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 13 14

For you

El C, contrary to your edit summary- I noticed you were gone, and missed seeing you on recent changes. You are one of my favourite editors. This is for you. Regards, dvdrw 04:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Free hat! Today, while cheekadeepetting, this lady who saw us from a far, came over and said: "Can I tell you something...? You're an angel of God."(!) To which I of course replied: "All hail Atheismo!" [nah, I said: "thank you, maddam, that's very kind of you" — what else could I say?] I took an especially neat cheekadeepetting photograph today: it remained visible between my thumb and index as it flew away, giving the illusion it was bee-sized! What an unexpected, and sweet, effect! El_C 02:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Oooo. Purdy!

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

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

Seasons Greetings

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

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

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

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

Happy Groundhog Day

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

Chippies

El C, I've been meaning to ask for ages. What is the link between revolutionary socialism and chimpunks? Did I miss that bit in Animal Farm? Is it something to do with resting the means of damn making from beavers? --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No link; but are you referring to Groundhog? (see left) There is a Groundhog-Chippie connection, which I was trying to further cultivate (see right). El_C 11:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Well, I'm envious. You get to pet ALL the fuzzeh creatures! — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Book?

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

4 Tality Fractal

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

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

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

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

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

Rev-dels

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

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

OK, thanks. There are a couple of admins I usually contact when I see something that needs to deleted, but unfortunately they let real life interfere with their admin duties. You are online a lot at the same times I am, so it's good to have another person to contact if needed. I generally only ask personally if it's both serious and urgent. - BilCat (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks very much. I realize.my wording above presumes you'd be willing, and that I didn't actually ask, so thanks. :) - BilCat (talk) 04:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Romania

I can live with your highly arbitrary closing summary of the RfC on the Talk page, so I do not want to persuade you to change it. However, you closed other on-going debates as well. Could you open the other debates? Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 05:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

And all I got was a ^^^

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

Your block of Tatzref

Re: User_talk:Tatzref#Indefinite_block. I think a warning would be sufficient, per my rationale there. In either case, Tatzref has apologized and promised to be more careful in the future (hence, warning heeded), which I think is sufficient grounds for considering an appeal. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I disagree that a warning would have been sufficient when it comes to an attempt at and the calling for the outing of a Wikipedia editor — yes, even a banned editor. I know, for example, that both the Wikimedia Foundation and the Arbitration Committee take a rather dim view (former, latter) of such efforts. A view which I share. Another admin is free to handle the unblock appeal as they see fit. I am inclined not to involve myself further unless directly queried. El_C 02:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Thank you for the decision on the edit warring discussion page. Just to be clear for future reference, I should send an official warning and link to the 3RR page on their talk page? It was the first time I’ve made a report. Also, seeing as the user has been warned, am I allowed to redo my original edit? ².O.^Boxing 11:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's best to use such templates as {{uw-3rr}} — you just mentioned "3RR" (unlinked) in an edit summary, which a new user is unlikely to make much sense of. In answer to your other question: no, if you revert again, you yourself would be in violation of 3RR. El_C 17:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

... for article work in October, specifically by reverting vandalism, - the cabal is grateful, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for thanks, Gerda! Always prudent to be on the cabal's good side... El_C 17:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see, - thank you for unblocking Sashi! - Did you know that so far I haven't been blocked, - AE always let me go, but still what a waste of time each time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, as mentioned here, I am not huge fan of Arbitration enforcement's overreliance on procedural exactness. Overall, I tend to view it as a recipe for lapses in justice. El_C 18:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and agree! Today, I am proud of a great woman on the Main page, Márta Kurtág, finally! - Here's my ideal candidate for arbcom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, Gerda. Well deserved. Is it Arbitration election season already? Myself, I seem to have missed the last few ones. I admit that I am partial to Valereee, myself. Anyway, hope we get decent candidates without a lot of drama and hurt feelings. El_C 17:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article

Hi El C. Could you please clarify the intent of this restriction that you place on William Barr? Does "You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article" apply to the editor who originally added the material, or all editors? Thank you. - Mr X 🖋 14:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All editors. Keyword is any, as in anyone. El_C 16:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.- Mr X 🖋 17:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkuk

Can you take a look at these two pages where one user keeps removing information from the pages[2][3] arguing its Kurdish pov-push when the area is disputed by law and mentioned in the Iraqi constitution[4].--Semsurî (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if more people had supported my Kurdish General Sanctions proposal, a topic ban could be implemented rather easily for such an egregious case. It's not that people strongly opposed — there simply wasn't enough interest, overall. Granted, it was before the Americans withdrew from Kurdish Syria, but still. El_C 16:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I must have missed your topic-ban proposal but I do support such move. Not sure how to push forward with it as a non-admin. --Semsurî (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdistan doesn't exist. There is no evidence. It is part of Iraqi sovereignty and internationally recognized and in the Iraqi Constitution so stop spamming otherwise will be reported for bias, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fine12322 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[I]t is listed under Disputed territories of Northern Iraq, sovereignty or lack thereof notwithstanding. El_C 19:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can only disputed territory if it is disputed with another country that exists as a state. Therefore, Kurdistan is not an independent sovereignty within its own right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fine12322 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly an argument you are welcome to make at the article talk page of Disputed territories of Northern Iraq — until then, we're gonna follow what it says, for consistency across Wikipedia. El_C 19:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

My goal is to document the artists and the art institutions of the Cayman Islands on wiki.

Like I said, the fact that we do not have a "culture" section on the Cayman Islands page is embarrassing seeing as we have a gov appointed role as "minister of culture".

I would appreciate any advice you could give me in helping set up pages for notable figures or institutions. New to Wikipedia.

Regards, oldman

Hi, oldman. Please see your first article on suggestions for newcomers about authoring a new article. Hope this helps. El_C 00:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help,

best, oldman

Deletion review for User:SashiRolls/SWAPP

User:Wumbolo has asked for a deletion review of User:SashiRolls/SWAPP. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 16:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, Cryptic. El_C 16:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So....what do we do now? Consensus there so far is nearly unanimous that it wasn’t an attack page, but you blocked Sashi for linking to it. If that discussion is closed with consensus against it being an attack page are you going to unblock Sashi? Mr Ernie (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the midst of drafting a note in DRV that touches on this, Mr Ernie. But in short, yes, that does make a successful unblock appeal more likely. El_C 17:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is only the usual suspects coming to the defense. And the DRV discussion is definitely not nearly unanimous. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of procedure, the decision about the page, and the determination of the block, are really separate issues. Even if, after the fact, a consensus emerges that the page was not an attack page (which is nonsense, but whatever), at the time that SashiRolls linked to it, it was considered as such. You don't get to link to something that is prohibited to link to just because a crystal ball tells you that it will be un-prohibited in the future. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you El C. It must be stated over and over that the first few issues Sashi encountered were nearly 100% due to a former admin socking to get around a topic ban, who was later indef’d. That former admin was heavily defended by some users you see still see showing up to attack Sashi, and it is not Sashi’s fault for getting caught up in that. Some people still refuse to acknowledge that was the root of the first few issues, which have been repeatedly brought up against Sashi in bad faith without telling the whole story. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not by me, it wasn't. I agree that Sashi got unfairly treated in that, but that does nothing to excuse what happened with respect to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not always about you. Let it go. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I said just above that I see what happened with that sock as being entirely something else. I even said that I thought what happened to Sashi was unfair. But the issue now is about a deleted page, which was about me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where does one go to report sanctions violations?

Hi El C. I'm asking about this here [diff]. It's a reinstatement of challenged material on an article with post-1932 U.S. politics sanctions.

I'd like to know where to go with these, because the last thing I want to do is go to you or some other admin every time this happens if that's not how this is supposed to work; it'll get old fast, potentially sour the admin on me, and just generally be bad I think.

I'm also trying to make sure I don't inadvertently edit-war or violate sanctions myself.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 02:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pinchme123. Yes, it is, indeed, a violation of the restriction. I have, therefore, left the user an American politics discretionary sanction alert. I have also left them a notice informing them of their violation and requested that they self-revert. Anyway, in answer to your question, violations that involve Arbitration enforcement can be reported either at the AE or AN3 board, each of which has different procedures on how to actually file the report (instructions at the top). Hope this helps. El_C 02:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does, thank you. I'm going to look those over so I'm not completely lost on this anymore. Thanks for answering me! --Pinchme123 (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio cleanup?

I just saw on my watchlist that you deleted copyright violations (People's Mujahedin of Iran). I've been following that page forever but don't understand the subject well enough to be useful there. Anyway, here's another copyright violation, you may wish to permanently delete: [5]. I reverted it shortly after it was added. This is the original source being copied: [6]. Thanks. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SashiRolls.

Done. Revdeleted and left the user a warning about adding copyvio to articles. El_C 16:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It's still visible in the following diff before I reverted though. :/ 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry about that. Got it all now. Thanks for following up. El_C 17:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~ Hi El C! ~

I'm back ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 03:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, brother. You have been missed. El_C 04:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

tendentious editing

Stefka is reverting your paraphrasing of the BBC source with some nonsense reasons that I am sure he himself knows is wrong. He is saying "Not all politicians get paid by MEK". Of course not politicians are paid by MEK. When in the article did we say that? I remember you had warned him of tendentious editing once before. but he is taking it to a whole new level.--Kazemita1 (talk) 04:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That actually was not the copyvio-related part — it was just me fixing some grammar on the side, changing Many American public figures who defend MEK get paid by this group to Many American public figures who support the MEK have also been paid by this group. But as Mhhossein noted (and I agree), I should have probably let someone else make those corrections. I'll expand more on that on the article talk page. The point is that my edit does not supersede longstanding text, so whatever constitutes that, that's what should be in place while the matter is being discussed. El_C 04:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI comment

Hello El C, about [7], I just wanted to clarify that my comment was not directly pointed at you, as anyway I am not a believer of personal blame (and I did not even check who was the admin who took care of the case), I rather think there is a systemic issue with enforcing WP:CIVILITY, and so I think a solution should be systemic as well, in the vein of User:Volunteer_Marek/gt. Thus, I wanted to tell you I am deeply sorry of how my comment could be perceived (not only by you but by others as well), and I wish I could modify it. I am not apologizing because you are an administrator, but because you are a human being, and, since you know WP:CIVILITY is IMO very essential for me, if my intention with my comment was to blame someone in particular, it would be totally counter to my moral compass and what I tried to convey in the comment. I hope you can accept my apologies, I'll try to do better next time I comment --Signimu (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Because I tried to be even-handed and I also tried to get Graull to tough it out. I'm sorry that it didn't work out. But I don't know what else I could have done differently given the circumstances. As for WP:CIVIL, I am a big believer in subscribing to it, but my view on enforcement of it is obviously more nuanced than that of enforcing WP:NPA. This isn't to say that bright lines don't exist for me. As for that Volunteer Marek essay, I confess that it reads as mostly gibberish to me. I think if there are avenues for progress, they would depend on much simpler formulation than that. Thanks again for taking the time. El_C 22:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for accepting my apologies

I understand this is a tough call that you and other admins have to regularly make where there may be no clear thing to do, and I know and agree the goal should not be to penalize but to prevent (something that is very different from other languages and that I noticed right away during my first experience on ANI). I'm just sad when things like that happen... About Volunteer Marek's essay, then I may give it a try to vulgarize or maybe extend, as his essay was only on edit warring, I'm sure something is possible for civility and personal attacks as well

Have a nice day! --Signimu (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ping didn't work. Just in case you missed it

here Nishidani (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I missed it. Will have a look now. El_C 16:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asli Daud

Hi El C, can you take a look at Asli Daud. The CSD template has repeatedly been removed by the article's creator and numerous IPs.-KH-1 (talk) 04:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 04:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Might need to be salted. -KH-1 (talk) 04:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for deleting this. Just before you did so, I did this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asli Daud, in the understanding this was the thing to do when someone removes the CSD tag. What now? Thanks in advance... -Lopifalko (talk) 04:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, sounds good. I have restored the article so that the AfD can commence. El_C 04:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi why did you deleted that page. Recover it and make corrections instead, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharmamulla (talk • contribs) 21:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really need to ask that question twice? Anyway, it was deleted by Athaenara. El_C 22:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi Lurs

Hi. The page Iraqi Lurs is referred to a portion of Feyli Lurs inside Iraqi borders. It is not logic to digest and merge this page in a wider paper. There are a lot of citations mentioned in paper. Best.SHADEGAN (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the dispute from early June? I don't remember what's it about anymore. El_C 22:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Iraqi Lurs's status as a redirect has been changed by Shadegan, I've created an afd request now that the article is a POVFORK of Feylis. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Iraqi_Lurs --Semsurî (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the notice. El_C 17:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE

