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 15 16 17

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]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Thanks, Gerda!

El_C 08:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Good day, see? Take music and flowers to your liking ;) - It's great to see your name so often on my watchlist. One aread where I often wait for admin action - not now - is WP:ITNN, where we nominate for recent deaths to be shown on th Main page, and often the time between an article found [Ready] and then is [Posted] seems [too] long to still call it recent. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good ol' ITNC —where I got no credit for being the first to have

Posted the Corona virus outbreak, but upon (admittedly, perhaps somewhat prematurely) doing the same for the Kirk Douglas RD got a what-the-fuck-barbeque— it's a magical place! El_C 11:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see, sorry for touching some wound ;) - Same for me: last year, I nominated a great pianist for RD, after I first had create an article which took time, and then carried away to also make it decent, - and by then her death was so long ago that she wasn't mentioned at all. The more woman, and the more foreign, that danger seems imminent, and if I may bother you in case I seee it coming again, that would be great. At present, it's a man, listed 20 Feb (although who knows if that was the day?), and nobody even commented yet, so nothing to be concerned about right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, by all means, if you feel Peter Dreher is [Ready], let me know so I could do the honours. El_C 12:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated him, so am not the most independent to judge ;) - and I'm already busy with the next, a woman, but mostly not foreign. - I really think we have some unintended bias there: the most prominent figures (white U.S. males) get speedy attention, and appear soon at the top position, while the female foreigners - often reported late to start with - take so long to even be noticed that they get only a place towards the end, finally, - as long as we go by date of death and not "in at the top". Result: those who are promminent already get preferred showing, more in front, and longer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, countering systemic bias is a treacherous mistress — though in the case of Kirk Douglas, I have to admit my own affinity for his admirable work countering the Hollywood blacklist... Anyway, +Peter Dreher to RD. El_C 13:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, love-ly! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated the poet for ITNN. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the [Ready]! El_C 14:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

and posted ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick! I helped? El_C 17:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

think so ;) - today's Alte Liebe became especially meaningful after yesterday's funeral. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Next foreign women RD: Odile Pierre. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: sorry for the belated response — I overlooked your last message. Apologies for not being able to assist with that one. Please don't hesitate to list more. I'll try to be more cognizant of this thread next time, I promise. El_C 03:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda's corner

To help me better remember! El_C 05:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda’s corner is lovely. When I have more time in my life and can do things beyond blocking socks, I plan to spend time there getting some of the Holy Thursday hymns on the main page. Gerda, if it’s not too late to find one, let me know. The Pange Lingua is always a first choice, but if there are any others you can think of, I’m open. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, El C’s talk page is lovely, especially for his hosting my musing about music he likely doesn’t care about one iota! TonyBallioni (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I like all kinds of music, including of the eclectic and esoteric variaty — lately I've been Dimashing it up (special thanks goes to Jasmin Ariane!). El_C 05:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely corner, thank you! Today is The day of music, two choirs singing. I'd like Beati improved - but it's in the evensong, perhaps I'll get to a few more lines. On IWD, I should also get Elinor Ross in better shape ... - but singing comes first. Listen to Beati by voces8, another article needing improvement. Singing comes first ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the ITNN page, 6 Mar, Carsten Bresch. We will possibly never know when he died, but should use 6 - when the world was informed - as the day by which we go. I may be alone with that view ;) - Lovely lively colours! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Expect the sky to fall at ITNC — posted with Mar 0? (!). El_C 13:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting, and I added "Posted", but don't want to pass credits. DYK you know that it is as easy as clicking on the words "credit" in the nom? Nice progress on the soprano, but out for singing (alto), second round. A good source for her death would be a nice addition, anyone. this is all Spanish to me, and the English one is a blog. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

nom done, and the credits were done by someone else - bedtime --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sleep tight. El_C 23:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

done also, and she's there - today's topic seem to be errors (3) in the OTD section of the Main page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru took care of that! - What should I do about this decline? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're confident it's good, I would move it to main namespace nonetheless. El_C 10:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about you? - I asked the decliner for reasoning, but got no answer. I think it might be better if it's not a personal thing between them and me, so an independent pair of eyes might help. - I don't go via AfC, nor does my friend LouisAlain, but last year many of his translations were sent to draft space, for lack of refs, just because de and fr have different ideas about referencing. I try to rescue, that's all. Then get a ridiculous template on my talk recommending the Teahouse, and still see the ridiculous decline template recommending to seek help from an experienced editor, - the things we do to voluntary contributors ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Mainspacified. And I didn't even visit the Teahouse! El_C 13:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

pacified ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tagging me, El_C!

Concerning Dimash: Oh wow, I really didn't expect that! But I'm happy you enjoy it!

It's funny, it's not even a genre I usually listen to. But the first time I heard him 2 years ago, I immediately loved his music. I love his voice, his emotional interpretation; and his vocal skill, range and versatility are just enormous. And he seems to be a very nice and humble guy, which makes it even easier to like him.

PS: "eclectic and esoteric variety"? Wow, that sounds interesting. Jasmin Ariane (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

♫ Welcome to the corner, Jasmin! Yes, I love Dimash's Sinful Passion, New Wave, SOS d'un terrien en détresse, Ogni Pietra (Olimpico), Opera 2, and more. Indeed, music-wise, I'm all over the place. Yesterday, I was listening to the Mahavishnu Orchestra, I'm listening to Charlie Byrd right now (because I love bossa nova, above all else), and I'm listening to the China Philharmonic Orchestra in the car currently. So, yeah, all over the place. Welcome, again! ♫ El_C 16:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please log Peel Commission

El_C, please log Peel Commission's ECP in the Arbitration enforcement log. Buffs (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, looks like it slipped my mind. Thanks for the reminder, Buffs. El_C 14:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YW/thanks! Buffs (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Hey I know what they are used for, however, everyone can access them and it doesn’t require any rights so when I look at the summary provided it doesn’t show anything about why it was done, it would be great if it did though! I’ve seen numerous people (including a huge war today with an IP address and every other editor using it but they all listed why they were rolling them back and not just the general version. I hope this makes sense to you! Thanks Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 03:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. Rollback is a user right, requests for it are made at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback. El_C 03:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I first got rollback back in 2005 when I became an admin — only admins had rollback then. Later on, the developers added it as a user right that admins are empowered to grant. El_C 03:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Visioncurve

I have lifted your block on Visioncurve as that user has withdrawn their legal threat. I left a pretty stern warning for them to disengage with HistoryofIran. I hope you don't take any offense to me lifting your block. I'll try to keep an eye on that editor. --Yamla (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken, Yamla. More eyes on the editor will be appreciated. El_C 10:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New messages

Hi! Please take a look at the message here. The IPs were indeed sock evasion as the investigating admin has confirmed on the talk page, perhaps you missed the new messages. Za-ari-masen (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. El_C 21:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know a wikipedian who understands chinese?

Hi on William Chan, there's an IP changing the name of a character that the actor is playing. He linked this claiming that it was an announcement post that the name of the character was changed. Do you know a wikipedian who can understand and translate Chinese so it can be determined if this IP is trying to trick me? OcelotCreeper (talk) 03:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no one immediately comes to mind. El_C 03:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

爷爷打屁股宝宝. E Eng 03:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can sell you a horse. El_C 03:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Grandpa spanks the baby". I got the idea years ago from Henry Dreyfuss [2]. E Eng 20:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that was fun! El_C 20:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll be here all week. E Eng 21:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rojava map

@El C: Hi again! There is now another new user (GlobalMilInfo) that has made the same edits as MehmetFarukSahin to the map on all the Rojava-related articles. I believe there is some involvement of the blocked user Bill497, as he canvassed on Wikimedia Commons [3] and the edits he called for are being conducted by multiple users now, and none use the talk page to discuss the issue. So whether it's actual sockpuppets were talking about or users acting as proxies should I use SPI for this issue? I want to be careful so I do it correctly. AntonSamuel (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, use SPI. In the meantime, I've rollbacked their reverts and warned them against continuing to do so. I'm not happy that a user who has been here less than a week gets involved in a series of mass reverts. I am invoking WP:GS/SCW, so that decision is at my discretion. El_C 11:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio

Are you sure you're not aiding and abetting with copyvio, El_C? Cf. [4] & Talk:2020_Royal_Chapel_of_Milot_fire. This account was previously blocked as an IP. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 04:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was just fixing the layout. Did not investigate beyond that. El_C 04:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very surprised that all that text seemed like due weight to you. Over 4K on one fire? (more than twice as much weight as the 2010 earthquake)

Weirdly, in the History of Paris the Notre Dame fire isn't even mentioned. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 05:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look at any text, I just fixed the awkward image layout. El_C 05:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

of a copyright image. Odd adminning, that. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 05:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you say, SashiRolls. El_C 05:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see you helped out. Thank you! -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 05:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Glad I was able to help in the end. El_C 05:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was thanking you for the page protection. I hadn't seen the block. I hope he appeals convincingly, after taking the time to write the story up and find references and images and all. I don't imagine that will happen, but it would be an even nicer end. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 06:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For sure, that's a nice thought. El_C 06:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Party of Cuba

I need to come clean, im afraid i have overstepped massively without thinking about it, i have reverted a particular edit way more than i should. So there is a person who removes communism and replaces it with socialism in the infobox. To back this up, this person uses an article from the guardian, which is regarded as a reliable source. However the article is about communism being removed from the 2018 draft cuban constitution, whereas in the final 2019 version of the constitution, Cuba is still dedicated to a communist future [5]. And even if what the article says were correct, the national constitution is not the party constitution. This person also uses a new IP for every edit, which i believe is against wikipedia ToS. Now, i feel like i cant justify reverting this edit any further, so could you or anyone you know look into the problem for me? Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is not an article with which I can help out with, either as an editor or an admin, for reasons I'd rather not expand on at this time. I suggest you use AN3 to report any edit warring. Regards, El_C 17:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Mars Effect

The socker is back [6] this time with an even more unreliable source. Tknifton (talk) 14:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 16:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vargas

On 2 March 2020, the article Vargas (state) was moved to "La Guaira" during cross-wiki disruptive editing. After being moved back, on 7 May it was moved again to "La Guaira". Because of the dispute, including its use in reliable sources, I believe that a move discussion should have been opened because of the dispute per WP:RM#CM and I expressed it as such in the article's talk page, but the user that move the article felt it was "not necessary". Should a move dicussion be opened to proceed with this change? --Jamez42 (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. And it was moved by you, you neglect to add. Anyway from your quoted material: if neither of these English names exist, the modern official name (in articles dealing with the present) ... should be used. What are you contesting? The state exists in the present and that is its modern official name, in the present. Thus, I'm not inclined to mandate an RM and move back the article at this time. Not without a convincing policy-based argument. El_C 01:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My bad; it didn't cross my mind since all the questions that have I done in this talk page have been about disputes I have been related with, I apologize if this wasn't clear and I would take care in the future.

My main point is based on WP:NCPLACE since references still widely use the name the name of "Vargas", even after its official change on 2020: [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] This is even more common in Spanish sources, which are commonly used in related articles in the English Wikipedia: [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] The reason why I bolded "if" is because I'm arguing that either the widely accepted English name and the widely accepted historical English name are "Vargas" (which includes historic uses such as the Vargas tragedy).

Another problem that I have argued is that the capital city of the state is already named "La Guaira" and the move can easily lead to confusions among the users, both because of its recent change and because the change has not been widely accepted yet, so WP:TOOSOON arguably applies too. The most common use I have seen in English noted for "La Guaira" is to refer to the city and not the state. Something similar happened when the Federal District (Venezuela) [es] was split into Vargas and the Capital District back in 1998.

Last but not least, I don't know if there is a precedent in the naming conventions, but I also wanted to note that the International Organization for Standardization still refers to the entity as "Vargas". I believe that summarizes my reasons and concerns of why the original title should be kept, and as such, a change should at least be further discussed.

As always, many thanks beforehand! --Jamez42 (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the in-depth explanation, Jamez. My point remains, however, that this isn't an historical article, even if it includes a history a section and so on. But by all means, discuss away — I'm just saying that I'm still not inclined to mandate a move back as an admin action. El_C 20:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

In relation to the ANI that you recently closed: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Grudge by Admin User:Buckshot06 you said that it was a content dispute. That is incorrect. The last editing dispute that I had with Buckshot06 was resolved over a year ago. The issue is Buckshot06's grudge against me as shown by the diff and Buckshot06's own comments: "My 'grudge' is your repeated unwillingness to accept in any form or fashion that North Vietnamese sources are able to be reliably used for any casualties/numbers purposes, as far as I can tell, whatsoever. It was their war as well, and after 55 years I believe that at least some of what they write consitutes reliable sources. Yes, I believe you are unacceptably WP:OWNing the Vietnam War articles, biasing them against acceptable and reasonable use of assessments from Vietnamese sources *half a century* after the war ended; yes, I believe you're far too biased toward a very U.S.-military centric view; and yes, I will happily provide further examples of your WP:OWNing behaviour at any appropriate forum. The only reason why I have not filed an WP:RFC against your behaviour is that I do not have the energy to fight with you on this. Trust this makes my grudge or grievance against your behaviour over Vietnam War related articles clear." this despite the fact that, as I said above, we have no had an editing dispute in over a year. I really don't understand why you and other Admins don't see this as a behavioural problem or are Admins beyond reproach? Mztourist (talk) 04:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not beyond reproach. That's why there's WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Talk:Military_Assistance_Command,_Vietnam#Move_of_DAO_section_to_Embassy_of_the_United_States,_Saigon seems to be limited to a dispute over content. That it spilled over to some claims of behavioral violations, by either side, does not necessarily makes it so. There needs to be better evidentiary basis for that. Otherwise, you should use WP:DR to resolve the contested content details. Back in 2018, Buckshot06 was told to consider themselves involved as far as acting in an admin capacity with you and I do not see how they have faltered in that since. Please if you respond further, no walls of texts, but instead, please limit yourself to brief summaries alongside relevant (recent) diffs. El_C 10:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As advised above, the edit dispute on Talk:Military_Assistance_Command,_Vietnam#Move_of_DAO_section_to_Embassy_of_the_United_States,_Saigon was resolved in May 2019. The issue at hand is this: [27] where Buckshot06 seeks to solicit a User with whom I have another dispute and then his comments on the ANI, copied above, where he throws a range of criticisms at me despite us not having had an edit dispute since May 2019. Mztourist (talk) 10:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They probably shouldn't have inserted themselves into that latest dispute, but I don't see how that's actionable. They are entitled to criticize you, just like you're entitled to criticize me. El_C 11:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mztourist, to followup further: I did misread the May 2019 dispute to read May 2020, so your correction is accepted. But I still don't think your ANI report is actionable at this time. I would submit that Buckshot06 needs to limit themselves to noticeboard reports regarding claims of OWN misconduct by you, rather than making that claim by otherwise inserting themselves into disputes they feel suffer from this. El_C 11:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for acknowledging the error. So you think an Admin fishing for support like this and unsubstantiated personal attacks are acceptable as "criticism" and not an "intractable behavioural problem"? Given the incorrect closure of this ANI and the non-decision of my earlier Hounding ANI it seems that Admins like Buckshot06 are regarded as being beyond reproach. Mztourist (talk) 11:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are not beyond reproach and them being an admin was not relevant to my evaluation. I have already amended the ANI close with a caution to Buckshot06 to avoid drive-by accusations against you. But otherwise, that one incident is not actionable in so far as sanctions are concerened. El_C 11:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mztourist, please don't make claims of personal attacks without providing evidence. Otherwise, it becomes an aspersion. Thank you. El_C 11:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through this discussion and acknowledge my name has been raised. I'm open to constructive suggestions as to how I would suggest that Mztourist might enter into discussions in which he might consider North Vietnamese sources valid for insertion into articles on the American-involved period, 1960ish-1975, instead of WP:STONEWALLing. Open to suggestions, because I am very frustrated with his WP:OWNERSHIP of these articles and persistent over-bias towards the U.S. point of view. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it can't be through terse drive-by commentary that basically serve as jabs. You do all the work and write a comprehensive request. Maybe an RfC at RSN which asks whether "North Vietnamese sources [are] valid for insertion into articles on the American-involved period, 1960ish-1975"? Then a substantive discussion can commence. Good luck in amicably resolving the dispute. El_C 11:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C thank you for revising the ANI close. In relation to your comment that I made claims of personal attacks without providing any evidence, the evidence is Buckshot06's "I believe you're far too biased toward a very U.S.-military centric view" above and his earlier comments and queries about my affiliation: [28] which amounts to "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" as stated under Wikipedia:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack?. Please tell me what Buckshot06 again accusing me of WP:STONEWALL and WP:OWNERSHIP without any evidence are if not personal attacks? Mztourist (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My evaluation is that there was no ad hominem with any of that quoted material. El_C 12:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then what do you call his continued WP:STONEWALL and WP:OWNERSHIP accusations without any evidence? WP:ASPERSIONS? Mztourist (talk) 13:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have already cautioned Buckshot06 about that. But I think that you, too, should do some introspection, per the other ANI report. El_C 14:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:NomdeA & Piers Robinson

Hi El_C. I noticed that you'd temporarily blocked this IP for making legal threats which I fully understand. However, looking at the edits made by NomdeA (talk) to what I assume to be his article, he does have a point.

Conspiracy theorist

Pressure group; no academic standing and again, now just a pressure group

Huff Post for a BLP?

