me semiprotecting a dozen articles and blocking any IP that attempted similar edits (1.247.223.50, 121.124.13.174, 110.13.59.164) in sight. Other than that, indeed, a good day! El_C 10:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see... thank you for responding with the information and details. This is very helpful and I appreciate it very much! :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Whelp, that didn't take long! Thanks for being available and for handling it as soon as you noticed the issue continuing. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fer sure. Indeed, let's hope a 24-hour break will do the trick! El_C 03:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see. If it doesn't, we'll just keep applying longer and longer blocks until an indefinite block is what we think is next. One way or another, the WP:FOLLOWING will stop. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amen to that! I've added some of those articles to my watchlist, so I'll be watching. El_C 04:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hallelujah! lol... I also declined SolarStorm1859's unblock request. I would've done so regardless, but that was just a silly proposal and he needs to get this through to himself that we're not negotiating or making compromises. He either follows the expectations we set, or he gets blocked if he doesn't. Keep me posted, and I'll do the same. I'll be keeping my eyes open (as you will be too, of course)... :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that whole I'm willing to stay away for 48 hours if you unblock me really took the cake! El_C 09:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

.Ethereum TLDs (WP:AN3)

Hmm ... I don't see that the disputed paragraph is particularly promotional, more factual - and it's not like there aren't decent sources for it, though. Vice DN Journal. I actually believe CoinDesk to be reliable as well, tbh - I can't see any reason why it isn't. Black Kite (talk) 00:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned, I wasn't sure to what extent the passage was promotional or the source constituting spam — but I did fine the source to be subpar. Unlike those sources, it simply does not come across as mainstream enough. Feel free to re-add the passage with a new source — I have no objection. But reinserting it three times with just that source was something I did find to be a problem. El_C 00:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, CoinDesk seem to be dedicated to promoting cryptocurrency (as also seen by its owner). It is not the same like a crypto-disinterested news organisation like, say, Vice Media. El_C 00:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, but you could argue that any niche news source does that - to give an example that I'm familiar with, the main railway-related journals obviously have an interest in promoting rail over other transport, but that doesn't mean their news stories aren't reliable. In this case, it's not really promoting crypto, just reporting on it. Black Kite (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but coindesk.com/information seem like it's promoting cryptocurrency — I'm not saying it's not useful as a guide, but as a newsource it seems too slanted. Niche sources that concern, say, rail or aviation are unlikely to feature such how-to instructions, so I'm not sure about that comparison. El_C 01:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, El C. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 02:17, 8 June 2019 (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.

John from Idegon (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your prompt action. I don't know what you hid, but I just reverted the part I wanted hidden. There isn't much there.... John from Idegon (talk) 02:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm out for the night. Date with the kiddo. Thanks again. John from Idegon (talk) 02:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No sweat. I think I got it all. Enjoy! El_C 02:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your close about RfA discretionary range was not a status quo outcome

In your close determining that RfA votes don't matter anymore you intone that RfA has always been a consensus building exercise as if the numbers had really nothing to do with it. This assertion is false. While RfA started as a rubber stamp from editors, this was causing heartburn by April of 2007. By that point there was already a discretionary range with attendant arguments of preventing bureaucrats pushing candidates many editors didn't accept versus letting bureaucrats promote admins that the minority of editors just want to derail. Discussion continued into July of 2007. This discussion in March 2008 questioned if the bottom end of discretionary range was 70 or 75%. This sad proposal in August of 2010 tried to weaken the application of the discretionary range. RfA has been a vote for ten years. Your close should have reflected this fact rather than portrayed the outcome as a continuation of the status quo. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My close reflected the strength of the arguments and agreements as I perceived them at the time. It did not intimate that there is no threshold — clearly there is. Rather, the close largely attempted to address whether there was consensus for the proposal of turning RfA into a pure, anonymous vote which removes bureaucrats' discretion entirely. I evaluated there being no consensus for that proposal. At any rate, my focus was as much on what RfA is as it was on what participants thought it should be. In short, I evaluated the view that "it's a consensus building discussion" to have enjoyed consensus. I, however, note that I did find your own minority view at the time that "there are numbers involved, so it's a vote" to have been deemed overly simplistic. To quote another participant: "consensus on Wikipedia does have a numerical aspect," so the opinion that it is "both" was also one I attempted to encompass under the umbrella of a consensus-based discussion. To sum up, then, the proposal of turning RfA into a pure anonymous vote had some strong arguments, but ultimately it failed to gain consensus. For better or worse, the view that RfA remains (and should continue to be about) a consensus building discussion ultimately prevailed. El_C 16:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Gun control