It sounds like Sandstein is requesting your input there. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I admit to being a bit burned out from the whole thing. El_C 22:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You and me too. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you deleted Asli Daud

Why did you deleted that page? Any personal enimity or out of your mind? Dharmamulla (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of my mind. El_C 22:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question

According to Arbcom decision [8], this editing restriction covers only subjects related to Holocaust in Poland, which is apparently the part of the page related to Nazi Germany if I understand correctly. Soviet gas vans are completely unrelated to the Holocaust or Poland because they had happen a few years earlier. I am asking this because such sourcing restriction are indeed generally OK for the Holocaust in Poland which is covered in a huge number of scholarly sources. However, such restriction would be detrimental for a lot of more obscure subjects from the Soviet history (Soviet gas vans is just one of many examples). This subject is covered only by a small number of RS, most of them in Russian. Making such restriction would in fact prevent covering it per WP:NPOV. We talked about this here. I also would like to know what was the reason for your decision. There was no any content disagreements on the page whatsoever with regard to Holocaust in Poland or Nazi Germany. There was also no recent edit wars on this page (reverts of edits by a sockpuppet account do not count). My very best wishes (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, what is happening now? This, i.e. Paul just removes everything referenced to works by Nikita Petrov (a publication in Novaya Gazeta), to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, to Lydia Golovkova who is a primary curator of records for the people executed at the Butovo firing range, to a book by Mikhail Schreder who was an important witness to the crimes by the Soviet NKVD, to a book by Petro Grigorenko who was one of the founders of the Soviet dissident movement, and to publications in Kommersant which are RS. Was it your intention to have all such RS excluded? My very best wishes (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No because I'm not a mind reader — see the section directly above for more on that. The restrictions, as I understood them, apply to an article which is mostly about Nazi Germany's usage of Gas vans (mass scale, 700,000 murdered). But I only read the Hebrew Wikipedia's article closely, and it doesn't mention any Soviet usage whatsoever. At any case, even with this extreme dissonance between the two entries (the Hebrew and English ones), the article's main focus still is Nazi German usage of the technique. That the recent dispute is about Soviet usage does not diminish from the article falling under RfAR/EE, which is what my original notice was about, and which at the time I thought would suffice. But then two editors requested that the sourcing requirements stipulated under RfAR/EE and expanded under RfAR/AiP be also added, which at the time made sense to me, again due to the article's scope. Now I see that this is more contentious than I first thought.

It's a tough one. An IP may ask: why can I not edit Nazareth, I want to contribute to the Crusader period, but the ARBPIA ECP extends to everything. Or someone may ask, why do I need to adhere to 1RR on Jerusalem when the dispute I'm involved in is about Prehistory and has nothing to do with ARBPIA, but is about, say, some unrelated archaeology. Those are just two immediate examples I can think of when a sanction extends to disputes that are covered in the article, but may not have been covered in the original scope of the sanctions themselves. So I'm not sure what to do now. Perhaps the best thing would be to go to ARCA and ask the Committee to clarify: do articles falling into the sanction scope of (expanded via AiP) EE cover disputes from earlier periods? What do you think? El_C 03:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have suspended the sourcing requirements notice from Gas van while this matter is being sorted out. Also, per what you said elsewhere, this may also be discussed at AE, just with a properly formatted request. El_C 03:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I think it resolves it for now. Could you answer: was it really your intention to exclude such sources as above? If it was not your intention, I think it would be best if you could just undo this restriction for this page. We all want to make pages better by following WP:RS and WP:NPOV, and there are numerous subjects in WP which are simply not sufficiently covered by academic sources for whatever reason. In any case, I think this restriction had to be discussed prior to imposing it, given the history. I do not think anyone wants to waste their time for clarifications or appeals (I do not), but there are generally two options: an WP:AE appeal (per this, "Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor"), or a request for clarification to Arbcom. My very best wishes (talk) 03:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The restriction is suspended, for now. My intention was to bring the article in-line with other articles covered by EE/AiP. I had no particular sources in mind. Update 2: please note that I have re-opened the AE requrest, so you are welcome to make a statement there at any time. El_C 03:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I probably will. My very best wishes (talk) 03:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will try not to discuss the matter at several different places. I have already explained my rationale elsewhere.[9] I may add that this is about WP:UNDUE and that the "Soviet usage" has been integrated into the article to make up for a narrative, much along the lines of the misleading claim that the Nazis seized the idea of the concentration camp from the Soviets (or the British). Right now I find myself in a kafkaesque situation like Before the law. --Assayer (talk) 04:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I reopened the request, at any case. I may have jumped the gun, but it has only been a few hours, so I think we're still okay. El_C 04:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any advise, whether and how I should reformat my request? Or is it okay for now? I do not want to run risk of having submitted an incomplete request.--Assayer (talk) 04:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's okay for now. I made some minor alterations but otherwise left it unchanged. El_C 04:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is not really a question for Arbcom, but for you. Do you really see a significant disruption associated with editing this page that needs to be addressed by making a restriction? Yes, one can see some vandalism and activities by IPs and a sock, but this has been addressed already. Yes, there are long discussions on this article talk page, but they are civil, and at least partly up to the point. Do you think they rise to the level of WP:TE? Yes, there are also several threads on noticeboards. Do you think they rise to the level of WP:FORUMSHOP? My very best wishes (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't know enough about the dispute to tell, one way or the other. But I chose to err on the side of higher-quality sourcing requirements because several editors requested it. Obviously, we have editors that feel it is needed and those who feel it is not. But the general question I posed may actually be suited for the Committee to consider — I'm not sure I agree with you that it does not. I don't think it would be forumshopping (whether forumshopping has occurred in past, I don't know) to address the question via ARCA if guidance at AE proves less than clear — in which case, I'd simply reiterate the aforementioned question directly to the Committee. El_C 19:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in my opinion, admins and Arbcom should not rule at all on content, and this is ruling on content. It is another matter if a community decides that they need specific rules for certain subject area, such as WP:MEDRS. Note that WP:MEDRS recommendations are different from ones suggested by Arbcom. For example, peer-reviewed original publications in scientific journals are discouraged per WP:MEDRS. My very best wishes (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I find the admins position illogical. The very spirit of ARBEE (and similar cases) is "as soon as we are dealing with sensitive area where conflicts are very likely, any boarderlining must be avoided." That means not only users must be extremely civil, but they must observe other policies much more rigorously than usually. In particular, that means that the sources that are marginally acceptable in other areas are unacceptable in the area of conflict.

However, what I am seeing at AE is very ridiculous and disappointing: admins say "Be civil, but we do not care if you are using garbage sources". The only plausible explanation is that admins prefer to deal with violations that can be easily dealt with, they prefer not to analyze content and context, instead, they prefer to look at conflicts from a purely formal viewpoint. However, if that is the case, I think admins should act more consistently: if questionable behaviour is severely punished, questionable sources should be banned too.

In addition, I don't remember Assayer or I ever proposed admins to join a content dispute: nobody requested to ban the source X or Y. I proposed just to impose quite logical and strict criteria for source selection, the criteria all parties were supposed to stick with, the criteria that proved to be efficient in other areas. By no means such an action would mean that admins joined a content dispute.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just not sure what the AC intended for disputes that are out of scope but are in articles that are still covered by the restriction. It's possible they don't know either and that this is something that they would have to deliberate and decide on. I have no idea where this is heading. El_C 23:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that worth trying, because, during virtually any edit war in the ARBEE area at least one party builds their arguments based on questionable sources: "Poles" (under "Poles" I mean Polonocentric editors) are pushing Polish sources of questionable quality, "Ukrainians" advocate Ukrainian sources, "Russians" are pushing Russian sources, and so on. I myself am trying to avoid usage of that type sources, because any notable Polish/Russian/Ukrainian/Baltic etc point of view can be found in good English literature: if an author is notable, they are supposed to publish at least a part of their works in English peer-reviewed journals or books, or at least, their works are cited by Anglophone peers. That is a good screen. As a rule, the party that uses more questionable sources is more engaged in fringe POV-pushing and in poor quality content writing, so if you deprive them of the opportunity of using those sources, that automatically resolves a conflict.

To avoid possible accusation of a bias, it is probably makes sense to modify the sourcing expectations formula, because if some source is not English it still can be used if the notability or credentials of the author can be established using a google scholar search. By the way, I myself am using that approach, and that approach is recognised as good in a reliable peer-reviewed publication, which says "Paul Siebert constructs himself as a model informationsearcher (according to his user page he has a PhD so this is perhaps not so surprising).He claims no biases, uses the information technology of choice for Wikipedia editors(Google Scholar) and applies the criteria of peer-review as a means to filter potentialinformation sources. And the sources he finds I think would be viewed by the majority of librarians or scholars as decent enough".

I am writing all of that because I am thinking about the best wording of my prospective ARCA request, so it would be good to discuss it with somebody. It would be interesting to see your opinion, but if you are not interested in continuation of that discussion, please, let me know.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't really have anything further to add at this time. But thanks for sharing your thoughts. I read them with great interest. El_C 00:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think this view by Paul is wrong, and can even be viewed as a language-based discrimination of sources. Paul incorrectly assumes that any Russian-language (or Polish-language) source is automatically biased in favor of the corresponding country or an ethnic group. This is not the case. What actually happens is this: subjects relevant to the politics or history of country X, and especially such subjects that are not highly significant, are covered in most detail in sources published on the language of that country. Strictly speaking, this has nothing to do with poor sourcing. Yes, it can be poor, but one can find just as many poor sources on English. My very best wishes (talk) 01:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will not comment more on WP:AE and would like to see how this is closed. Indeed, an ARCA filing might be helpful. If I file something (not sure if I actually will), this will be probably a request for amendment (sourcing restriction) for the case Holocaust in Poland. My very best wishes (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The key issue is high quality sources (like peer-reviewed), not language. Regards, --Assayer (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a removal of well sourced information about crimes by the Stalinist regime. I would be as much opposed to removal of well sourced information about crimes by Nazi, North Korean regime or whoever. My very best wishes (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El_C, Re to your question [10]. As I explained on WP:AE, in my opinion, there is no reason to submit a request/question to ARCA unless one of admins places such notice on this page or another similar page and insists that he acted properly to enforce the Arbcom decision. If that happens, there will be a reason, an apparent contradiction between the specific admin action and the decision by Arbcom. Then I might submit such request, unless I will be busy with something else or simply do not care. My very best wishes (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since that's a likely outcome (two admins already supporting it), I suggest you file your ARCA as soon as the AE request is closed, that way, as mentioned, I won't need to un-suspend the notice only to then re-suspend it. Does that make sense? El_C 20:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not sure if I will submit anything to ARCA. I did my best to explain the situation at WP:AE [11]. This is as far as I am ready to go right now. My very best wishes (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but unless you can commit to an ARCA, I'm not sure if further suspensions of the notice will follow. El_C 20:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would simply ask at ARCA, if there was nothing else involved. However, this is not so simple [12] (2nd para from the bottom). Given that, I will not ask ARCA, at least not now. Actually, I am more inclined just to let this go, rather than to ask ARCA.

This seem to be resolved by splitting the page. You can reinstate the notice on the page Nazi gas van which is now clearly within the subject area covered by the Arbcom decision. However, why would you do it? There was no any content disputes about Nazi gas vans whatsoever. My very best wishes (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, at any case, let me know if I can be of further assistance. El_C 00:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that I closed the AE request in question since the matter is, indeed, now moot. El_C 00:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bacondrum again

Regarding this, the comment seemed okay until it got to the "by a racist that aims to absolve the racist of being racist" part. Bacondrum seems to be calling Yiannopoulos a racist, but it also came across to me as him implying that the editor is racist. Either way, given the most recent ANI thread on Bacondrum and how you closed that, Bacondrum should not be calling Yiannopoulos a racist. Although GreenMeansGo sarcastically stated "the alt-right isn't racist and homophobic because Yiannopoulos is a 'gay Jew [with] a black boyfriend'," he made his case without directly calling Yiannopoulos a racist or implying it as strongly as Bacondrum did. If you see this as something to let slide, I will as well, but it's reflective of the way Bacondrum goes about conducting himself when commenting on this person.