Huff Post again

Conspiracy theorist as occupation and again

The majority of his edits to this article are reverted, they do not appear neutral and when challenged he responds with personal attacks & casting aspersions; such as accusing other editors of vandalism & meat puppetry. diff1/diff2 He's had previous warnings for edit warring & for removing swathes of information from articles without trying to identify alternate sources. Can you please take a look at his history? Or advise me where I should raise it? Thank you. --DSQ (talk) 10:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned NomdeA to not make claims not supported by evidence. I have provided them with the relevant discretionary sanctions alert and have also placed the article under discretionary sanctions. This will allow me to apply sanctions, if these are needed, at my own discretion. El_C 10:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. And OMG your chipmunk pics are absolutely stunning! --DSQ (talk) 10:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, DSQ. And thanks for the kind chipwords! El_C 10:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cv

Despite your warning, this user is continuing copyright violations. A recent example is here. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 19:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a diff with a brief quote? El_C 19:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is his edit. "some teams will be co located while others would operate across different organizations similarly certain functions will be performed by dedicated project teams while others by matrix teams" (28 words) directly copied from here. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 19:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I blocked for one week and revdeleted. Thanks again for helping out! El_C 19:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article belonging to ARBPIA

Do you think this article Hebraization of Palestinian place names that was created by user:Onceinawhile should be WP:ARBPIA as user:Davidbena removed the tag on the talk page --Shrike (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Shrike. You may wish to see this here. At any rate, I'm willing to abide by any consensus reached in this article.Davidbena (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Davidbena, My problems that the article right now read very one sided it doesn't talk about source of the Hebrew names and how Arabs that settled the land used and Arabized the Hebrew names Shrike (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can add those later. The article is in its natal stages. BTW: I have also submitted an official request here to have the ARBPIA template removed from that article, as the nature of the article has more of a historical context than a political context.Davidbena (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever editors prefer is fine by me. But for future reference, any editor may add the ARBPIA talk page notice, but only an uninvolved admin may remove it. Good luck with the article, everyone. El_C 16:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Blond God from Yellow emperor wiki page

This is obviously WP:FRINGE. Claiming him to be blond and Indo-European would therefore be claiming he was a historical human figure. The immense vast majority of scholars, historians, linguist reject and denies that Huangdi was a living perso. Hunan201p have not made any reply since 4th of May after I showed him the massive number of those who rejects Hunan201p claims https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yellow_Emperor

In same, the blond talk page and Fringe theories noticeboard, all the editors (all 6 including me) agreed to remove Huangdi being blond and indo-european. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blond https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Blond

Like other editors have said " It's extremely misleading. Only one sinologist suggested he was related to indo-european and the vast majority does not consider him blond. The way Hunan201p edited it would make people think that he was really blond. " Other editor said "The fact Indo-Europeans" are speakers of vast language family not a synonym for "blond people". Also " Like Queenplz had said, there's even cultural perception section for mythical and historical figures that have some concensus mainstream view of being blond. Huangdi has no mainstream concensus of being blond, there's not even a scholarly debate because the claims of him being blond is almost non-existant "

Hunan201p edits all based on historical Asian figures but with strong eurocentric agenda. Wikipedia had never edited anything about Huangdi being blond and indo-european since it was created from 2004. Why now is there a section for it.Hapa9100 (talk) 04:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why. If there is no consensus for inclusion —if there is consensus against inclusion, even— then it should not be included. Not until such consensus for inclusion is established. El_C 08:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Modification of the Beirut wiki page

Hello. This morning I had modified the photomontage in the information bar of the Beirut city wikipedia page because I thought it did not represent the city well. I also changed the coat of arms to a less pixelated version and removed the "seal", which is not a seal but a modified version of the coat of arms. For me, these changes were improvements, especially for the coat of arms, so I don't really understand your decision to not take into acount these modifications SCHW (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the change was not an improvement as it lacked proportion. But the place to discuss article content is on the article talk page. El_C 16:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright SCHW (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deontay Wilder

Hello admin person. I wasn’t sure if this was appropriate for ANI so figured I’d message you. Any chance this can be deleted from the edit history? I think it’s quite disgraceful. – ².O.^Boxing 20:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 20:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for changing the protection level, I don’t think vandalism should be that bad of an issue anymore. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC) Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anantapur

Hi El C - I'm intrigued by this edit of yours - why have you changed the infobox to a different spelling from the article title? and in what way did the article title break any links? - Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Arjayay. It wasn't intentional. Just an unusual edit conflict we had, wherein I also failed to address all the vandalism, which you did succeed in doing. Anyway, now fixed. All the best, El_C 10:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - just wondered if I was missing something (other than a few screws in my head) - Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 10:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for following up, Arjayay. Nice of you to drop by. El_C 10:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Open proxies

I suspect that a certain user might be back, but for the moment, this in itself is not why I'm posting this. It is a trigger to ask a question that occurred to me only a few years back when I was experimenting with a VPN. I noticed that editing WP via a VPN is disallowed even when logged in, but that a large number of VPN exit points were not identified by WP as such. It seemed to me from a few IP edits that this might have been this user's mode of operation. Which brings me to my question: can you point me to where to ask about whether blocking of edits via VPNs is being actively pursued? —Quondum 17:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last week, there was a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Open_proxies#How_banned_are_VPNs?. I would recommend you query that discussion (perhaps with some pings attached). Good luck. El_C 17:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer – silly of me not to look at the talk page. While I'm not sure that the indicated thread pertains, at least the page seems to be the right place. But first I will spend some time reading other threads. —Quondum 18:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's socks

Hey El C,

Could you please check these?[29][30] Thanks. François Robere (talk) 10:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like another one. --bonadea contributions talk 12:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See this thread. serial ^# 12:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this latest spree has been dealt with. El_C 19:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Macuto

David Tornheim added a category (Category:Military coups in Venezuela) to a redirect (2020 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt). Per WP:RCAT, I thought about removing the category, but I wanted to consult about this first. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not try to discuss the matter with the editor in question before doing anything? El_C 19:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent :) I have asked about the issue in the user's talk page. David also removed today the R pejorative that I added to the redirect. I asked him about the removal in the main's article talk page. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced there is a legitimate concern that needs to be discussed. I don't understand why Jamez42 thinks it is more appropriate to discuss his proposed changes here, my talk page, or even the target of the redirect rather than the best place: the talk page of the redirect created by Quidster4040 two days before the requested move discussion.

My 1st edit seems self-explanatory and non-controversial: Category:Military coups in Venezuela includes multiple attempted coups, and the title of the redirect I added is identical in form to the others. It seems consistent with WP:RCAT, especially the part WP:INCOMPATIBLE, which says "Alternative names should not look out of place on a category page. This is often a way to satisfy disagreements over renaming an article when more than one name seems equally valid."

As for the claim the name is pejorative, it appears to be Jamez42's (and possibly other editors) opinion(s). Cmonghost asked twice ([31][32]) for WP:RS that identifies the term "attempted coup" as being pejorative when abundant WP:RS in the discussion uses the term to describe the action. I explained this in the edit summary of my 2nd edit. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim: David, the main policy that I cited was WP:RCAT, questioning why you choose to categorize a redirect instead of the main article.

I'm also concerned that you place this category before the move discussion has concluded, since the original title continues being "Macuto Bay raid", not "coup". I have offered in the discussion a list of over 70 sources, all used in the article, that show that the use of the term is not widespread. I have also argued that the word "coup" is not always pejorative (see the 1958 Venezuelan coup d'état as an example), but given that it is not widely accepted, it is non-neutral.

The template's documentation specifically states that: Use this rcat to tag any redirect in any namespace from a non-neutral title, which is any word, phrase or name that is pejorative, not neutral, controversial or otherwise offensive and is therefore unsuitable to be used as a page name. These are the reasons of why the category should be removed and the tag should be restored. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated to the discussion above, an IP removed a primary source inline tag in the article without explanation around a week ago. Is it possible to restore it? --Jamez42 (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As of 16 May, David Tornheim has started editing again in Venezuela related articles, specifically the now called Operation Gideon (2020) and United States involvement in regime change in Latin America, which was one of the two articles related to the closed AN/I.

In the previously named Macuto raid talk page, David expressed distrust at reliable sources (WP:RS/P), describing them as "neoliberal" and naming outlets such as The New York Times, Bloomberg and CNN as examples, while arguing that deprecated sources such as TeleSUR and Grayzone should be taken into account. Editors in the discussion have expressed that this position is concerning.

David has now moved and merged the "Accusations" section from the last stable version, without consensus, which was one of the disputed changes in quetion in the AN/I. Another editor and I have asked David to split the section again and have discussed the situation thoroughly, to no avail. As of the advice given in the María-Esther Vidal article, I thought it was important to inform about these developements. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That, indeed, is problematic. But I still think there may be a chance to resolve this dispute in usual way, through further article talk page discussion, or failing that, a dispute resolution request. Anyway, perhaps there is a compromise to be had...? I have also added María-Esther Vidal to my watchlist, but I am unsure to what you are referring to exactly there (advise-wise). El_C 13:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The main dispute in the article is whether should be merged or split in a single or different sections, respectively. I proposed a version for the text for a merged section, which is David's preferred action, but he also disagreed with it. I too believe that a dispute resolution request would be the best course of action, so I think that I will be seeking to start one in the following days.

The mention of María-Esther Vidal's article was mostly on the advice to inform you about the last developments in the edit history, I meant to use it as an example and fortunately the issues seem to currently have been resolved, so there's no need to add it in the watchlist :) --Jamez42 (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note: editor ReyHahn has proposed that the previous stable to be restored and editor ZiaLater has expressed that the Venezuela section should only include the "2019 to present" period. Given that the WP:ONUS lies on the editor proposing the changes, in this case David, shouldn't the original version be restored before further changes are discussed? Many thanks beforehand. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that the status quo ante version is the version that should be displayed while a dispute remains unresolved. El_C 18:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. Considering this, may the 26 May version of the section be restored? --Jamez42 (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. But that determination should be assessed on the article talk page. El_C 12:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per your recommendations, I have started a thread in the dispute resolution noticeboard. Feel free to make any comments if you wish. Best regards and many thanks in advance! --Jamez42 (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to voice my concern towards David's response to the thread, stating that it has "serious process issues", that I "cherry-picked participants", overall casting aspersions against me and even suggesting that I should stop editing in the topic, whereas I started the thread to follow your advice, I have not even edited in the article's main space and the tone likely won't help in the discussion. The editors notified were the last ones involved in the last discussion and all of them were properly notified in their talk pages. Please let me know if I have committed any mistakes starting the thread. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamez, honestly, I'm just not familiar enough with the dispute to tell one way or the other. Certainly, I would assume that you're fine with David adding any additional participants that you might have overlooked... Does that sound like something that would advance the dispute resolution forward? El_C 01:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David's main concern seems to be also that WP:DR/N is a "limited forum", expressing that he prefers a RfC with "non-involved editors". I should note that there are three other editors involved in the dispute, none of which have expressed a disagreement with the dispute resolution noticeboard. I have stated that I don't have any problem with it, but that my main concern is that in my experience, RfCs about Venezuela effectively turn into polls, are divisive, and as such the phrasing of the content itself is not addressed. I think that this should be taken into account to prevent issues remaining unsolved.

While the issue is at hand I have to ask: I didn't fully understand how the determination to restore the status quo ante version should be assessed on the article talk page. Shouldn't this need intervention by a third party?

I hope that you're not too busy and that I'm not bothering with the situation. Many thanks and best regards! --Jamez42 (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamez, I think David's view of DRN versus RfC is legitimate. Each editor is entitled to advance their own preference for whatever dispute resolution request they believe is most suited for the given dispute. On Wikipedia, DRN is a bit more esoteric and eclectic than RfC, which is more of a staple. The point of a dispute resolution request, to a large part, is to bring further outside input into a dispute. When a dispute is, by its nature, divisive, you can then expect the dispute resolution process to also be divisive. I'm not sure there is a way to prevent that from happening, apart from everyone exercising utmost good faith and good will toward their opponents in the dispute. Hope this helps. El_C 17:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your attention and response El C. Both DT and I have posted RfC proposals in the DRN before the last comment. I want to clarify that I don't have any problems with alternative venues for dispute resolutions, but rather I want to point out how they can be improved. Like I mentioned in the DRN, currently everyone seems to disagree with the current version and I only wish to find the best solution, while addressing all concerns. Any help in this sense, if possible, would be appreciated. Many thanks once more and best regards. --Jamez42 (talk) 09:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protection on Kim Jong-un

Greetings El C. I fully agreed with the protection put in place on this article. I think it's perhaps time to remove it now, as based on pageviews, the traffic on the article has dropped to pre-death rumor levels from a high of nearly 1.8 million pageviews on April 26, to under 16k yesterday. I could have posted to WP:RFUP, but thought I should see what your thoughts were, as you were the one who protected it most recently. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've downgraded the protection from ec to semi. If all goes well, will lift that, too, to restore pending changes again (remind me). El_C 01:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Hammersoft (talk) 02:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for changing the protection level, I don’t think vandalism should be that bad of an issue anymore. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question about discretionary sanctions on List of concentration and internment camps

Hello El C, I wanted to ask about the WP:ARBAPDS sanctions applied to List of concentration and internment camps. A user has asserted that they only apply to the American portions of the article (and beyond this, expresses doubt over even this). My question is two-fold. First, is this accurate (that it only applies to the U.S. portion)? Second, if so, does this mean reversions to the other sections of the article are subject to the usual 3RR?

I am trying to not edit-war with this user over their additions to the article, which their sources, in my estimation, do not support. If the above is true, I would have again reverted their stuff and asked again for them to join the talk page to discuss. But since I am under the impression that 1RR and no reinstatements without consensus applies to the whole article, I was just about to go to AE for enforcement. They reinstated material I removed here; here is this diff of their reinstatement.

For full transparency, I mistakenly violated 1RR yesterday when I reverted another portion of the material; when I noticed, I immediately self-reverted when I thought I had made a mistake.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The way the templates are written, it applies to the entire article. But I would not be inclined to enforce non-US material with the AP2 DS. It's a good question. You may wish to query the Committee about it. I'd be interested in the answer to that. El_C 16:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. Given that this specific case is merely a matter of a content dispute and the question is more about how to proceed, I am not really interested in going deeper to get a full explanation. Cheers. --Pinchme123 (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MB

I got the impression you did not want to mention much more about MB on such a highly viewed page. I noticed this. Specifically the first paragraph. I doubt this really happened; rather it was likely "created," and then written into a story by a reporter who did not vet his sources very well. Ditch ∝ 01:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. But we don't investigate what reliable sources write — we leave that to other reliable sources. Rather, we apply due weight to the given material, which may or may not be the case here. El_C 02:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On closer look, it seems that entire subsection is highly excessive in relation to an encyclopedia article about the county. El_C 02:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ARCA

Hi El C, I've asked for clarification on the awareness requirements for the 1RR at ARCA. I listed you as a party as the block/unblock earlier made it seem murky and thought you might have thoughts to add. You can find it here. nableezy - 06:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, don't remind me. El_C 17:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kalapani territory

Hi El_C, I notice that you have placed Kalapani territory under indefinite semi-protection. I wonder if you will consider ECP since the POV edits are now being made by confirmed users too. The Nepalese government has just escalated the dispute by claiming 400 square kilometres of Indian territory. We are seeing increased activity on all the related pages such as Tinkar, Lipulekh Pass etc.

Pinging Bishonen as well, so that she is aware. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 17:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent block of this user

I might be blind, stupid, or both - but I'm not seeing how this username is against policy and is hard-block, let alone, block-worthy? Can you help me to see the light so that I can kick myself and yell "I'm an idiot" like I deserve? Just ping me in your response so that I'm notified; I have wayyyy too many pages on my watchlist right now. :-) Thanks - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No organizations in usernames are allowed. Not to mention that provocations in edits are highly discouraged, as well. El_C 23:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was the name of a real organization? Ah, then I am crazy! I didn't check... lol ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oshwah, I have no idea if it's real, but they're acting as if it is (again, see edit), which is highly disruptive. We don't need a World rabbinical court basically issuing edicts in edits, with a suspicious use of lowercase "jews," to boot. No thank you. El_C 23:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with the block, but I wouldn't read too much into the (ex-)user's omitting capitalization. It's possible that his or her native language is Hebrew or Yiddish, which are written in an alphabet that does not have upper- and lower-case letters. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From "The Lower Case Jew: T. S. Eliot appears before the rabbinical court in Jewish heaven. But the lower case "jew" that spawned them all, that I don't forgive. El_C 01:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to add art and reference to the maker in wikipedia

Hello El

I'm new to wikipedia as you might have noticed.

I just bought the silver panther statue, which link I posted as a reference. I thought of sharing it and their maker on wikipedia so others might find the beautiful piece if they like panthers and art, sculpture in specific.

How should I have done this properly without infringing wikipedia guidelines?

Best regards Artsyst — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artsyst (talk • contribs) 02:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Artsyst. Promoting that website/artist is not allowed on Wikipedia — yes, even though the art itself looks pretty stunning, so congrats on your purchase. El_C 02:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you unblock me please

Hello I noticed you blocked me. Can you unblock me please, I didn't do anything wrong. I just learned how to use the talk thing on Wikipedia. So can you please unblock me. TylerKutschbach

Multiple editors have been trying to get your attention, TylerKutschbach — please respond at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:TylerKutschbach first, if you don't mind. El_C 03:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can I be unblocked now since I now had attention to the editors who tried to get my attention.TylerKutschbach

Done. El_C 04:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A squirrel for you!

