User talk:El C

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 12

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)

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

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)

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

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...

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)

You look really good in your purple hat! Bishonen | talk 00:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC).

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)

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

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

Oooo. Purdy!

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

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

Seasons Greetings

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

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

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

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

Happy Groundhog Day

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

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)

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)

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

Book?

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

4Tality Fractal

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

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

Rev-dels

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

Affirmative. El_C 20:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

Yes, by all means. If I'm around, please don't hesitate. El_C 02:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

And all I got was a ^^^

• Talk:And Then There Were None#RfC: And Then There Were None and racial language
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#Request for comments on the 'political position' parameter of the political party infobox
• Talk:Romania#RfC
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: HispanTV
• Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Is RfX a vote, or a consensus discussion? (RfC)
• Talk:Civil Rights Act of 1968#Merger of Fair Housing Act and Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 into this article
• Talk:WikiLeaks#RFC: Murder Of Seth Rich content dispute
• Talk:Athens News#Request for comment
• Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair#RfC: LavScam
• Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings#RfC: Change "white supremacist" to "white nationalist"

El_C 06:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Woohooo

Hey, El C. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Mjs1991 (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Has it really been a decade and a half? El_C 04:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

School vandalism

Can you please block 103.91.192.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) for a while? They've been using multiple IPs to carry out a bunch of childish vandalism at a number of articles today. The range looks like it's registered to a public school. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 07:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 07:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Possible to mass-revert vandal's edits?

Hi, I was concerned about edits made by User:FastEddy59, who you've recently blocked.

Is there a tool to revert all of his currently existing edits ? Thanks- Neuralnewt (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I don't really know. But an answer may be found at Wikipedia:Cleaning_up_vandalism/Tools#Rollback_tools. El_C 17:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Mitch McConnell vandal

Can you please indef MoscowMitch1945 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? It's an obvious vandalism-only account, and they were engaging in serious BLP violations. Their IP (2600:100d:b103:2641:680f:4984:5c92:2b12) has already been blocked. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 19:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Source does not support content

Hello, user @JoeScarce making numerous edits, taking own conclusions, what is not supported by source. Source checked carefuly. "Just war theory" article. Globalisation article also checked and he made an edit and it does not seems supported by source, not stated like that by source. User is new or doing things on purpose. I warned him to Wiki is not about pov views or advocacy. 93.86.91.234 (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

No, globalization even notes war ethics. Snippet from article even notes "Never forget, the Pope says, that “the whole is greater than the parts.” Globalization and unity”, he says, “should not be conceived as a sphere, but as a polyhedron: each people retains its identity in unity with others".[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeScarce (talk • contribs)

Fully protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 21:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Well this is result of talk page about "Just war theory" by user @JoeScarce "No, you can't make an argument at all and are making me laugh. It's the reason why you went to talk to someone with a Che Guevara poster, which also shows bias in me potentially getting blocked." Talk is not much useful seems so.I am sorry for bothering. 93.86.91.234 (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

No worries. Hopefully, they'll take my suggestion to heart. El_C 22:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

the same user added stuff what does not corresponded to source." Synod of Bishops for the Pan-Amazon region" I dont know what is motivation of people who makes own conclusions even if it is not written etc. I wont anymore revert things but some attention need to be paid. Thank you and sorry. 93.86.91.234 (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

You both need to stop violating the 3 revert rule, full stop. If you think the edits constitute original research or synthesis, the place to advance that argument is on the article talk page in a detailed and cogent manner. Likewise, JoeScarce should work to demonstrate the opposite — that their additions reflect the cited material well. Sorry, I haven't had a chance to look at the actual edits yet. Finally, there's always other dispute resolution resources to turn to, if those efforts do not result in resolution. El_C 23:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Another troll

Can you please block 59.0.80.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) for a month or so? They've been making serious personal attacks from their IPs for a while, and they were trolling on your talk page just earlier. This is possibly an LTA that I'm familiar with, but since the IP is a possible proxy network, I can't tell at the moment. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies and Ad Orientem: Can someone please block this guy? He's making a serious mess on a bunch of pages right now. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done x 1 week. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Mhhossein adding material on the MEK page despite lack of consensus

Saff V. added this text to the MEK page, which I reverted since the current TP discussion about this included objections by myself, Barca, and a RSN discussion. Mhhossein, however, re-inserted this text back into the article. I asked Mhhossein to self-revert as there was no consensus to include this in the article, but he has refused to do so. Doesn't this violate the current MEK page restrictions? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the section on the article talk page, your (plural) objections seem rhetorical rather than substantive ("I also have made objections" — really?). They may, however, have jumped the gun in making that (unsubstantiated-objections) determination all on their own, without outside input to guide them as to whether this is so. I'm a bit unhappy with both sides, then, and I'm not just saying that to come across as even-handed. El_C 17:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

El_C: The only thing made me revert the edit was the lengthy discussion over removal of a single word which was then correctly described as "Much Ado About Nothing"! There, I provided plenty of sources supporting the removal and he just kept on throwing the out of ark Arbarahmian's book for his objection. Now, he has tried different objections to avoid an inclusion including asking us to use Wikipedia as a source! I'm not going to be GAMED more by receiving baseless arguments. Also, I don't know if it's correct to ask you comment case by case, which I think will just make the page boring and time wasting for you. I think we should keep our tickets for the emergency circumstances (am I right?). You told me on my TP I could not "unilaterally make that determination on [my] own", then should I have asked you determine the consensus? You know I did for the previous cases and I really thought it would not be pleasant for you to be pinged once again. Anyway, if you demand, I'm going to self revert and act based on YOUR determination of the consensus. Should I revert it? --Mhhossein ^talk 04:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

On that (unrelated) TP discussion Mhhossein is referring to, I brought several RSs to back up my argument. But that's not what we're talking about here. Here we're talking about respecting the work process and restrictions that have been implemented on the MEK page, which Mhhossein failed to do. There are 3 editors arguing against the inclusion that Mhhossein just inserted into the article. A RfC would help bring in some outside input, but making the decision on their own to insert this back into the article seems a violation of the agreed work process. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

It's a serious problem when either side takes it upon themselves to determine that their opponents' argument is without basis (tendentious). It just so happens that in this case I agree with that determination, but making that (involved) determination on one's own is a problem, inherently. Yes, Stefka Bulgaria, feel free to launch an RfC about this, during which I encourage you to raise more substantive objections. Mhhossein, I won't ask you to revert, but again, I caution you and others against determining, in your involved capacity, that the other side has fallen short in their argument to the point that their position becomes (at least in the immediate sense) nullified. There's no way the editorial process can progress under such circumstances. It is just plainly inappropriate to essentially say: 'I feel your argument falls short, thus, I'm deciding that it is tendentious and restrictions no longer apply.' I hope you appreciate that and refrain from jumping the gun in the future. El_C 11:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

El_C: I was one of the first editors welcoming the restrictions which came after I condemned the new wave of edit wars Stefka Bulgaria was actively involved and received a warning. So, I mostly am concerned about the stability of the article and object any simple thing threatening it. The proof for my claim are the number of the RFCs and TP discussions I opened, among the 6 rounds of shedding light on Stefka Bulgaria's unilateral mass changes. And now, I'm sorry if I have acted against the goodness of the article. After your comments, I feel free to ping you for determining the consensus after enough comments are exchanged. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Mhhossein, by all means, feel free to ping me whenever there's an impasse. Although I can't guarantee I'll always have time to address all outstanding issues, it is no bother at all. El_C 18:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for offering me the opportunity of pinging you, but I'll do it whenever I feel convincing arguments are raised. Btw, I find this edit to be a violation of the new restrictions, given the ongoing discussion on the talk page. I have no idea why, after your recent cautions, he unilaterally determined the material to be inserted. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

That change should probably not have been made without further discussion. Perhaps there's a compromise to be had. Gotta try. El_C 20:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Mhhossein, again...

On this MEK TP discussion, Saff V. wrote on August 3rd:

• Just this sentence is left: "were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities". At first, please give a source for that sentence and "A first wave of executions" then can you explain what do you mean by "enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities"?.

On August 4th, I replied:

Here's the full quote and the source: "Amnesty International’s research found that thousands of political dissidents were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed pursuant to an order issued by the Supreme Leader of Iran and implemented across prisons in the country. Many of those killed were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process." Any objection to include this?

By August 11th, there was no reply (from anyone), so I proceeded to include this into the article. The same day, Mhhossein reverted this edit saying "my objection was already there", but he never discussed the quote I had proposed for inclusion (but instead was very quick to revert it).