No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't really remember this that well. Can you link to that noticeboard thread so that I can refresh my memory? Also, it seems that the user is subject to a different noticeboard report just submitted recently. El_C 04:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the thread. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban enacted for six months. El_C 21:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

Can you please entertain this edit request?— Vaibhavafro ^💬 06:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not really familiar with DYK or its procedures. El_C 06:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I have been trying to contact somebody for this but no one is responding. Minor shuffling of hooks is allowed. (see this for example)— Vaibhavafro ^💬 06:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shadegan at ANI again

Hello El C. See WP:ANI#Disruptive editor returns I'm leaving a note because you were the closer of the previous ANI from June 2019. You wrote "Shadegan seems to be away. If they return, they will be expected to adhere to a much higher editing standard than before." Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks, will look into this. El_C 16:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WanderingWanda and their interaction with me

Since you have been involved with my interactions with WanderingWanda (including your closure of this ANI thread) and seem to have a good relationship with the both of us, I felt that I should note to you that things continue to escalate between us, and I'm not sure what should be done, except making it clear, as I just have, that if WanderingWanda again implies that I'm transphobic, this will very likely be taken to WP:ANI. Also pinging Johnuniq and Cullen328 in case they can be of any help. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, I was just about to contact you, El C, since you've been assiduously neutral when it comes to me and Flyer. Specifically, I was going to ask if you could look over this talk page section and ask if you would delete or hat any comments that could be considered personal attacks or off-topic, per the WP:TPO. This goes for my comments, since Flyer considered them an attack, as well as Flyer's long post which attacks me. Sorry for the bother! WanderingWanda (talk) 01:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks you? Wow.

Anyway, given Ivanvector's comment on the aforementioned ANI thread, Ivanvector may be able to assist as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why stop there? If you ping a few more people we could really get a party going. I bet El C has some great drinks stashed away in his talk page somewhere. WanderingWanda (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's some wine and beer (and more) in the archives. No, I don't see any attacks on the part of Flyer22 Reborn, WanderingWanda, although they saying you tend to push a point of view may not have been the most useful thing to say. But you saying that they have "repeated the extreme position [etc.]" may not have been the most helpful thing to say, either. Flyer22 Reborn, I read your comments in that section. I wouldn't go so far to say that they lack focus, but their sheer length does dull and diminishes their overall potency somewhat. To both of you: I think it's best to respect (truly) that one of you interprets the mainstream and scholarly consensus (or divergences therein) in a manner that may be radically different from the other. And that's okay. That's what dispassionate discussion about content is for. The question is whether you can continue to work together (considering your interests overlap, that would be good), somehow, or whether you both have reached an impasse. You tell me. El_C 03:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse El C's analysis. As Rodney King said, "Can't we all get along?" If not, administrators may have to use their tools to prevent disruption. Let's not let it come to that, and instead concentrate on improving the encylopedia using the tool of consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--

First off, I'd like to note that I'm pretty chill most of the time. I've been working in a very contentious area of the encyclopedia since I've arrived and there is no one else I've been at loggerheads with like Flyer. A few case studies:

When I first started editing, I argued with Darkwarriorblake over how to credit The Wachowskis. But my very first post to someone else's user page was a peace offering to them, and we haven't bothered each other since.
Mathglot once said I was tainting the RM I started at Non-binary. That bothered me so I gave them a peace offering, too, and I feel like we're currently on good terms (though you'd have to confirm that with them!)
If I ever met Netoholic I suspect we would agree on nothing whatsoever, except perhaps that The Matrix is a good movie, and furthermore they once accused me of trying to "mock...and sabotage" their WikiProject. Yet recently I agreed with them here without drama or incident.
I found SMcCandlish's Signpost humor essay from a while back in poor taste, and SMc went on an SPI fishing expedition against me. Yet I was actually happy to see that recently SMc came back after a long WikiBreak, as I think he is usually a voice of reason in style discussions. (Also it doesn't hurt that he seems to almost always vote in my favor when I start an RfC or RM.)

So what does it say that I can get along with everyone here, more or less, except Flyer? To be frank, I think it says more about her than it does about me. In the Non-binary move discussion, you can see how I tried to de-escalate tensions between us, and how she, in turn, took my apology and essentially slapped me in the face with it. Flyer talks about escalation but what is she willing to do to de-escalate?

Anyway, sorry for the length. (As it happens Flyer and I have many things in common – did you know we're both vegetarians? – and one of them is verbosity.) In answer to your question about whether we can continue to work together, I mean, I am always willing to try and work with anybody, including Flyer. I'm also open to a two-way interaction ban, though that would make nervous, as I've never had one before, and don't know how it would effect my editing. I'd also be willing to agree to some kind of ground rules: "we both agree not to bring up past discussions or make broad comments about the others' POV in article talk pages", "we agree not to claim or insinuate that the other person is socking or lying about their identity, except at a proper venue like a good faith SPI investigation": that sort of thing.

Thanks for your calm handling of this, El C. (I'm more of a wine person, so I'll steal some of that.) WanderingWanda (talk) 07:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@WanderingWanda: For the record (and since this is a wordiness-permissive zone!), I don't have some kind of bone to pick with you, even if we disagreed on that topic. And in a likely unnecessary disclaimer, I pretty obviously have got on better with Flyer22_Reborn (at least of late) than with you, though we've had our issues in the past, and I don't agree with all of Flyer's noticeboard-action ideas, etc. Still, I'm at least as tired as Flyer is of being called "transphobic" (the furthest thing from the truth) by people on WP just because I don't agree with every wacky English-language-mangling and social-reality-denying idea that pops into the most extremist trans-and-ally heads. Likewise, I don't have to be a communist revolutionary to be a progressive, or a thought-policing censor to be liberal (indeed, the censoriousness of a good chunk of the far left is the opposite of actual liberality and tolerance).

In that particular kerfuffle, your wording and someone else's were just eerily similar (I'm pretty sure that was someone's sock, and have an idea whose, but that particular "who" is T-banned now, so it's probably a moot point unless the puppet returns). The prescribed thing to do in cases of possible sock-puppetry is to open an SPI, so that those with the administrative and checkuser "investigator" tools can see whether there's anything to it. Opening an SPI doesn't imply guilt or even good evidence. It might be kind of a fishing-expedition, but that's how the system is set up. And it's better than people running around making wild accusations they can never prove or disprove. :-) FWIW, I've had at least one SPI opened about me, because someone thought my posts and editing interests were too similar to Dicklyon's (but, amusingly, we both edit under our real names and are minor public figures who are easily Googleable to verify identity, so it really was a very pointless SPI).

On the main matter here, well, some people are a bit stubborn and emotional; I get that way myself, and its one of the reasons I mostly-quit Wikipedia for months at a time every few years. It's very easy for some of us to get worked up into an us-versus-them feeling (some may want to WP:WIN, and others may just feel increasingly put-upon or hounded, while maybe it's both with some). Disengagement is usually effective, but doesn't always work. Most of why I bailed 6 mo. ago was getting hit with a mutual I-ban after disengaging in no uncertain terms from someone, just walking away from the dispute and refusing to entertain more of it even in user talk, then having that user run to WP:AN days later, despite the dispute being over, and admins leaping to a mutual I-ban before I could even respond, despite it being the most obvious WP:BOOMERANG case ever. I'm not sure exactly what really does work, if there's any kind of "magic bullet" for protracted disputes at all. There have been some people (mostly in MoS/RM space) who I was dead certain needed to be T-banned, but who have finally backed off (in one case after about two years of frequent and disruptive WP:SPIDERMAN grandstanding over silly WP:GREATWRONGS sentiments about trivial punctuation or capitalization matters). Damned near drove me nuts, but in the end I'm glad I didn't pursue a ban. In another case, I quit WP for a month at a time twice in the same year just to get away from one editor and their tagteam buddy in one topic. That bad blood ran for something like three years (with my breaks around year two), but just avoiding conflict with them allowed the tension to wind down, and we've been able to get along mostly. (Though maybe much of that is just mutual avoidance, period. It didn't hurt that the tagteam broke up after one refused to support the other's doomed run at RfA, heh.)

I will say that I think both you and Flyer have strong convictions in this area and could both try harder to see the others' viewpoint and to accept that it doesn't come from malice, insanity, or other badness, just a socio-politico-cultural divide. Each of those sets of views is shared by a large number of people; this is a societal dispute not just a two-editor one. Keeping that in mind in a dim way can lead to more us-versus-them, WP:FACTION thinking, but really pondering on and absorbing it leads to increased tolerance and collegiality. It's a "hard learn" for me, too, on many issues. E.g., I have various friends who are anti-vaxers or otherwise deep believers in one pseudo-scientific thing or another, and it took losing some friends to learn to moderate the impulse to blow up on them about their irrational, baseless, gullible, and superstitious humbug (or blow up when they called my reliance on mainstream science an indoctrinated acquiescence to a biased, oligarchical, morally bankrupt military–industrial complex!). Blah blah, yak yak, I will shut up now and make some extra-chocolately chocolate cashew milk. Oh yeah. Midnight choco time.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughtful comments, SMcCandlish. WanderingWanda (talk) 20:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More about me than it does about you, WanderingWanda? This is more of the same from you.

El C, Johnuniq, Cullen328, Ivanvector and JBW, my issue with WanderingWanda is this: From the start, what I have done is object to this editor's advocacy. We can see that in this discussion at Talk:Human sexual activity. WanderingWanda immediately viewed the matter from an "I'm offended" viewpoint. But what the editor was suggesting is against what WP:Advocacy and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS state. When editors engage in such behavior, I point it out. And as noted by editors in the aforementioned ANI thread, Wikipedia is better off for it. In that discussion at Talk:Human sexual activity, Johnuniq, Mathglot and Meters agreed with me. That was in April. Then, in July, in this discussion that took place at Talk:Fingering (sexual act), I addressed WanderingWanda's advocacy again. And so did Johnuniq. Johnuniq, Adrian J. Hunter, Meters, Crossroads and I were all in agreement. But what did WanderingWanda do? Compare me/what I wrote to trans-exclusionary gender critical commentators because I stated what has been stated times before on Wikipedia by various Wikipedians -- that "Wikipedia does not rewrite its articles to privilege tiny minorities over the majority of society." And because I asked "How could [removing all or most mentions of girls and women from anatomy articles, for example] not give validity to those who state that transgender politics erase people?" Crossroads stated, "Also, your accusation against Flyer22 is unfounded." Recently, the Wikipedia community saw where I was coming from and agreed that we will not be removing vital gendered language in these cases. At Talk:Attraction to transgender people in August, WanderingWanda argued that an article I cited by a conservative gay man is "a pro-TERF and anti-trans piece." Crossroads and I challenged WanderingWanda on this viewpoint.

Of course, what WanderingWanda stated at Talk:Attraction to transgender people was going to inflame tensions. Of course, then going into matters regarding my block log even though I was cleared by a number of admins and the CheckUser who blocked me was going to inflame tensions. Of course, WanderingWanda yet again comparing me to gender critical commentators and implying that I'm transphobic, this time at the Lesbian erasure article, was going to inflame tensions, as even Pyxis Solitary felt that she had to comment on it. Of course, WanderingWanda escalating a disagreement over a pinging matter regarding the non-binary topic, which resulted in Swarm pointing out why WanderingWanda was wrong, was going to inflame tensions. Of course, WanderingWanda engaging in WP:POLEMIC against me on their talk page was going to inflame tensions. Of course, WanderingWanda tampering with my post was going to inflame tensions. Of course, WanderingWanda pinging my brother (who ~~she~~ they believe to be me) here and making unsubstantiated comments about me were going to inflame tensions. Of course, WanderingWanda very recently tampering with my posts here, here, here and here at ANI and WP:ARCA was going to inflame tensions. So I'm to believe that WanderingWanda is all about deescalation? No. And I would never agree to a two-way ~~topic~~ interaction ban. I've done nothing to deserve it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El C, you stated, I think it's best to respect (truly) that one of you interprets the mainstream and scholarly consensus (or divergences therein) in a manner that may be radically different from the other. Maybe, but I don't remember WanderingWanda justifying their edits based on mainstream consensus. Rather, the root of what is acceptable to them appears to be its political stance. Their often activistic approach to Wikipedia is seen in Flyer22 Reborn's examples above, and I testify to it myself. Other examples exist. I've said before that I think WanderingWanda truly believes they are improving the encyclopedia (as in, they are not purposefully attempting to harm the project), but the activist way of thinking and doing things is very deep seated.

WanderingWanda, you asked, So what does it say that I can get along with everyone here, more or less, except Flyer? To be frank, I think it says more about her than it does about me. All the others you mentioned I hardly see at sex and gender topics, except for Mathglot, and Flyer is even more active in these areas than he is, at least the ones I watch. So, Flyer deals a lot with this sort of activism. And it is true that you have thrown around claims that certain things are TERF and anti-trans and made comparisons of Flyer to such people. This is obviously totally inappropriate and has a chilling effect on debate. I'm not seeing equivalent attacks on Flyer's end. And especially your editing of Flyer's comments was completely unneeded and inflammatory.