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Gun control and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, —Locke Cole • t • c 17:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 17:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More block evasion

Gristkenya is another block evading sock of User:Tharploki1. Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 17:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 18:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Please explain to me why you deleted the sourced sentence and protected the site. I think Wikipedia is an accurate encyclopedia and not a storybook. I have not found the country on the map so I'm surprised. We should already write what corresponds to the reality. Thank you very much for an answer. Coron Arol (talk) 00:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Can you please tell me where is this country? [14][15] Coron Arol (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be coy. You know it's not a country. And, as mentioned, unless you seriously shape up, you will be topic banned from the Kurdish set of articles (I've already effectively article-banned you by upping the protection to extended-confirmed — though you may still use the article talk page). You will not be allowed to edit tendentiously. Maybe go edit something non-contentious for a while, until you learn the ropes here? El_C 00:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not a country then it should be written there that it is not a country or it should be completely removed there and replaced by West Asia. I think an encyclopedia should be neutral and not support pov. I am very disappointed. Coron Arol (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Projecting is not going to get you what you want. El_C 00:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust image vandal

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that the Holocaust image vandal you blocked earlier (on 2 IPs) is evading his block again. This time, he's using the IP 2600:100a:b02f:9ea7:acfd:7695:f70e:e438 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Can you please block that one as well? Incidentally, it seems that he has access to the entire /44 range, 2600:100a:b02f:0:0:0:0:0/44, so that range should probably be blocked for 2 weeks or so, given the recent pattern of persistent disruption. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 07:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 07:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of arbitration

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 15:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bradv. El_C 15:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please reinstate indefinite semi-protection of the Homosexuality article

El C, with this edit, Liz changed the level of protection for this article two days after problematic edits were reverted. The rationale given by Liz was "Edit warring / content dispute." The indefinite semi-protection is now set to expire on June 11th. As we can see here and here, there was no content dispute. The edits were simply WP:Vandalism. Yes, I don't see any "we should assume good faith" with those edits. The Homosexuality article is one of those articles that should always be indefinitely semi-protected. It's that controversial of a topic, obviously. So will you please reinstate indefinite semi-protection of the article? I don't see that we should first wait and see how unprotection does. We know how it will do. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James took care of it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was away. Glad to hear this was sorted. El_C 05:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you!

I’d like to apologize for some of my recent comments on the most recent mass shooting’s article. I was completely unaware that the last line of ONUS placed the burden on the including side. Sorry for casting aspersions and generally behaving cluelessly. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. And thanks, a cookie sounds good, just about now! Anyway, what I tried to get across is that we have two competing arguments: one to include victims' lists (if prevails: consensus to include) and one to exclude it (if prevails: no consensus to include). We can also say consensus to exclude, but that would be redundant, because that's what we default to when the threshold for consensus (for inclusion) isn't met, anyway. That's because longstanding text is that default whenever a proposal to do anything fails. That is, then, why I said that had the original author included a victims' list, we would talking, in terms of longstanding text, of consensus for removal or no consensus for removal — those are the only two options available. Anyway, so it isn't about the addition or removal of material, rather it's, indeed, about longstanding text and the attempt to change it, by adding, removing, or modifying it in some way. An effort that requires the threshold of consensus, or no consensus if there is agreement to the contrary or if there is no agreement at all. El_C 05:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continued BLP violations