I just found this squirrel, uploaded by Whpq, and it reminded me of your chipmunks. I hope it brightens your day! Softlavender (talk) 04:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Softlavender! I was just hanging out with some squirrels and chipmunks earlier today. Good time was had by all (i.e. peanuts!). El_C 04:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Sikorsky

Hi El C, would you consider semi-protecting the Igor Sikorsky article again? You protected it for 3 months beginning in January, and the disruption has continued since the protection expired. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, BilCat. I get the sense that an indef semi will be eventually applied, but for now:

Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 23:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Yeah, I get that sense too. It's a contentious issue that won't be solved in our lifetimes. Sigh - BilCat (talk) 23:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hitler-car.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hitler-car.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Wikiacc (¶) 17:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Improper actions

Before your self-imposed moratorium, the last RM was closed noting the need for an accurate title, and anticipating further RMs. To shut this out and counter that closure is improper, and not for you alone to decide, nor was it agreed that it covers sub-articles. The RM discussion over the main title has no relevance to this or any specific cities, as many are holding varying combinations of vigils, picketing, riots, etc. $ɱ$ (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has to be up to the individual page editors in the communities to decide how the killing reactions should be displayed in the article and it's title. $ɱ$ (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I don't think we need to go through the same motions in each of the local articles. That is a timesink and is disruptive to those articles' stability. Anyway, I informed AN of my actions, including the move protection, the move moratorium and the extension of the moratorium to the local articles. The thread is located at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#George_Floyd_protests. El_C 01:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't for you alone to rule on. Allow a community consensus. The situation has varied immensely between cities. Columbus is a warzone, and the article title does not reflect that in the slightest. $ɱ$ (talk) 01:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved admin, that is my decision. If consensus is against that decision (at AN), I will bow to it. I'm not sure we're in a position to quantify the intensity of the disorder from one locality to the next at this time, so turning to the parent article's consensus seems like the prudent thing to do for all the local articles. El_C 01:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your extension was just in reaction to this. Don't hold me to rules you just create now to apply to my situation. $ɱ$ (talk) 01:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was in reaction to this. And to prevent similar disruption to other local articles' stability, should similar disputes arise. El_C 01:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that myself and two other uninvolved admins (Drmies and Cullen) support this approach at this time. El_C 01:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else started another move request - I don't know if you need to close it or if anyone can?-- P-K3 (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done (if we're talking about the same thing — I think we are). El_C 19:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aspersions

Hello, El C. I hope you're safe and well. Alexikoua has been casting WP:ASPERSIONs that editors (those are N.Hoxha, Bato and I) who are making a completely valid point (about there being two different tribes, one Albanian and one Vlach) on Bua tribe (where he's involved in the content dispute) are socks of a banned editor, Rolandi because he supposedly made the same argument at some time many years ago Simply nonsense. Rolandi +sockfarm are just short-term drive by SPAs User_talk:Alexikoua#Thessalian_Buas. Discussions about this topic as you'll notice in the talkpages of related articles have been held for at least 10 years. As you may remember, I've had disputes with Alexikoua in the past too and always I have to contact an admin to make him stop misquoting bibliography. It is really upsetting to me that he's casting aspersions in this content dispute. I always send the work done in wikipedia to colleagues to check the bibliography in case they find it useful for their own work and it upsets me that I'm facing misinformation with real-life consequences on how other people view the way I act in a citizen science environment like wikipedia. I tried to explain that on his talkpage but he deleted me asking for an explanation [33] and then returned to my talkpage to insinuate more unexplained accusations [34]. What is the way to make him stop casting these very hurtful accusations? I may seem like I'm overreacting but like I said, what I do in wikipedia is not "divorced" from my everyday life. I'm proud of my work in wikipedia and my small attempts to contribute to it and I find it incomprehensible that someone just because they're in a content dispute with me would insinuate such a serious accusation. The worst thing is that I can't even defend myself via checkuser oversight because this isn't a report but just an editor who is spreading rumors from talkpage to talkpage.--Maleschreiber (talk) 11:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but for a reason which I can't explain Maleschreiber feels offended due to my reply to Antidiskrtiminator in my talkpage [[35]] about Rolandi+ and his socks. Rolandi+ was indeed a disruptive editor and his sockfarmimg was revealed by various Checkusers [[36]]. However, Maleschreiber is completely uninvolved with this pattern as such I wonder why should feel offended with the specific blocked editor. Alexikoua (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have serious objection why this [[37]] can be an accusation. In fact I'm saying that I can 'not' understand MSchreber's connection with Rolandi+.Alexikoua (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to accept that Alexikoua genuinely didn't mean to leave any room open for any other interpretation about me or other editors in his reply to the insinuation on his talkpage after this exchange on El C' talkpage. When something like this comes up, the best thing to do is to reply in an upfront manner for it to be resolved. The fact that you didn't reply to me in the way you're doing now when I brought this up in your talkpage (you actually deleted my request and left me that first ambiguous message) further exarcebated my feeling that you accepted the insinuation that other editors and I are "connected" to Rolandi. My frustration began in the first place by the fact that I treat wikipedia as a citizen science project which I regularly discuss about with my colleagues (in a non-CS environment for the purposes of bettering and mirroring peer-reviewed processes among other things), so I definitely wouldn't want anyone to leave open to interpretation the slightest of issues like the one that was insinuated on Alexikoua's talkpage. It strikes me as incomprehensible to even imply that either I or Bato or N.Hoxha would ever be involved in such behavior. --Maleschreiber (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maleschreiber, I'm sorry but I share Alexikoua's puzzlement, as they had neither mentioned you (or others) directly, nor as far as I can see by implication. El_C 17:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The insinuation was made by the other editor in the first place - that editors who expressed a certain view may be somewhat connected to the banned editor Rolandi and Alexikoua's chain of replies looked to me at the time like he was not refuting it. I felt that this left "open" room for interpretations in the context of sock aspertions related to that banned editor and I reacted in the way I did. Looking back at this, I admit that I probably overreacted because of real-life implications that accusations have. I'm glad that it's now clear that no such insinuation on his part exists.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of George Floyd

You appear to have moved the article but not the talk page, which is (at the time of writing) still at Talk:Death of George Floyd. Giant Snowman 11:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Now

Done. Thanks for letting me know. El_C 11:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you need the support

I was planning to wait until the second after the 7-day time period passed, then close the Death of George Floyd discussion in favor of the move, with the same rationale you posted. So if people succeed in getting it overturned because of the time period, it will be moved again as soon as the 7 days elapses.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there's going to be a call to overturn over expediting it by a few hours, but thanks — I appreciate the support. El_C 12:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to expand on your rationale there though. I don't feel strongly enough to take this to WP:MVR but I guess some will and demonstrating that and how you appropriately weighed the various policy arguments, especially in light of WP:BLPCRIME, will probably go a long way to avoid this being overturned on lack of justified rationale alone. Regards So Why 12:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll think about it. But as one participant who has changed their preference from oppose to support had argued: killing is not necessarily a crime. El_C 13:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have expanded my close. I hope it makes more sense now in relation to policy. El_C 13:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of move request

Is there a policy reason why my request was closed? It seems pretty heavy handed to close the request, to me.Casprings (talk) 19:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus really! Stop being involved with this and closing perfectly valid RMs. There's no harm in moving as evidence arises. The main article was just moved too, so your arguments are meaningless. $ɱ$ (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am uninvolved and will continue to act in the interests of the project. If you wish to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, that is an option that is avilable to you. El_C 19:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Casprings, the policy reason is that these move requests are disruptive to the stability of the article. While consensus can change, it does not change that rapidly. El_C 19:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ɱ, you do realize that I am the one who just closed the latest move request and I am the one who moved the main article, which makes my argument here far from meaningless. El_C 19:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how more then one move discussion at once can be disruptive. I do not understand how a move request opened after that one closed is disruptive. Editors could or could not find the suggested name a better title. Either way. But I don't see what is disruptive about the discussion. I have requested a move review. Casprings (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this discussion, here, on my user talk page, has run its course, but okay... El_C 19:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You suggested it to me. [38] . Casprings (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLOSECHALLENGE reads: after discussing the matter with the closing editor, you may request review. I think you ended the discussion here prematurely, but oh well, what's done is done. El_C 20:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, my apologies. I thought you were telling me I should go open a move review if I had an issue.Casprings (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it's all good. El_C 20:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 May 2020 for Death of George Floyd

@El C: I here review your move closure made on this page. What closure based on? Users individual opinions or facts? I mean Death of George Floyd was a friendly title from the start. Regice2020 (talk) 05:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to ping me on my own user talk page. Anyway, I don't understand what you're trying to say here. The closure was based on the rational I provided in my closing summary... El_C 09:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your closure is in good faith,but it seem to injected your own opinion about the Flyod deaths and real life protest in your closure summary. @Infernape612: made a simple reasoning on why it was better to be kept and this is heavily handed move as @Casprings: said. Why?Regice2020 (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see how that is the case. I examined the strength of the arguments. I do not see how I injected my own opinion to the closure summary. El_C 00:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to that, I do not see how its disruptive when someone opens another request moves after rm closure and the same closure user inserted a lockdown to prevent another from being made for 30 daysRegice2020 (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what? It is disruptive because consensus had just been established a few hours before. The user had nearly a whole week to advance their preferred title in the May 27 move discussion. El_C 23:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

T-ban, etc.

Hey El C,

Recently there's been some back-and-forth between Volunteer Marek and several editors, some verified "socks". Most of it is the usual "edit-war exchange" on town names and various other details, but two stand out:

On May 25th editor "Mellow Boris"[39] made an addition to Zygmunt Krasiński, a Polish romantic poet.[40] VM quickly removed it,[41] but self-reverted since it falls within the bounds of his T-ban.[42] On May 26th the same editor started an article (or perhaps a "stub") on Krasiński's The Undivine Comedy.[43] The article discusses Konrad Swinarski's 1965 stage adaptation of the poem in the context of Poland's recent and current history (again, within the bounds of VM's T-ban). This mention is explicit in the cited source. Nevertheless, VM promptly deleted the article.[44] A week later, and the current revision - duly WP:DYK-ed[45] - barely mentions the antisemitic content of the work.[46]

The reason I'm only sending this now is because I wanted to check the sources myself, seeing how the first and the current revisions differ so much. I've come to the (unfortunate) conclusion that the work is more than "mildly antisemitic" (see Talk:Zygmunt Krasiński#Source quotes), which justified the original text as far as WP:VANDALISM is concerned.

The bottom line is VM reverted two legitimate edits that fall within the bounds of his T-ban, by an account that wasn't blocked, banned or even investigated for any breach of policy.[47] This is clearly outside the remits of WP:BANREVERT, and it comes just two weeks after you warned him "to avoid skirting the line with respect to their topic ban".[48] François Robere (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I don't even remember the scope of Volunteer Marek's topic ban, so I may not be the expert you think me of... El_C 12:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was Poland during WWII, was it not? El_C 12:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History of Poland during World War II, including the Holocaust in Poland.[49] The first edit mentions Nazi political theorist Carl Schmitt,[50] the second discusses the play's production in the context of post-war Poland.[51] The statement made in text about Polish "bystanders" (par. 4) is taken directly from the source: The historical context is essential here... Twenty years after the end of the Second World War, the Holocaust remained a profound trauma... Today, after the publication of ground-breaking books by Jan Gross, Andrzej Leder and Niziołek, we have come to understand that the reality was far more complex. Acts of great courage and sacrifice happened... [but] Polish society en masse played an extremely ambivalent role of passive observers, ‘bystanders’, sometimes also actively taking part in [the acts]... In 1965, faces of Jews whose homes were repossessed by Polish families were still remembered, and those memories must have awakened repressed feelings of guilt and aggression. François Robere (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1938 is pre-WWII, however, so I'm not sure how the scope of the ban was contravened, even though it is cutting it close. El_C 13:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, bans are "broadly construed", so "cutting it close" (for the n-th time, including your warning from just two weeks ago) should really be enough.

What about the second edit? François Robere (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. Maybe take it to AE to get an assessment by a quorum of uninvolved admins (I may participate). I don't feel confident enough in deciding this on my own. El_C 13:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. François Robere (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's about a freakin' EARLY NINETEENTH CENTURY POET ffs! Trying to make that into a topic ban violation on "World War 2 Poland" is about as bad faithed as you can get. And this is 100% WP:GAMEing by Icewhiz's socks [52] (or one of Icewhiz banned buddies socks, I'm not gonna play the stupid game where I'm expected to figure out if it's Icewhiz himself or one of his neo-Nazi friends) and this is 100% being enabled by Francois Robere, who's agitating on behalf of these socks. And like my comment said, this isn't the first time he's done this and it really needs to stop. Same pattern everytime - Icewhiz socks post some disruptive stuff, get reverted and then Francois Robere swoops in and tries to restore it or defend the sock's edits. It's blatant Wp:MEATPUPPETRY on behalf of a banned user and not even the legit kind — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volunteer Marek (talk • contribs)

Whoa, neo-Nazi friends — really? You are not allowed to personally attack editors like that. No, not even chronic project-wide banned LTAs like Icewhiz. That is totally unacceptable. If you do that again, you will be blocked immediately and without further warning. I realize you've lost your temper here (lack of a sig or a full stop being indicative of that), but there is a limit to the kind of outbursts that may be permitted on the project. So, please don't do that again. Anyway, I don't know why you two feel myself (and my user talk page, or email for that matter) is an appropriate soundboard for these neverending disputes. AE exists for a reason as platform where, again, a quorum of uninvolved admins can weigh evidence. If there is a pattern of misbehaviour, both of you are welcome to present your respective cases there. I, for one, do not relish neither the role nor the responsibility of being a singular deciding uninvolved admin when it comes to the heart of EE/APOL disputes. No thank you. That is why I have colleagues among the admin corps who frequent the AE board. Again, I may participate (or I may not) and may even close reports, depending on the case (or for that matter, the day), but no more of this here, please. El_C 17:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seguro64

Hi, El C! Regarding User:Seguro64, I saw your nice gentle comment to them on their talk page. You may not have been aware of their previous vandalism to their article a couple of days ago, here. I warned them about it but they deleted my warning. Just so you will have a more complete picture of this person’s editing history. BTW they have reverted your warning and added the objectionable edit to the article again. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, they didn't revert your warning. Just mine. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, why weren't they immediately blocked for that blatant BLP violation? It's almost unbelievable. El_C 23:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have now partially blocked the user from the two mainspace articles (see my notice here). El_C 00:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I probably should have done it but it was just one time - and I am very involved at those articles so hesitated to take action. Actually it was no different from their recent edits except that this time they have a "source". -- MelanieN (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW thank you for your important presence at those pages as an uninvolved administrator. Closing the move discussion, imposing a move moratorium, stepping in where necessary - those articles desperately need someone like you who can make calm decisions and take needed actions when most of us who are monitoring the page are too involved to do so. Blessings on you. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie, thank you for your support and for these exceptionally kind sentiments — they are greatly appreciated! El_C 03:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for that current move review, it reminds me of the old saying: No good deed goes unpunished. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. What can you do? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (Short of choosing to live in a shoe.) Once again, thank you for your eloquent comment of support.

El_C 02:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iranians in China

Hi, see the recent edit on the page...I think it needs an obvious admin intervention. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Done. El_C 23:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ol Pejeta Conservancy ~

Hi El C! ~ Just dropped by to say good morning ~mitch~ (talk) 10:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, mitch. Thanks for dropping by. Morning to you, too — for sure, let's make it a good one! El_C 10:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are not discussing a move we are discussing possibly "moving" the page

Maybe I am wrong but this [[53]] now look like Wikilawyering. Can you please clarify what you mean by "I am enacting a one month moratorium on further move requests for this article".Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 18:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cesdeva

is seeking TPA restoration on UTRS. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 03:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to UTRS, but I object to it being restored for any other reason save an apology and a promise to do better. El_C 03:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Err. No that's not his rationale. I'll note your opposition on the ticket. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 03:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, their multiple personal attacks on that page speak for themselves. I usually give some leeway to blocked users, but there ought to be a limit to what we tolerate on the project. El_C 04:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thank you

Just a note to thank you for taking civility seriously. Your efforts in keeping discussions respectful is genuinely appreciated and I wish others would follow the example. I hope this finds you well. // Timothy :: talk 03:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy, that is kind of you to say. I appreciate your note very much. All the best, El_C 03:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific racism in Brazil

Dear El C. How can I defend my addition if you bann it from the talkpage without letting others to judge the validity of my arguments and the content of the addition? I think that is not fair-play. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juan M.S. Arteaga (talk • contribs) 00:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you cannot duplicate the same (lengthy) section across multiple article talk pages — that is not fair play. El_C 00:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

but I am just letting others to read the section that has been deleted! Do you mean that I cannot let others judge if the contents are appropiate just because you want? How can I claim that my addition should be included in the page if you delete it from the page of discussion???!!! This is really incredible, Mr.Che Guevara. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juan M.S. Arteaga (talk • contribs) 00:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking specifically about duplication. You cannot duplicate the same (lengthy) section across multiple article talk pages. Full stop. El_C 00:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non stop attacks by a user

This new user SegoviaKazar is constantly reverting to his own versions in the Kaftan article and accusing me of POV pushing and vandalism. I would really appreciate it if you could have a word with them. M.Bitton (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. El_C 01:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Civility and Personal Attacks by Nishidani