A mutual I-ban is not necessary and unbalanced. What is needed is more care to comment on content and not the contributor (which would apply to everyone of course). And we go by the reliable sources; we are not any sort of vanguard or platform for cultural change. -Crossroads- (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--

I asked: Flyer talks about escalation but what is she willing to do to de-escalate? Flyer makes her answer clear with her long post above: Nothing. She wants elimination, not de-escalation.

I could write a novel length reply, picking apart why everything Flyer (and the editor who has unfortunately chosen to hitch his horse to her wagon) has said about me is disingenuous, throw in my own mountain of diffs, etc, but I think we're all getting a bit tired of this.

I'll just respond to one thing: I've been accused of having a "chilling" effect on debate by calling an Andrew Sullivan piece "pro-TERF". This is, apparently, an example of my extreme "advocacy" on this topic, and why I must be thwarted at all costs. So, let me link to the article in question. It's about the Women's Liberation Front, a group that NBC News calls "anti-transgender" and in opposition to transgender rights. The article is a paean to the group, talking about how they have courage and "plenty of it", and agreeing with their various points of view, including their opposition to the Equality Act (which has majority support among both Republicans and Democrats), and saying that "transgenderist ideology" (lol) is a "threat to homosexuality". Did I try to get this piece removed from the article? No, even though, boy does Sullivan not have anything worthwhile to say about anything. All I did was note that it is a "pro-TERF" piece on a talk page, even though Andrew Sullivan, himself, calls the group he is praising "trans-exclusionary radical feminists" (TERFs)! And for this crime I'm being dragged through the mud months later!

So if plainly acknowledging reality on a talk page is "advocacy", I suppose I am guilty of "advocacy". Since I don't think it is, I must disagree with Flyer's assessment of my editing, which is, no doubt, not perfect, but is always based in reality, mindful of sources, and mindful of our policies and guidelines. WanderingWanda (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned "TERF" and "anti-trans" as an example of the kind of inappropriate comparisons that have been made, especially with regard to Flyer. For some context, the Sullivan piece was inserted at Attraction to transgender people, as part of a protracted battle to fix someone's activism paragraph about how gay men need to accept trans men as partners. [13] The Sullivan piece was part of alleviating that, although you kept trying to change how it was presented; and calling it anti-trans, whether intended or not, serves to discredit what it was being used for, which is the very WP:DUE position that nobody is owed attraction. But as an example of using this sort of phrasing against Flyer, as part of that discussion, in your comment from 09:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC), you said (with a link) another editor wrote that they suspected that Flyer22 has trans-exclusive feminist sympathies. And recently at Lesbian erasure you said, in your 23:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC) comment, you've repeated the extreme position that trans women "erase" cis women multiple times, but your linked diffs [14][15] said nothing about trans women, but about the "people with vaginas" instead of "women" phrasing. Opposing that phrasing is not an "extreme position". The opposite actually. While commenting on the contributor and not the content should be avoided by Flyer and by you, it is worse to accuse someone of being a hateful bigot than to accuse them of being an activist/POV pusher. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WanderingWanda, I'll be straight-forward: you should definitely not be redacting any part of Flyer22 Reborn's comments, considering the already-existing tension between you two, especially at such venues as ARCA where there is no shortage of uninvolved eyes — that was probably a lapse in judgment on your part. So in the future, it's better to let someone else handle such redaction. Anyway, I just naturally assumed both sides have been trying to advance their interpretation of what the mainstream and scholarly consensus is. If that is not the case, then indeed, we have a problem on a deeper level. Because minority views can only receive minority representation on Wikipedia. As long as these principles are something everyone is willing to subscribe to, then I see the interpersonal stuff as being resolvable. But if that isn't the case, if there is an attempt to put the cart before the horse, which as a tertiary source is a problem for Wikipedia, then there would need to be some serious introspection about one's approach to editing here. Because Wikipedia is meant to reflect reality rather than reflect efforts to change it that have yet to reach full social maturation. Such efforts should be mentioned too, sure, but in context and not in disguise as the actual mainstream. El_C 16:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

you should definitely not be redacting any part of Flyer22 Reborn's comments

Agreed. I should've just emailed Oversight (which I did as well).

Anyway, I just naturally assumed both sides have been trying to advance their interpretation of what the mainstream and scholarly consensus is. If that is not the case, then indeed, we have a problem on a deeper level. Because minority views can only receive minority representation on Wikipedia.

I'll just say I agree strongly with this statement and leave it at that. WanderingWanda (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@WanderingWanda: Do you also agree with this part of El C's comment? if there is an attempt to put the cart before the horse, which as a tertiary source is a problem for Wikipedia, then there would need to be some serious introspection about one's approach to editing here. Because Wikipedia is meant to reflect reality rather than reflect efforts to change it that have yet to reach full social maturation. Such efforts should be mentioned too, sure, but in context and not in disguise as the actual mainstream. -Crossroads- (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. WanderingWanda (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to concur strongly, at an important meta-level, with Crossroads: we are not any sort of vanguard or platform for cultural change. That's surely the crux of the matter. It really doesn't matter whether one agrees with a characterization of one's stance as activistic, advocacy, SOAPBOX, PoV, yadda-yadda. And maybe such labeling rubs the same rough way as being called a TERF or transphobic. But when the end result of one's article-talk arguments and sourcing attempts and reverts and new edits and proposals for policy changes and so on is trying to get WP to lead the way in cultural (including linguistic) shifts when the mainstream sources in the aggregate have not already been consistently on board with them for years, it's several kinds of WP:NOT mistake. No matter how well-meaning it is, no matter how many of WP's overwhelmingly left-leaning editors sympathize with the background idea, no matter how likely it is that in 2 or 5 or 10 or 25 years the mainstream will actually reflect these views broadly. It's not just a SOAPBOX thing, but a FORUM and CRYSTALBALL and GREATWRONGS and WEBHOST thing. WP's not here to promote "how things should be", most especially not through language manipulation that confuses or even angers a lot of readers. This stuff is really at the dead center of Fæ's renewed and expanded topic ban, and the similar one that Jokestress is about to receive (judging from how that ARCA is going). While the in situ rationale for such restrictions is generally going to be about civility and DE/TE, the direct proximal cause of those behavioral problems is the socio-political "WP must align with this ultra-progressive agenda or else" positioning.

On a related note .... While I'm by no means a social conservative, I try to keep in mind something else important: lots of our readers and editors are. It's really not okay for a loud subset of our editors to pretend that the majority of Americans, British, etc., are not Christians (or some other kind of fairly to very conservative religion follower), with views that are not very accepting of "sexual deviance". Many of us, and many off-site researchers, may disagree with such labeling, but our own science is much to blame for its prevalence as a cultural viewpoint. The DSM in particular has, via older more judgemental editions, injected a lot of what we'd now consider pseudo-scientific and moralistic concepts into Western culture at large, and these have combined with old religious prejudices. Changing these views intra-culturally, much less cross-culturally, is going to be a multigenerational process. It will not happen by 2020 or even 2030, and WP isn't the vehicle to make it happen. WP is a cultural mirror, not a society-reshaping tool.

In closing: For every lefty editor who claims there's a right-wing bias on Wikipedia, there's at least a couple (probably more like 10) right-leaning editors who claim there's a left-wing bias (and more off-site sources that analyze our content say there's a leftist bias), while the moderates/centrists think there's lots of both kinds of bias with it just varying by article. The way out of this at any given article is more collaboration and consensus-building (which generally requires a focus on content-not-contributor), rather than deeper trench-digging. I've noticed at other high-drama topics (e.g. electronic cigarettes, various fringe topics, and any number of ethnicity/religion/nationality topics) that the ranty trench-diggers on any side^* do not actually get what they want, they just eventually get topic-banned or worse, while less angry and invested editors balance out the content over time, with better and better sourcing and less and less OR. It's not a perfect or rapid process, but it's what we've got. [* I'm thinking in particular of an overly aggressive MEDRS-thumper who got banned despite the topic in question needing regular MEDRS review/revision, and other editor also restricted due to aggressive "enforcement", despite being one of WP:FAC's most active regulars.].
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since my name was mentioned in this discussion:
"Just making people aware of canvassing. Incidentally, your view that those two articles are "atrocious" seems to be shared by many on that subreddit." This mud-slinging comment was directed at Flyer22 by User:WanderingWanda. It is the third paragraph of the Weight discussion in the Lesbian erasure article.
Which I strongly felt should not be given a pass →.
In regards to what led to this thread: the editor that goaded and shit-stirred is the editor that should take a break from gender-related articles.
By the way, have others seen this recent 1 and 2 antagonism? Which led to this? Pyxis Solitary (yak) 10:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1RR in ARBPIA

"Because you are effectively imposing 1RR before that DS has been approved by the given admin." --- 1RR is not a DS; it is an arbitration remedy. Approval by an admin is not a requirement. Zero^talk 11:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but that's not the point. Because 500-30 is inextricably tied (which I am trying to change) to the 1RR edit notice, adding a note that restricts users from the article without it being ECP'd (and the ARBPIA ECP request at RfPP may be declined, anyway — which does happen), that's just a bit awkward and should probably be avoided. They should just wait for approval before jumping the gun in those instances, is my point. That original ARBPIA instruction was written when it was still considered okay to preemptively protect ARBPIA pages, but that is not the consensus today. Whenever a non-admin applies the mainspace and talk page editnotice to an ARBPIA page, they are effectively also stating that the (unprotected) page is now subject to ECP, which is problematic. El_C 15:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, are we saying that a problem is being caused by the coupling of placing the editnotice with applying ECP? "The community is encouraged to place the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict."[16] The 1RR remedy "may only be enforced on pages with the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} edit notice."[17] Yet, because placing the edit notice is currently inextricably linked to applying ECP to a page, which may be refused, the end result is pages on which 1RR cannot be enforced because they have no editnotice? ← ZScarpia 18:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a host of problems (this is one facet) linked to tying 1RR to ECP, a problematic which brings up further questions the Committee should clarify. El_C 18:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C, this is just a quick note to let you know that I removed your comment here as the workshop is closed. You are welcome to post your comment to the talk page, either of the workshop or of the proposed decision. – bradv🍁 18:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Refactored. El_C 19:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For those still following along, we just had a non-admin editor involved in an ARBPIA dispute on a non-ARBPIA article add the ARBPIA edit notice to the article talk page, thereby designating the article as both 1RR and ECP. But no ECP request was made anywhere. And no mainspace edit notice was issued, either, which means ARBPIA cannot be enforced on the article. It's all just a a labyrinthine mess. Why do non-admins get to designate ARBPIA pages when this does not happen for any other DS? My comment at ARBPIA4: here (addendum 2). El_C 05:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the non-admin editor to whom you refer. I do not ordinarily add that template to pages, the talk page there indicates at least part of the reason why I placed it and you may refer to the talk page of the editor that I am in dispute with for more data on that. I understood that Israel Palestine regulations still apply regardless whether the notice is placed, is that the case? If that is so, I need only mention the fact in edit summaries and on the talk page, rather than placing the template. For what it is worth, the "calming" effect of this template appears to be useful and it should not really be necessary to seek out an admin for that, my 2 cents.Selfstudier (talk) 05:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are requirements needed for the page to fall under ARBPIA, at least with respect to enforcement, as recently clarified by the Committee. El_C 05:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HS Produkt VHS

Hi again. Same user from Serbia now attack HS Produkt VHS Croatian rifle ,before attack Croatian gun hs2000. He deliberately puts terrorists as Islamic State as a user because he does not like Croatian technology. Several rifles seized from the Iraqi army and terrorist taking picture with them and he puts it as a source. Please put in semi protection HS Product VHS. Thank you [18] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.114.105 (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 17:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But he will come back that he does not give up. If he changes again please put on longer protection. Thank you again, goodbye — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.114.105 (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El C, you may be interested in User:Ivanvector/Serbian Army vandal which is definitely related to this. See "A different user" section in particular. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VJ-Yugo. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I remember — though it's not always easy to remember which side is which, since they both edit aggressively, are limited to rather broken English and non-English sources, as well as edit using non-confirmed accounts or IPs. El_C 17:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article protection; request to edit

Hi, You just protected Call-out culture while I was in the middle of undoing an user's edit. This revert should be undone, as the user reverted it unreasonable grounds when there was consensus to actually keep the change (see Talk:Call-out_culture#Popular_culture). I'd appreciate if you could do this while the article remains in protection for a week. I'm requesting only because in the diff summary it says "Edit=Require administrator access". Thanks. - Sridc (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am not inclined to modify the protected page for yet another revert. The excessive number of reverts is why the page was protected, in the first place. El_C 02:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have a policy question. There is an ongoing DRN notice about this article (Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Call-out_culture) and about 2 hours ago a volunteer (User:Robert McClenon) offered to act as a mediator. Are we all to wait until one week before the protected status is removed? I'm rather new to Wikipedia, so trying to understand how this would work normally. - Sridc (talk) 02:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no need to wait, you can pursue the DRN process while the page is protected. El_C 02:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User Account problem

Sir, my very user account "Goutamkumar Oinam" is not functioning, so I recreate another user account "Goutamkumar Oinam 2", sir what can I do to regain it back? Goutamkumar Oinam 2 (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "not functioning," but the page to look at is probably WP:RENAME. Good luck. El_C 03:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic editor.