This, again, seems like a violation of the agreed editing process. Please note that Mhhossein was recently "strongly warned to avoid making personal attacks, to stop treating Wikipedia as a battleground, to seek consensus rather than edit-warring over contentious material, and to be mindful of our policies about maintaining a neutral point of view." Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Certainly, I'm looking for reliable sources that verify Mhhossein's objection. That said, I'm not sure my user talk page is the right venue for this discussion. El_C 06:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Stefka Bularia is also "strongly warned to avoid making personal attacks, to stop treating Wikipedia as a battleground, to seek consensus rather than edit-warring over contentious material, and to be mindful of our policies about maintaining a neutral point of view." So what? I also am not sure why Stefka Bularia tends to come here for the issues which need to be resolved via discussion on the article talk page. I'll provide sources for the objection. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Supplementary material added for the deteriorating situation in Hong Kong

Supplementary material added for the deteriorating situation in Hong Kong under Talk section. Thank you for your patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:3C20:241:94CA:9097:DF59:E83F (talk) 05:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Responded on the article talk page. El_C 05:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Islamophobia in Poland

You've previously warned Volunteer Marek - here. Yesterday he was either at 3 or 4 reverts (depends how you count - [3], [4] - the last one in particular was also in his mass-removal in a different spot ([5]). Volunteer Marek has not been discussing, has not been provided a single source to justify his personal opinions on Muslims and hate discourse towards them in Poland, and has been disruptively using tags. As an example:

1. 07:38, 6 August 2019 - placing a verify-inline tag. Per Template:Verify source this must only be placed "after you have made a good faith attempt to verify the information"
2. In Talk:Islamophobia in Poland#Transnational Islamophobia verification tag - Volunteer Marek does not provide a justification nor description of his required good-faith verification attempts.
3. Despite this rudely framed rationale and off-topic comments (and per Template:Verify source, which is not a quotation request, it would've been sufficient for me to say "I verified this") - I provided extensive quotations from the academic book chapter. (as evident in the bottom of the talk page section - and in diff).
4. In diff (along with 9.3 KB of other material - note that this includes content not objected to previous (in aggregate - Volunteer Marek has objected to half of the content of the article - all sourced to top-notch sources)) - Volunteer Marek hacks off:

   Immigration of Poles to the United Kingdom has led many migrants from the homogeneous Polish society to encounter a culturally diverse setting for the first time. This contact, coupled with continued contact with family members in Poland, has led to a transnational transfer of Islamophobia back into Poland.

5. This despite clear quotations being provided to Volunteer Marek, to which he has responded with WP:SILENCE.

References

Volunteer Marek's other contributions to the page (which notable have not included providing a single source to back up his opinions) - are of a similar nature (e.g. [6] - misuse of who tag - contrast Template:Who, and arguing against multiple academic journal articles that see this group as relevant (see Talk:Islamophobia in Poland#Tag removed - which provides quotations (and descriptions - given one has 4 pages and the other has 1 page - above what is reasonable to quote).Icewhiz (talk) 06:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Also - diff - is a personal attack and Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Look, the Committee might decide on this any day, so I'm not sure it's appropriate for me to do anything beyond protect the page on the version in which I encountered the edit war. El_C 06:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

And at this rate (now at two high-profile drama cases) - it might take another six months. That ARBCOM is open should not be an excuse for continued WP:HOUNDing followed by clearly WP:NOTTHERE behavior. We're supposed to follow sources on Wikipedia - WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT removals of content sources to top-notch journal articles (on the topic of Polish Islamophobia) - is not something that should be excused - particularly when followed by WP:STONEWALLING. The example above - placing a verify-inline tag (without any attempt to verify) on transnational transfer of Islamophobia - followed by removal of the content in a subsequent mass-removal (despite extensive quotations being provided, and despite Volunteer Marek's continued WP:SILENCE on the talk page to the quotations) - is clearly NOTTHERE. Icewhiz (talk) 06:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I would rather you take this to a noticeboard than myself acting unilaterally, though. El_C 06:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Can I say that you referred this to AE? Icewhiz (talk) 06:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

AE, AN, ACN — whichever. But I'm not saying such a report will necessarily be received well. All I'm saying is that I'm not inclined to make decisions by fiat while the Arbitration case remains open. El_C 06:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Also - VM has broken the 1RR restriction you placed on History of the Jews in Poland:

1. 10:39, 11 August 2019 - revert2
2. 09:24, 11 August 2019 - revert 1
3. 07:59, 2 August 2019 - prior revert.

note discussion in Talk:History of the Jews in Poland#The Holocaust in Poland, followed by Wikipedia:Casting aspersions - diff. This in the face of a RM (Talk:The Holocaust in Poland/Archives/2019/July#Requested move 5 June 2019) and clearly in contravention of MOS:NOBACKREF - and with VM being reverted by 3 separate editors. If I file this in AE - it will be referred back to you as the admin placing the restriction. Icewhiz (talk) 07:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not seeing a 1RR breach. Yes, by all means, mention that I applied the restriction — makes sense. El_C 07:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Ignore the unrelated content at the top. Look at "The Holocaust in German-occupied Poland" sub-header. prior revert (2 August). Then in 11 August - revert1 on 09:24, and revert2 on 10:39. In both revert1 and revert2 (as well as the 2 August revert) the sub-section header of "The Holocaust" is reverted to "The Holocaust in German-occupied Poland" (+other content below header). Two reverts, same content (ignoring add-on on top), one hour and fifteen minutes apart.Icewhiz (talk) 07:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, okay, I see it now. I'll drop VM a note suggesting they self-revert while they still can. El_C 07:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

My mistake on the 1RR violation. By the time Icewhiz brought it up it I've already been reverted. Icewhiz's complaint however appears to be a response to this comment which points out that after Francois Robere broke 1RR, Icewhiz swooped in and made his revert for him. Icewhiz and Francois Robere have been reverting on each other's behalf on multiple articles over the past two weeks.On Islamophobia in Poland FR reverted on Icewhiz's behalf [7]. On Racism in Poland FR and Icewhiz have alternated reverts in quick succession [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. Same thing on History of Jews in Poland. They're not actually being subtle about it.

And it takes some real audacity for Icewhiz to accuse me of "casting aspersions" when in these comments right here he makes at least three different false accusations (notthere, hounding, stonewalling etc). His description of both my actions and the dispute on the relevant article are completely false too. I have indeed been discussing the subject on talk. Icewhiz is apparently referring to the fact that I didn't respond *immediately* to his newest comments on talk, which I haven't seen up until now. Not all of us edit 18 hours a day. It's summer and I was busy riding roller coasters.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Your revision

Dear Sir/Madam,

I don't understand why you would change my revision. Wikipedia should be free to edit and I am not publish original research. True information should be provided here instead of personal perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.69.179.63 (talk) 07:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

You can't use the existing source for a new addition. El_C 08:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

MarcusBritish

Hey El C, please see the note that I placed on the ANI thread. That, however, is less important than something I saw on their talk page, this note, where Incnis Mrsi seems to say the user wasn't banned--whether they were simply indef-blocked (and then globally blocked) or banned by the community is not irrelevant. I don't know what the truth is, and it's too hot in my office for me to read that ANI discussion... Drmies (talk) 02:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Drmies. Yeah, I saw your note. Oops. Anyway, thanks for clarifying. The proposal was for an "immediate block," so I went with indeffed rather than banned. El_C 02:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

As toxic a presence as MB was, I'd be all for proposing a community ban - though it's probably redundant right now! --WaltCip (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I suppose it is redundant; I imagine anyone who looks over the series of blocks and the ANI discussion will conclude that the community endorsed an indefinite block. And yet, given the wikilawyering we see sometimes, I wonder if this should be formalized a bit more. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The more I read Incnis Mrsi's comment, the less clear it is. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Alright. I looked over the thing. I see strong community support for an indefinite block of MB. I see no numerical consensus for any sanction on Dicklyon (Beyond My Ken made the same assessment). I propose we place a(nother) note on MB's talk page, for the benefit of any future admin; SarekOfVulcan placed an ANI link in the block log, but that was two blocks ago, halfway through the ANI discussion.