Nishidani has been warned multiple times to avoid personalizing the IP area and to avoid being uncivil and avoiding personal attacks. Because I reverted him in a non-IP area article due to a template issue he has now gone on one of his rants again, but ended it with a broad personal attack on the "pro-Israeli" editors. He was warned that further disruption would lead to sanctions, even though that has been repeatedly ignored. However, this quote is really a violation of almost everything Wikipedia stands for and I think something ought to be done: "The I/P area's toxicity can be summed up as follows: it has a conflictual continuity because two groups exist, those who desire the full factual and scholarly record to be set forth in articles, and those who insist that a lot of information must be repressed. One generally shows an encyclopedic passion, the other evinces a bureaucratic surveillance of articles designed not to construct them but simply monitor the content to assess whether its ethnoreligionationalist slant is favourable or not" Thank you. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, editors should not be allowed to request a specific admin that something ought to be done. If Sir Joseph feels somebody has committed some reportable act he can report them to the proper forum, where all editors can analyze the actions of all parties. Not present a slanted description by taking one sentence out of context in the hopes of convincing their favored admin to take action. nableezy - 15:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how that is taken out of context or how it is not a personal attack? He's summing up how the IP area works, one group is the best, and the other group sucks. This is also not the first time he has done so. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first, it is definitionally out of context, as you took one sentence out of a longer post, with that post and the preceding comments being the context. And second, he doesnt say anything personal in that sentence. Regardless, if youd like all parties behaviour here, including your own, examined, you are free to report it. You should not however be lobbying a specific admin on their talk page to take action, especially on the basis of a disingenuous report in which both the comment is misrepresented and displayed without its context. nableezy - 16:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Sir Joseph, my impression is that each sides derides the other —as a side— from time to time. Personally, I don't like it. I didn't like it when Levivich engaged in that recently, and I equally dislike it now seeing Nishidani doing the same. But I don't believe in either instance that it rises to the level where enforcement action is needed, especially when these generalizations take place on those users' respective talk pages, where some leeway is normally extended. Certainly, you are welcome to take this to AE, where a quorum of uninvolved admins would examine the dispute. I am a fairly lenient as an admin, so perhaps such a report there would result in an enforcement action, but I tend to doubt it. Nableezy, editors are allowed to bring anything they see fit to the attention of an uninvolved admin. I, of course, reject outright that I am anything but that when it comes to, not just ARBPIA, but every single discretionary sanctions topic area out there. That said, if an individual admin takes on such a case singularly, and exhibits failings —as was the case recently in my handling of Levivich's ARBPIA violations— that is on them. Yes, even with the arcane and counter-intuitive and contradictory ARBPIA ruleset notwithstanding. El_C 16:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, might I remind you that you tbanned me for a comment on my own talk page? Further, this is not a one off comment, Nishidani has years of uncivil comments, and also his comments about "ethnoreligionnationalist" part is a specific one where he got a warning from Sandstein I believe.Regardless, when we are trying to make Wikipedia a more friendly atmosphere to edit in, these comments have no place. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Joseph, if I recall correctly (vaguely), that was after repeated violations of an existing topic ban. But feel free to remind me (with diffs), because I genuinely am unable to recall the full context there. Anyway, I agree that such a polemical comment is suboptimal. Again, I'm not about to take enforcement action regarding it, but you can quote me on that. El_C 16:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, nope, this was the TBAN for a comment on my talk page that GoldenRing applied and then vacated and you then reclosed with a three month TBAN. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I remember now. But I don't see how it applies to this case. Your violation was beyond the pale and not just a vague polemical statement along the line of Levivich's or Nishidani's. El_C 17:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, as was Huldra's but it took a trip to the dentist to get her sanctioned. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Joseph, sorry, but I am just not recollecting these incidents as clearly as you are, so short of some reminder diffs, I am at a bit of a disadvantage. El_C 17:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, She said the killing of Israeli settlers (and then edited it to say armed settlers) is appropriate. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is rubbish, I asked a question (and it was not rhetorical: I genuinely did not know the answer: still dont! But I have learned not to ask questions anymore :-( )) Huldra (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

and she was blocked and then the blocked was reviewed at AN and was overturned by consensus that saying that is OK. Levivich then brought her to AE where some people argued that it wasn't a sanction-able offense and then they had my AE action right on top where my talk page TBAN was used as an argument and finally a TBAN was implemented. The hypocrisy was out in the open. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see. That incident does sound vaguely familiar. Again, you are not supporting any of the above with diffs, and my recollection is shoddy, at best. I don't even recall my level of familiarity with that incident in order to comment further. El_C 18:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive251#Huldra and it I believe has a link to the original discussion where editors thought that comment was OK and shouldn't have received a block. On that same page is my own TBAN. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the reminder. But I'm not sure how useful it is to relitigate the past in that sense. El_C 18:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, not relitigating anything, just mentioning that you sanctioned for talk page content. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Joseph, a sanction or lack thereof depends on variety of factors which are particular to the individual case in question. There is no one-size-fits-all. El_C 19:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, earlier I was thinking of the Holocaust quote incident, rather than this one submitted to AE by Bradv. Which goes to show the importance of providing evidence to avoid misunderstandings. My own memory, at least, is simply not up to par. El_C 19:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, when you have editors going to talk pages of admins to make reports asking for action when there is an WP:AE established process for that it leads to the belief, fair or not, that people are picking their judges so to speak. That should not happen, and in my view you should be extremely wary of users lobbying you on your talk page to take some action. Its one thing when youre already on another users talk page, it is quite another when somebody is making a report directly to you on your talk page. nableezy - 16:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy, I accept the argument that the optics for that practice may be suboptimal. But whether that "should not be allowed" per policy is something for the Committee to decide, since that is their domain. El_C 16:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think we're all responsible for working to make thinks the way they "should be", though I agree it is the committee that says what actually is. nableezy - 17:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been active as an uninvolved admin in the ARBPIA area since becoming an admin in 2005, so it isn't surprising that I get some related spillover traffic to my talk page. But I have repeatedly sanctioned Sir Joseph for ARBPIA violations in the past, so the argument that I am somehow his "favoured" admin in this area seems a bit far fetched. El_C 17:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, I don't even care for sanctions, but I think a warning that calling an entire group of editors, bad people who aren't interested in the truth, is not the way to edit Wikipedia. Why is there a need for an AE action when it's clear that the comment is not appropriate? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the comment was not on, but I don't think it called the other side "bad people." Again, like with Levivich's comment to that effect, it's just a vague polemic that is basically unhelpful and serves to increase rather than bridge the divide. El_C 18:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, "One generally shows an encyclopedic passion, the other evinces a bureaucratic surveillance of articles designed not to construct them but simply monitor the content to assess whether its ethnoreligionationalist slant is favourable or not" is a clear personal attack and also commenting on the "ethnoreligionationalist" slant is what he got warned for before. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where an editor was mentioned to make that polemic a "personal attack," per se., though again, I agree that it was unhelpful. El_C 18:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, or this? [54] doesn't sound very civil at all. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, toward whom? I'm not really the civility police — if no one specific is being attacked, at least. El_C 18:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ygm

Doug Weller talk 07:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got it and responded, Doug. El_C 07:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:سب سے بڑی گڑبڑ

This user is still having difficulty with understanding WP:COPYVIO. For one, he restored this copyright violation, and his recently created pages also violate copyrights:[55][56] Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 19:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda's June corner

Could you perhaps look at User talk:TheSandDoctor#Meta? I don't get it. Bedtime may be a reason. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it either. But that's Meta for you! El_C 22:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

watch Millipede, then? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm missing a meta joke there! El_C 23:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, today's theme is abundant love! El_C 01:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meta was my grandmother's given name. - Back to the first: a user was blocked indef, reasoning "removing content from pages" which is something I do on a daily basis. The blocking admin supplied a link to Meta which proved wrong, and someone else a better one, but still five question marks about what happened there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I cannot make sense of it either. At any event, outside sounds good — the chipmunks beckon. El_C 12:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the Main page: my mistake, confusing birth and death in absentmindedness, report on ERRORS (and my talk), and no response yet. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What specific correction did you have in mind to address this error? El_C 13:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In case it was unclear, write "birth" instead of "death" in the conductor's article, Zoltán Peskó, in the Did you know section. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 13:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy dance for the vespers, now FA, - thanks for coming to my talk again, but I closed the discussion as hopeless. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!

Sorry to learn that list would-be copyvio argument did not get resolved amicably.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 12:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you watch this horse for me, please? (example of what I think is hs pictured)- ... mark Joel ready? (ITNN) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Horse watchlisted, but I was too late for ITNC — sorry about that! El_C 16:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPCRIME

Please help me understand your interpretation of WP:BLPCRIME in your recent close. You state that "killing is not necessarily a crime" but then rely on ME reports that state it was a homicide, which as you know, is one human killing another. Almost every single form of non-state-sanctioned homicide implies some level of criminal liability. By changing the title of the article to "Killing of" you are saying that someone is liable for his death. The only non-criminal homicide that would apply in this situation, justifiable homicide, is legal defense to a charge of murder/manslaughter, so it's not really something that should be used to decide a title of an article prior to any court decisions. That leaves us with only criminal homicide.

Regardless, WP:BLPCRIME states: For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. A ME's report is not a conviction nor is it a decision made by a court of law, so a conviction has not been secured; therefore, the title is seemingly in direct violation of this policy. Let me know if my train of thought is misplaced. Thanks. Nihlus 22:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nihlus, when I said "killing is not necessarily a crime" I was actually quoting a participant in the discussion who had changed their preference from oppose to support following the ME's conclusion. As my closing summary explicitly states, whether the homicide is deemed a murder or justifiable homicide is up to the courts to decide. Killing could mean either one of these, so in that sense, I believe it to be neutral in so far as BLPCRIME is concerned (because it does not take a stand in that regard but, rather, takes its cue from the ME report, per se.). El_C 22:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what relevance someone changing their vote has. If you are waiting on the courts to decide the level of homicide, then policy seems pretty explicit in saying that you cannot suggest that someone has committed a crime without a conviction. The usage of out of court opinions has no standing in policy as well. Perhaps this should lead to a greater discussion as to what extent this policy should apply, but the current policy seems clear. Nihlus 22:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought. If it's deemed a justifiable homicide than there is no crime. El_C 22:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and it can only be deemed a justifiable homicide by a court. Until then, any mention of homicide or killing implies criminal liability. Nihlus 23:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But the ME deemed it a homicide, they just didn't specify what kind of homicide it was (murder or justifiable), so that neutrality is something we can work with (title-wise) until the courts concludes which of these it was. El_C 23:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are not in any legal position to decide which homicide it is, which is the entire point I am making. Saying that something is maybe murder or maybe justifiable homicide is not "neutral"; it's a game of BLP Russian roulette. Also, neutrality isn't the space between murder and death; neutrality is death until a court says otherwise. Nihlus 23:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that the ME deemed it a homicide, I don't see why that conclusion could not be reflected in the title. That there was a killing is beyond doubt (in so far as the ME report is concerned). I do think the fact that it could go either way makes it neutral enough for our (BLPCRIME) purposes here (in the interim, until the courts render their decision), so on that particular item, we may be at an impasse. El_C 23:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The ME and their report is irrelevant as there is no exception listed for MEs in policy. Regardless, I am not sure I can explain it any other way. I will wait for Talk:Death of Eric Garner#Requested move 2 June 2020 to play out before I bring it up for larger discussion. Nihlus 23:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we are each entitled to interpret the policy, its letter and its spirit, in our own way. But I'll try to keep an open mind. El_C 23:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User: 176.33.83.45

Dear El C,

I've noticed that you are aware of the Armenian and Kurdish/Turkish conflicts and maybe you could check this IP. The IP is pretty sure that there was no Armenian genocide and defends this opinion. Check his contribitionsI'd prefer if such ethnic changes in the Turkish/Armenian conflict come from a registered user with some hundreds of edits and reliable sources.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 3 months. El_C 22:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you block OTD-Ông Tuấn Dũng?

S/he is still at it. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 22:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for all you do!

just wanted to drop by and say thanks for all you do to facilitate the free sharing of knowledge via this wiki. Among other things, I saw some of the shit you dealt with earlier this month even (the two guys fighting over some sort of edit war involving socks and a T-Ban, for instance), and I don't envy that responsibility. So thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macks2008 (talk • contribs)

Thanks, Macks2008, that means a lot. I appreciate your kind words and recognition very much! El_C 04:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LTA Manda 1993

Thank you, for protecting the page, Special:Contributions/125.161.139.136, Special:Contributions/36.72.163.207. It was one of the destruction by Manda 1993. It usually distrupting articles about TV Indonesia, and many of his accounts attacked Steward, one of which was Stryn. See m:Special:History/User_talk:Stryn. MRZQ (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for the comprehensive info. El_C 05:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doubts

Hello El C, I would like to hear your feedback on this question - [57] Cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. What is the question exactly? El_C 18:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article might need to be protected for a few days since there were 8 rv within 9 hours today. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 21:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You did good. I see a (new) discussion is now ongoing on the talk page. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The question was - what do you as an experienced editor think about that part being included in the lead i.e. is it relevant for the lead? Some editors are claiming that there was a wide consensus for the current version, even though that was absolutely not the case. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sadkσ, I would rather stay uninvolved in the content dispute, actually. El_C 05:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

184.183.27.71

I was going to report it as the vandal noticeboard, but you are already aware of it, can you block them?Slatersteven (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 20:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some say you shouldn't ask an admin to block someone

If I send you $5, will you please deal with this SPA for "Your actions are clearly - against African people. Shame on you.", ""The blood" of Covid 19 victim's will be partially on your hands.", this just now, and pretty much all the other contribs? Thank you, Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warned. Easy money! El_C 05:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, keep the change.

Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 06:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tricked! El_C 06:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NSenaratna

Please see User:Nsenaratna/sandbox/Sorry —Preceding undated comment added 03:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Cool, unblocked. I think you should just take it slow and discuss any issues with the editors who raised these. I hope you choose to stay and continue contributing. Happy editing! El_C 05:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong noticeboard

I inadvertently started a discussion about an editor on WP:AN instead of WP:ANI. Should I close it and start a new one on ANI or move it (including the comment by another editor)? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 11:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it's already been there for a few days. Unless there's new developments, I'd just leave it be. Starting a new report at ANI would effectively be bumping it. El_C 11:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I asked first. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 11:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Cat 2020 continued use of TP

I invite you to review User talk:The Cat 2020 subsequent to the block and request that you consider:

TC2020 does not appear to be using their talk page to appeal their block or take advantage of any of the advice being presented.
TC2020 has all signs of resuming the combative edit style and subject matter for which they were blocked
Attempting to leverage the President Trump Executive order on "cencoring" social media to argue that they should be unblocked
Claiming that a block levied against them on the Russian Wikipedia for spamming is also illegal

For these reasons I ask that you extend their block to indefinite as the threat of disruption against wikipedia remains. Hasteur (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 13:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Hi El C, would take a look at Special:Contributions/Cmdr_DCM, particularly the last contribution? It should be self-explanatory. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, User:Ponyo just indef blocked him. - BilCat (talk) 02:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

25 May 1995 Tuzla massacre

I'm having problem with a user who stubbornly reverts the article 25 May 1995 Tuzla massacre. It seems only contributions so far of that user were on that article alone. Not sure what to do regarding this. Mhare (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I agree that the edits are problematic, but why have you violated 3RR? Why have you not warned the new user about edit warring on their user talk page? That is not a manner in which you ought to have conducted yourself in a content dispute. Yes, even if the other side's version represents fringe material. El_C 15:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca jones

Continues to accuse me of vandalism, and now (I think, its a bit of an incoherent ramble, their standard of English is not up to meaningful engagement) of paid editing (or at least of someone at Julian Assange being a paid editor).Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 15:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Error

This was not in the collapsed discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it wasn't, which is why it was removed. El_C 17:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C I think you may be misreading the edit history. If you look at the comment [58] it was added to this section Talk:Killing of George Floyd#Killed by Derek Chauvin which remains uncollapsed and unarchived now. It's a discussion mostly over the description in the article rather than the title. So when Mandruss said "was not in" they mean it was never part of any discussion which has been collapsed, whereas when you said "indeed it wasn't" I think you mean it wasn't part of a collapsed discussion when it was collapsed. If you look at only your edit, it's easy to misread it given they are related discussions and close together [59] so that may be part of the confusion, but I don't see any reason to remove that one unlike for LordParsifal's and Bus Stop's comments which are additions either within our below a collapsed discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge and apologize for my error. Thanks for taking the time to point this out for me, Nil. Sorry for the brain melt, Mandruss. El_C 17:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, El C. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Wiseman 132 (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you emailed me rather than just write your comment here. There's nothing private or personal about your email. Sorry, proofreading your addition is your burden. It must be up to quality standards — that's how Wikipedia operates. I am not obliged to do that for you. Your competence in so far as quality of writing is concerned is expected. Thanks and good luck. El_C 20:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I can't verify that the source confirms the addition, which reads: However, the elders cherish the idea that the ulama would take charge of the masses whom the jammat wold reform due to them being under the impression that the jammat would never complete the job of making a model Muslims of its members without the leadership of the ulama. Sorry, but that run-on sentence comes across as original research, even with the citation. It is also, again, and I do not want to come across as an unkind, but so poorly-written, it places the article in a state of disrepair. I have no idea how to fix that prose, but more importantly, whether it should be fixed. I suggest you provide quotations from the source on the article talk page and query other editors how to best present the material. El_C 20:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Attaching ping: Wiseman 132. El_C 21:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CU

Please actually read the Columbia University talk page... there were no disruptive edits except those by elKevbo and HamiltonProject... all my edits and others were backed by official University literature... CUfiveo (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. They were reverting copyvio, which was responded to by edit warring from multiple accounts — that is disruptive editing. El_C 00:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CUfiveo, might I suggest you request a rename. “CU” has a very special meaning on Wikipedia and with the “fiveo on the end of your name, I was very close to actually using CheckUser on you as a troll with a username meant to make fun of CheckUsers (it happens...) I didn’t, but I am probably not the only one who is confused. Also it might be worth spelling out Columbia or Columbia University. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buy one get one free?

2600:1005:B10B:703E:D4DC:8418:7B56:D0E0 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) See both contribs. Thank you. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge sold! El_C 01:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks

Many many thanks for all the cleanup on the various pages (mine and others) that were hit today by the troll. When you get a chance would you lease zap this one that slipped through the cracks. Thanks again. MarnetteD|Talk 02:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Gah, I thought I got em all! El_C 02:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 02:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One more request in the midst of all that you are doing. These two edits summaries are still in our edit histories. Thanks for adding the protections so we can focus on editing articles. MarnetteD|Talk 03:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm such a space cadet today! El_C 03:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ground control to Major El C :-) This was a major spill across many pages - your mopping up is much appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 03:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah rats. I just found this 186.16.32.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This one need to walk away from the computer and stretch their legs. MarnetteD|Talk 03:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is one determined provocateur. El_C 03:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You said it :-) MarnetteD|Talk 03:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know exactly who is capable of doing such things ... yes, that’s them, one an only, using VPN proxies. They just left messages on the talk pages of these students as well. [60] This needs to be oversighted I believe. The unfortunate thing is that they will not stop socking anytime soon. This is a very dedicated soul. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. It'd be weird for MarnetteD to come under their icy radar, though, which is why it did not occur to me... El_C 03:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, they will not stop - [61] new IP using a proxy - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm blocking and protecting as fast I can! El_C 03:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the 30/500 protection has been implemented the new strategy of them is just trolling talk pages using VPN generated IP, instead of opening a new account every time as they did before. I'm sorry EI C and MarnetteD that it is happening to you and you have to deal with it... I'm very familiar with that terrible person, they will not stop, unfortunately, at least not anytime soon. GizzyCatBella🍁 04:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about me. I'm just clicking buttons. I feel bad for you and the others who are being harassed. El_C 04:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm used to it already, I was dealing with that person for over 2 years now. It was their manipulative reporting that led to my topic ban. This is a very dedicated character and I can recognize them from a mile away. Thank you again EI C for dealing with them so quickly.. GizzyCatBella🍁 04:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries from me either GizzyCatBella. I don't know if my acronym for this kind of troll will ever become part of the vernacular but they are just another CWaK. That is a "Coward With a Keyboard" and yes that can be pronounced as Quack or Qwack :-) Thanks to everyone for their efforts. MarnetteD|Talk 04:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quack quack! El_C 04:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed [62]... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}

I knew I forgot to semiprotect one of em. And my punishment is the ever-cheerful Sinebot (always has such interesting things to say!). El_C 04:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

GizzyCatBella🍁 02:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime, GizzyCatBella. Sorry you had to go through that unpleasant nonsense. El_C 02:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For [63], through I'll note that as I have my students post on my talk, and most of then are not autoconfirmed or such, very short period (few hours) is the most that makes sense, since otherwise my students may have trouble fulfilling assignments where I request them to post on my talk page. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. That's why I protected your page only for a ~~few~~ several hours, unlike the other pages which were all protected for a week. El_C 04:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can reduce it further if you wish. Please let me know. Oh, and the students pages were protected for a day, just to be on the safe side. El_C 04:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus I gave you event coordinator so you can confirm your students (up to 10 days, but you can IAR if needed in this case...) I’m assuming protection might need to happen again, so this could be helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I always wondered what that user right was about. El_C 04:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Guess I'll go and read up on Wikipedia:Event coordinator. Thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It was created to get the outreach community to support WP:ACPERM. I’m big on making everyone happy when proposing RfCs that radically change Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[64] maybe just ignore them for a while? GizzyCatBella🍁 04:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No can do, GizzyCatBella. WP:DENY all the way. El_C 04:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Okay, no CU knowledge being used here, but this is obviously Icewhiz pissed off that both of his favourite topic areas are under 500/30 protection now. That’s on behaviour, not CU, so I can say it. When he spreads libel we should revert and revdel. Technically this stuff is eligible for suppression (calling people anti-semites is potentially libelous) but it’s an LTA mass spamming it so unless a subject asks for it to be suppressed, I’m not going to since revdel helps a lot. If you want it suppressed, email me directly or the oversight list (you can link to this diff to give context.)