Esperance2121 is causing trouble in List of designated terrorist groups. User is claiming that Weekly Shonen Jump is a terrorist group, but their source doesn't even back up the claim. User is also smearing me as a paid editor of Shueisha. Their edits clearly expose them as a sock of Cow Cleaner 5000. Investigation Page is here. Please help.Crboyer (talk) 05:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 06:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

I think I overrode your block a couple seconds late. If you want to restore your block summary go ahead. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. Thanks, just did. Summary doesn't much matters to me, but disabling talk and email access for this sock did, so I revoked those again. El_C 06:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic archive not working

Hi, I don't really know who to contact in order to resolve this problem specifically, so I've come to you. It seems that the automatic archive bot at Talk:Rojava isn't working, at least not since 2018. Cheers. Sisuvia (talk) 09:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, those technical questions are beyond me. Probably best to try the Help desk. El_C 17:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

re: patience

Always a commendable virtue. While I think you are doing a commendable job as an admin overall, in this case I think you made a mistake (suggestion of maldoing should IMHO never be treated as maldoing itself; see Inchoate offense and related - it is a problem, but in law, intention =/= crime itself, yet you used the most extreme punishment available). And it is a type of the mistake that I feel rather strong about - one that hurts the 'little users', ones with little knowledge of how Wikipedia works, and little recourse when the 'mighty' stomp on them. I believe that such cases need to be discussed, and discussed widely, as a (futile, probably) attempt to reform the system, so it treats new / inexperienced editors in more friendly way. I have to say that I only recently discovered how long the unblock backlog is and I am appalled that this is how many new users, some innocent (yes, some are socks and trolls) are treated. However, talking about this seems like the only way I can try to help them, through I am open to other suggestions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the (overall) kind words. Yes, I realize you think that. But as mentioned, at the time, I thought it was more than a suggestion. However, even after realizing that that's all it was, I still decided not to unblock, myself, and leave it for another admin. Mostly, because I was still uncomfortable with the Jewish conspiracy-like connotations brought up by the user (an "Israeli/Jewish POV network" as they phrased it) as well as the troubling suggestion to target an individual editor for outing. So, it was the confluence of both of these that resulted in me not unblocking, myself. That said, just because I continue to defend the reasons behind the block does not necessarily mean that I object to an unblock — if I would, I'd say it outright. Again, I would just rather another admin handled it. Which has since happened and, as mentioned, an unblock now seems likely. Unfortunately, I can't control there being a backlog. There are often many such backlogs on Wikipedia — the chief reason for which, I venture to guess, is an acute shortage of admins (we have been getting about a tenth the number admins per year for almost a decade compared to years past), so my suggestion with respect to reform is simply to increase the number of admins, actively. El_C 02:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad

Hello, can you please check "Jihad" article? There is some strange changing of content happening right now. User Smatrah, added some quote from Quran, in the body of the article what in my opinion does not fit good in that section. Also not sourced and without any explanation of edit. I removed it and explained my edit and asked for talk page. I saw user change just not constructive. And then I got some strange messages at my personal talk page etc. And user keep doing changing of content without some logical explanation. So I just found to it is good to inform you about. I am kind of confused a little and maybe user don't have some bad intension, but I don't know Banovicmiki14 (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I could understand the confusion. Those messages they left you are not that easy to understand. Anyway, I left the user a warning about refraining from such accusations in the future. I suggest you try to resolve the content dispute itself on the article talk page. Good luck and let me know if I can be of further assistance. El_C 03:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Btw can I remove that " criteria for speedy deletion" stuff from my user page? Banovicmiki14 (talk) 03:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Yes, you may remove any items from your userspace (or blank it entirely) as you see fit. El_C 03:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, your user page — I have deleted it. You may now add to it or leave it as a redlink, whichever you prefer. El_C 03:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well for me was better to ask than to make some mess or something forbidden cuz never saw that at my user page. Thank you. Banovicmiki14 (talk) 03:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The same user sent me today message with following content at my talk page "I assume good faith but you are beating around the bush. Please again see and answer what I wrote in quotation. Write clear and to the point otherwise it is deduced that you or your puppet account do not want to reply. It is not my view but it is clear from your answer." I tried to explain to him to edits need to be constructive and not personal pov or personal feeling views and to there need to be reliable sources not just random quotes and user personal oponion what that mean for him. I think to he maybe act in a good faith but to he don't get Wikipedia rules. And maybe think to you are my sockpupet. I checked user history and all edits what I randomly checked are restored by other users. So maybe is form of vandalism or he too much think about his views to need to be accepted so maybe think in a way to everyone work against him, to all are sockpupets or no idea. In general I just restored content what was sourced and removed quote from Quran what didn't appeared to be on a good place and not in content form to it is secondary sourced and not constructive. And seems to user after that started behaving strange to me. All talk is at my talk page, and I acted in a way to try to explain things in normal and decent ways, not offending or something. Banovicmiki14 (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User blocked for 2 weeks. El_C 18:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A general question regarding AE

EL C, my question is not aimed to affect your opinion about a current AE request (you already voiced it, so I don't expect you to change your mind). I want to understand how admins approach to that in general. I thought that acting against consensus is a typical example of disruptive behaviour, it may be not immediately sanctioned, but it is borderlining. AE stipulates that users must be especially careful in the areas covered by AE, so the behaviour that is marginally acceptable elsewhere, is not acceptable in AE areas. Is my understanding correct?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It really depends on the particulars of each case, but often times, yes. Anyway, whenever there is disruptive editing that is outside the scope of AE, it is generally handled by the community rather than by the AE process, through such venues as AN/I, and so on — unless of course, a separate Arbitration request is filed which, if accepted and concluded accordingly, can serve to bring said disputed topic into AE scope. El_C 16:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought any conflicts in the area covered by ARBEE should be reported at AE, not ANI. Then we have a general problem with the AE procedure: it is intrinsically incapable of dealing with civil POV pushers. Indeed, to demonstrate that an experienced user is engaged in that type behaviourg, it is necessary to provide a long list of minor violations (actually, taken separately, they are not violations at all: a user is just repeatedly, but politely, raising the same point again and again and ignoring previously achieved consensus, so the dispute starts from the initial point again and again). Obviously, to an uninvolved admin, any separate segment of such a dispute looks like a content dispute. Do I understand it correct that only arbitration can deal with that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, admins operating in the AE area are procedurally-bound to the particular scope sets the Arbitration Committee imposes. To bring a topic under dispute into AE scope, it must be first approved by the Committee, acting as a body. El_C 16:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, I understand that wrong, but Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Guidance for editors stipulate that editors acting in the areas covered by sanctions must refrain from gaming the system and follow editorial and behavioural best practice. I cannot believe that is just a barren recommendation, obviously, that implies that the editors must observe these rules more strictly than usual, so violations that are forgivable elsewhere must be seriously analyzed and sanctioned when committed in the areas covered by DS.

Am I right? If yes, then why the reports similar to the one I submitted are outside the AE scope?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are outside of AE scope because the Arbitration Committee has not enacted discretionary sanctions in those topic areas. Again, AE scope means that disputes in said topic area may be resolved through the AE process, whereas otherwise they are handled by the community through the AN/I process. I'm not sure it necessarily follows that the latter is more forgivable than the former, but that may, indeed, often be the reality. That said, I can think of one current dispute that is ongoing right now, for example, where the opposite would be true — where AE is likely to be more forgiving. So, again, the particulars of each case do matter. So, while generally, the AE process can be more straight-forward (from the perspective of admins, at least) and more simply resolved (despite, or perhaps because of, the legalese) than AN/I discussions — that may not always be the case. El_C 17:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El, this topic is covered by WP:ARBEE. WP:DSTOPICS says that pages relating to Eastern Europe or the Balkans is the area of conflict covered by DS.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As already noted elsewhere, the expansion of the sourcing restrictions outlined in the AiP remedy is limited to "Polish history during World War II (1933-45)". El_C 17:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is correct. However, I don't mention any sourcing restriction in my report. I thought the report was crystal clear: The conflict is about ignoring a community's opinion. A community voiced their opinion, and the user whom I report totally ignored it. That is a violation of normal editorial and behavioural practice, whereas DS stipulate the editor must follow editorial and behavioural best practice. That is not about violation of sourcing restriction, that is a violation (in my opinion, a severe violation) of editorial and behavioural practice.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your request is about use of sources, still. So I'm not sure I agree that it is within AE scope, nor do I find it to be "crystal clear." El_C 18:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was useful to talk to you, because I am starting to understand how admins are seeing reports of that kind. Actually, the subject of my report (at least, the idea I was truing to convey) was as follows:

We had a content dispute that was impossible to resolve on a talk page;
I asked an opinion of a broader community at a relevant noticeboard;
The community clearly did not support the views of my opponent;
My opponent totally ignored that opinion, and made an edit that directly contradict to consensus.

The fact that the dispute was about a source is irrelevant. The core problem is that a user totally ignores the results of consensus. Next time, I'll try to be more clear.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At any case, if there is, indeed, a flagrant disregard for consensus by a user or group of users, either try to codify that consensus through, say, an RfC (or via another dispute resolution request) that is properly closed with the consensus noted accordingly — or, take it to AN/I and see what the community has to say. I'm not sure AE is the right process for this, unless you are able to show that it falls under AE scope in a manner that is clear, specific, methodical, and so on. G'luck. El_C 18:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, understood. Can you please close this request?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 18:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was no any misbehavior on my part; there was no consensus on RSNB, and the sources were fine. I think Paul is just wasting everyone's time by debating very same questions (about a couple of paragraphs on the same page) over and over again, by posting endless questions and complaints on numerous noticeboards and talk pages, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, I am really interested to see your comment on the above post: is it really correct to say that the result of an RSN discussion where not even a single editor expressed a support of the source should be interpreted as "no consensus"? AFAIK, discussion of that type are usually not closed officially, archiving is a tantamount of closure. Obviously, an attempt to renew the same discussion by starting RfC may be interpreted as forum shopping, so I am not sure how to deal with that dispute, where everyone but a single user do not confirm the source is a good secondary source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. In this RSNB discussion, 3 users (myself including) said the source can be used with attribution to author, one said "no", and 3 others expressed various views like "irrelevant", "forum shopping" or "why are discussing this". That's why one needs an official closing by 3rd party, properly framing what was the question, exactly, etc. More important, speaking in terms of WP:RS, this is valid source, not a questionable or self-published one. And yes, I believe this is already forum shopping, including this AE complaint. My very best wishes (talk) 23:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to view (non-RfC'd) RSN threads as serving more of an advisory role — but RfC is where the serious content disputes tend to be decided, because those require a proper closure request. If you're able to, jointly, decide on a question that touches on the crux of this dispute, by all means, that is what would be advisable to both of you. That way, the request gets closed, one way or another, and that would be that. El_C 00:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is something new for me. I thought a result of NPOV/RSN/NORN discussion should be more binding than advisory. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Binding" as in enforced by whom? Decided in favour of what position, by whom? Easily referenced later how? For the serious disputes, the best way to arrive at a definitive interpretation of consensus is a request that is properly closed. El_C 00:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing, just explaining my view (which may be wrong). Anyway, this discussion helped me to take look at that at different angle.

El, in connection to that, I have a question. It is not good to raise the same question many times. Would it be correct to initiate an RfC about the RSN discussion that had already happened? Just to ask something like "There is no agreement on the result of the RSN discussion that went to archive [diff]. How would you summarise its results?" Would it be a legitimate question for RfC, and if yes, which forum is the most appropriate for that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not a legitimate question — it has to be simple, intelligible, critically capturing the dispute. El_C 01:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was actually the problem: Paul was unable to say what exactly was the content disagreement. Speaking about recent disagreements, I only get this and this. Based on his edit summary here (Removed Solzhenitsyn as heavily criticized and redundant. Novaya gazeta does not disclose sources...), he just wants claims by certain RS to be removed based on the reasons like "he was criticized a lot" (well, Darwin was criticized a lot) and "why someone does not disclose his sources?" (speaking about a newspaper six journalists of which were killed for making honest reporting). My very best wishes (talk) 02:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El, if you don't have time, or are not interested to read that, feel free to remove the text below. However, I would be interested to know your opinion, because I have already got some useful information from our previous interaction. The story started in 2018, when we (I, Assayer, MVBW and few other users, who participated occasionally) had a long discussion about several sources. During that discussion, we came to a conclusion that ALL ostensibly independent sources telling a story about Soviet gas van were based on a single tabloid article (they cite it as the only source, and few newspaper articles that do not cite it use no sources, but tell the same story). Obviously, we came to an agreement that the text should be modified to make this fact obvious: all "independent" sources about different cases of gas van usage tell the same story of some Isaj Berg.