Thank you for semi-protecting Hassan Jameel. Unfortunately the BLP violations are continuing, from a registered user, Fortune Mabena (that's not a ping), despite repeated warnings [16], [17], [18]. They have now repeated the BLP-vios for a third time despite a very clear article-talk explanation. They seem unable to accurately read or understand a source, or to know what a reliable source is. They are also refusing to discuss their edits. Can you please help? Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 08:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed the BLP DS alert on their talk page and will be monitoring closely. El_C 09:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Softlavender (talk) 09:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Sun Comes Out World Tour

Thanks for protecting Oral Fixation Tour. The same issue is with The Sun Comes Out World Tour, persistent long term vandalism by the same Shakira111 socks, they actually always do the same two edits on these two pages. Can you please give it the same protection? --Muhandes (talk) 10:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 10:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --Muhandes (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your input please

Would you please let us know about your input here, please. I'm aware that the article is not locked, but would prefer to have a an outsider's view before anything else. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by here? Is there something specific you want me to look at? That talk page is pretty long! El_C 14:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! In fact, I meant to ask you take a look at this. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 19:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt

Could you unprotect Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt? I requested it to be protected but the other editor said they have decided to stop editing the page (at WP:AE), so no dispute exists anymore. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 15:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that

I'm not fond of legal threats, appreciate the prompt action. Simonm223 (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You bet. Anytime. El_C 16:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Hi El C! I just wanted to thank you for taking care of the continued issues with SolarStorm1859 while I was offline. I was busy with work and other things, and I'm just now getting myself all caught up. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fer sure. I've been away myself for over 2 days (9-12 June) — but yeah, never a dull moment! El_C 20:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Back

This disruptive contributor is back. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed. But until they do something destructive, it's perhaps best to neither protect all those articles nor play whack-a-mole with various random IPs. I'm open to suggestions, however. El_C 09:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think keeping an eye out for their reverts should be good enough for now. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Basque mythology

Hello El C, why do you revert my last contribution of the Basque mythology article with the work and references added? I would appreciate reversions and leave the information.--85.84.35.57 (talk) 10:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because, as mentioned in my edit summary, the tone is too informal ("grown up with the magic of mythology," etc.), sorry. El_C 10:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Too casual? is a basic information, referenced on the sculptural art of Basque mythology with the only international artists: Néstor Basterretxea and Patxi Xabier Lezama Perier who have taken and deepened on the subject of the Basque mythology. Informal is a very subjective point of view and working a lot of time on the internet searching for Basque mythology artists are the only ones that exist. It is to add basic information about the article. I would be grateful if you could revert that information about the art and artists of the Basque mythology. Thank you..--85.84.35.57 (talk) 12:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot add sentences such as "grown up with the magic of mythology" — as it is simply too informal for an encyclopedia article, by any measure. El_C 12:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair

I don't think my original comment, which was necessary clarification in light of the somewhat canvas-y "Not saying you should close it this way, but..." message, needed to be blanked. It hardly seems fair to blame me for this.Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Myself, I wasn't blaming anyone, only pointing out that ANRFC is not the place for threaded discussion, in the first place. El_C 12:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True enough: had I not been pinged I probably wouldn't have responded more than once. Do you mind if I restore the first one? I've had bad experiences with BADNACs at ANI that appeared to just be counting !votes and I'm legitimately concerned that that'll happen here too. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not, actually. But let me ask you this, after all that: what would your preferred close be? El_C 15:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same one I !voted for. :P

In all seriousness, though, per my own second reply to Starship, closers at ANI, like everywhere else, are pretty free to ignore the "majority" if their !votes are clearly counter-policy or based on an ignorance (feigned or sincere) of the evidence. Any lone admin could have looked at the evidence prior to the last ANI thread two weeks ago and issued a warning to that effect without having already had a bunch of editors explicitly support it. Indeed, any uninvolved admin could issue such a warning even if an ANI thread had been open for days and received next to no outside input.[19] Granted, part of the abuse for which I requested the final warning was completely badgering closers about casting "supervotes", so I can understand why any uninvolved admin would be reluctant to make the otherwise-obvious call, but still.