Also, anyone in the Poland/Holocaust/Jews topic area, please request protection at RfPP. It’s clearly working given this outburst. Admins should use it liberally in this area given the restriction, and probably more liberally in most DS areas than we do now. It’s a tool that works well. Mentioning that last bit here since El C’s talk is watched by all the kewl AE adminz. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this section should be blanked...? Also [65] and possibly others? I am not sure if this is some oversight tool failure or whatever, but Errr.... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}

Done. Looks like the blocking admin forgot to revdel and redact. I'm pretty sure I got em all. El_C 05:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and here's one more: [66] :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 05:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New IPs: [67], [68]. The last one is not blocked (yet) and is active right now. Ping User:Adam9007, User:Adam9007, User:Vanamonde93, User:TonyBallioni, hopefully one of you or a talk page watcher can block it. Any chance the proxy range Ice is using this time can get range blocked? Also, I recommend semiprotecting the student pages for a week or two, they don't talk to one another much anyway on wiki. I'll event coordinate elevate their accounts too so they can post on my page which can get extended semi too I guess for that period; this should take away the new toy from the vandal...--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[69] - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[70] - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, was AWOL. El_C 11:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Objecting to an edit on the basis of no consensus alone"

Hi El C,

You told me at Talk:Cow_vigilante_violence_in_India#First_sentence_is_not_a_sentence that someone should not be "objecting to an edit on the basis of no consensus alone".

It seems to me that another editor is doing this. Even though I opened a talk discussion that they did not participate in, they are still objecting because "Please check these articles' histories since mid 2017" and "Your proposed changes are NOT consensus". But the editor has not objected to my edits with any reason. Isn't this exactly what you said? AnomalousAtom (talk) 11:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have me at a bit of a disadvantage as you fail to mention the article in question. El_C 15:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bengal tiger, Siberian tiger, Caspian tiger, South China tiger, Indochinese tiger, and Malayan tiger. AnomalousAtom (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know now, as I made a comment at ANI to that effect. I'll try to follow up there. El_C 11:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, by the way. AnomalousAtom (talk) 04:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime, AnomalousAtom. Glad I could help. El_C 04:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent block ignored

Less than 3 days after a recent block you imposed expired, DReifGalaxyM31 is back at it again with this edit about a freefall ride supposedly moved from Rocky Point Amusement Park to Geauga Lake. Of course, no accompanying source, and there isn't one at either amusement park article. With the right guidance, this individual has the potential of becoming a constructive editor, but unfortunately the message just isn't getting through. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. El_C 11:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linear Impulse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Example: diff – "...near the Le Scoot log flume"

There's only limited evidence here, but a new account was just created and is quickly sweeping through roller coaster articles, making similar edits as recently-blocked account User:DReifGalaxyM31. Describing objects near the track layout that have nothing to do with the ride description is a signature move reminiscent of DReif. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Likely. But unlike the possible past iteration, sources are being added now. El_C 15:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On some occasions, yes that's true. However, a closer look at other changes like these reveal deeper issues:

As the train departed the station, it made a left turn and headed up a 88.6-foot chain lift hill. At the top, the train turned left and dropped 85 feet, reaching 48 mph. Then, it entered a 65-foot dive loop. The train continued with a left turn and flipped into a heartline roll. It then made a left turn, followed by the final brake run.

This source was cited for part of the addition above. Aside from issues with the source's credibility regarding "85 feet", the claim "65-foot dive loop" isn't supported by anything in the article. Also, they cited a fan video on YouTube for another change they made further up and essentially plagiarized the unreliable source when writing, "Viper served as a fitting transition between the western and Spanish themed sections of Frontier Adventures". Some of what we're seeing here is just a content dispute issue surrounding text and sources, I get that. But there are still issues with unsourced content being sneaked in under the cover of what looks like proper sourcing. The main issue perhaps is that they are touching a large number of articles in a short period of time and ignoring talk page messages, and the behavior of adding unsourced height claims is not only reflective of DReif's, but it also reminds me of Bradley026258, who was indeffed for doing the same thing (diff).

Not sure if this changes anything, but thought it was worth a second look. At some point, the behavior is going to reach a tipping point. Thanks in advance! --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GoneIn60, whenever you feel a final warning is due, I'm prepared to act if that also fails, per WP:COMMUNICATE. But an WP:SPI might be a good idea, as well. El_C 17:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPI is a good idea. I'll consider it. Thank you for your time, I appreciate it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime, GoneIn60. Thank you for doing all the heavy lifting. El_C 17:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Board

ElC, just wanted to note the fact that I was writing up a edit when you closed this discussion: [71] This was not a attempt on my part to alter it. Didn't think it would be closed anytime soon. Thanks and all apologies.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I think the most immediate component of the dispute is resolved, while the rest can best be addressed outside of ANI. El_C 17:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Schumer

Hey El C, just wanted to say thank you for your quick response to the Chuck Schumer disruption. Appreciate your help. -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, LuK3. Good to be appreciated. El_C 18:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What happened? Did his party accuse him of being non-partisan? ;) - BilCat (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It's difficult to tell what motivated the disruption to the article, however. El_C 01:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell, as I don't have access to the edits, and that's probably a good thing! - BilCat (talk) 01:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't missing much. Just plain insults to his intelligence, phrased in an especially offensive way. El_C 01:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I figured. - BilCat (talk) 01:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SashiRolls' partial block

That was not an escalation but the plain facts. El_C 00:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, kudos to DeFacto for the grace. El_C 00:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say as I ever thought of Churchill as gracious, other than dealing with the queen. But, if he had been a tennis player -- his expertise would have been at backhanded shots. O3000 (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! El_C 00:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I asked you why you blocked me from Edward Colston for making a 3rd revert in 24 hours in order to correct an erroneous attribution of authorship and a misrepresentation of what the author wrote. Today you have full protected the article for a week, making your block unnecessary. It was interesting to see the block record and SPI reports on the guy who reverted me 3-4 times yesterday. Could you please undo the superfluous block or was there a specific reason you wanted to add an entry to my block record, despite my respecting the rules? Following WP:ADMINACCT, I would appreciate that you do not summarily delete this request as you did yesterday, but rather explain your motivations or undo the block. Thank you -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 12:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want your messages removed, don't engage in aspersions. Anyway, I don't see the point of lifting the partial block — what's the point? By the time the block expires, the article protection will also expire. El_C 12:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made clear in the comment you deleted that your opening a specific talk page section here about your block felt like harassment / gloating. Perhaps that was not your intent. In any case this section you opened does not seem to be a very good example to set of admin deescalation. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was not the intent, but I am allowed a response, which you deprived me of on your own talk page (after you personally attacked me, as well). El_C 13:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to WMF tools showing your contributions in the last 24 hours is not a personal attack.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My work outside the wiki is none of your business, SashiRolls. El_C 13:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did I ask you where you worked? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Work for a living?" El_C 13:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, you've misunderstood, just as I misunderstood that you opened this talk page section not to escalate matters but to have your reply "stick". That question was not addressed to you. It was rhetorical: "Want the wiki-rules to be respected? Edit 12+ hours per day. Work for a living? Don't even dare think about "knowledge equity". -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's good to hear. I appreciate the correction. El_C 13:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for utility, it shows that you can recognize the difference between a punitive and preventive block, and that you can recognize that correcting an erroneous author in a reference field and that correcting the misuse of a source for a claim antithetical to what it says is a legitimate reason for a 3rd revert on a page that allows 3 reverts in a day. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence was a bit murky, so I chose to err on the side of preventing further disruption to the article via the mild sanction of a partial block to both of you and DeFacto. If you wish to see the partial block lifted, you are free to launch an unblock appeal at any time. El_C 13:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have just done so. Please indicate your decision on the matter. (You may also wish to note that you blocked me 7 hours after my 3rd revert and I had already indicated I would not be reverting again.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use Template:Unblock on your user talk page and another admin will attend to the request. El_C 13:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can mention that in your unblock appeal. Please don't refactor your comments after they have been replied to, however. El_C 13:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are having a discussion, not reducing fractions or restructuring an existing body of code. This is not a noticeboard, it is not the end of the world to correct a typo 30 seconds after making it. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was not a typo correction. I would not have minded a typo correction. El_C 13:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's weird that I didn't get an edit conflict... you must have slid your comment in just seconds before I added that important element about how the block was never preventive in nature. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, fine. But the block was preventative not punitive, I challenge. Anyway, again, that is an argument you're free to make in your unblock appeal. El_C 13:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Admins tend to stick together, you know "unblockable", "infallible", etc. So I don't think I'll waste my time. Thinking back maybe I did get an edit conflict, but assumed it was because of your misleading comment suggesting that I had asked you where you worked.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't misleading on my part. You responded to me with that "Work for a living?" comment, so it's not surprising that I understood it as having been directed towards me. El_C 14:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enough of cherry-picking things transparently out of context. If you really misunderstood, you need to slow down. If you cannot see that opening this thread was bad form for an admin, or that making and maintaining a block when it serves no purpose is contrary to policy... well, I guess all I can do is point it out. I will propose that an admin fix the faulty reference on the page you full-protected since it still (!) hasn't been fixed 24 hours after it was pointed out that somebody's work was being misattributed and misrepresented. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 14:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe enough with you posting on my talk page for a while, SashiRolls. And maybe don't respond with comments that are so open to be misunderstood, when you reply to me. Much like with the existence of this thread, you seem to be operating under the misapprehension that just because I'm an admin, somehow I should be your punching bag. I assure you that isn't the case. If you want your block lifted, make an unblock appeal, like everyone else would. If you want a protected page edited, make an edit request, like everyone else would. I have nothing further to add beyond that at this time. El_C 20:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Please respond do you share your account with someone? WP:NOSHARING - it is not allowed. The timeline mentioned by SashiRolls seems impossible for one person. --Pudeo (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, El C, you're expected to remain completely patient and calm and polite when faced with fuckwittery like this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

26 hours straight editing - not a single 30 minute break in-between. If you say that is humanly possible for one user, then alright. --Pudeo (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Insomnia is a thing. As are changing life circumstances. Also we're in a global pandemic. A few years ago my life was in a period of transition so I devoted a significant amount of time to this project since it was a way to keep busy before I moved on to something else. I know other administrators who have weird sleep schedules and unique jobs so it looks like they are editing 24/7 when it really is just the particularity of their life situation. It really isn't any of your business what El C's life situation is. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about balancing things out, Pudeo. Why don't you go 26 hours straight not editing ? Nick (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, indeed, I don't see how its anyone's business when or for how long I edit. Whether an edit would take me an hour to compose or a few seconds to rollback would be factored in, of course, if I had to be accountable for my time to anyone here. But as it happens, I am under no such restriction. The fact is that I had already warned SashiRolls for their violation in the last AN3 report I closed which concerned them, whereas with this report I felt that a stronger measure was needed. Ditto for DeFacto's problematic history of edit warring. SashiRolls' aggression here and elsewhere towards me regarding what amounts to a really mild sanction seems excessive (and I include in that them edit warring on this very page). Perhaps SashiRolls feels that this conduct towards myself would deem me as an involved admin when enforcing Wikipedia policy which pertains to them. That is not the case. But being uninvolved does not mean that I am expected to be the recipient of aggression without any recourse or response. El_C 17:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, I've taken this block on the chin, but just for the record, my "problematic history of edit warring" (four edit warring blocks in my first four years of editing) ended more than eight years ago, and the last previous negative admin action against my account for anything prior to this partial block was more than five years ago. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a response to this comment above.

You say that your editing for 27 hours straight is nobody's business but your own. That is true as long as you do not injure anyone's reputation by making bad blocks. You say: Whether an edit would take me an hour to compose or a few seconds to rollback would be factored in, of course. It took you 17 minutes to find and focus on Slatersteven's 3RR complaint, then study 8 diffs, a lengthy talk page discussion, and (apparently) look into DeFacto's editing history (long SPI report, 1RR restriction in 2016, 1RR restriction being lifted in 2017) and then to block me for partially reverting DeFacto once, after they had reverted 3 of my contributions.
You say that I am using you as a punching bag. I did not open this talk page section to comment on your block, nor did I block you for a 2RR violation, nor did I delete any contribs you made in toto from your own talk page (as you did here, prior to escalating matters on your own talk page). You say I edit-warred to remove the personal attack you made on your talk page. I added RPA to this page twice. Once originally, and once after you removed it. SPECIFICO then got involved to say it was not a personal attack. SPECIFICO being widely recognized as an expert on civility, I let it be. (on the civility experts, Cf. SPECIFICO, O3000)
You cite the famous railroading case about the word "slightly". I wrote the word slightly in a sentence, then removed it when I realized it was inaccurate. Someone else (wmsr) reverted my correction of my own prose, then the person who they were allied with (MrX) brought me to wp:ew for making a second revert in 24 hours removing my own text. Coincidentally, it was the first person to comment on this "very" thread (O3000) who reverted me so that I could not correct my mistake. I admitted to the 1RR violation immediately. In this case, by contrast, I did not, because there was no 3RR violation.
To return to #1, I think you should reflect upon whether you are doing a good job representing the administrative corps by working 27 hour shifts. This leads people to wonder, quite naturally if perhaps wrongly, whether you are sharing your account with others (in order to make 26,000 edits in 90 days from April 2019 to June 2019 for example). This is far from being the first time that your quick analysis of a situation has turned out to be inaccurate. In addition to blocks you've had to retract in the face of community criticism (including an unwarranted indef of me on Halloween, 2019), I've more recently noticed you adjusting the placement of a copy-vio image rather than nominating it for deletion (§), for example. Quite a few people have asked you to slow down. Rather than the self-justifying WP:IDHT attitude, I would urge you to reflect on the utility of making well over 500 admin edits in a 27 hour shift with no breaks to eat or sleep.
Again, your block was justified neither by a 3RR violation (I respected the rule) nor by any worries of future disruption (I said I would not be making a 4th revert.) DeFacto's previous reverts on the page show that I was not the origin of the problem. If you wish to delete this comment feel free to do so after copying it to WP:AN. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ SashiRolls, this is not a "reply" - this is the continuation of a full-on attack. Why don't you spend time producing some amazing content instead of stretching this? Enough with this hostile behaviour, okay?GizzyCatBella🍁 22:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's true I'd been on a roll producing decent (though not amazing) content until this disruptive event. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 22:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you keep posting here (so longwindedly, too) rather than limiting yourself to your unblock review on your own talk page. The sanction was mild — it does not restrict you in any way, including from filing anything you see fit at AN or anywhere else (why would I need to do that for you?). That reply you cite in your opening was not directed toward you, and no response from you to it was intended or desired. The assumptions you make about my sleeping or eating schedule continue to be unwelcome. El_C 23:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ SashiRolls That's nice, so now it is time to let it go now, and resume decent content creation. With all honesty, the magnitude of your outbursts in comparison to the tiny temporary restriction you received is unjustified. I also don't think your reputation is going to be "injured" in any way, for sure not in my eyes. Please let it go now and show some respect to the people who donate their time to keep this project running smoothly. We couldn't do it without them.GizzyCatBella 🍁 23:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I invite the reader to take a cursory glance of this user talk page so as to make up their own mind about the value of my contributions to the project. El_C 23:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colston

Is it really necessary to lock Colston's article down? Govvy (talk) 11:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I chose to grant the RfPP request for full protection, yes. El_C 11:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

heh, :/ I think people over-react! I've been reading a lot about the guy of late, using my British Library and British Museum access rights to look for sources and reading the content on Bristol Record Society docs. It doesn't surprise me, but I've noticed a fair few editors seem to want to edit that article for their own view rather than truly evaluating the sources and making sure the content is correct. However, I don't think anyone has run a muck, the article has been kept fairly balanced considering the contentious issues involved. Govvy (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think a week break from the all reversions, taking the time to resolve any outstanding issues on the article talk page, is a sensible approach. El_C 12:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not taking sides El_C (I don't understand why a minor 17th-C merchant has suddenly inflamed such passion in the first place), but it occurs to me that since SR's PB will expire before the protection expires, do you think they need run concurrently...? ——Serial^# 15:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, why does it matter? Both the partial block for for SashiRolls and DeFacto and the page protection will expire at the same time. Why would any action be needed. To what end? El_C 20:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That unblocks are better, on principle, than blocks. ——Serial^# 23:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it just seems pointless, to act on or even discuss this further. Maybe another admin will disagree. An unblock appeal can clarify that question. El_C 17:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apoogies, just that: wrt NOTPUNITIVE, blocking someone froma a page which they couldn't edit seems the very height of puntive. All the best! ——Serial^# 17:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The timeline was the other way around. First, the two users who were edit warring were partially blocked, then when the edit war continued with other participants, the page was fully protected per the request at RfPP. El_C 17:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Let me rephrase. Keeping someone blocked from a page no-one can edit seems the height of punitive. If nothing else, it indicates that the page's problem(s) persisted after the user was blocked and that therefore they couldn't have been solely to blame. All the best, ——Serial^# 17:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Whereas I feel it to be inconsequential. So, I suppose we are at an impasse.~~ El_C 17:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe my view of partial blocks was not as well thought out as previously considered. I've now unblocked both editors. El_C 06:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit at Columbia University page

Hello, There is being disruptive editng at Columbia University page by CUfiveo. He/she is trying to put original research in the uni's wikipage by removing the fact that by removing affiliate status from TC and BC, which violate wikipedia's policy of WP:NOR. Besides threatning and misbehaving with other editors including me. You can check talk page discussion about this topic and his or her edit hostory for evidence. According to HamiltonProject, CUfiveo has also acceptd of being accepted being a student of TC, which might violate WP:CONFLICT rules. Kindly solve the problem. Bests ABCDE22 (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely. Indefinite partial block from Columbia University. El_C 12:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE REVIEW COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY TALK PAGE... this issue has been discussed ad nauseum... edits done by me have all been backed by solid Columbia University official documents... the only questionable editing has been done by HamiltonProject and ABCDE22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CUfiveo (talk • contribs)

I think it's best that you'd be restricted to the article talk page. You seem too close to the topic, I'm afraid. El_C 12:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How? I have no COI... my only connection to the school is I was accepted there over a decade ago but didn't attend... — Preceding unsigned comment added by CUfiveo (talk • contribs)

Because as a single-purpose account fixated on that article, you have been editing disruptively. Anyway, this isn't something I'm interested in debating. If you wish to see the block lifted, make a convincing unblock request and a different admin will attend to it. El_C 13:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about a block

I am reviewing an unblock request at UTRS for the account Okcjustme, which you blocked. I can't see the reason for the block, so it looks like a mistake, but it is possible you have a good reason that I haven't seen; if so, perhaps you can explain it, so that I can properly review the unblock request.