Later, in 2019, MVBW found several primary sources, part of them shed additional light on the Berg's story, part of them re-tell hearsay about possible usage of gas vans in other cities. The only secondary source that provides analysis of these new sources is the article that is the subject of our dispute. As Assayer explained (the diff can be found in my withdrawn request), that newspaper article is a key source in MVBW's narrative. Without it, the whole "soviet gas van" story reduces to a story of Isaj Berg, who, according to some primary sources discovered by MVBW, used vans to incapacitate victims before execution, and whose confession (the main document the tabloid article is based upon) could have been obtained as a result of tortures, and is not more trustworthy than similar documents of that time.

The policy says that only "mainstream newspapers" are reliable sources. "Crimean echo" is a local Ukrainian newspaper, the Alexa ranking of this site is not available. For comparison, I randomly picked a county in the state of New York, the rank of its local newspaper is 12,166. That means "Crimean echo" is not comparable even with an average US local paper. In addition, guidelines say that op-ed materials are reliable only for the opinion of the author, which deserves mention only when they are notable. Is Sokolov notable? I found no review on his books in Google Scholar or Jstor.org. No historian cited his works, we even don't know if he has a degree, and from which university. Most likely, he is a self-appointed historian.

All of that was explained many times, and that has zero effect. Meanwhile, according Wheatcroft, who is one of the notable scholars who studies Stalinism, the Soviet gas van story is "sensational", and it requires further validation. Obviously, the "Soviet gas van story" is an outstanding claim, and, per our policy, it requires outstanding evidences. Using an obscure local newspaper with a non-existing Alexa rank, which presents an op-ed paper of a historian with unknown credential as the only support for the claim that gas vans were used in different parts of USSR means to discredit Wikipedia. By doing that, we present Wikipedia are a collection of various rumors, thereby undermining its credibility. That is the more important, because the gas van topic is notable (it has a deep relation to the Holocaust), so many readers will see that bullshit, and that by no means will add credibility to Wikipedia. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now you just need to find a way to phrase that position into a question that the RfC could be based on. Like: should we arrive, from x primary source/s and y secondary source/s, at the conclusion that... <blank>? El_C 03:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the question is not in interpretation of sources, but in a possibility of their usage. The question should be the same: "Should the source X be used to support an outstanding claim that gas vans were used in different parts of the USSR?" I will do that, but will that be binding? Which forum is more appropriate for that? Can some people argue I am engaged in forum shopping?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it's closed properly, it will be binding, for a long time. Personally, I'm a bit old school: I think the article talk page is most suitable for an RfC about the article. People can argue forum shopping or whatever else they wish. It would be for naught. Obviously, this dispute needs to be resolved in a manner that is definitive and long-lasting —as represented by a formal close— everything else up until that time would have been, at best, the dress rehearsal. At any case, the RfC question is something both sides should agree on before it is submitted. That is also key. El_C 03:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And the question should not be loaded. Do not tell that the claim is "exceptional/outstanding" when it's not, because all other sources on the subject tell the same (those in question just provide a few more detail). Do not say that the source was primary when it was not, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll try. Regarding "exceptional", you misunderstood. All sources about Berg tell the same, because they are based on the same source. Only one source is a peer-reviewed publication, and this source openly says the claim is "sensational". Actually, other sources also implicitly agree with that. Anyway, the information about "Soviet gas vans" is virtually unavailable nowhere except in Wikipedia and few publications (including some Holocaust denial resources), which automatically makes this claim "outstanding". "Outstanding claim" is not a loaded term, it has a direct relation to our policy: it says Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Therefore, the question should include a subquestion "if this claim is exceptional" (according to the criteria described in the policy, it is). Therefore, there is nothing loaded here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to posting the RfC suggest your exact version on talk, and perhaps this will be something argeable, or a compromise version can be suggested. My very best wishes (talk) 04:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitic sources

El C: it reflects poorly on Wikipedia that admins tolerate users who treat notorious antisemitic tracts such as Two Hundred Years Together by antisemitic novelist Solzhenitsyn as a "reliable source" on Russian Jews (Berg and "gas vans"). Anyone in academia that would use this as a source for anything other than an example of modern Russian antisemitism would swiftly lose their job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.53.150.237 (talk) 04:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP, sorry, but I am opting not to make any further comment at this time, due to a number of reasons — reasons which I also would rather not elaborate on. El_C 05:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I also do not like this book, but this is not a valid policy-based argument. I just removed it from page History of the Jews in Russia, however the way it was used on page Pogrom - well, it looks legitimate, at least at the first glance. Same on a couple of other pages where it was used in WP. My very best wishes (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fellowship of Friends page protection

Hello El C, I am the editor that requested the protection of the Fellowship of Friends page because of IP vandalism. The version that is now protected is the one after the last edit of the person removing content from an IP address, not the one that was stable since May this year. I can't revert his/her edits because I did it twice in the last 24 hours and I don't want to break the 3RR. What's the process to restore the original version before the IP vandalism? Thank you for your help. --UltraEdit (talk) 07:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please avoid labeling contested edits as vandalism, that counts as a personal attack — see what vandalism is not. Anyway, the process is to attempt to discuss the dispute on the article talk page. If there is no response from the other party in, say, a few days, let me know and I'll revert the protected page back to your version myself. El_C 17:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thank you. I apologize for using the term "vandalism" -- I wrote the comment above before reading your request on Requests for Page Protection. --UltraEdit (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that there is still no response from the other party. --UltraEdit (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It has been less than 48 hours, though. But I suppose there's no harm in a little nudge. El_C 16:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fellowship of Friends edits

Thank you for restoring the stable version of the page, but I don't think that the other editor will respond. The other editor looks to me like a fly-by-twilight IP editor whose whole approach is to edit anonymously when they can, and to avoid discussion. I think that when the page comes off protection, they will again stub it down. I would suggest that it then be given a long semi-protection. Just my thought. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so. Time will tell. At any case, please keep me updated. El_C 23:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Half) a barnstar for you!

		The Half Barnstar
		For your work with JJMC89 to clean up after my less than perfect move of the 500 subpages of the former Portal:Contents, I award you the left half of a barnstar. Wug·a·po·des 08:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Half (a job, or barnstar) is better than none, I guess! El_C 17:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley/Snoogansnoogans

Hi. I saw your last comment on Awilley's talk. You should read the latest discussion further down on Awilley's talkpage, as the discussion has moved on a bit there. The discussion on the page is split between a couple of threads, so it's understandable if you missed it. (I haven't looked at the dispute, just mentioning this so you'll see the full threads.). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: not Awilley's talk, but I know what you mean. Will have a look. The point is that I am the admin who originally referred participants to AN/I, and had that resulted in an impasse (likely), I may have recommended an AE request next. But I specifically stated that it should probably not be simply decided by a single admin, by fiat. Then Awilley does just that. I would have thought they'd at least touch base with me first, or at the very minimum, give me the courtesy of a reply. So again, the optics are not great. El_C 13:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for butting in, but Awilley has been ignoring that advice for 15 months or so and he continues to believe that Arbcom intended for an Admin to wait for the outcome of a community or AE discussion and then sanction an editor who was not sanctioned by the assembled consensus. Of more immediate concern to me is that he's now "negotiating" with Snoogs on Snoogs' talk page for some "voluntary" restriction that Awilley will monitor. It's clear to me that Snoogs is under duress and may agree to something that's not in his interest or within his rights. Moreover, Awilley makes the surprising claim that it will be easy for Admins to spot the disruptive editors whom Snoogs believes he's keeping in check. If that were the case, we would have seen Awilley take some action, even a warning or helpful comment, on those editors' pages a long time ago. SPECIFICO talk 13:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations

Copyvio is being reintroduced at Dominican War of Independence and Parsley massacre. Could you revert the admin that keeps restoring obvious copyvios? 78.157.217.248 (talk) 12:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: normally, edits by blocked users are not considered, but in this case, I did identify some copyvio, which I have removed. El_C 13:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Iranian sanctions

Why did you remove [19] Iranian sanctions, even though it is clearly related with Iran [20][21]? There already seems to be edit-warring on this topic exactly (my edits on Iran were undone by Bolter)? Your removal of Iranian-related sanctions is supporting POV removing Iranian mentions from PIJGreyShark (dibra) 18:48, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's necessary. Any enforcement of sanctions would already be covered by ARBPIA. It is simply redundant. El_C 18:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing (again) by User:Locke Cole

Sorry for removing your hoizontal line. It's just that I've never seen one in such a discussion before and so assumed that it was a mistake. Please don't get so shirty about it. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what shirty is. My edit summary was perfectly polite, at any case. El_C 19:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary, calling me out by name, came across as a little shirty, but it's good to hear that you didn't mean it that way. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Protecting" Pete Buttigieg Talk Page

There seemed to be a legitimate concern that an edit was improperly suppressed. Why did you "protect" the article from Its concerned about this? 63.143.199.187 (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was a request at RfPP which I evaluated as having had merit. El_C 00:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What can be done with user who’s making disruptive edits related to India topics?

Hi there! There’re few users who’re not engaging in discussion and not understanding consensus, engages in personal attacks when things come to criticism of their God i.e. Swaminarayan. This is happening in Morari Bapu, Swaminarayan Sampraday and several other articles. I’ve opened a case at ANI. But how exactly TBAN is applied if users are aware of DS?— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 05:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking for ARBBLP, ARBIPA, or both? Anyway, to request a topic ban under discretionary sanction you actually file an AE request rather than AN/I. El_C 05:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the formality of a discretionary sanction alert is a requirement that is absolutely necessary in order to apply any DS toward a user, even if they are otherwise aware that DS exist, and even of their inner-workings. El_C 05:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yupp. I gave them notice earlier. But this is India related topic. So, isn’t this can be applied by any Admin? I’m asking for IPA and BLP both. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 05:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, any admin can apply it. But AN/I threads are usually to request sanction by the community, while AE is for DS sanctions. I suppose an admin could read your AN/I thread and opt to apply DS. That is certainly possible. Sorry if I came across a bit bureaucratic! El_C 05:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, where should I request it for sanctions on user? AE or AN/I? — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 05:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is up to you. If you would like for the topic ban/s to be decided by the community: AN/I. If you would like it to be applied by Arbitration enforcement: AE. El_C 05:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for guidance. I’m filing case it at AE. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 05:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Happy to be of assistance. El_C 05:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[22] Here it is. Please guide if something is wrong. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would shorten the length somewhat if I were you. Just pick the four most egregious examples (instead of eight), is what I would suggest you do. El_C 06:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are necessary to show that user is indeed removing only criticism, not praise or appreciation of sect and being aggressive in edits. If this is major problem then length can be shortened. BTW, now user's comment is required for DS or any admin can do it?-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"[B]eing a jerk" is not really a professional way to address editorial misconduct. My advise stands — your request is a bit too lengthy. In answer to your question: no, the user does not need to make a statement for admins to render a decision. El_C 06:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removed that word. I am shortening request. Thanks! Look you there. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kalapani territory

Hi El_C, your full protection for Kalapani territory expired today, and the disruption started again. Would you like to consider long-term semi-protection for this page? There is ample discussion on the talk page but the disruptive editors are not interested in engaging in any of it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 18:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question about possible WP:DE

I just want clarification. Let's say that someone that is "participating" in the discussions by keep throwing in the same canned comments over and over again, would that be considered WP:DE? I think this would violate Rule #4. Does not engage in consensus building since someone who is just throwing in canned comments is clearly not engage in consensus building. TheHoax (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As already alluded in the discussion I hatted, I feel that both sides are doing this, because this is a reoccurring issue. Generally, I'm not inclined to decide in favour of either side with respect to claims of disruption, which both are making against the other. El_C 23:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a sticky problem. Should I be dragged through the same old unvarying "discussion" that has occurred on countless previous articles – usually embarrassingly circular and repetitive even within a single discussion – simply so editors new to the issue can read that? Or should my fully-articulated !vote suffice for those new editors? On balance, I think the latter. And it's only the new editors where it makes a difference, the regulars at these discussions are already well familiar with the arguments.

