User talk:El C: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:09, 11 January 2021

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

Archived Discussions

Archive 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

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 area where I often wait for admin action - not now - is WP:ITNN, where we nominate for recent deaths to be shown on th Main page, and often the time between an article found [Ready] and then is [Posted] seems [too] long to still call it recent. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Edit warring user on exodus and related pages

Can something be done about the edit warrior currently running rampant over The Book of Exodus and related pages?—Ermenrich (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are they advancing (content-wise) and on what other pages is it happening? El_C 00:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hyksos and Sources and parallels of the Exodus as well as The Book of Exodus. They’re arguing for a definitive Egyptian group among the Israelites in Wikipedia’s voice. Sorry I’m not more descriptive, I won’t have access to my laptop till tomorrow evening at the earliest, it makes checking his claims difficult.—Ermenrich (talk) 00:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warned. El_C 00:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He’s still at it, added The Exodus now.—Ermenrich (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. El_C 19:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hopefully that will give him some time to cool down.—Ermenrich (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quaking in my slippers

Ha-ha-ha! - Sitush (talk) 04:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. El_C 04:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to upload link in wikipedia

I could not understand instruction page of link in wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doom marauder (talk • contribs) 07:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your question. What are you trying to do? El_C 08:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Kyiv

Hi El C. If you happen to have a moment, could you check-in at Talk:Kyiv? I recently closed an RfC so I had this on my watchlist again. The conversation could perhaps use the attention of a skilled admin like yourself to help it be productive. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Barkeep49, I'm unlikely to find the time in the immediate future. I appreciate your confidence in me, however. Best regards, El_C 19:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

E. Michael Jones

I saw that you blocked the recreation of an E. Michael Jones article. I'm not an anti-Semite, but I think that we need this article: Jones has risen in prominence and it would be good to have a place where people curious about what this man stands for to find the truth. Certainly I had trouble finding information when I came across his name. I'm too lazy to create this article myself, but if adherents choose to create this article I am eager to jump in to keep the article factual. -- Anthon.Eff (talk) 03:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anthon.Eff, this action took place over a year ago, so I'm afraid I simply do not recall the details. And I just don't have the time to follow up further, for now. But feel free to request for protection to be lifted at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_reduction_in_protection_level. Any admin should feel free to reverse me in this matter without needing to consult or notify me in any way whatsoever. Sorry I could not be of more direct help. El_C 19:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for 500/30

Per the usual WP:DUCK appearance of a likely edit-warring sock in an area related to the Poland-related ArbCom sanctions: Western betrayal. TIA for your consideration. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protected indefinitely. El_C 19:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

	Hope and safe
	~ Happy Holidays ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy hollidays to you and yours, Mitch. All the best, El_C 19:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move page help

I closed a discussion on The Child (Star Wars). Can you move the page?Manabimasu (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 02:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will the real Matthew Berdyck please stand up!

I think you have a deeply unhralthy obsession with Matthew Berdyck and need to seek mental health help. I have investigatd your claims of an "aggressive attempt" to promote his name and found that there is one article on the while site that mentions his name, and that what was printed on Wikipedia was exactly what was printed in the artice. Your atatements about Berdyck are false. I find your fixatin on him t be disturing and you should seek out a theraopist for your unresoved paranoia issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Welkinstan (talk • contribs) 18:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Matthew Berdyck? I do not have the faintest idea who that is! But perhaps I'm repressing. Will definitely consult a "theraopist!"

(Pa-pa-pa-pa paranoia!) El_C 21:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question about RfC practices