The way it looks to me is as follows.

This is an editor who has made few edits, but most of those few appear to be perfectly good faith attempts to make constructive edits, so I don't understand your giving "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia" as the rationale for the block.
There is just one edit which looks to me unacceptable, but that is one which I would have thought could have been suitably dealt with by a revert and a friendly message explaining the need for a neutral point of view. I can't see how that one edit could justify a block, especially an immediate block without any warnings, but perhaps I am wrong, and there were actually serious problems which I failed to recognise in one or more other edits.
You removed talk page access. Surely that must be a mistake, as the editor had never made any talk page edits at all, let alone the continued abuse of their user talk page which is the only reason for removing talk page access. I might have thought it was just a slip, due to accidentally clicking on the wrong link, had you not posted a message to the user talk page saying that talk page access had been removed.

Please let me know if I have misunderstood anything, or failed to notice anything significant, and if not please let me know if you have any reason why you think I should not accept the unblock request. JBW (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I took that edit to have been a provocation from a provocateur, which frankly, I did not wish to give talk page access to. But by all means, if the unblock appeal is convincing, unblock away and make sure to keep an eye on that editor. That's what unblock appeals are for. El_C 20:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for answering.

Clarification request closed

The Palestine-Israel articles 4 clarification request, to which you were listed as a party, has been closed. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (alt of L235 · t · c) 23:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chauvin AfD

I just noticed this now but I think you missed on this one - there was not a consensus to keep. I know this isn't a vote, but counting up the !votes rather casually, I've got 16 keep, 7 delete, 9 delete and redirect, 4 redirect, 2 keep as redirect, and 2 keep or redirect. That's muddied, sure, but consensus based on that alone seems like a redirect, and enough !voters though this was a WP:ONEEVENT, which does trump GNG. Would you mind changing your close? SportingFlyer T·C 05:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You say that you know this isn't a vote, but you're still counting the prefernces as if they are votes — what gives? Anyway, in my closing, I weighed the strength of the arguments. Proponents advanced the argument that the event was significant, noting that WP:ONEEVENT reads: If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. So, I placed less weight on arguments for BLP1E that failed to address that maxim. El_C 17:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption and stalking

Hello El C, I would like to bring to your attention the behavior of Randam (talk · contribs). At COVID-19 pandemic in Greece he made a major edit [72] without proposing it in the talkpage first (and immediately after the page protection expired), and is edit-warred over it [73]. He then decided to stalk me, and is now going around edit-warring and undoing old edits of mine at unrelated articles [74] [75]. He is also routinely throwing around not-so-veiled insults [76] [77]. Any help would be appreciated. Khirurg (talk) 06:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello El C, feel free to contact me anytime. I'm having difficulties with Khirurg (talk · contribs). He is busted many times for lying, ad hominem attacks, putting forward niche conspiracy theories, deliberately avoiding consensus by beating around the bush and not showing constructive replies. I can show examples if you need. He seems like putting "defending Greece" above "defending information on Wiki". Undoing 1 edit doesn't make anyone a stalker. He himself stalks me, quickly reverting my edits on different articles. You can check his contributions for that. --Randam (talk) 06:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have had Armenia on my watchlist for years. But at Battle of Manzikert, you clearly stalked my edits. You are not helping your credibility here. Khirurg (talk) 06:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Randam's first edit to Battle of Manzikert. A revert of Khirurg.

User:Randam has from 5:51, 14 June 2020 - 6:32, 14 June 2020‎ , reverted Khirurg 4 different times(make that 5 times).[78][79][80][81][82] --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Khirurg. Yes, I look at contributions of users, to learn about the existence of new articles. Which lead to editing that one article (Battle of Manzikert). The edit was restoring a picture. No controversial edit. But geez, if trying to add one picture on just 1 article is considered "stalking", then accept my apologies to you.Randam (talk) 06:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kansas Bear, why are you not counting the reverts of Khirurg? 1 2 3 4 5 around the same time slot. Randam (talk) 06:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The last diff you posted is a revert of my own talkpage, ffs. Khirurg (talk) 07:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are not supposed to delete talk on talkpage, not even on your own page. If it was spam, then ok. But it was a warning message. A wiki trigger told me I shouldn't put up the whole template because you had received a similar warning before in the last 12 months. Randam (talk) 07:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is supposed to delete any post on his talkpage that he sees fit to delete. See WP:OWNTALK. No, you are not supposed to start new edit wars in multiple articles by stalking people you disagree with in another article. Yes, you have to be blocked for starting a new edit war in a GS COVID-sanctioned article minutes after protection expired, editing ahead of the protection tag-removing bot and while discussions were still ongoing with people you constantly attack and belittle. Dr. K. 08:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good to learn you can delete your own talkpage to your own taste. That still leaves 4 reverts (accompanied with your reverts mind I add, for some reason it's always you 2 guys I see after I edit something). Secondly, I'm not allowed to edit a page after a protection expires?

Thirdly, my new edit was very different than the one we were discussing on the talk page. You said you supported User:Calthinus' idea of putting it up in the body of the article, and I said "I will try to adjust it [the article] accordingly. Then we can talk about this new edit again here, if necessary.". You may have interpreted that line as me delivering a new draft. Fine, humans can miscommunicate. One only needs to read the relevant covid-19 talk page to see who attacks and who genuinely asks for help and consensus. Randam (talk) 09:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, I'm not allowed to edit a page after a protection expires? No, you are not allowed to add your POV into the article if adding your POV into that article was the reason for protecting the page in the first place and, at the same time, there was was an ongoing discussion on talk disputing your edits and POV and trying to find a solution. You also ignored El C's warning about discussing the material on talk. As far as your civility on the Greek COVID19 talkpage you attacked the arguments of the opposing editors as Guys, stop beating around the bush., irrational stubborn activism and commical (sic) arguments. Or the base insult from Talk:Turkey talking about a picture from the Armenian Genocide: (On a personal note: I don't really understand the problem. It's not like the AG isn't mentioned in the article. Are you guys indirectly admitting to only looking at the pictures in a article, like a toddler? You also kept refreshing the watchlist and you beat even MusikBot, the protection tag-removing bot, rushing to add your obviously skewed POV into the Greek COVID19 article without discussing on talk and while the talk discussion was ongoing in a sensitive area under general sanctions which is a magnet for aggressive POV-warriors such as yourself. If these general sanctions have any teeth, you should be blocked without further ado. Your edits are a POV hazard to that article. That you are also rapid-fire edit-warring and personally attacking while making these undiscussed hazardous POV edits to the article, is simply icing-on-the-cake confirmation of your complete disregard for the general sanctions, the admin's warnings, and Wikipedia. Dr. K. 13:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This will be my final reply to you on this page, as I find it weird to have a elaborate conversation on someone else's talk page. (Unless El C encourages it). No, you are not allowed to add your POV into the article if adding your POV into that article was the reason for protecting the page in the first place Not true. Protection was due to "edit warring". You also ignored El C's warning about discussing the material on talk. Also not true, as you can see on talk. As far as your civility on the Greek COVID19 talkpage you attacked the arguments...etc: Those are not attacks, those are observations after my many unanswered calls for help and consensus. You gave yourselves away by saying I will not let you blemish Greece's distinguished record or let me "poison the well". This gives the impression you're more interested in defending "Greece's record". Are you guys indirectly admitting to only looking at the pictures in a article, like a toddler? It was a question asked with good intentions, not directed to a person, but directed to all camps. To make everybody grounded again and let them sink in what we all are doing. Context: people were fiercly fighting each other not for content, but whether a picture should be up there or not. You also kept refreshing the watchlist: Again not true. How would you know? It was stated the protection ends on 21:25. I edit 2 hours later! With a complete new and different edit. It's also interesting how you're addressing me about WP:NPA, yet you don't see your friend Khirurg's personal attacks. If El C wants examples, I will provide. Oh, and this personal attack belongs to you: That guy [Randam] was even worse. Why am I worse? Why are you not instead commenting about the content of edit? Randam (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, that is a lot of text. I'm not sure I'll be able to immediately attend to this, sorry. El_C 17:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have warned Randam against editing disruptively. This should be taken as a final warning. El_C 17:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C. The account you gave a final warning to, has replied to you with insults to the editors he disagrees with. Every sentence of the reply includes a personal attack or demeaning description, doubling down on the "irrational" meme; this time instead of irrational stubborn activism and commical (sic) arguments, he starts with irrational gatekeepers and reach consensus with people who are "on a mission". But the laundry list of insults doesn't end there. It continues with vile ASPERSIONS such as Like being very fanatic, activistic or nationalistic. and Wiki is being hijacked by these people.... This attitude is incompatible with a civilised discourse within a collaborative project, let alone with a GS-sanctioned topic within that project. Dr. K. 08:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely. Indefinite partial block from the article and article talk page. El_C 17:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, El C. Best regards. Dr. K. 17:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Complaining regarding a blocked user

Hello,

The user CUfiveo who was blocked for disruptive editing and many wikipedia policy violations has now accepted that he has COI; check check 20:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC) Talk:Columbia_University#On_listing_affiliates_as_if_they_were_part_of_the_University. And now constantly violating WP:PA again and again and it is causing genuine stress. Could you kindly solve this issue please! Bests ABCDE22 (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a diff of any personal attacks you can attach to your report? El_C 17:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see the timestamp, never mind. Calling prior comments "bullshit" might be uncivil, but I don't think it counts as a personal attack. That said, CUfiveo seems to be fast approaching a block from the article talk page as well, so hopefully they start exercising greater composure and moderation. El_C 17:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El_C I think ABCDE22 was referring to the fact that CUfiveo was calling users other users liars and was claiming that I am a sock puppet (which you are free to investigate if you have any doubts by the way) without any evidence whatsoever. Here is the diffThank you, --HamiltonProject (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have extended the indefinite partial block to Talk:Columbia University. Indeed, enough is enough. El_C 19:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP edits

There are two IPs that I reverted on two different articles, adding a disputed claim in the infobox in the first and for adding unreferenced content in the second (whose relevance should also be discussed, in the case of the latter). Both edits were revertd afterwards. I commented on their talk pages explaining the edits further [83][84], but after several days I have not received response. Is there something else that can be done? --Jamez42 (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Give it about a week, after that you can invoke WP:SILENCE. El_C 17:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A week has passed by since the messages were left. Should I restore the edits? --Jamez42 (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are permitted to go ahead, Jamez. El_C 05:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Climate activist at Göle and Cizre

Dear El C, i have a difficulty at the articles Göle and Cizre. There is an edit war going on since 2017. And it is about the weather data. An IP and now Atsizat are removing content concerning the weather, and have been multiple times reverted. They don't discuss it at the article talk page. (Both articles have a discussion about the weather I have created for that purpose in April 2020) They don't explain their edits at the reverting editors talk page. I have consulted two experience editors like Femilkene and Materialscientist, the teahouse, too. I have requested page protection... to no avail. 13 reverts (25 edits) since March 2020 are not enough recent activity. I have even given up on discussing with the editor. But other editors try to reinstate the content and I'd like to see calm in the articles, not edit war. I think 3 years of edit war is enough for Wikipedia. Please, find a solution. Thank you.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At least a final warning and subsequent block for a few months for persistent disruptive editing would be enough. The editor should at least explain the edits in the article talk page.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like another admin has already sitewide blocked them for 31 hours. I would have gone with an indefinite partial block from both those articles —I am also thoroughly unimpressed with their "foreign troll" comment— but I suppose that would still be an option if the disruption continues in those two respective articles. El_C 17:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely. Well, that did not take long. Indefinite partial block from both articles enacted. El_C 14:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unkind

It was most unkind of that IP to call me those rude names after I went out of my way to say that he's not stupid [85]. E Eng 19:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure calling them a "troll" was the best approach, even though they did seem to be engaging in provocations. Anyway, IP blocked, in any case. El_C 19:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should have put a little winky emoticon in my post above. E Eng 02:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Site ban proposal: SashiRolls. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert Sheldrake

Hi. On 2020-02-16 you fully protected Rupert Sheldrake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for a week, replacing Sandstein's indefinite semiprotection (necessary not least due to relentless sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry co-ordinated by Tumbleman). When the full protection expired, it went to no protection. I noticed this today and restored semiprotection, are you OK with that? Guy (help!) 23:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wish there was a way to automatically restore indefinite semi to pages after they've been fully-protected. It reminds me when I fully-protected Jesus. El_C 05:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus can take care of himself, thank you very much. E Eng 12:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus is busy — leave him alone! El_C 12:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, El C is busy too. Please leave him alone. Dr. K. 05:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Is Just Alright With Me! El_C 05:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good choice. Praise the Lord! Dr. K. 06:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The history of that article is terrible. Three years of discussion finally results in consensus to delete, and a few days later, an admin unilaterally undeletes. Supervote! And while there is no rush, we've been waiting for that promised second draft for like two thousand years. God: such a typical inclusionist. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

God as an inclusionist — I like that! El_C 05:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A radical inclusionist. Wants to rescue every damned article, no matter how poor or undeserving. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity is a harsh mistress. El_C 05:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Your action for upgrading the page protection for Sushant Singh Rajput has helped wikipedia to defend from vandalism . For your good act i would like present to with Defender Barnstar . Keep protecting wikipedia like this and help it to build a great web pedea. 👍🏻 Taal Saptak (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Taal Saptak. I really appreciate your recognition! Glad I could help. El_C 13:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A message of good will

I just saw this and I wanted to wish you all the best. I don't like hearing of someone having problems, no matter who they are, and I hope they sort themselves out soon. Sure, we had our issues, but happily they were brief and neither of us have dwelled upon them. Truth be told, the more I've seen of you the more I've come to like you. All the best. Cassianto^Talk 20:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto, that is exceptionally kind of you to say. It reflects extremely well on you as a person of integrity and grace. I hope I can reciprocate your message of good will in the future at some point, because that would be well-deserved. El_C 20:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi El C. I just saw this message and I want, like Cassianto above, to wish you and yours a speedy resolution of any problems that may exist. I also wish to thank you for your tireless work under these adverse circumstances. Take care and be well. Dr. K. 20:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Dr.K., I appreciate your encouragement, well-wishing and recognition very much. El_C 20:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban violation

I think you should check Casperti for his topic ban violation he did here on ARE by jumping on the appeal to discuss a topic ban in question which is forbidden by his current topic ban you had imposed.[86] Azuredivay (talk) 23:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warned. El_C 00:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I'm impressed that an editor currently with a case against them at AE is running around removing others comments from it, even if they were a (technical) breach. I suspect that this ARBIP mess will require a number of topic bans on editors currently desperately trying to remove their ideological opponents here. Black Kite (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I was unaware of that. Azuredivay, you need to leave Arbitration enforcement to admins. El_C 00:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For a while now, it's been fairly typical for an entire bloc of editors to show up whenever one of their opponents is dragged to AE/AN/ANI, and also when an article they don't like is at AfD; and this happens on both "sides" of the Indo-Pakistan conflict. It smacks of off-wiki coordination, but beyond a point there's little to be done. Have I shown you this nonsense, that I needed Tony's stalkers to help me figure out? Vanamonde (Talk) 01:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's so much offwiki coordination that I've seen, especially via Twitter, but I suspect it being only the tip of the iceberg. But I agree that it has now become a constant of which there's only so much we can do to combat. El_C 02:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi, I started a sockpuppet investigation into someone you've dealt with in the past. If you have additional input, here's the investigation page: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Henrymancini333#Suspected_sockpuppets Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Snooganssnoogans. Sorry, I'm not able to immediately recollect any of this at this time. El_C 16:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First the memory goes. E Eng 23:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An elderly man was telling his neighbor about his new hearing aid. "It cost a fortune, but it was worth it. It works perfectly." The neighbor exclaimed, "Really?" "What kind is it?" The old man replied, "Ten thirty." ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Dad~~ Mom joke!