And failing to be swayed by opponents' arguments does not mean one is "not engaging in consensus building". I have carefully considered all opposing arguments and I have not found them persuasive – just like you, Hoax, and every other participant in the discussions. Like most issues, there is little room for compromise on this one, but I have already agreed to support inclusion of names on a very selective basis for individuals who played a significant active role in the event (dying at the hands of another is passive, not active). That's about as much consensus building as I can muster. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you: is this duplication really necessary? El_C 23:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree, per WP:MULTI. But duplicate initial comments require duplicate responses, particularly when one is being accused of disruption. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quit making false accusations

I don't know what makes you think that I'm a sock for User:Gardenstatelaw (of whom I never even heard until you brought him up), or that my previous comments on your talk page constitute legal threats (they do not -- all I was saying is that your actions are illegal under Wikipedia policy, as they demonstrably are), or that I'm evading a block (I'm not -- the block in question had been lifted on appeal through the UTRS system, else I could not have edited the pages Coke oven and MH-53 Pave Low from the very same computer which had been blocked back in June), but you better lay off your false accusations right now! You owe me amends for all this, and bigly too! And keep in mind, right now I have standing to go directly to the ArbCom with these matters (particularly regarding the willful and malicious defamation of character which you have committed against me with the sockpuppetry accusation) -- and if you keep giving me the kind of crap I've seen from you so far, that's precisely what I will do! 2601:646:8A00:5250:0:0:0:4098 (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who you are or what you are talking about. Diffs would be helpful, especially of an unblock. El_C 02:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP troubles

Small problems with Special:Contributions/2600:100E:B132:A8F:C96:BD8A:328E:B78F, who is repeatedly vandalizing Voyage of Greta Thunberg.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 03:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And they're back! Thank you in advance.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 05:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User revert

You told Arjoccolenty to do better, yet they've already returned to their edit-warring pattern of behaviour at Jennifer Horton by undoing an edit completely to their own preferred edit, without even discussing it with the other editor. Just thought you should be aware of this! livelikemusic talk! 14:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User blocked for 2 weeks. El_C 16:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History of Pakistan page

The sentence you restored in the lead contains no source. All that it cites is the unsupported line as quoted "Pakistan was created as the Dominion of Pakistan on 14 August 1947 after the end of British rule in, and partition of British India." Check the ref for yourself. It's a self-created line by a user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.4.50 (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, removing the lead without supplanting it with anything is tantamount to vandalism — the article effectively has no lead in your version (!). That's probably why it has been reverted by multiple editors. Second, the lead does not need sources if it summarizes sourced content that's covered in the body. But at the event, it is actually sourced, so I'm not sure what that assertion of yours regarding the Dominion of Pakistan is about. But this is not really the place to discuss this anyway — please take your concerns to the article talk page, where more editors can see it. This way, you can see what other editors think. Thanks and good luck. El_C 23:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying anything about the Dominion of Pakistan. The lead statement with the "citation" in it, contains nothing but a flat statement. That "citation" is not attributed to any source. That statement is inserted in the ref. Check ref #1 in the article references and tell me if you see it citing anything but a flat, self-created statement. It has no publisher, author or proper title in it. Since it's a self-created citation and not compliant with WP:RS, it should go. Now do you understand what I'm trying to explain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.4.50 (talk) 04:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not. Perhaps someone on the article talk page would. Again, I encourage you to raise your concerns there. El_C 04:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Demjanjuk

Hi, could you please add a notice like this [23] to the Talk page of the above linked article? Most of the article is about the subject's WWII career related to the Holocaust in Poland, or investigations into same. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 02:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC closure

Hello El C

There has been an RfC here which needs close-by an uninvolved user. As you're uninvolved, I am requesting you for it's closure. Its non closure is resulting in an edit war at the BMW M3 page.

Regards. U¹ _quattro TALK 10:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 11:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

School vandal

Hello. Can you please block 103.24.208.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) for a while? It looks like a school network, given the behavior. Additionally, almost all of the edits going back a year have been vandalism, including all of the recent ones. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 23:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Date LTAs

121.140.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) – Korean Date LTA
2604:2000:1343:C000:0:0:0:0/50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) – Year LTA

Can you please reblock these ranges for at least 6-12 months? These LTAs have been persistently abusing these ranges for more than a year, and they have recently returned on those ranges. The Korean Date LTA is currently rangeblocked on their second primary range for a year. Concerning the Year LTA (second range listed), this person was previously blocked for 5 months (they were Globally Blocked for an additional 2 months for cross-wiki vandalism, which expired earlier this month). Almost all of the edits on those ranges belong exclusively to the specified LTAs (for the second range, almost all of the edits since April 2018 belong to that person). Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 00:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 03:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(~ updated in the lead ~)

thanks ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see you, bro! El_C 19:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dox threat

This is a very real threat, which has led to the naming of at least two (one with some very precise information) users. It needs to be discussed and dealt with.Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not by linking to the actual DOXing it doesn't! El_C 13:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK then I shall re-launch it without the link.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To what end? El_C 13:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is a serious threat to users, doxing is unacceptable (and against the rules). Any editor participating is this active (and aggressive) campaign of editor intimidation should be sanctioned. It needs looking into, and this kind of activity discouraged so editors can feel safe from intimidation.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A threat, you say? And yet you participate in a thread where the DOXing links are in plain sight?(!) Looked into how? How do you propose this is to be investigated? El_C 13:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't restore that section, even without the OUTing links, while this remains outstanding! El_C 13:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is because it needed to be dealt with, and ignoring it was not going to make it go away. As to what can be done, how doI know I am not an Admin or an arbcom member so have no idea what tools they may have. One thing might be to look at the organisation promoting this, and ban anyone who belongs to it. Another is more active paroling of affected user pages (possible a form of DS so that anyone who trolls an affected user is banned there and then). Maybe it needs to be taken further, all the way to the top.

I do not know, which is why it needs to be discussed, not swept under the carpet. Users need to feel safe.

While what remains outstanding?Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While this very discussion remain outstanding! Please feel free to email the Committee about this, but I suspect they already know. Making it into a public spectacle is not going to help resolve this. There is nothing we can do about external sites DOXing our editors. El_C 13:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True, but we might be able to do something about users here who act upon it or may be part of it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing for us to immediately do. If you see any evidence of outing, please feel free to report it. Discussing this latest attempt on the noticeboard seems pointless, however. El_C 13:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom already knows about this. @Slatersteven: please let it go. Arbcom, the WMF, and the functionaries are doing what they can – which is really quite limited. Publicizing this isn't going to help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, all I wanted to know was that we are trying to deal with this.Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Own original Source?

I have written the sentences in my own words. have you checked the linked articles or edits for plagiarism? I am clarifying this through Dispute resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guglusharma (talk • contribs)

Please sign your username after you comment so that it's visible who wrote what when. Anyway, that's still too close to the original. It is also simply too poorly-written. You need to proofread better. I suggest you start the sentence from scratch rather than keep trying to make the paraphrasing original enough. El_C 22:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please quote the too poorly written sentence for me since I can't access my edit at the moment. Thanks Guglusharma (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[T]he lynching of 2 youth... locals started grilling the duo. Sorry, but that English is far too poor as well as informal for an encyclopedia. It also still too closely resembles the copyvio original. El_C 02:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Guglusharma (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guglusharma (talk • contribs) [reply]

Sorry, but I don't think you understand what that noticeboard is for. El_C 02:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please undo the Revision Deletion on my edit on Cow_vigilante_violence_in_India

The previous reports on the incidents had language similar to the news reports because Cow lynching cases are complex cases where there is difference in narrative between 2 sides. The killers try to portray the victims as Cow smugglers for Beef whereas the Victims families portray them as traders or transporters. So the language of edits had been kept similar to what was reported in news to maintain neutrality. Previous incidents mentioned in the table also tried to maintain this neutrality. However if you want me to write simple sentence that so many people were killed and so many were arrested, I would be happy to do so, but I feel it would not be accurate representation of the source. Hoping to hear your opinion. Regards Guglusharma (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The previous reports on the incidents had language similar to the news reports because Cow lynching cases are complex cases — I'm afraid that I don't see the connection. Again, please write your own original prose and proofread carefully. Thanks. El_C 23:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

School vandalism

Can you please reblock 204.100.235.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) for another 6-12 months? Vandalism resumed on this school network after the expiration of the last block, and it has continued into today. This range has a long history of disruption. Thanks. (Actually, the entire network is registered to the school district and has an extensive history of vandalism, but I'm not sure if you would want to block the /16 range at this time.) LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 02:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 02:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Content blanker

Can you please block 2001:1970:4BE1:2B00:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) for a while? All of the edits are vandalism, and they just returned for more disruption. This could be one of those page-blanking LTAs, but either way, they're definitely not here to contribute. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 09:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 17:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, El C. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 20:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Help! S0091 (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 20:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the extra set of eyes, El C. Something tells me there more going on but time will tell. S0091 (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Not at all. Happy to help. El_C 21:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was resolved quicker than I thought. I guess my spidey senses were on the mark with that one. S0091 (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for letting me know. El_C 21:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the page lock

Thank you for the page lock at Jeanine Áñez; I did not want to fight the dispute, they're so draining, but it's hard when editors won't leave a stable version of the article and refuse to engage... So, thanks for stopping us. Kingsif (talk) 23:33, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Good luck in resolving the dispute. El_C 23:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so, I am not made for conflict. Kingsif (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is try to discuss the dispute with the other party while assuming good faith. El_C 00:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

White Croats

As months have passed since July when the article was protected ([24]) and reverted ([25]) with which was removed a huge amount of sourced information which had nothing to do with the issue, without any edit in the meantime, and most importantly, the Talk:White Croats#RfC about the splitting of the article "White Croats" has two opposing votes plus third mine against one supporting vote which is on the basis of in case if it is supporting accuracy (and it is not). I decided to make a bold (revert) and propose closing of the RfC ([26]). The editor Nicoljaus, who started the RfC, replied to all of the opposing opinions and doesn't want to accept and agree with them, and continues to object ([27]). In other words, the article became a WP:OWN hostage of a misunderstanding and pointless issue which is unconstructive for the development of the article, which can be easily fixed with the intermediate solution which is included in the revert (and one of the opposite opinions, by editor Ceha, agreed with).

Additionally, I would add this. Previously I was criticized for stating i.e. making accusations that the editor Nicoljaus is "lying" because is "ignoring" of what's written in the references and to accept the fact that this article is about the medieval Croatian tribes and not only about "White Croats" mentioned in the historical source De Administrando Imperio. However, unfortunately, that's a real problem because the editor was and even now continues to ignore the sources, arguments, and opinion, replying once to me that I was only stating "empty talk - nothing of value". I am not thrilled wasting anymore time discussing with the editor if is unwilling to accept the facts and change the behavior. This is not the first time the editor Nicoljaus had and continued such a behavior and was reported and/or sanctioned - last month another editor complained on his way of dialogue ([28]), has up to 14 blocks on Russian Wikipedia for trolling and unethical behavior ([29]), and edit warring also possibly due to lack of understanding English language ([30], [31]).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Miki Filigranski: to get the RfC closed, please feel free to list it on ANRFC. Hopefully, once that happens, it will settle this dispute once and for all. G'luck. El_C 20:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, done.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to interfere, but the revisions discussed are not related to the RfC regarding the separation of the article. It's just an issue with the incorrect citations.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El_C, please explain the editor ([32]) to stop provoking and disrespecting other editors, basically bringing and continuing his behavior from Russian Wikipedia. Sorry, but @Nicoljaus:, the article is hostage of your RfC which closure is needed so the editors can continue to edit the article. I am talking about RfC, what kind of "revisions discussed" and issue of "incorrect citations" are you even speaking about? As said, if you have some issue with citations & info you're welcome to bring it in another discussion ([33]), but now and foremost we are dealing with your RfC about splitting of the article.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The editor is following me around Wikipedia, intentionally trolling and provoking ([34]). Bring sense to them before this escalates. I don't feel comofortable at all. I come back from holidays to only be again provoked by someone whose been blocked 14 times (!) on Russian Wikipedia because of trolling and unethical behavior.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The editor again reverted ([35]) and wants me to waste my time on dispute resolution ([36]) for few sourced words (!) on which there's no issue, no controversy, nothing - literally nothing! The reverts were not substantiated properly anyhow. This is pure insanity, intentional trolling to provoke. Please, warn the editor to stop doing such nonsensical behavior.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Devin Nunes

Hi,

Could you please take a look at these edits:

22:30, 23 November 2019 – a revert of this
23:07, 24 November 2019 – a revert of this

Is the second revert, involving different material than the first one, something that 3RR describes as a revert "just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring"?
What about if you look the second revert in a vacuum – it is removing a denial with an edit summary that says "Remove nonsense threat. If there's an RS for his denial". Per PUBLICFIGURE a denial should always be included if the subject has denied the allegation and Fox News (RSP entry) is without any doubt a reliable source for the content. Is the revert a sign of tendentious editing (per Wikipedia:Tendentious editing § Disputing the reliability of apparently good sources)?