As for Dicklyon, I did not look particularly carefully at that part of the discussion, and so I cannot (per BMK) judge the "strength of arguments". Plus, the waters there are totally muddied. There's plenty of reason, then, for someone to start a fresh conversation that has nothing to do with MB. I saw that Cinderella157 commented on both editors, and they know a thing or two about MOS and moves and all that (BTW, MB should have been blocked already after this assholery, "the Award for Best Hyperbole of ANI goes to Cinderella157 for playing the victim"). BMK proposed a topic ban on Dicklyon. Dlohcierekim supported but didn't explain. Martinevans123 opposed. WaltCip had no opinion. Iridescent and MarnetteD supported, and I quit after that, but the point is clear, I hope: there's a whole slew of seasoned editors and they're all over the map. There is obviously cause for concern, and I hope one of these editors will reboot this. I mean, there seems to be unclarity about some basic matters. OK, I've gone on long enough. El C, let me know if you agree that a note should be placed on MB's talk page--or better yet, go ahead and do it! ;) Drmies (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Dicklyon has opened a thread at AN seeking clarification/removal of the aforementioned restrictions. -- Dlohcierekim 16:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 03:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you very much for your assistance in handling the vandalism on Fat man so swiftly! Next256 (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I greatly appreciate your recognition. They keep leaving me a ping every time they go on a vandalism spree — which is a totally new experience for me! El_C 03:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Hurricane Maria

Can you please reinstate the Semi-Protection on Hurricane Maria? Vandalism from unregistered users is ratcheting up again, and the article is highly-visible. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 23:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

202.184.110.121

Can you please hide this user's edits as well. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 00:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 01:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm guessing that User:Mickygreedy is a sock of the IP above. Can you hide his edits as well? ◢ Ganbaruby! (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 19:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Betty Logan ANI

El C, I understand how things look, but I have a good faith complaint here. I feel like I barely had a chance to explain things. It's terribly frustrating when all that is seen is my uncivil reactions to what I feel is her superficially civil bad conduct. I feel like editors like this push out all the new people, especially when administrators consider boomeranging. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, you need to substantiate what you are saying, preferably by quoting directly. El_C 23:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

After attempting to initiate a discussion and being reverted, [14] I started a new discussion, and after being misinterpreted again I clarified "That is inaccurate; this goes beyond content. I have a personal dispute with you; I find your behavior disruptive. As I have stated, I have found you to be dishonest, prejudiced, and controlling. I am asking if you are willing and able to display empathy. That would be the first step in correcting your behavior so that we may collaborate more effectively." I understand that is uncivil, but I felt like she was denying that I ever had a problem with her conduct. She reverted my comments yet again and stated "We have a personal dispute about content. Making a bold edit and then starting a discussion after being reverted is not "disruptive" and characterising it as such does not take us closer to resolution." [15] This is again denying that I have a problem with her conduct, this is part of the reason I feel the need to keep explicitly describing the behavior that I feel I am observing. After these attempts to talk to her I have no intention of engaging personally again, but I want my experience to be understood by administrators. The conduct goes back a couple of months on the Millennials talk page, and perhaps there it is more clear, but I thought that this behavior was actually more obvious. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I read all this already. I really thought you'd have something new to present. You keep claiming that there are issues that pertain to misconduct but you again you fail to substantiate this. El_C 00:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The conflict began here [16] where she accused my edit as being "clearly a very heavily agenda driven re-write" without having read any of my sources, the first example where I found her to be prejudiced. Most of our discussions were over that edit. [17] I felt that her behavior throughout that process was contentious, but the specific instances of dishonesty may have come later. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

It just seems like you started to personalize this dispute right away, while Betty Logan remained fairly understated about the whole thing. Anyway, she was referring to the rewrite as being agenda-driven, not to you personally as having an agenda. That means she assumed good faith. Because, in that sense, you could be endorsing an agenda-driven rewrite in error, rather than because you, yourself, subscribe to this or that agenda, personally. El_C 01:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand. I wasn't endorsing a particular source. My rewrite was made from many sources, so if the rewrite was "agenda driven" that seems like it refers to me. She says right here: "You removed multiple sources without what I consider good reasons, and altered the structure of the section to prioritise a source that backs up your position."[18] It sounds clear that "agenda driven" refers to what she sees as "my position." Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not that interested to get into the nuances of it, but this could still merely mean the confluence of changes amount to this or that type of rewrite — that you may still be unaware these changes are having this or that (collective) impact. El_C 01:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

She specifically said I made "POV changes" [19] I don't know if she has acted in bad faith; it could simply be that she makes false statements because of prejudiced thinking and lack of self-awareness, but the conduct is a problem. This is just the tip of the iceberg, I'm just trying to show you examples so you'll take me seriously. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, after your interpretation before "POV changes" will simply sound like lacking neutral point of view. I need better examples. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

"We both know that if he favored a 1996 end date he'd be in the article by now so I am prepared to initiate an RFC over this and let the community decide."[20]

"I have no doubt that Kolya Butternut will come up with some reason to dismiss this article since it does not conform to his perspective, but the simple fact is Howe and Strauss are still being cited by hundreds of academic works on an annual basis, and it is clearly demonstrable that mainstream sources still reference their millenial demarcation years."[21]

"There are more sources for the 1981–1996 date range than there was during the last RFC, but this is partly down to advocates for these dates adding sources for these dates."[22]

This all clearly adds up to her accusing me of POV pushing don't you think? Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

No, that's not clear. Only the middle passage has some hints of failing to assume good faith, but nothing that rises to the level of sanctions or anything even close to that. The other two passages do not seem to be in any way problematic and mostly I just plainly didn't understand them. El_C 02:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

She was saying that if the source used 1996 as the last birth year defining millennials (which she felt I was pushing) I would have added it to the article.

She was saying that there were many sources in the article using the 1981 to 1996 birth years definition for millennials because I was advocating for these dates.

So, she said I made an "agenda driven rewrite", I prioritized a source that "backs up [my] position", I made "POV changes", I would include sources if they fit my position, I would make up reasons to dismiss sources that didn't conform to my perspective, and the reason there are more sources for certain information in the article is because I am supposedly an advocate for this information and added sources to back it up. I am not asking for sanctions, I am asking that this behavior is acknowledged, or at least that my perspective is acknowledged, and that she shouldn't have reverted my complaint on her talk page and claimed that I had no dispute over her conduct. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still feel you have a rather weak case as far as user conduct is concerned. What is on her usertalk page is her own prerogative and my advise to you would be to move on to the substantive content issues at hand. Please only relist upon dramatic escalation in the tone and tenor of the dispute. El_C 04:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I understand that I have not proven a strong case, but what I want from you is recognition of what my complaint is, which goes beyond these specific quotes.  Like if I filed a report that my husband was being emotionally abusive, and when he spoke to the police he was calm and polite, whereas I was emotional and confused so no one even heard what I was trying to say, so next time it happened there was no record of what i was trying to communicate.  Betty Logan's behavior has the effect of civil POV pushing, even if she is acting in good faith.  I understand that she has the prerogative to revert talk page comments, but my point is that when she effectively gaslit me and said my complaint was not what I said it was, that is similar to the abusiveness that occurs while editing and discussing content; the gaslighting, and controlling behavior.  Abusive behavior does not need to be intentional for it to be harmful and interfere with building the encyclopedia with many voices.  Again, I just want understanding of what I am saying is happening, so if this happens again with me or someone else, the record doesn't only show a warning to boomerang the complainer, but shows that a subtle form of abuse was reported that is credible (but in this case unconvincing).  Her tone and tenor will not escalate, that is the nature of the misconduct, but it interferes with productivity.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, accusing another editor of gaslighting is a serious step to make. You have been advised not to keep being uncivil about other editors (on your talk page (by me); at ANI (by El_C and Bbb23; and then again here (by El_C)). At some point someone's patience is going to snap and you'll face a block. WP:DROPTHESTICK has some good advice about leaving things alone (as does this song). For the n^th time: please focus on the content issue, not the other editor. Betty Logan is dealing with the substance of the content: you are not. I'm sorry if you don't like the messages you're getting, but if you keep accusing others of things, it will not end well. I wish you the best - SchroCat (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