El_C 03:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reverts were at WP:WikiProject Politics

I totally agree with you El C, but you need to know that the revert in question happened at WP:WikiProject Politics not Turning Point USA. I posted a neutral notice which included what the RfC stated, and BMK reverted my notice. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware of the venue in which the reverts transpired. Hopefully, you both can come to an amicable agreement. All the best, El_C 17:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, El C - but because of the past bullying I've had to endure, I've decided to unwatch that page, and let them be wrong. Karma has a way of correcting egregious errors. 😊 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for deescalating, Atsme. I think that reflects well on you. El_C 18:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did have to make note of the aspersions cast against me because they tend to come back and bite in the butt if I don't defend myself. The page is now unwatched. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C - one more thing before I call it a night - this diff shows that Beyond My Ken reverted my notice of the RfC and the discussion that followed calling irrelevant to the RfC, which is not true. He can certainly strike his aspersions in the discussion if he wants to, but he should not hat the notice or the discussion about my notice. I'm also concerned that full protection of the article is rather extreme considering the lead it is noncompliant with BLP, V and NPOV, specifically the 3 sentences I removed that BMK reverted. There is a discussion at BLP/N because of those violations. It would be more appropriate if you removed those 3 challenged sentences until a decision has been reached at BLP/N. It simply doesn't look good for you to have locked them in after they've been challenged. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She's not "de-escalating", she just accused me of "casting aspersions" against her [87], and her evidence is the edit summary of this edit, which reads, in full: "Restore collapse of side discussion not pertinent to the RfC". Where oh where is there an aspersion in that statement? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme:

Done. I choose to err on the side of caution when it comes to potential BLP violations, so I went ahead and edited the protected page accordingly. El_C 03:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, Beyond My Ken, if you could both do your best to deescalate, including not hatting or whatever the other's comments, that sounds like it would be the wise approach to take. Please don't let a bit tension spiral further, there's just no sense in that. El_C 03:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not really involved with/don't really care about the interactions between BMK/Atsme, but just stopping by to register disappointment with this bold removal/protect combo. Most of what you removed is a summary of material that's already in the article -- presumably large quantities of BLP violations by that BLP definition. ADL calling an organization "alt-lite", a reliable source saying it's "far right", employees talking about racist practices, involvement in the 2016 election, etc. -- this is all in the article already. If the objection is in the specific language, e.g. "illegal", that's what editing rather than reverting is for. What in that paragraph merited full protection with it removed? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since apparently there's a discussion at BLPN about this, I would rather err than to risk BLP being contravened. Because Atsme is right: that would be on me. So that's where I'm coming from. Whatever other nuances that might be germane were simply not factored into my decision. El_C 03:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sure, but that assumes the page actually needed to be protected. Nobody had edited it in a few hours, status quo was restored, and the only person who intentionally removed the material has expressed intention to stop editing it (if I understand correctly). The other person who removed it later said it was an accident (again, if I understood correctly). Beyond that, it seems a strange exercise to remove a block of material, some of which is unambiguously not a BLP violation, most of which is also elsewhere in the article, etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but I still did not want to take that responsibility at this time. Any admin is free to revert back the protected page if they feel I am being too cautious. I do not object and I need not be consulted about that in any way whatsoever. El_C 04:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The page is unprotected, but this statement seems to limit those who can revert to "any admin". Is that wrong? If not, could you elaborate on the talk page as to the rationale? Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel qualified to set any conditions that pertain to BLP. And since the page is unprotected, I am deeming myself as no longer responsible regarding this matter. Edit as you see fit. El_C 19:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, El C! I hope my edit didn't create the duplicate. My sincere apologies, and thank you for catching it. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how that happened, Atsme. Either way, no worries — we don't sweat the small stuff. El_C 12:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance at Afd

Hello, I am nominating an article for deletion for the first time and I am using Twinkle. It appears I have made a mistake and was wondering if you could let me know how to correct it. You can see the listing appears as a red link, when you click it the correct page shows up, its just not appearing on the log. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 20 - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marie de Bourbon (1428–1448). Thanks for any guidance you can provide. // Timothy :: talk 10:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, Timothy. Lag maybe? Perhaps Redrose64 (whom I often turn to for these matters) can provide an answer...? El_C 10:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I fixed the problem. I copied the article title and re-added it to the log page and it magically appeared. There was no difference in the spelling, but re-adding it seems to have fixed it. Maybe just first timer bad luck. Redrose64 if you know what I did wrong, please let me know. Thank you both and I hope you are well. // Timothy :: talk 10:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glad it worked out in the end, Timothy. Thanks, I'm doing well — hope you are, as well. Best wishes, El_C 10:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TimothyBlue: The edit that created the AfD nomination page and the edit that added it to the daily list both have the same timestamp - this is normal for Twinkle-created AfDs. It's possible that there was a slight delay in the actual physical saving of the AfD nomination page, long enough that it didn't yet exist at the time that the entry was added to the daily list, hence the redlink. In such cases, a WP:PURGE of the daily list page should fix it. The edit that you allude to in your post of 10:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC) sounds very much like a WP:NULLEDIT - certainly there is no trace of it in the page history. A null edit does everything that a purge does, plus a bit more. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redrose64 That makes sense of what happened. I was also under the mistaken impression that "purge" referred to the browser cache, not the server. I'm starting off slow at Afd, so we'll see how the next one goes :) Thanks for your reply. I hope all is well. // Timothy :: talk 20:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for enlightening us, Redrose. I always learn a lot from your explanations and this time is no exception.

El_C 20:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The one for purging the browser cache is WP:BYPASS. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robben, and Sara Winter

This is just a heads up that User:Robben seems to be restoring the content as an IP: [88]. Darthkayak (talk) 10:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of one week for block evasion.

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. El_C 10:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of revision 963537584 on Talk:Donald_Trump

What sort of BLP violation regarding the most powerful person in the world would justify deleting a revision of a talk page? פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 11:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing really to do with the subject, but with an editor who revealed personal information about themselves (physical address). El_C 11:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you intervene at Operations Claw-Eagle and Claw-Tiger?

Hi, I've added a Turkish Government statement a few hours ago [89]. An user removed it calling"propaganda" [90] another one removed it without edit summary [91]. While another user one told me not to remove references [92], even though I didn't remove anything but simply added, he did not respond even though I notified him of this [93]. DarthMaul15 (talk) 12:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the opposing side's statement regarding civilians being killed is included, I think both sides statements should be included. Thanks. DarthMaul15 (talk) 12:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, clearly there are objections to the addition, so I suggest opening a discussion about it on the article talk page. If that discussion reaches an impasse, there are dispute resolution requests you can avail yourself of, like WP:3O, WP:RFC and WP:RSN. El_C 12:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are there no pre-fixed rules regarding inclusion of both sides claims in info boxes? Most of the articles I've read have included the allegations from both sides, including ISIS's statements regarding casualties. Not including the other sides claims due to one sides' followers having majority on Wikipedia seems unencylopedic. DarthMaul15 (talk) 13:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, I imagine you cannot fix this issue on yourself. I'm wondering, is there is a place I can open a discussion regarding this with the admins, to shed some light on it? DarthMaul15 (talk) 13:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DarthMaul15, this does not seem to be an administrative matter at this time. Rather, it looks like a content dispute, and as such, the discussion belongs on the article talk page. El_C 13:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright thanks anyway. Have a nice day. DarthMaul15 (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I just saw this "I've been a bit overwhelmed by recent real life events of some gravity." I hope everything goes as well as possible, whatever your RL problems are. Thanks for continuing your work here under the circumstances. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, BMK. I appreciate your well wishes. Nice of you to reach out. El_C 14:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lawn jockey

Hello! Thank you for the note about no citations in section headers. A previous editor place a maintenance tag in the section header which was why I placed the citation there. Should the maintenance tag not have been placed in the section header as well? Thanks in advance for your help. PhillyHarold (talk) 03:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PhillyHarold, it is my understanding that neither inline maintaince templates nor citations should accompany sections headers. But I left the citation as hidden note just in case. Regards, El_C 01:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the help! PhillyHarold (talk) 04:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

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

Sorry, but for matters such as these, I prefer a (substantive) report which is on-wiki and on the record. El_C 17:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like with the German experienced editor?! ;-) But doesn't matter at all, looks like the editor is of minor age, I guess :) CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommanderWaterford, I am not a robot. People whom I've known for years as being exemplary editors are more likely to gain excess of my volunteer help for less effort. I don't mind doing some legwork sometime for some people, but I can't be expected to do that all the time for all the people. If I want the evidence spoon-fed to me, that's my prerogative. But in a few years, maybe you will reach that parity. I sincerely hope that you do. Glad the dispute is resolved to your satisfaction. All the best, El_C 17:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revision deletion request

@El C: Please consider WP:REVDEL of this edit. NedFausa (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 20:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain your reasoning, please?

Hi El C. Could you explain why you called this report frivolous? I assure you that I filed it in good faith and I thought I had assembled a case that was at least worthy of discussion. I thought the difs and the data were on my side. So as to be able to avoid any errors in the future, I would appreciate what you thought it lacked. Thanks. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It lacked sufficient substance that pertained to an intractable dispute. El_C 14:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, I don't see in WP:HOUNDING anything about it needing to be intractable, although I did demonstrate a pattern going back several months. I also had a dif showing that I tried to address it on his talk page previously. Is the problem that I posted it in the wrong forum? Should it have gone on the main noticeboard instead? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, Slugger O'Toole. You are taxing our admin corps to excess, I am finding. If, however, there are further edits that you perceive as hounding, feel free to contact me personally. But the editor is entitled to have a similar content focus as you. There is no prohibition against that. Also, it's best that if you mention a diff, you may as well just link to it on-the-spot. El_C 15:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, As I said in my complaint, if he simply had a similar content focus then I would welcome it. However, he has followed me into multiple noticeboard discussions where he wasn't involved to oppose me, admitted to searching my edit history to find mistakes, and even followed me onto the talk pages of other editors. He doesn't do any of this for other editors. Just me.

Also, please forgive my ignorance, but what element of intractability did it lack? I am not trying to be argumentative; I genuinely want to understand. There was a problem that lasted for several months. I tried to raise the issue on his talk page, but he deleted it. The behavior then continued, so I posted on ANI showing all the difs above and more, and edit stats that showed his edits were almost exclusively to oppose me or to undo my work. Can you please help me understand? Thanks. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that June 4 message on their talk page —involving a forensic analysis of their edits— really served as a simple request with a few diffs attached, which would have been the right way to go about it. Otherwise, I'm not that interested in relitigating the substance of your report. I gave you special recourse if you feel further hounding is taking place, which should be enough. El_C 16:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ARCA

I have filed a request about an arbitration decision where you had participated. You can view it here. Shashank5988 (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shashank5988, you should correct the many formatting errors in your request. El_C 17:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User reverting

After you closed the request, this happened. Documenting on your talk in case you wanted to archive the discussion there with no further commentary. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of one week. Partial block for violating 3RR. Will update the AN3 report, thanks. El_C 21:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alerting you for visibility's sake: [94] ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of one week. Partial block for violating 3RR. Will update the AN3 report. Unbelievable. El_C 23:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, Would you have recommended that I start a discussion without having reverted to the version before the dispute started? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, yes! Had my recommendation been sought, most definitely. Violating 3RR is always something I recommend against, save for 3RR exemptions. El_C 23:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I thought reverting to the version before the dispute was standard process. I guess we'll see if/when there is discussion on the talk page. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Justin, 3RR trumps all. I'm a bit surprised that an editor with your experience was unaware of this. Anyway, I doubt there would be any further discussion on the article talk page in the immediate future. You're both blocked from it for violating 3RR. And no dispute resolution request to bring more outside attention to the matter was launched by either one of you. I suppose someone who has that page, or either of your talk pages, or AN3, watchlisted may opine, but it seems unlikely. El_C 23:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, Well, to be clear, there was a process a year ago for the same issue just involving a different talk page. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand, but this wasn't a centralized discussion geared toward that end. El_C 00:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possible legal threat

2600:1003:B45B:A17B:14B:5A37:846B:D053 (talk) has made a possible legal threat here. Claims to be associated with an indigenous group. Not sure how to respond. MrSwagger21 (talk) 05:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On it. El_C 05:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

lblocked. El_C 05:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Syrian civil war infobox

The title of this template now includes the word "template" twice, i have a feeling this is not intentional. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 00:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops!

Fixed. El_C 01:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UAA thank you

Hey El C, I appreciate you taking care of my WP:UAA report. I was going to request revision deletion but got pulled into something and forgot. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fer sure. I also redacted it from all the logs. El_C 01:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Joosten Article

The protected Jan Joosten article needs to be updated to reflect the fact that he is no longer a member of the Society of Biblical Literature. Notice the statement on the left hand side of the SBL's website: https://www.sbl-site.org/. Notice also this tweet: https://twitter.com/SBLsite/status/1275766598322868230. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:181:C380:DAB0:8D96:3C7B:39FE:7786 (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That can be done via an edit request on the article talk page. Good luck. El_C 19:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revision deletion request

@El C: Please consider WP:REVDEL of this edit. Explanation: editor spelled out N-word in direct quotation from a cited source that does not do so. I believe the intended effect was sensationalism—if not racism. NedFausa (talk) 01:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who made that edit has a questionable history. On balance I favor leaving the edit in view to aid others in understanding what this editor is about. It is also possible that it was an honest mistake. Jehochman ^Talk 01:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The source might have censored it, but Wikipedia is not obliged to do so, too. Wikipedia can spell out that word even when the source itself censors it (for example, in square brackets) — because, we have a lot of readers who do not speak English as their native tongue that might be confused by seeing N_ _ _ _ _ written as such. El_C 01:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia obliged to spell it out? NedFausa (talk) 01:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is an editorial choice subject to local consensus. But it may. El_C 01:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will open a new section at Talk:Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone to seek consensus as to whether or not to spell out the N-word. NedFausa (talk) 01:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia University

Hello @El C:, CUfiveo, a user you blocked for persistent disruptive editing is probably editing with an IP sock again: please see Special:Contributions/24.104.66.82. He is very familiar with the conversation I had with CUfiveo and has a Comcast IP address from the Northeast. Also, as with another IP he admitted to be his, the IP in question has edited the Emory University article (Cufiveo claims that he went to Vanderbilt but I suspect he went to Emory). Would you be able to look into it? Thank you. --HamiltonProject (talk) 04:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. El_C 10:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your swift action, @El C:. The user is still editing Teachers College articles using his IPs (possibly using his mobile device). All have the IPv6 addresses within the same /64 range (2603:9000:6504:12bd); please also see ElKevbo's comment here. I tend to think he will continue to engage in disruptive editing unless an action is taken for this specific /64 range. Would you be able to look into this? I left a message on his talk page but he seems to just continue. Thank you. --HamiltonProject (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion by Youngscar

You have blocked this editor for genre warring earlier this month. It appears this editor is evading the block, most notably in the article Circles [95] [96] [97] [98]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unable to discern a clear connection between the blocked username account and the IP.

Page protected for a period of 3 months, in any case. El_C 16:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well okay, the page is protected anyway. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock me

Please unblock me! I can’t wait till July 11. I am impatient! Nathan Dimartino (talk) 08:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What account are you referring to? You are not currently blocked. El_C 08:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"content front"

You said "I take no position on the content front.", but that was not what I was trying to argue (not about content). His reversions are (AFAIK) against policy, specifically WP:BURDEN and/or WP:ONUS. What is your take on that? Notrium (talk) 09:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it befuddles me that even deleting another user's comment, along with other stuff, is not worthy of a 6-hour block or something. Notrium (talk) 09:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that WP:ONUS should define the interim version being displayed while the dispute is being resolved. But blocks are not handed so lightly. El_C 09:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't understand how to get to the interim version? Any of us who are involved can not revert him because of edit-warring rules? Or am I wrong? Notrium (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While edit warring is discouraged, reverting to the longstanding text is permitted. El_C 09:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mind intervening

Hello, I entered into a conversation with this user about CSD. I just added a CSD tag for an article without any content, because it didnt have any. The user has now started attacking how i use my username and other stuff. I only wanted to solve the issue but he may be going overboard. Thanks Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you compile all the relevant diffs? El_C 15:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, diff I sent a kind notice to ask why they tagged my CSD as vandalism in the edit summary. Gives out the explaination that i was edit warring.

diff2 I tell them to briefly look at WP:EWand WP:BATTLEGROUND because he misused the word.

diff 3 then that Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 15:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an attack. That is a request that your signature matches your username, a request which you are not obliged to grant. The rest seems like a storm in a teacup, so I would probably just recommend moving on from this in good faith. As far as disputes go, this is pretty anemic. Deescalation is simplest and most expedient. El_C 15:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, I’ll do that. Thank you Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 15:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Words from on high

Wow, there's a special template for saying "this is an admin talking"? I didn't know that. It's not useful very often, I reckon, but on Praxidicae's page, it really was. I've used it there too now. :-) Bishonen | tålk 15:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I get decent mileage out of admin note, actually, Bish. El_C 15:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the admin comment template looks like:

Administrator note

This is what the non-admin comment template looks like:

(Non-administrator comment)

Just sayin'. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A bit diminutive, isn't it? El_C 20:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Admin get bold font and an icon; non-admin get small font, in a parens, no icon, not even trusted with punctuation. (Could be sharp!) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Truth to power! El_C 20:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Rayshard Brooks

Hi, I've read your closing remark to my move request, but I have a few questions: 1. "There is overall consensus that [...] a homicide by the ME." This point is raised only by a few editors, can you justify why is it an "overall" consensus? 2. "There remains not insignificant opposition" does this warrant a closure at this point, or is it better for the discussion to continue for a while? 3. You've closed move requests on the Killing of George Floyd article, are you the right person to close this too, or is it better for another uninvolved editor to determine the consensus?