(On a side-note I'd also like to see the editor who has devoted about half of his whole Wikipedia career to harassing me be either indeffed off the bat or told that if he doesn't leave me alone he will be indeffed at the next hint of disruption. But that's really peripheral to the main ANI thread.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't think opening that ANRFC entry to any discussion or further comments (even one) is the best approach here. And anyway, a closer who knows about ANRFC, in the first place, probably doesn't needs guidance about weighing the arguments rather than tallying the preferences like an automaton. I'd close this myself, but I already tried once and it didn't work. El_C 15:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

a closer who knows about ANRFC, in the first place, probably doesn't needs guidance about weighing the arguments rather than tallying the preferences like an automaton You'd be surprised. Yeah, non-admins can't say There is no consensus for any community sanctions, but it's clear that Party B has the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart, while Party A has been repeatedly violating policy and is trying to stir up shit for Party B as revenge for Party B bringing this to the community consensus: I, using my administrative discretion, will personally block Party A if I see any more of this content policy violation or stirring up of shit., but that's why non-admins shouldn't be making such closures. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The TLDR is strong with that 2015 report, also. But I did especially enjoyed reading how that prompted the suggestion of just blocking both editors for 30 days and letting God sort em out! Ah, a different time... El_C 10:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Golanette

It looks like Golanette couldn't wait for the article's protection to expire to come back (as Intenst) and try to restore their previous edit, including through their usual edit warring. I opened a SPI, but I would really appreciate it if you could have a word with them in the meantime or if at at all possible semi protect the article. Best regards. M.Bitton (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. El_C 19:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was amazingly quick. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Yeah, I recognized the edits right away. El_C 20:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of contemporary ethnic groups

As the only regular editor for the List of contemporary ethnic groups, can you tell me what the hell happen after my last edit? Rjrya395 (talk) 02:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just some ethnonationalist nonsenseseses of the usual variety. El_C 10:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, anyway, thanks for semi-protecting that page. Rjrya395 (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ITER

I agree with your version about nuclear fusion. May be you present it better tha me.95.246.196.32 (talk) 04:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just not an expert in the field, so I don't really feel qualified writing about it. El_C 04:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Self-imposed TBANs

I just wanted to let you know that your recent close here is not covered by policy. TBANs are only available via DS, GS, conditional unblocks, community sanctions and AC sanctions. While I agree with your TBAN, it does not have a consensus, what you want to do about that is up to you. This isn't some sort of complaint, just thought I'd let you know. --qedk (t 桜 c) 06:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its an WP:IBAN, not a TBAN.Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IBAN yeah, I read that as a TBAN for no reason. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. No, I was, in fact, unaware. But I actually did think that the previous report had such consensus — but on closer read, it does not (not enough people wanted to get involved). Anyway, if they both agree to not interact with one another, then the whole issue becomes moot. On the other hand, if they wish to prolong the conflict, well, that would also be their prerogative. But true enough, policy-wise, they are free to do so. El_C 12:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My instinct says both of these users are edging to a block anyway, which isn't a good thing. Given they previously didn't agree with IBANs, I do not think they will agree now, and as such, I will open a sanction discussion on the ANI thread to dispense of the matter. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring removed data under IBAN

Hi, as You know an IBAN was imposed over myself. But now I'm in a bind as I don't know how to restore removed content on those 3 pages: Enzo Ferrari Special:Diff/901991464, Ferrari F50 Special:Diff/901990874, Maserati MC12 Special:Diff/901992160; and don't violate the IBAN. This content has to be retored, as chassis codes are on every italian car's page, especially Fiat-group, but not exclusive. Chassis code is as important as an engine code, but in the outcome of this dispute this content was removed. This question also applies to other pages that were jointly edited, but are important to me, I guess. Thank You for Your time. YBSOne (talk) 09:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, see above. In answer to your question, I don't think the content needs to be restored. Wikipedia can survive without it. Maybe note your concerns about it on the article talk page without referring to the other editor and then leave it alone? Same goes for the other party. Just go do something else without engaging the other user. Otherwise, I really don't have an an answer for you. El_C 12:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Logging TBAN