SchroCat, you cannot possibly accuse me of being uncivil by respectfully asking that my good faith complaint be understood.  I have asked you to show understanding for my complaint regardless of whether you agree, but you have instead hurt my credibility by defending someone you have a history with, probably in good faith.[23]. I am focusing on the conduct because that is the nature of my dispute, not content.  Please stop inferring.  I am not beating any stick besides asking to know that my side of the story is understood.  Doesn't everyone have the right to simply have their case understood?  Please use my talk page if you have more to say to me, but it must start with assumptions of good faith and understanding of what I believe happened, regardless of whether you agree.  This doesn't have to be so drawn out; I understand I have been unskilled in presenting my case, but I am only asking to be heard and understood.   Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: You think Betty Logan acted inappropriately, a "conduct issue". Other editors have looked at this, and your evidence for it, and have disagreed with you. Do you accept that other editors can, in good faith, disagree with you on this point? Jayjg ^(talk) 13:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I have repeatedly stated that editors can disagree with me, but I have not heard that my good faith complaint is understood. At ANI I did not fully present my case, and here and my talk page SchroCat showed no understanding of my complaint. El C has listened, and I appreciate that, but their response sounds like analyzing whether I have a strong enough case to prosecute, which I understand, but I have not heard anyone simply show that what I am describing is understood. Look at this from my perspective. I feel that I am experiencing a subtle, possibly unintentional, but very serious form of misconduct. The reaction I am receiving feels like attacking and silencing the victim, with barely an indication that the good faith experience I am reporting has been understood. Can someone simply reiterate the nature of the misconduct I am reporting? This isn't about content, this isn't about specific statements made, this is about a pattern of behavior. When I commented on her page that I had a conduct dispute with her and she told me I did not have a conduct dispute with her, that is an example of the repeated gaslighting I feel I have experienced from her which I am trying to report now. I have repeatedly stated that it is possible she isn't aware of her behavior, but that doesn't mean it's not happening. This behavior drives off new editors, especially if when it's reported the victim is told nothing is happening and they are the ones behaving badly. Again, no one has to agree with me, this is a very difficult kind of behavior to prove; but the complaint should be taken seriously and shown to be understood. Would someone please describe my complaint to show that I am understood rather so many people effectively pushing to silence me, albeit in good faith? Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: You have talked about the nature of the misconduct I am reporting and that it is possible she isn't aware of her behavior, but that doesn't mean it's not happening. You seem very clear that your view of this situation/conflict is correct, and that others' view of it is incorrect. In your view is it also possible that (despite your seeing it that way) Betty Logan's initial behavior might, in fact, not have been a conduct issue? And that therefore her subsequent statements that this was not a conduct issue were not "gaslighting", but instead a valid understanding of the situation? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

My first reaction is that I don't know that others actually have a view of the situation, because I don't know that they have interpreted my story as I have intended. So it feels like I'm saying they're wrong about their (mostly good faith) straw man constructions. I'm still asking that my story be repeated back to me so that I know that I am understood. If I reported abuse to an official out in the world, I wouldn't expect to be asked whether I believed it is possible that this is all a misunderstanding as if it is all in my head. I will tell you that it is not possible that Betty Logan's behavior has not been a conduct issue. I don't know whether the correct characterization is "incivility", "disruption", "contentious", etc, but I affirm she is engaging in misconduct. And of course, editors are free to disagree with me and this discussion can come to a close (hopefully after I know my complaint is understood). When you speak of Betty Logan's "initial behavior", I don't know what you are referring to. I have experienced her problematic behavior many times, but without thoroughly going through my history, the first instance I recall is when she stated that my rewrite was "agenda driven". It's possible that this isolated edit summary and revert was not a conduct issue, but it is not possible that I have not experienced a conduct issue from her. My perception is that she has difficulty empathizing with others, but that doesn't mean I can't collaborate with her if I understand what to expect; it is doable but challenging. I simply need to calmly correct her without any expectation that the behavioral pattern will change. I want to repeat that I feel this doesn't need to be such a drawn out discussion; I am simply reporting my experience with an editor who has engaged in misconduct, and I want my complaint to be accurately noted and received with assumptions of good faith. Please describe your interpretation of my complaint. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Another page-blanker

Can you please block 2404:160:8100:0:0:0:0:0/42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) for 1-3 months? They've been persistently vandalizing from multiple IPs and waging a page-blanking campaign since May, mostly in the last 4 weeks. Almost every one of their recent edits constitutes some kind of vandalism. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 02:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Can you please expand the original rangeblock to 2404:160:8000:0:0:0:0:0/39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log), for around the same duration? They're evading their block on another subnet within that range. This range appears to be used almost exclusively by this person, and it also has an extensive history of abuse. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 09:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

My quote on my page

You asked for strong evidence. My page included a direct quote from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, in addition to the Wiki article on Holocaust denial. I have also used his own words without any alteration or taking anything out of context. Please let me know what exactly is wrong with that? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Further, your picture of Che on your userpage is a violation of Polemic. In addition, I would urge you to take action on Floquenbeam's userpage, Bull Rangifer and of course EENG. Please let me know when you have done so. I would love when Wikipedia enforces rules across the board uniformly. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I did not invoke anything that relates to polemical statements. You cannot make personal attacks against another Wikipedia editor, by accusing them of Holocaust denial, full stop. El_C 17:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

My image of Che is as valid to me as your US flag is to you, I suspect. El_C 17:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

So I should just ignore that statement then? I didn't make a personal attack, I just highlighted the denial, which is it. You said I needed proof, I showed the proof, by linking to the Wiki article and to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum that showed that statement to be denial. It is not "full stop" as you say. We should not allow these statements to be anywhere on Wikipedia to go unchallenged. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, you just claimed that "my own words" were "75% of six million". This is a lie. It's enough that you repeatedly accuse me of Holocaust denial. Now you actually lie about my words, after they have been removed. Of course you have to lie to come of with a rationale for your monstrous accusations. Again, I demand you remove these accusations. O3000 (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

So in your own words then, what is it 75% of? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure the statement so clearly constitutes actual Holocaust denial. At any rate, you should be seeking clarifications about that before making the accusation. El_C 17:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

From the United States Holocaust Museum: [24] Common distortions include, for example, assertions that the figure of six million Jewish deaths is an exaggeration and that the diary of Anne Frank is a forgery. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, that does not respond to the user's statement constituting Holocaust denial. It's a rather awkward statement, to be sure, though lacking context, it's a bit difficult to parse. El_C 18:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

How is that not about the statement? The statement was about exaggeration of the numbers, and this statement claims that exaggeration of the numbers is a form of Holocaust denial. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

As I understand it, the user said that the numbers were exaggerated by some — perhaps they meant an exaggeration like 12 million? Again, I lack context, so it's difficult for me to tell. El_C 18:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I never said there weren't six million or anything about Anne Frank's diary. You keep claiming I used words I didn't use. You keep inserting meanings I never meant. You are taking a comment made on a UTP about the evils of Nazism and trying your damnest to find malevolent meaning. You never made any attempt at discussion -- which would obviously have been useless as you reject everything I say about my own meaning of my own words. You posted an accusation of Holocaust denial prominently on your TP without notifying me, and added my name in obvious retribution for a disagreement on a different subject article TP. You have now falsely accused me of Holocaust denial about ten times on two pages, despite the fact I constantly state this is a lie. You continue to make this accusation after being warned, now by two admins. Only an idiot or Nazi thinks the Holocaust was a hoax. O3000 (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of anything or taking your words out of context. I just quoted your words fully. If you want to clarify for everyone, I gave you the opportunity to do so. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I did so over and over and over. You just keep falsely accusing me. O3000 (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, Holocaust denial is something we take very seriously. If it takes place, please submit an ANI report for inspection by a wider audience, rather than making the accusation in your user space. El_C 18:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

El_C, you are being much more patient than I think Sir Joseph deserves in this instance. The accusations being levelled at Objective3000 are extremely personal. Given that they have denied Sir Joseph's interpretation of their words vehemently and repeatedly, this is harassment if it's not dropped immediately.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ponyo: point taken. El_C 18:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Personal Attack and casting aspersion

Hello El_C, this diff diff is not the first time the editor has claimed I am linking the subject to blood libel or terrorism. As I pointed out several times, I am mentioning the organization, not the subject of the article. Secondly, this diff is a personal attack and should not be allowed. Saying that "Your edits have become an embarrassment to Wikipedia" is not allowed and is editorializing on the person, not the edits. Further, there is entire section on O300's talk page with the section header called "Sir Joseph" written by a third part that I find distasteful. Please do something about it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: although two wrongs don't make a right, surely you would have expected some blowback after your outrageous personal attack which accused the user of Holocaust denial, no? Hopefully, we've now reached a point where everybody has calmed down a bit from that. But I could appreciate that they are still upset about it. I sure would be. @Objective3000: can I count on you to tone it down from now on, for your part?

But regardless, Sir Joseph, you are just coming off a 3-month ARBPIA ban (not uneventfully) and there are already issues which require administrative intervention? I'm trying not to prejudge, but that is not a good sign.