I'll be thankful if you can help to clarify. Redthreadhx (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redthreadhx, that is the key argument, I weigh. There was no consensus for the move, that much is clear. Yes, I also am not blind to previous similar closes, where the same thing happened: move discussion before the ME report, and after. The argument that "shooting" may refer to non lethal events, was also considered. Anyway, you are welcome to take it to move review — I've been there before for another "Killing" article and I succeeded in having my close endorsed. So, I'm not sure what you mean, but this move request was ready to close for a few days now, so I closed it. El_C 16:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, is the dare to take it to move review necessary? I'm not sure what you mean by "ready to close" but thanks for replying. Redthreadhx (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, indeed. It's not a dare, it's your right of appeal, which is sacred on Wikipedia. By ready to close was meant that it met the requirements for closure. El_C 16:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia law

Good morning. Why are there no references to Georgia law regarding Stun guns and tasers, either in the notes or the article? ^[1]PatNPatN (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have no idea. El_C 15:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because it would be WP:OR to do so. E Eng 20:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://codes.findlaw.com/ga/title-16-crimes-and-offenses/ga-code-sect-16-11-133.html

My citation addition in Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj regarding the languages he speaks

See this revision, I have added a citation to verify that this is the truth I believe it works. You have removed my addition with the claim that the ref link does not work and what exactly do you mean by this. I am thinking a little weird. Can you please help me solve this problem. --77.123.103.125 (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That link does not work, though, so it's of no use. El_C 20:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

+1

You're fabulous :) —valereee (talk) 00:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is so sweet of you to say! I think you're fabulous, too.

El_C 00:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Columbia University

I see you gave this another 2 months. We keep going round and round on this. Isn't it time to just make the semi-protection permanent? Would you mind if I at least bumped it up to a year? -- RoySmith (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith, go for it. El_C 21:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another GoneGetOneForm sock

Howdy - MOCOMOCOMOCOMOCO (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) just removed all doubts about their identity with this edit (and several others). I added them at the SPI page, just thought I'd drop a note. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 21:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IsaacSorry

Hello. This is just to notify you that the user 'IsaacSorry' has attempted to remove your Discretionary Sanctions alert along with all other cautions and warnings amassed in his 9 months by pretending to "archive" them (via a broken link). He has since engaged in further disruptive editing. I have since restored the warnings and cautions on his Talk page. --Jaysmith5 (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He has removed all of it again. --Jaysmith5 (talk) 15:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jaysmith5, as he is entitled to do. Please consult the documentation next time before warning a user for disruption in error. Thanks. El_C 21:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much

...for the time and comments addressing the disruptive behaviors of Valereee. I truly appreciate the findings that blocking for lack of indents is inappropriate, as is acting as an editor and administrator on same article talk pages/ at the same time. I apologise for a lack of diffs; did include available copied text, but more are archived and the mobile device seems challenged in accessing certain functions. All in all, I trust the dynamics changed due to everyone's efforts. Since the discussion is posted as closed, I can offer a big thanks, again, for the help!Pasdecomplot (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pasdecomplot, much appreciated, glad you're satisfied with the outcome. For your benefit, I will add that only the Arbitration Committee can sanction an admin for an administrative action they made. Neither an individual admin, nor a quorum of admins, not even the community has the authority to do so. Regards, El_C 21:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I appreciate the tip. Pasdecomplot (talk) 11:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

oops! the indents...El_C Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misrepresentation. Pasdecomplot was not blocked for lack of indents, or indenting incorrectly, and they were told that on multiple occasions.

From their earliest edits, Pasdecomplot has been receiving advice and warnings from other editors about what constitutes original research, reliable sources, and how to use talk pages. They just seemed to not want to read any of the policy we kept pointing them at.[99][100][101][102][103][104][105]

They assumed bad faith on the part of people who were trying to help them learn our policies.[106][107]

They simply ignored or misrepresented anything anyone told them that was not what they wanted to hear.[108][109]

After two weeks of this kind of disruption, I blocked them for it. I shouldn’t have; while I wasn’t in any content disputes with them, I was heavily editing the same talk page of a highly contentious article and I should have just asked someone else. Not my best moment, probably won’t be my worst. It didn’t represent disruptiveness on my part, just a lapse in judgement, and when it was pointed out my immediate reaction was, “That’s fair.” [110]

And now they’re apparently wikistalking other editors at the article in question to see if they can figure out political motives for their arguments. [111]

I still believe this editor is well-intentioned and could make a positive contribution here, although I’m starting to wonder about CIR. Clearly someone needs to babysit them until they figure out what they’re doing, and clearly it can’t be me. You said I should drop you a line; consider it dropped. It should be fairly easy to bring yourself up to speed; they’ve only made a few hundred edits, and near as I can tell nearly all the truly problematic ones have been at or around Killing of. Just look for all the editors pulling out their hair. Yes, oops the indents. Have fun! :) —valereee (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, Pasdecomplot, I think a competence block can encompass persistent failure to indent. But the blocks were extremely short-lived and I think moving on from them would be best. If there are any further outstanding issues, please feel free to let me know. But, valereee, I'm afraid I don't have time at the moment to review a few hundred edits. I took a glance at some of the links provided, which leads me to concur that there was (probably unintentional) disruption to an extremely sensitive and high-traffic article talk page. After a while, warnings are just not enough, at which point sanctions my be required to prevent further disruption. At this moment, though, I think we are tentatively okay, unless I'm missing something. El_C 19:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I get it that you don't want to be the babysitter. I clearly can't. How do we handle this? There is chronically disruptive editing going on right now at Killing of, just as a for instance. PDC has been complaining for days about a "content fork," by which they mean a subsection created in a talk page section. Multiple editors -- at least four or five -- have told them it's not a content fork; they keep referring to it as a content fork and want the miscreant who created it (me) punished. You may have noticed they referred to it that way at ANI. Dealing with this is taking up a ton of time for multiple editors. It's disruptive. Oh, and they won't actually interact with the editor they are accusing of "forking" the content (me); seems to be a principled stance they're taking. At any rate, I've now archived the offending content that was forking up their experience. Not a great solution as it's going to be a problem for future editors to figure out, as it's now out of order in the archive, but at least PDC can figure out how to edit. You told me to drop you a line. I'm doing so. IMO, the best solution would be for PDC to stop editing this contentious article and edit in their other interests while they're still using the training wheels. —valereee (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience link for what got left behind when I archived the cfork discussion: here. —valereee (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, I see. Well, that is indeed confused and confusing. Too much misguided overconfidence is a problem. Future disruption is likely to be met with a topic ban from the topic area. But no topic ban can be imposed without the requirements of WP:AWARE being satisfied. I'll attach the relevant DS alert and ping Pasdecomplot to this conversation just in case. Anyway, please keep me appraised. El_C 23:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I considered also partially blocking them from the page, which would have the effect of a topic ban. But does that circumvent the DS, where to the best of my knowledge it is not documented, per WP:AWARE? Not something I want to play around with, in any case. If there's to be a sanction here, it will be a discretionary sanction for the sake of a proper log. El_C 01:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, there'd been a previous DS, posted June 1 I think, just after they started editing Killing of. Plus warnings from other editors, now removed. Literally all that's necessary is that PDC make an effort to learn the stuff we're asking them to learn and for heaven's sake believe us when we tell them something, like the whole cfork ridiculousness. I believe this person is an academic who thinks a smart highly-educated person experienced in research and writing can just pick up the whole Wikipedia thing without needing to do any reading of policy or guidelines. —valereee (talk) 12:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El_C I apologise if I misinterpreted CFORK, since I understood (incorrectly?) that the making of sub-pages can be a form of CFORK in some instances. For the record, I only edited Killing of George Floyd article twice - once to add language on macing incident (approved), and once to add language on dragging of Floyd's body (deleted since the 3 RS's were judged by consensus to be less than sufficient). A lot of effort was needed to include those edits, and the first block by Valereee occurred during the dragging discussion - for discussing the video/OR in relation to RS on the talk page. Like the 2nd block, the 1st block, I believe, was also inappropriate since discussions of opinions/OR/interpretations are allowed on talk pages. (As an aside, mainstream RS for some reason omits the dragging incident, but several African-American based RS include the incident, such as those provided.) The third engagement with George Floyd is a request to choose another 'frame' from the video. The 2nd block for a failure to indent occurred on this topic, as well as repeated pointed changes of topic from Valereee. I welcome the administrative findings. But, again, the choice of "babysitter" and "training wheels" to describe an editor (as seen above) can be understood as a continuation of inappropriate personal attacks. Which seem to be spiraling out of control again. Maybe if Valereee just took a break from administering George Floyd, but continued to edit if she so chose, these conflicts would resolve themselves. I admit I am still learning the specific techniques. But, I come from a professional background, and have edited, transcribed, and written for many years. I look forward to continuing to contribute, without the pointed harassment from a single individual, which is disrupting my editing and the editing of others. Sorry it hasn't stopped, and give sincere thanks for the time and effort.(cc P-K3 and GirthSummit) Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El_C btw and for perspective: the topic I proposed still under discussion is the viable comparison of the selected image to Lynching postcards. There's a list of topics on the chosen image, which possibly stem from the same reaction. A block from the topic would halt the discussion - as the block for not indenting has, as the sub-page has, and as the continuous personal attacks also have. Thanks for reading the messages. Pasdecomplot (talk) 13:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bowing out now, best wishes to you both. —valereee (talk) 13:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pasdecomplot has been topic banned for three months from BLP pages. El_C 15:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctioned?

Hi. I just read the sanctions message and don't understand it's timing. Was it leveled since I just had posted to the George Floyd talk page (in trying to either close out the topic or build consensus to move it forward), or in response to my comments of being generally harassed by Valereee, posted on this talk page?

Yes, everyone else but that editor has been very patient and I appreciate their efforts very much. As I do your efforts. I do need to better understand the editing definitions and the coding systems for editing and posting on talks. I rush to get solid info in articles, knowing a person could read wrong information and believe it, instead of taking the time to study wiki techniques and policies.

I had thought the block on failure to indent was deemed inappropriate, and that Valereee's role as both administrator and editor on George Floyd was also inappropriate. With these ANI positions, as I understood the positions, I believed the characterization of 'harassment' was justified and a point of inferred agreement. (It further seemed that Valereee's joining of a talk here and at P-K3 were inappropriate, but I am still learning about the Wikipedia culture.)

Obviously, the inferred agreement isn't the case. My apologies, again.

All in all, I must say really don't understand how we got from a thank you note to a sanction... what happened, besides that editor's re-involvement in a discussion after ANI has closed the topic?

If I promised to halt editing until spending more time in the instructions area, would that be a viable alternative to sanctions? (Fyi, I looked briefly for and an adopter, but the best match was occupied.) What else could I do besides suffer a sanction? Thank you for your help. Pasdecomplot (talk) 16:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pasdecomplot, just because valereee skirted the line of WP:INVOLVED, does not mean that the block action itself wasn't correct in preventing disruption. And because the duration was really brief, I doubt the Arbitration Committee would even bother with an admonishment, maybe an informal note, but that's about it. If I were to predict. So, it's not so much inappropriate as it is bad optics. That has been resolved. Valereee has committed to corrective action. We have moved on from that. But the fact that you continue, after multiple warnings and notices, to exhibit incompetence has reached critical mass. We do not want you to learn the ropes on contentious pages if you're resistant to criticism and tend to deflect. Which is a reason for your ban — the drawn-out accusatory comment of 12:41, 29 June 2020, where you incidentally, failed to ping both of the users you specifically pinged. Anyway, there are million of articles that are not covered by your ban. Show us that you can edit elsewhere without pressing problems and you'll regain that trust early even, maybe. Sorry it went from a thank you to a sanction, but I don't think you truly knew what you were thanking me for, despite the especially clear stand I took in the comment above dated 23:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC). El_C 17:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fyi El_C, here's what matches one of the pings:

" P-K3 (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)" Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pasdecomplot, what are you trying to say? Just quote the pertinent passage if it's relevant for me to examine. El_C 12:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pasdecomplot, P-K3 is not actually my username, it's a shortened version of it that I use as my signature. To ping me successfully you have to use my full username which is User:Pawnkingthree. Sorry, I know that's a little confusing. While I'm here, I will just echo what El C said – there are millions of articles you are free to edit so just pick some in areas that interest you and get some more experience. It will be excellent preparation for resuming editing in BLP areas when your ban expires.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El_C and the other ping:

" GirthSummit (blether) 12:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)" Pasdecomplot (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

??? El_C 13:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The pertinent passages are in quotes - they are exact matches to the pings that failed, copied from editors' text to me.

A reason for the ban was given above by you El_C, and I'm just responding, fyi: "Which is a reason for your ban — the drawn-out accusatory comment of 12:41, 29 June 2020, where you incidentally, failed to ping both of the users you specifically pinged." I just provided the info on which I based the ping text. Worth also mentioning is Village Pump knows there's a problem where "Red links are shown as blue in mobile version" and it is

"Tracked in Phabricator Task T256503". So, I didn't catch that the pings failed.As far as the characterization of drawn-out accusatory comments... I believe that sentiment should be applied to the administrator, from which I was defending myself. But I didn't provide diffs. Enough. Pasdecomplot (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What quotes? You are not quoting anything but a timestamp. Look, your comments are confusing and are, generally, a mess. I keep needing to correct their formatting, as I've just did now. Again, I don't think you are able to edit competently on mobile at this time. You certainly are not double checking or using WP:PREVIEW to ensure the absence of various errors. It is not on the rest of us to continue to do this for you, over and over again. Enough is enough, indeed. El_C 13:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough El_C. If even sharing a few pieces of information from the backchannels causes a negative response, no point in appealing the sanction. Now, I'll be busy stepping away from the edges of the quagmire. Regards. Pasdecomplot (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not sure what you mean. But I've just had to correct your indent, again. So, again, please ensure you check and double check your submissions for precision. Good luck, in any case, with your future edits. El_C 13:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019–2020 Western Libya campaign & Second Chechen War

Hello El C. I wanted to point out two articles that might need page protection against un-registered editors.
First 2019–2020 Western Libya campaign. A consensus was reached on the talk page by 6 to 1 that the campaign has ended based on available sources and several editors (including myself) have tried closing the article. But, the one editor who opposed (and appears to be a newcomer) has made multiple reverts against the editors (even breaking the 3RR policy at one point). After he was warned of the 3RR policy, several different unregistered IP editors have shown up who were not involved in the discussion and started reverting the registered editors actions in the same manner as the one opposing editor (based on this I cann't exclude the possibility at least some of them are the same person). Some of the IPs have also engaged in the removal of sourced information along with its sources.
Second Second Chechen War. An IP editor has made several edits that are contrary to the cited sources. Namely the end date of the conflict and in regards to the casualty figures. After I reverted the IP editor, asked him to stick to the cited sources and directed him to use the talk page for any further discussion, without a word, he reverted back to his original edit which was contrary to the cited sources. The editor also made no attempts to open up a discussion as asked.
So, if you could, please see if the current behavior warrants a short-term page protection of the said articles against unregistered IP editors. As always, thanks for all your work. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that uncommunicative or poorly-communicative behaviour in these two sensitive articles is a problem. I've protected both for a month, to start with. El_C 19:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree and once again thank you! EkoGraf (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see you got an e-mail...

...from our mutual friend. I'm confidently expecting my own, and planning on being as careful as you to not let her have my addy. That could potentially be very bad. Bishonen | tålk 11:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

For sure. It's not like I have anything of import to say to her, anyway. And here we thought we could fire-and-forget it on UTRS — fat chance! El_C 12:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

212.253.98.251

Hi El C, the IP is trying to remove text about the Armenian Genocide or at least performing disruptive edits. You have warned him before. Already last time I wanted to show you, but then Yerevantsi reverted while I was writing you. So I left it again. This time I leave you a note. You decide what to do. But the editor seems not to follow your advice.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of one week. El_C 13:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

War of 1812

They've been discussing this on the talk page for six years. That's pretty intractable. FYI I am more or less uninvolved when it comes to the info box -- my position is that the article needs major structural change, so whatever goes in there will probably change anyway. Elinruby (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't for admins to decide, though. That should be decided through a dispute resolution request (like an RfC) or at the policy page itself. El_C 18:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see. They have already had dueling RfCs though. Would you suggest the dispute resolution noticeboard? This info box dispute is affecting editing on the rest of the article because tempers are so short. Elinruby (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The old RfC binds you until the new one is closed. If its decision is relevant, you need to do what it mandates. El_C 20:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would not recommend a new dispute resolution request at this time. The 18 June RfC is enough. El_C 20:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://codes.findlaw.com/ga/title-16-crimes-and-offenses/ga-code-sect-16-11-133.html

[1]

Archived Discussions

For you

Oooo. Purdy!

Seasons Greetings

Happy Groundhog Day

Chippies

Book?

4Tality Fractal

Rev-dels

Romania

And all I got was a ^^^

Precious anniversary

Gerda's corner

Please log Peel Commission

Rollback

Visioncurve

New messages

Do you know a wikipedian who understands chinese?

Rojava map

copyvio

Communist Party of Cuba

Talk:Mars Effect

Vargas

ANI

User:NomdeA & Piers Robinson

Cv

Article belonging to ARBPIA

Removal of Blond God from Yellow emperor wiki page

Modification of the Beirut wiki page

Deontay Wilder

Anantapur

Open proxies

Someone's socks

Macuto

Protection on Kim Jong-un

Question about discretionary sanctions on List of concentration and internment camps

MB

ARCA

Kalapani territory

Your recent block of this user

How to add art and reference to the maker in wikipedia

Can you unblock me please

A squirrel for you!

Igor Sikorsky

File:Hitler-car.jpg listed for discussion

Improper actions

Aspersions

Killing of George Floyd

Just in case you need the support

Closure of move request

Requested move 27 May 2020 for Death of George Floyd

T-ban, etc.

Seguro64

Iranians in China

Ol Pejeta Conservancy ~

We are not discussing a move we are discussing possibly "moving" the page

Cesdeva

Just a thank you

Scientific racism in Brazil

Non stop attacks by a user

Civility and Personal Attacks by Nishidani

ygm

User:سب سے بڑی گڑبڑ

Gerda's June corner

WP:BLPCRIME

User: 176.33.83.45

Hi, can you block OTD-Ông Tuấn Dũng?

Hi, thanks for all you do!

LTA Manda 1993

Doubts

184.183.27.71

Some say you shouldn't ask an admin to block someone

NSenaratna

Wrong noticeboard

The Cat 2020 continued use of TP

Personal attacks

25 May 1995 Tuzla massacre

Rebecca jones

Error

You've got mail

4 Tality Fractal