Hello EI_C, I noticed that you did not log the TBAN of the editors at Editing restrictions. That's all. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 21:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About the Absolute (philosophy) page

Because you decided to contact me about this: No, I didn't (and still don't) consider either the (very relatively speaking) old "mass list" or the "mess of a lead" to actually negatively affect the quality of the article. In fact, I considered them to be very detailed, and I like the articles I read to be very thorough and detailed. This is why I considered Joshua Jonathan's (and now your) edits to the page to have made it "anemic" in nature, plus inaccurate, as Para Brahman, a single conception of the Absolute (brought up as an example), is defined as essentially "beyond being", meaning that "the sum of all being, actual and potential" does not apply to it.

I also wanted to know which parts of the "old" article were considered "original research".

And I'm not deliberately altering my IP address. I don't know my computer does what it does, just that it (sometimes) does.

172.112.98.179 (talk) 08:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just maybe register an account, so you don't come across as unaccountable. Sorry, but the length of that mass list is excessive and that mess of a lead is highly non-standard. I suggest you try to engage the article cleanup on the article talk page. I don't think there was ever consensus for your 23 May expansion. The article is in better shape now than it has been in many years, perhaps ever. El_C 08:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go to the article's talk page about this. 172.112.98.179 (talk) 08:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FedEx

use the FRIS report for up to the day for FedEx and many airlines — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.82.243.83 (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But it's the responsibility of the person who is adding the information to attribute their data to the relevant sources. El_C 15:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigerian_nationality_law

[1]

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 :I'm sort of in a hole and am having difficulties submerging. Speaking of holes/that chippie, I got to do some visiting in its burro recently...
+==This is exactly the problem==
+This is exactly the problem. I didn't threaten anyone, so why are you warning me? I'm being honest that and saying it wouldn't be tolerated elsewhere.  I didn't say anything about doing anything, I except asking for help.  So just to really clarify this. I ask for help, am clearly upset, clearly feeling harassed/abused/soemthing, and you give me a warning.  Do you honestly not see that as a huge problem? [[User:ADP85xzVcQD|ADP85xzVcQD]] ([[User talk:ADP85xzVcQD|talk]]) 17:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 [[Image:Flowerburrovisit.jpg|left|420px]]

Revision as of 17:07, 18 June 2019

Archived Discussions

For you

This is exactly the problem

Oooo. Purdy!

Seasons Greetings

Happy Groundhog Day

Chippies

Book?

4Tality Fractal

Rev-dels

Edit Tag on Gaza Strip

GretLomborg

Inquisition

thanks and update

Romania

And all I got was a ^^^

A barnstar for you!

You've got mail!

Icewhiz

Ok this is getting out of hand

Overlinking by IP hopper

VM

Miki Filigranski

You've blocked the wrong IP

Quick question

Please retract

Please, take a look

Ahmedo Semsurî

I need your help in editing Israel Adesanya's page

Causes of transsexuality article

Excellent work at WP:ANRFC

IP you encountered at RW Emerson

Herodotus

George Tiller

Arbitration Amendment Request archived

Edit conflict

Marcelo Caetano

Dean Ambrose/Jon Moxley

Test of impartiality

My explanation

Thanks

Order of the Arrow comment on talk

You've got mail

User Ahmedo Semosurî

ANI

.Ethereum TLDs (WP:AN3)

You've got mail!

Your close about RfA discretionary range was not a status quo outcome

Clarification request: Gun control

More block evasion

Hello

Holocaust image vandal

Notice of arbitration

Please reinstate indefinite semi-protection of the Homosexuality article

A cookie for you!

Continued BLP violations

The Sun Comes Out World Tour

Your input please

Unprotect Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt

Thanks for that

Thank you!

Back

Basque mythology

To be fair

Golanette

List of contemporary ethnic groups

ITER

Self-imposed TBANs

Restoring removed data under IBAN

Logging TBAN

About the Absolute (philosophy) page

FedEx

4 Tality Fractal