And that entire discussion thread, with its "greatness of the US," on the one hand, and the "bluster of Netanyahu," on the other, seems a bit too polemical and reminiscent of a discussion forum rather than what a Wikipedia article talk page should look like. ARBPIA topics are not a free-for-all. If anything, I would expect a greater level of decorum and professionalism from participants — but instead we get the opposite? No, that does not sit right with me. El_C 01:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I originally removed that thread as per FORUM, and I note that I am not discussing that thread in here. I am discussing the comment about O300 repeatedly claiming I am linking Omar to terrorism or blood libel (which FTR, was before my putting his name on his quote), which I never did, and then O300 stating my edits are an embarrassment to Wikipedia, and then the thread on his talk page. I note you have not addressed any of those edits. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

"Repeatedly"? You've only provided one diff. Anyway, you probably should not have removed that entire thread. Best to bring that up for discussion to see what others say. And did you not hint on that blood libel link? (Not sure why you keep skipping the blood libel part.) Sorry, that's not clear to me. El_C 02:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Miftah is the one who funded the trip and they reported the blood libel. I said as such earlier on the page, and O300 asked there why I am linking Omar to a blood libel and I said there again that I am doing no such thing but that if we are saying that Miftah is funding the trip, it should be clear that there are many reasons why Israel would have to cancel the trip and I never linked Omar to the blood libel, and yet O300 continues to claim I am doing so. Regardless, O300 has stated that my edits are an embarrassment to Wikipedia and you are not doing anything about it, is that correct? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

That's incorrect. I am doing something about it. Asking them to tone it down is doing something about it. What else would you have me do? El_C 02:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, if you say so. I just don't think that is equal treatment but let's see what happens. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Uhh. Okay...? Those are not equal offenses. Not even close. And one follows the other, not the other way around. Which apparently you are failing to appreciate, but which I did address with my first comment. Please read closely. And I've been especially lenient with you, if anything, to the point that I was taken to task for. El_C 02:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• What, is this still going on? I wrote a nine point response to this in my head, and then erased it and oversighted it. I’ve had enough drama for the year. Frankly, I should get a medal for patience. (Incidentally, I was a lifetime subscriber to Ramparts and read the original Guevara diaries back in '68. I’d agree that, in the world as a whole, fewer would take offense at the Guerrillero Heroico image than an animation of the US flag.) O3000 (talk) 11:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Yukari Tamura

Hello, I request a semi-protection or pending changes for the Yukari Tamura page, the IPs are doing something weird and we do not know who is that user who has changed the real name and birth date of the actress but is very obsessed with this. 152.0.130.194 (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Such requests are to be submitted at Requests for page protection. Thank you. El_C 17:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I can't, it's locked. 152.0.130.194 (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I've now lifted the protection from the page. El_C 18:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. 152.0.130.194 (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Mac n' Cheetos

Mac n' Cheetos exists? WTF? Drmies (talk) 03:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

LOL. Yeah, I know. News to me, too. The things you learn by way of vandalism! El_C 03:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

El C's talk page is where I learn about all the new foods. See also #Big N' Tasty. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I had a hamburger for lunch that was served on some maple-ish bun, no idea why. It was called "Hangover" and had a fried egg on it--not bad, but overcooked. I was trying to figure out what the weird, powdery taste on my upper lip was: they put powdered sugar on top of the bun. What a time to be alive, and I say this in all facetiousness. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Beef is really hard on the planet, though. That's often not fully appreciated. El_C 04:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, powdered sugar — really? Yuck! Too much sugar makes me nauseous. El_C 04:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, the Whopperito is also thing — go figure! El_C 06:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hungarian BLP vandal

Can you please block 31.46.248.0/21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) for at least a month? They've been persistently engaging in BLP vandalism across multiple IPs in the past 4 weeks, and they just came back today. (There's actually a lot of vandalism recently, and some of it dates back to two months.) Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 09:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 15:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Happy Sunday to you El C. Thanks for the revert. While friends, family and fellow wikipedians might debate whether I belong in a "banana's" category it should be noted that I avidly watched The Banana Splits growing up and some of the effects of that still linger on :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 17:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Happy Sunday to you, also, MarnetteD. Anytime! Some pointy stuff, at any case. El_C 19:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:GS/IRANPOL is live

Thought you'd like to know. I've done my best with the paperwork, but feel free to modify the documentation as necessary. I'm going to go ahead and issue some mass notifications to the protagonists now; we can deal with others as they come. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I've also logged your agrement-based page-level sanction as a discretionary sanction, per WP:IAR but also because I think that I'm allowed to independently impose the same thing under GS. Just so you know. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Vanamonde. I think this GS, which can be seen, at least regionally, as complimentary to and as an extension of the ARBPIA DS and the SCW/ISIL GS (but historically, has its own particular sources of conflict), has been sorely needed. Much appreciated. El_C 01:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

João Félix

i saw that you an protection in the João Félix, but that was one month ago and i wanted to edit the page but i can't because i dont have 500 edits so im asking you the favor if you could remove the protection of the page since there are no problems.

thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nzol12 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

There are no problems because the page is now protected. Yes, I increased the protection, but I did not place it or choose the duration. That was Swarm. El_C 11:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Fast Food Vandal

Thanks for your good work in fighting the guy who keeps vandalizing all the fast-food pages. It seems that you didn't remove this one. Could you please remove it? Thanks. ◢ 　Ganbaruby!　 05:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 16:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

114.23.236.73

Just so you know I've emailed the WMF emergency response team to point them to the threats. Hut 8.5 21:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Already done on my end, too. El_C 21:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Just heard back. They are on it. El_C 21:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Busy signal

Hi El C! ~ you've been busy today ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Mitch. Indeed, always lots to do! El_C 23:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh wasn't that sweet ~ LOL ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I guess I will allow it, but for future reference, only esoteric pastry and sandwiches are permitted on this talk page! El_C 03:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Just in case

Hello El C. Thanks for the r/d on this one. There are still two edits they made that need cleaning up. The edit summaries were clean but the edits themselves are disgusting. You might have zapped them while I was typing this but I wanted to let you know just in case. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 01:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Yep my typing is too slow :-) Thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 01:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Aaaand now 122.62.194.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). MarnetteD|Talk 01:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 02:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much! MarnetteD|Talk 02:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Question about List of concentration and internment camps

Could you provide me with some advice for this article's recent changes (two unrelated ones, actually)? As you're aware, the page is subject to sanctions, particularly 1RR and not reinstating challenged stuff without a discussion first.

First,I challenged a recent unsourced edit and asked for it to be discussed on the talk page in my summary, but another editor has reinstated the challenged material without providing sourcing nor without discussing. Is this something possibly in violation of the sanctions? I shouldn't just revert because that would put me over the 1RR. Diff: [1]

Second, someone removed an entire section, with their summary asserting that the events in question are a hoax. Quick searches online don't really turn up much in the way of 'quality' sources, but I didn't look into actual historical academic material. I don't know whether I should reinstate it and then ask for discussion over its removal, or to just leave it be. Diff: [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinchme123 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Shoot, apologies for missing my signature! --Pinchme123 (talk) 03:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I offered the (first) user the opportunity to self-revert. I suggest you take your concerns with the edits of both respective users to the article talk page. Hopefully, a discussion which is focused on attribution to reliable sources can resolve these two disputes. Good luck! El_C 03:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Will-do. --Pinchme123 (talk) 03:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Sir

File:Sir Richard Branson photo by Priory Studios.jpg	Greetings
	~ This is the exact reason ~ why I like water ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 03:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand, but surf's up! El_C 03:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

God will tell you thru the father of Jesus ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 03:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, an ecclesiastical matter, I see! El_C 04:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

You’re famous

Google for a Breitbart article: Wikipedia Echoes Democrats with ICE ‘Concentration Camp’ Label, you’ve been singled out. Samwalton9, so were you. starship.paint (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh? Joy. El_C 01:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

A surprisingly neutral description of my involvement. Silver linings and all that... Sam Walton (talk) 11:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Your insight please

Hey, I just pinged you here and would like have your comment on this. Thanks in advance. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

This TP request for comment is because you're already involved in handling the issue with one of the articles. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the compliments about my administrative and dispute resolution work in this area, especially in regards to the MEK. That said, the GS are pretty much a done deal, no? I'm just not sure I have that much of value to add to that discussion at this time. I also don't agree that the scope of the GS are too wide, but am open to persuasion on that front. At any case, I will keep an eye on the debate. Thanks for letting me know it's still ongoing. El_C 17:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome, this was what I really thought on the outcome of your intervention and I hope you keep it on! As for the GS, I think the scope can be prone to negotiation. I already provided some examples on why the scope is too wide! There are plenty of plenty examples unnecessarily covered by the GS which just don't need to. I wonder how Vanamonde could use some limited cases to prove such a wide sanction. Yes, some of the areas, such as MEK-related articles, need to be covered by this, but why should we make it too wide? Moreover, such an important decision had to be well advertised (it was not even advertised on Iran WikiProject!) and none of the involved users were informed. Also, I don't know why my concern is not payed by others and Vanamonde93 just replies "If you edit within policy, it should affect you at all". --Mhhossein ^talk 10:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, so long as a given dispute does not become acutely protracted, the GS will have no bearing on that respective article. I'm not sure why the proposal-stage wasn't better advertised so that active participants could comment before it being adopted. Still, I am of the mindset that it's good to have alongside ARBPIA DS and SCW/ISIS GS. Thus, as for the scope of the GS having been extended too widely, you seem to be the sole voice of opposition arguing that, with several other active participants in the topic area expressing support (and even relief) that the GS had been put into effect. Which goes a long way to reaffirm my original view in support of the new GS. Time will tell, I suppose. El_C 14:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