Thanks. Politrukki (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to make sense of Nunes denies the allegation and promised to [!] CNN and the Daily Beast, then I realized the word "sue" is missing. Oh well. I agree that Fox News is a reliable source for that content. I also agree that reverting less than an hour past the 24 hours from the last revert is gaming the system and I would tend to view it as a violation. Or at the very least, would issue a stern warning that it would be viewed as violation next time it happens. El_C 23:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El C, I was not aware of the 25 hour separation, but regardless of that, I don't see how the two diffs could be called edit-warring when the content and context were entirely different. The first edit, undid a POV edit by a very problematic borderline-SPA account. My edit summary explained the rationale for that. Please have a look at that editor's talk page. The second diff is entirely different content, and Politrukki has removed the key part of my edit summary, which referred to the sourcing. I stated exactly what he quotes in the policy, that we should include the denial if RS reports it. As you may know, Nunes was quick to accuse and threaten the media without denying the allegation to any RS that I have seen. The Fox bit attributes a denial to Breitbart. The omitted word may have confused the issue for me or for editors who have not seen the CNN piece that first reported Nunes' non-denial threats, but for valid article text we would not need to rely on Fox relaying Breitbart relaying Nunes. In fact, I think the whole allegation and denial are undue and premature, a view I stated on the talk page the day before here.

In general, one revert a day is 1RR a 24 hour day. It's not clear to me how, in a case when there is different content and valid edit summaries for each edit, it could be considered gaming. Gaming what? Would that mean 1RR means per 27 hours, per 31 hours? I fully understand that unsupported reverts, repetitive reverts, or reverts of- or to- the same version could be considered edit warring regardless of the number of reverts or timing. I don't edit war. It's not something I do. If you have a different interpretation of 1RR and the 24 hour cycle that you would like to share, I hope you'll set it out so that everyone can be aware of it.

Please let me know if you think I am missing something here. SPECIFICO talk 00:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't need to look at that editor's talk page — I'm the one who blocked them. As for Fox News, if it's undue, then that's, indeed, something to be decided on the article talk page, though I can see where issues of reliability might arise if their own source is Breitbart. As for 1RR: like with 3RR, I'm just not that comfortable with editors using at in exact allotments, as something to be precisely rationed. Waiting less than an hour seems like it's pushing that envelop. Mind you, 1RR can be viewed as both an extension of 3RR as well as DS, and since the latter tends to be more procedurally-exact, it's a bit borderline. Anyway, my suggestion going forward would be to discuss often and revert sparingly. El_C 01:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll look at the article, and the talk page link of my comment above, you'll see that an editor did include the content I had proposed on talk. [37]. I still don't know what standard you are setting forth. I use the talk pages a lot both to discuss edits and to propose new content before adding it to articles. In AP I use the talk pages more than I edit the article pages.

I am fine with dropping this matter. However in light of what I laid out above, if you are theatening to block me next time two unrelated, well-reasoned, reverts do not meet a standard you've declined to specify, I don't know what you expect me or any other editor to do with that information. Longtime editors rarely go near the edge of blockable behavior. I don't. The gaming 3RR or 1RR thing simply doesn't describe what happened. I really think a fuller explanation would be helpful for all, not just for me.

I don't know what to tell you. This is nothing new. 3RR states ...reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring. I read that to indicate that if one were to wait less than an a hour between a 24-hour duration to revert again, one faces the possibility of being sanctioned. El_C 04:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That refers to edit warring. You think those two reverts are what's meant by edit warring? And you are still not defining the acceptable time. SPECIFICO talk 04:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm not going to, but less than an hour is not it. 3RR also states: The one-revert rule is analogous to the three-revert rule as described above, with the words "more than three reverts" replaced by "more than one revert". So, yes, with the 1 revert rule applied to the article, two reverts so close together count as edit warring. El_C 04:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that you are responding to the points I tried to articulate. I fully understand what slow-mo edit warring or gaming RR restrictions looks like. Both of my edits in question were Good Housekeeping uncontroversial edits. We do not use Breitbart for sensitive material. In my comment, strangely or suspiciously truncated by Politrukki, I asked for valid sourcing to reinstate the article text which fails RS Verification. That has nothing to do with edit-warring. The edits were not disruptive or Tendentious, as OP suggests. But you haven't answered his or my questions. Do you find that either of my two edits are disruptive or tendentious? Note that the 3RR/1RR page states that reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. It says edits outside the 24 hours MAY BE taken as signs of edit warring. Do you see "other edit-warring behavior" from me on that page? Gotta hop for now, but 1. I'd appreciate your replies to the remaining questions I asked you above. You've replied you will retain discretion over the length of 24-hours. Understood. Also, 2. Note that there is almost never a 1RR sanction given on these AP articles because 1RR is the sole objective constant in these DS and violations are almost always inadvertent. When they do occur, editors (unlike OP here) simply point out the violation on the violator's talk page and the matter is quickly resolved with thanks and a self-revert. That didn't happen here, and it doesn't seem to concern you that you've been needlessly drawn into this matter. SPECIFICO talk 12:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are only asking only one question. Do you find that either of my two edits are disruptive or tendentious? I do not. But it's not my role to evaluate them, either. What is my role is to warn you about cutting it so close with the bright line rule. Yes, I am familiar with the convention of self-reverting for 1RR violations. It is not unique to AP, incidentally. But in this case, there wasn't a technical violation, which is why the editor reached out, I presume. No, it does not concern me having been drawn out into this, because that's part of what I do on Wikipedia. Hopefully, you will be able to come out of this better informed about the nuances of 1RR. El_C 17:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alainlambert

I've blocked Alainlambert (talk · contribs) for continuing to edit-war via sock Spurjump (talk · contribs), and since I've reverted before, have brought it up at ANI. I mentioned your block as well. The primary account is only blocked for a week, the sock is indeffed. Acroterion (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copy that. El_C 04:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Death of JonBenét Ramsey" article

Hi, I see you protected the aformentioned page from editing for the next two weeks, and wrote some cryptic comment to me about the 26th as well.

I will express my thoughts and frustrations here, and I hope you can hear me out, and respond constructively.

The article in question has been controlled by two editors who, evidence strongly suggests, are working in tandem. (I largely don't care about the other articles where they work together, or at least I haven't tried to edit them. Their larger interest is in human sexuality; mine isn't.)

The information they have been pushing in the "JonBenét" article is somewhere between extremely misleading and entirely false. I have tried to at least balance out the article with information taken from reliable sources; they have removed nearly everything I've added, because they don't like it.

They have one main source: A book whose publisher had to make a significant payment for slander for the very book they are relying upon. When I have tried to insert accurate information from reliable sources, they have responded by adding information from rather questionable sources: The New York Post (whose most famous headline is "Headless Body in Topless Bar"), and a supermarket magazine which uses no bylines.

I have certainly seen other WP articles where the New York Post was considered NRS, and where byline-less articles were similarly rated very low on the reliability chain. Not by me. By other editors.

I don't know if there are rules about using as a main source a book which was successfully sued for slander without identifying it as such. If there isn't such a rule, perhaps there should be.

I have been trying to bring to the table the information which has been reported in very reliable sources. (If you like, I can give you a source list. Just ask.) But the tandem has removed what I've added either by saying it conflicts with their (libelous) source, or with no explanation at all.

The more vocal of the two editors in question, Flyer22 Reborn, has written claims that are clearly, provably, demonstrably false.

I have tried repeatedly to engage with Flyer22 Reborn, and with her partner as well. They have no interest in having a discussion. They simply revert me, often with no explanation, and at times threaten me with sanction as well.

It is exceedingly frustrating to spend significant time crafting an appropriate edit, only to see it reversed by people with virtually no knowledge of the subject at hand, and accompanied by a nonsensical explanation, or by no explanation at all.

I went through all this during the summer, when I was off from school. I went away from the article when school started, as I needed to focus on preparing to teach in the two new schools where I am currrently employed. But it was always my intention to return to this article at some point.

I rather carefully designed my edits to be beyond reproach, moreso than I had during the summer. Nevertheless, the reaction was the same from the duo: Immediate reversion without meaningful explanation.

I feel like asking someone who grew up in the Soviet Union how they felt reading Pravda, knowing it was false, and unable to do anything about it. But I was really hoping that Wikipedia would be better than Pravda.

In any open forum it would be rather easy for me to explain why the article as the duo would have it has no business existing as a Wikipedia article. It contains an astonishing amount of misleading-to-outright-false information. Instead we have two editors ganging up to bully the reliable information out of the article.

Is there a way to deal with this situation appropriately? Or do I just write off Wikipedia as the current version Pravda?

I know that my extreme frustration is coloring the tone of this letter to you. I don't like seeing falsehoods being paraded around as fact. I certainly don't enjoy spending much time - hours, sometimes - writing an edit or two to an article, only to have it instantly wiped out for no good reason whatsoever. And I really don't enjoy getting bullied, either.

Thank you.

Sincerely, Vcuttolo (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't cryptic. You seem to be edit warring on the 26th of the month again. That's just struck me as kind of weird. Oh well. Anyway, I guess you missed my talk page comment where I asked participant to please be concise. Otherwise, I'm not that interested in becoming further involved in the nuances of this content dispute. El_C 06:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other than what I've stated on the article's talk page, including this recent post, and on Vcuttolo's talk page, I don't see that there is anything left to state to Vcuttolo. Once again, he is misrepresenting things, including his claims about "no interest in having a discussion" and falsehoods. Not wanting to continue the same discussion that was shut down by an admin because of how unproductive it had become and not wanting to deal with more time-wasting is not the same thing as not having been interested in discussion. We discussed. The article talk page shows what happened. Vcuttolo being sanctioned has been mentioned to him by different editors (not just us) because he needs to be sanctioned. His problematic editing has gone on long enough. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An unsigned hatting doesn't really help to figure out what has happened. Anyway, I will look into it. El_C 17:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was sanctioned once when I mistakenly linked to a wrong article in a BLP source. I was otheriwse sanctioned for fighting against biased and ignorant editors.

Flyer22 Reborn and her sidekick removed my edits - which were different than prior edits I had made on that page - without explanation, outside of "Look - he's editing again" (paraphrasing, but not by much). Flyer22 Reborn and her sidekick have no basis whatsoever to have removed my edits, taken from solid, reliable sources. Perhaps that is why no reason was given. Her main source is a book which was successfully sued for slander. I thought that facts and reliablr sources matter. Do tuey Vcuttolo (talk) 06:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Planet nine

Could you please unprotect? If you look at the talk page you will see that some of the reverts were accidental edit conflicted confusion. There is no bona fide editorial dispute. The primordial black hole hypothesis is purely fringe material. Occasionally some random editor tries to add it, but all the main editors of the article agree that it’s not to be included. There’s no good source for this theory and the best sources literally are making fun of it. Cheers, Jehochman ^Talk 12:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Will downgrade to semi. El_C 17:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse racism

Reverse racism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Greetings. You were the last one to protect this page; would you mind taking a look at the recent history? A similar pattern of disruptive/POV/unsourced additions is still going on, and I think semi- or extended-confirmed protection is still a good idea. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 23:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request reversion and lock on Science of Identity Foundation

Samp4ngeles has made a number of edits that inappropriately 1) reintroduce 'alternate names' for the founder, an issue that had previously been settled; 2) add inflammatory material from a new tabloid reference; 3) misrepresent material from that reference in an apparent attempt to further harm the founder's reputation; and 4) include a section in the article titled 'Political activities', citing candidates who ran for office in 1976 prior to the formation of the Foundation in 1977. The implication that the Foundation itself is involved in political activity is defamatory since that would be a criminal violation of the Foundation's tax-exempt status. (The link Samp4ngeles provided for the new tabloid reference was incorrect; the proper link is https://evols.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10524/55521.) Please revert and lock. Humanengr (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know if I'm going to have time to investigate this, but in any case, please definitely avoid terms such as "defamatory" — it comes across as a legal threat, which has a chilling effect on the editorial process. Anyway, I suggest you raise your concern on the article talk page or otherwise make use of any dispute resolution request you see fit. Good luck. El_C 03:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry — I meant to direct this to the admin who has been involved with these issues on the SIF page. Thx for your advice. My mistake. Humanengr (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree that {u|Humanengr}'s comments are consistently chilling and unconstructive, particularly with regard to anything remotely related to this page. It indicates a high amount of bias. The claims above regarding use of tabloids, inflammatory material, attempts to harm anyone's reputation, etc., are utterly ridiculous, as the previous edits were constructive. Samp4ngeles (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]