RFC closure

Also I'd like to have your comment on 'Closure review- Order of paragraphs in lead of MEK article'. I understand that you may want to stay away from this, but I thought this issue is of the disputes where you, as a 3rd party admin watching the developments of the article, can comment on. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been trying to stay away from RfCs in that article. Mostly, because I feel I am already having an undue influence on the overall editorial direction. El_C 14:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

If it's a decision which results in the improvement of the article, which I think is, then thanks for rejecting my request! --Mhhossein ^talk 11:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't really know if it's to the benefit of the article, but it's a rule I'm trying to stick to. There's a limit to my pragmatism, let's put it that way. El_C 16:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for following my page/being more hasty than I was. Jwarlock (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm wasn't actually following your page — I was following the mass messages in this user's contributions. El_C 03:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello. Would you be so kind to give us your two cents regarding this piece?--Kazemita1 (talk) 03:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't speak Farsi, so I would rather wait to see how the discussion develops than adopt any opinion or position at this time. Intuitively, I do get the preliminary sense that that document is authentic, but that does not count for much. El_C 05:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Clarification on 1RR on Tulsi Gabbard

Hey El_C. I think there's some confusion on how 1RR works on Tulsi Gabbard's page and I'd appreciate some clarification.

1. An editor restored/added new material to the campaign finance section here. significant changes here
2. A different editor spun out the section to a new page and all new content was written.
3. I made some minor edits to the new section less than 24 hours later.

I didn't think that this would constitute a breach of 1RR because it dealt with entirely different material from an entirely different editor and because it dealt with minor wording changes, but another editor raised concerns on my talk page and I realize now I'm a little iffy on the policy as well. Is this a violation of 1RR? Or is it at least close enough that it should be avoided? Thanks! Nblund ^talk 20:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I can't tell whether there was a 1RR violation because the editor claiming it to be so on your talk page failed to include the original version the revert is of. So long that is absent, you're fine there. Also, removing longstanding text is not a revert but should be viewed as a bold edit, instead. A revert has to undo a particular edit, which obviously has to happen twice for 1RR, but does not need to involve the same edits being undone. El_C 21:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for clarifying!Nblund ^talk 21:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

UnderArmourKid vandalism

Hello. Can you please block the ranges ‎190.100.144.0/20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) and 190.21.64.0/18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) for a while? The UnderArmourKid LTA has been abusing both of those ranges recently, and nearly every single edit from the past few months has been only vandalism from this person. The second range is his newest one; the first range has been abused on-and-off for nearly 5 years, and the behavior indicates that it is likely a school network, so the first range should probably be re-blocked for a longer duration (the last block was for 6 months). He's ramping up his vandalism, and his past editing patterns indicate that he's only going to accelerate his vandalism in the near future. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 06:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 06:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Page-blanking vandals

Can you please re-block 99.203.16.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) for around 2-3 months? They've returned after the expiration of their last block and they've resumed the same kind of disruptive blanking that they were engaging in earlier. This person also appears to utilize Proxies and VPNs as well. Can you also re-block 182.1.64.0/18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) and 114.124.167.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) for around 1-3 months each? The same LTA appears to be back on the second range, and they have been vandalizing extensively in the past month. The last two ranges appear to be related. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 07:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 17:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

You mind blocking the second range? The LTA was active on it just today, and it has a history of repeat blocks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Nigeria

Can you restore the move-sysop-protection of Nigeria? It is a high-risk page of infantile vandalism. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 02:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 03:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

School vandal

Can you please block 180.150.84.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) for a while? There has been persistent vandalism coming from the range for the past 6 months, and the behavior indicates that this is probably a public school. They're also actively vandalizing right now. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 04:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 04:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

You mind blocking 184.98.128.0/19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)? There's been a lot of page-blanking vandalism from the past few months, and most of the recent activity has been largely disruptive. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 05:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 05:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Poldark (2015 TV series)

• Poldark (2015 TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 83.85.47.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is also at RFPP, where I was thinking that 2 months of semi might be justified, since the IP has declared "I don't care how many times I've been reverted" on 8/25. The IP never uses the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Though I'd go with 2 weeks, but 2 months works, too. Anything to force the IP to communicate outside of edit summaries is a good thing. El_C 05:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I warned the IP and left a notice at Talk:Poldark (2015 TV series) that protection may be used if nobody will discuss on the talk page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Copy that. Will try to keep an eye, also. El_C 18:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes!

Well done with the decisive action on Al-sow. I will keep an on Fulani-related edits to see if he resurfaces under a new name. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. Let me know if and/or when further action is needed. El_C 18:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Vivaan Solar

hi El C (talk) need your help regarding the vivaan solar wiki page that i had created. 1st i created in 2016, but was deleted due to lack of info, then in 2017 i gathered as much info as possible and created it once again. but suddenly last month someone deleted it giving reason not much info and repost . could you look at the document and if it was proper to remove it. i will be glad if you can help me provide clarity on this. here is the link. https://en.everybodywiki.com/Vivaan_Solar Joydeep ghosh (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Review of deleted pages is undertaken at Deletion review. Please feel free to list it there. Good luck. El_C 19:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Changsha 1942 page reference.

As I've said earlier, if you go to the exact time of the documentary which is a 0:30. You will find something like this. Thank you

https://imgur.com/a/DzPGeOW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.237.87 (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I don't know how I missed that. Sorry about that. El_C 21:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you for your recent reverting and protecting against vandalism. I really appreciate your hard working effort. For this reason, I give you a barnstar! Wyatt2049 | (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Wyatt2049! Your recognition is greatly appreciated. El_C 22:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I undid your unblock of your own block

On Special:Contributions/2001:8003:401E:EF00::0/64. Telstra landlines are indeed relatively static /64s. If this range is actually shared by multiple people, they have to be sharing the same residential line. I blocked for six months as I see this user has been edit warring and getting blocked repeatedly for months. The other IP is, I assume, some kind of unregistered closed proxy. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for letting me know. El_C 23:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Pokémon Go

Hi El C! I saw that you stepped up the protection on Pokémon Go to be extended confirmed protection. I definitely agree with the move, but I'd recommend not making it an indefinite duration. Surely, after some time has gone by, the abuse taking place there will stop... even if it's 5, 7, 9+ years down the line. I think that the duration should expire at some point. I'm not going to modify the protection nor tell you what you should do; I figured I'd just leave you a message about it and see what your thoughts are behind the duration you set, and recommend that you consider setting it to expire at some point in time. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:06, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I'd rather the LTA not know the duration, so I set it to indefinite, for now. El_C 07:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah! I see... Good call. ;-) Just remember to go back and modify it later when things die off. lol ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Harassing vandal

You mind reblocking 80.6.69.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? I've been watching their attacks on RC for a while now, and I'm starting to grow tired of it. (Dr Andrew S Middleton MPhys Warwick PhD Physics Cambridge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should also be blocked, since it's clearly the same person.) They're basically repeating the same nonsense that got them blocked back in November 2018; now, they've taken to attacking others on their own talk page. The WHOIS data says that the IP is "likely dynamic", but given the fact that this person has been abusing this IP for more than 6 months, I doubt that this is the case. They should probably be reblocked for a longer duration. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 07:29, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 07:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Karnataka population figure vandal

Thanks for your reversions at Karimnagar, Mangalore, Davanagere, Guntur and Mysore at 07.14 this morning.
This is a persistent IP hopping vandal, operating from multiple locations in Karnataka. I have been compiling a list of IPs and their targets at User:Arjayay/Pop figures - I don't understand how range blocks are calculated, or who to ask, but suspect these are not close enough? - Is it worth protecting the prime targets? - Arjayay (talk) 10:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 13:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - that was an all-encompassing response - thanks again - Arjayay (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

No worries. We can also add Coimbatore to the pile. El_C 18:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Page-blanker

Hello. Can you please block 2405:4800:2400:0:0:0:0:0/40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) for at least 6 months? They've been persistently blanking out numerous pages since November 2018, and the range activity has been entirely negative. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 12:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 13:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for giving Ciobanu Oilor a warning. He or she can't delete articles just like that, without respecting the policies of Wikipedia. Transformers2000 (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Fer sure. Looks like they're just orienting themselves with Wikipedia, but indeed. El_C 18:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Korean Date LTA

• 125.141.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 61.74.159.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

Can you please re(block) these ranges for 6-12 months? This LTA basically returned after the rangeblock on one of their two primary ranges expired (already blocked on 121.140.0.0/16). They're engaging in the same page-blanking and nonsense insertions as before. Interestingly, they appear to be the sole user on their ranges. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 21:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Can you please block Ethan_H_Perin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? It's pretty obvious that they're not here to contribute, given the edits caught by the Edit Filter and also disturbing comments such as this. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

 Already done. El_C 00:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Umm?

No violation occurred my friend in fact the entire section that was added was sourced. You'd best explain yourself before I take this to the admins --120.154.156.36 (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I did explain — you reverted without comment, which was a living persons policy violation. El_C 03:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

We are dealing with the nature of opines of politicians and this article already has multiple opines like this. It's hardly unusual, however your actions are more than unusual. Your comments are irrelevant and if you look at the change log I didn't revert anything at all. You simply chose an overzealous option here of reverting what was properly sourced content. --120.154.156.36 (talk) 03:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

You did revert here. As the uninvolved admin, I deem your addition to violate the living persons policy, by virtue of the prose reading: vindictive and petty nature of the home affairs minister Peter Dutton. El_C 03:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

That's funny, not only did you revert my content, you simply don't seem to understand what you did either. Sir, there is no "revert" next to my name. Here we have an issue of lack of competence in plain sight. If you check the timing between the difs, there would have been no time for me to read your comments either. --120.154.156.36 (talk) 03:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Huh? I don't know what you are talking about — what you are saying makes no sense. Feel free to appeal my decision in any forum you see fit. El_C 03:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm talking about your growing levels of incompetence. Click on "view history" of the article Peter Dutton and check the changelog for yourself. Take a particular look at the difs. You will not see a single "revert" next to my address. You will see that the last "reverts" are next to your name. In fact I was in the process of moving said content to the appropriate section when you came in with your overzealous incompetence that not only failed to address the issue at hand, but also showed your own bias. --120.154.156.36 (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Your claim of bias is unfounded. I neither know nor care much about the subject. I'm still not making sense of what you're saying, however. But veiled insults are unwelcome and unhelpful. El_C 03:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Adminship

You should note somewhere on your page that you are an active Admin. It is confusing that you do not have any notion of this.GreyShark (dibra) 07:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

It is noted here. El_C 07:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Is this a violation of the collaborative process towards reaching consensus?

Is Saff V.'s revert a violation of the editing process on the MEK page?

This is the sequence of events:

• On August 3, I propose that the association with Saddam Hussain was being repeated too many times in the article and suggest a substitute text that doesn't repeat information as much (to what you commented that it looked like a decent compromise).

• On August 7, Saff V. objected my proposed text, so I asked Saff V. to provide a fair compromise from his perspective. Saff V. replies that he could not because his "time is limited (to which you replied that Saff V. needed "to make the time (a week more than suffices), or you risk forfeiting your position.").

• On August 24, Saff V. replies that "as wp:BURDEN demands, it is the responsibility of Stefka to provide the text." Even though I had already provided a proposed text on August 3, I then present a revised proposed text, to what Saff V. replies saying that the text was "good" but needed some corrections, which he then provided. In order to reach a compromise, I accepted Saff V.'s version and added it to the MEK page on August 29.

• On August 31, Mhhossein (who hadn't participated in this TP discussion since July 26th) reverted the changes complaining he had not given consensus for the change (to which you said that you didn't see much basis for his objections).

• I reverted to the consensus I had reached with Saff V., and then Saff V. reverted the edit saying there was never any consensus between me and him.

To resume, after over a month of trying to get them to propose a fair compromise, I included the text that Saff V. provided as a unified consensus, and then Saff V. reverts it back when Mhhossein complains about it. Isn't this disruptive towards reaching a consensus? I really don't know what else I could have done here to make the collaborative process easier for them (Saff V. is now not approving his own proposed text!). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that their approach to this point of contention has been subpar. I will say more on the article talk page. El_C 18:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Utopia

Hello. I noticed to some users put a lot of content at Utopia article and to all new content is just on Slovak or Czech language sources. Also notability of some "philosophers" is questionable especially for English language wikipedia,e.g Jakub Ort, Perný, anyway they need some more wide recognition. If you can take a look would be good. Because it seems, I am afraid, to it can be used as soapbox just for some personal name promotion or advocacy etc. Also section about 21 century in the same article, it is just for some authors, can't be generalised so it need maybe for balance to note that. Thank you and I am sorry for taking your time. 109.245.227.107 (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not that familiar with the material and am spread a bit thin lately. I'll try to take a look, but I just don't know if I can find the time to investigate this properly. El_C 18:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Midland-Odessa shooting discussion

Can you please self revert your closure there? The window for discussion was very short, considering typical discussions like this have been given significantly longer. There were also a number of !votes that gave potential compromises that are worth letting other editors consider. Closing the discussion prematurely as you've done doesn't allow that. Thank you. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not inclined to do so at this time. Consensus from participants is simply too overwhelming. El_C 02:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

People's Party of Canada

Hi, I noticed that you were the editor that made the semi-protected the page to protected it from vandalism. However, I noticed that Cyberpunk 93 made an edit that bypass the after 4 days and 10 edits, requirement. I just why it happened and if it is anissuse, what can be done prevent it. Weelandlka 02:30:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

The semiprotection is working as intended. The user was already autoconfirmed years ago, so the protection does not affect them. El_C 02:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I am just wondering what if the requirement changed years ago, or is it same one? Weelandlka 02:48:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm really not sure, actually. They have many tens of edits, at any case, which is more than enough. El_C 03:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Revdel?

You might want to revdel this Special:Diff/913653648 too. Masum Reza^📞 11:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind. I see that you already unrevdeled those revisions. Masum Reza^📞 11:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Libertarian capitalism

Looks like Libertarian capitalism needs re-protection. Pinging you if you're more familiar with the case. That article and Modern libertarianism both appear to be WP:POVFORKs of Right-libertarianism. czar 17:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Not familiar, but  Done. El_C 18:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

RfPP

was backlogged. But thanks for the quick response. ∯WBG^converse 19:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

No worries. El_C 19:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Subjective reading of idioms

I had to come here to say that your assertion that telling someone to "go pick a fight in traffic" (which is an established idiom from whence I come) is worse than calling them a "cunt" is, to me, frankly gobsmacking. I would tell you to take a long walk on a short pier, but I don't want to threaten you with death by drowning. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do find such violent imagery to be worse than simple namecalling. Maybe it is a matter of locale, also with regards to "cunt" — the editor behind that being from the UK. El_C 19:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

No need to apologize. It's your power, do with it what you will. For what it's worth, it never even occurred to me as violent imagery; it's colloquial meaning is "do something supremely stupid." I always assumed the traffic would stop or swerve. I grew up in the Northeast U.S and lived for years in the U.K. I still find "cunt" far more offensive. But again, yours is the view that matters. Cheers. ETA: Having said my piece, I will trouble your talk page no longer! Have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, at any case, you are more than free to make that point in the report. If my view is, indeed, well outside convention, then other editors will also point that out. I simply find that "go jump off a bridge" -type of insult to be worse than namecalling, per se.. El_C 19:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) And I find PeterTheFourth's dragging-in of Eric Corbett by the heels completely uncalled-for. Bishonen | talk 19:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC).

Bishonen, please note that my point is narrow. While I consider myself friendly with Peter, we do not unilaterally agree on things. It's simply the case that calling "pick a fight in traffic"--what I think of as a schoolyard taunt--"violent imagery" seems to me overwrought. Something like hand-wringing over the phrase "take a flying leap" as encouraging self-harm. I may well be in the minority. And I apologize for the continued talk page-troubling. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Dumuzid, you are welcome on this talk page, so not to worry. El_C 20:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I consider myself friendly with Peter too. Bishonen | talk 20:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC).

Also, El_C, I apologize for bringing this here, but I didn't want to bog the AE page down with what ultimately boils down to idiolectic preference. Dumuzid (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Death of JonBenét Ramsey

Immediately prior to your protecting the page, 3 or 4 highly appropriate edits I inserted were reverted en masse by an editor who claimed I was using a self-published source. I wasn't. A look at those recent edits will show that they were taken from an A&E documentary, citing known experts in the field. I respectfully request that you revert the reversion.

Thank you, Vcuttolo (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I am precluded from taking a side in the content dispute. The version that's up is the one I encountered at RfPP. El_C 01:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

"Taken from an A&E documentary" does not negate what I stated: "See Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking and Wikipedia:External links#Linking to user-submitted video sites. The videos you linked to are not from official channels for that content. They are just some uploader's content." And on that article's talk page, I also explained why I object to the "In a report prepared by prosecutors, Dr. Michael Graham" piece you added. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Block evasion

Can you please block 114.125.96.0/20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) for a while? It's obvious block evasion by the same page-blanking vandal on 182.1.64.0/18. They've been abusing the newer range since June, and there are almost zero positive contributions from the past 3 weeks. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 06:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 07:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Repeated abuse of admin powers

I completely see that there should not be two threads but to my understanding this has become an urgent case of repeated abuse of admin powers and therefore should be at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents rather than a general discussion on the apparent lack of knowledge about the rules for draftification which is not urgent and therefore should be at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard. Please in general if you revert an explained reversion of an edit of yours give an explanation why. I will not revert, so feel to give me an explanation here (please use ping or something so that I see it). Omikroergosum (talk) 08:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I already written to you about this on your own talk page — what is it with you and splitting discussions? El_C 08:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick answer, we edited simultaneously. Should it then not rather be moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents? Sorry if I got this wrong, first time I get into such unpleasant conflicts at Wikipedia. Omikroergosum (talk) 08:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion ought to stay in one venue — in this case, where it had originated: AN. The two boards often serve similar and complimentary purposes. AN is usually focused more on general announcements, whereas ANI is for incidents — but in terms of urgency, there's no real difference. El_C 08:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I got confused because at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents it says "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." while there is no such note on the general noticeboard. This was why I had moved my original complaint to the general noticeboard when it did not seem urgent to me. Omikroergosum (talk) 08:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items

Just to be clear, the list of protected templates and the actual page that triggers cascade protection is Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items/content and not Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items itself; it was moved to the subpage specifically to make the the header text publicly editable as it isn't sensitive in any way. There is thus no reason to have it fully protected (or any kind of protection, as there is no overwhelming amount of disruption) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

But the page specifically instructs users to make edit requests to admins only, so that's a bit confusing of an instruction. El_C 13:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

That was a piece of leftover text in the Mbox that I forgot to remove when the page was split; I've removed it. Should now be ready for unprotection. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 14:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

To G.B.‬

I am confirming to have gotten your email, but I don't know who you are on Wikipedia, nor do you specify which article/s does this involve. Which amounts to a bit of a mystery. El_C 11:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Response

This gets tiresome and unfair. There was nothing wrong with the edit. And make the protection one step higher is still unfair. I will write an email to the Wikimedia Foundation if this continues and administrators don't react to the pov push. regards B9Xyz (talk) 12:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Tiresome — what an interesting choice of words. Anyway, you are, of course, free to appeal my decision in any forum you see fit. El_C 14:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Hurricane article vandalism

Can you please re-instate Semi-Protection on both Hurricane Andrew and Hurricane Dorian. While there have been some good-faith edits from anons on the Hurricane Dorian article, most of the IP edits there have been vandalism or problematic (mostly involving unsourced changes). The Hurricane Andrew article has experienced a spike in vandalism, possibly due to the related coverage from Hurricane Dorian. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 04:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Hurricane Andrew:  Not done (only one edit today). Hurricane Dorian:  Already done. El_C 06:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

124.150.92.233

Um, they weren't warned sufficiently. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 07:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The article is on the Main page, so I'm a little less inclined to go through the motions. El_C 07:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 07:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

Hello, I'm Wtmitchell. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Russell M. Nelson, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Wrong editor! Also, it ought to have been npov2. El_C 19:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Rockefeller Foundation

Added factual critics of ref. to kinsey ins. in rockefeller infosite - got blocked by El_C. LTC! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.166.111.233 (talk) 00:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

You were not blocked, you were reverted. Part of the problem is that you are way too terse. Also, you keep adding Wikipedia as an external link rather than linking it internally, including using Wikipedia as a ref, which is not allowed. El_C 00:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Reported by bot

Hello. I noticed that as I was reverting vandalism, I was tripping a whole lot of filters along the way. I think this cause DatBot to report me to WP:AIV. I wanter to give the heads-up, as I don't want to be banned due to a misunderstanding. Thanks in advance. 2601:644:877F:F6D8:5040:4AE:A637:54D0 (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 01:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. :) 2601:644:877F:F6D8:5040:4AE:A637:54D0 (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Not at all. Happy editing. El_C 01:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:ERA style

Re the ANI thread, I looked at your 3 reversions. Firstly, please note that all 3 of your edits left mixed styles! In 2 cases, I reckoned that BC was the correct style per WP:ERA (don't you think that an article title of Battle of Corinth (146 BC) is a bit of a giveaway?) & went back to that. For Amphictyonic League it was the other way, but it needed this to make it consistent. In fact BC was still predominant after your edit. Section at Talk:Temple of Zeus, Olympia on that one. Johnbod (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Jeez, so much refactoring! Anyway, my bad. Thanks for taking care of it. El_C 01:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding page protection

Hi. Can you remove protection from Kurukshetra (2019 film)? The film is not trending now, so the page will not be vandalized. 2405:204:5602:F514:68CC:942:344F:2A2F (talk) 09:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

What does trending mean? And how can you make that prediction? The page has been protected four times in the last few weeks, so I'm not inclined toward unprotecting it at this time. I'd rather wait a few more weeks and let the protection lapse automatically. Sorry. El_C 14:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Mahmoud Reza Khavari

Hi, the page protection you added to Mahmoud Reza Khavari page has expired at the end of August and it seems the same user is now back at it trying to add the same information from a different IP. Would you consider adding the page protection again? TIA. Shemtovca (talk) 18:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 18:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!!! Shemtovca (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Mass Changes on Jerusalem Edits

Hello, as someone who is involved and aware in the IP area, can you please take a look at this Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#"Not_officially_recognized_as_Israel" page? Just to note, this was discussed a couple of years back and there was a consensus for West Jerusalem articles to have Jerusalem, Israel and split into two, so not linked as one. Regardless, it was not discussed and his mass changes should have been discussed on the Jerusalem article for broader input. Thanks. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm spread a bit thin right now, so I'm not sure how much time I will be able to devote to this, if at all. Also, when it comes to the IP area, I actually try to stay uninvolved (as an administrator, that is)—my awareness notwithstanding. El_C 19:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

You misused admin right

Hambakseom or Hambak-do is a disputed island. Edits from various IPs were not vandalism. --호남시대 (talk) 04:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

There were 'Persistent edit war' in this article. Not 'Persistent vandalism' --호남시대 (talk) 04:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, I misread. Protection lifted. Sorry about that. El_C 04:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

India's Chandrayaan-2 moon mission was a complete FAILURE

Why did you delete my discussion comments? Why you are censoring my discussion? Indian's Chandrayaan-2 moon mission was a complete failure, this is a fact and I don't understand why people keep avoiding writing about it, read this sources and put my comments back into the discussion in accordance with Wikipedia policy:

1.) https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/09/india-chandrayaan-2-landing-attempt-moon-lunar-south-pole/
2.) https://www.npr.org/2019/09/06/758419791/indias-attempt-to-land-rover-at-moon-s-south-pole-fails
3.) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-49615665
4.) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/06/chandrayaan-2-indias-second-moon-mission-may-have-failed-scientists/
5.) https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/06/india/india-moon-lunar-landing-chandrayaan-2-scn/index.html
6.) https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/science/india-moon-landing-chandrayaan-2.html
7.) https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/chandrayaan-2-india-lunar-landing-latest-missing-contact-lost-update-a9095361.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2E00:1C62:8D9D:9D58:4C1B:F98A (talk) 05:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

You keep edit warring your comments, which is a violation of WP:NOTAFORUM, so no, I will not restore them. El_C 05:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Some people keep deleting my comments on the discussion, all I did was put my comments back in. Did you read the sources above?2600:8801:2E00:1C62:8D9D:9D58:4C1B:F98A (talk) 05:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

And you must be joking about so-called "original research". This is in no way "original research" take a look at all the reliable reference sources that I provided, all of them state that the Chandrayaan-2 mission was a failure, you would have to be blind not see that! 2600:8801:2E00:1C62:8D9D:9D58:4C1B:F98A (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

You can't use Wikipedia as a soapbox, which is what you were doing. El_C 05:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Referring to other editors as "arrogant racist Indian nationalists" is not an acceptable manner in which to conduct oneself. El_C 05:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

No, it's obvious that the whole article was being edited by Indian nationalists who don't want embarrassing information about India to be on Wikipedia, but this failure is a fact and must be on here just like many U.S. space missions also ended in failure and fatalities, you don't see anyone trying censor and cover up American space failures. I was putting into the article the latest information about the failure of the Chandrayaan-2 moon mission, all supported by reliable reference sources, please take some time to read and educate yourself about India's failed spacecraft.2600:8801:2E00:1C62:8D9D:9D58:4C1B:F98A (talk) 05:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

This is about your conduct, which has been subpar, not the spacecraft. Please stop listing external links here. El_C 06:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

36.69.58.30

Please, vide 36.69.58.30 (talk · contribs). Торонгил2 (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 07:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Ip users attack on page

protection required Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission Ip users attack on page and deleteing page information. PakEditor1 (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)