If I open a RfC and want to attract as much attention as possible, is it OK if I seek attention with neutral wording on related WikiProject pages? Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Go for it. El_C 22:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The Atintanians article has had more than 20 reverts today and a RfC seems to me to be the only solution. Thanks, Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 22:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, Iaof2017 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) racked up 3 (possibly 4) reverts at Atintanians within a matter of minutes [2] [3] [4]. Then within two minutes of Iaof's last revert, Ktrimi posted here to notify you about what is going on at Atintanians [5]. I feel you should be aware of this because it keeps happening (e.g. at Parga) and will likely keep happening. Don't be fooled by any feigned innocence. These guys are highly organized and know exactly how to game the system. Khirurg (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, if you can, also see: [6] Note how the disruption in all the articles begun always with their edits: by being bold in their edits, and if anyone objects, they revert back. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 02:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have other work to do right now, but an article (Parga) dispute in which I was involved is mentioned and some things have to be set straight. When Khirurg says that at Atintanians the "wrong version" was protected and that it "keeps happening" like at Parga what he's describing is that he [7] asked for full protection of that article and it got protected to a version that he disagreed with. That of course was random. And El C here happened to protect the article at another random moment. So, Khirurg is basically saying is that when the "wrong version" gets protected - even when he has filed for protection - it's "highly organized", despite the fact that it's a totally random process. Just a few minutes before El C protected the article another editor had reverted it and if El C went to grab a cup of coffee before checking it, then it probably would be reverted again. So, when El C would protect it, it would be at a version with which Khirurg agreed. Would it then still be a "highly organized" event? Do admins have to protect the "right version" to not get messages that tell them "don't get fooled"? --Maleschreiber (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm saying is that Ktrimi posted here within 'two minutes of Iaof reverting to his preferred version. Coincidence? I think not. This has nothing to do with which version El C protected. It has to do with the behavior of a highly organized group of editors that know how to game the system. If El C had protected to another version ("cup of coffee"), it would still be suspicious that Ktrimi posted two minutes after Iaof reverted. Khirurg (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And five minutes before Ktrimi posted here a revert which agreed with your version happened. And El C could basically ignore everything. And you claimed that "it keeps happening", but it was you who asked for full protection at Parga and in both cases the version with which you disagreed got protected at random. If a process is inherently random and one of the examples was initiated by you, don't put forward claims about "highly organized" events that shouldn't fool admins. Both cases at a flip of a coin could get protected at a very different version. There's a 10-day protection at Atintanians and we all should want to use to it to reach a constructive agreement. Now, I'll get back to my personal work. Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't throw around irrelevant stuff to confuse the issue. I am not complaining about which version was protected, whether at Atintanians or Parga. I know how these things work. What I am pointing out is a specific behavior by a group of users. A behavior that seems to greatly agitate you when pointed out, so you filibuster discussions with irrelevant stuff to draw attention away from said behavior. Khirurg (talk) 02:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khirurg, while unfortunately, I'm not really available to conduct any comprehensive investigation at this time, I do find your comment above to be inappropriate. Inappropriate in so far as "highly organized" intimates a level of coordination, which, while possible, I seriously doubt was the case here. Anyway, it isn't something that is likely to be proven or disproven either way, so in a deeper sense, is basically a redundant assertion. Furthermore, Ktrimi991 didn't even ask for protection. True, maybe they were hoping for it, but that isn't the same thing. I'll further emphasize that the tendency to report an edit war (just) when one's own preferred version is being displayed is a longstanding Wikipedia tradition. It is human nature to do so. It has never been something that, we admins, frown upon. Even if there was an interest to curtail that (which I don't think there is), there's nothing that can really be done about it. So, that's as far as the protection is concerned. But let me also touch on the notion of "gaming the system" that you bring up. Because you seem to be arguing more broadly against one side being able to game the system so as to give it a distinct advantage in an overall succession of disputes. Myself, for the last few years, I've probably been the admin most active in enacting arbitration enforcement (something I believe the log bears out). And my own impression is that when it comes to this class of the most contentious topics on the project, the respective opposing sides often end up being expressed fairly evenly. True, sometimes they're grossly uneven — like with American politics, where liberals greatly dominate conservatives. Or with pseudoscience, where orthodoxy greatly dominates fringe. But in the case of the Balkan topic area, I've never gotten a sense of any gross unevenness there. And, hey, maybe I'm missing something pivotal and there is. That is not outside the realm of possibility. So, if that is still your contention, you are welcome to document this in an AE report. A quorum of uninvolved admins are less likely to miss something which a single admin might. Hope that makes sense. El_C 02:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your in-depth response. I appreciate it and will keep it in mind. In any case, I started an RfC at the talkpage [8], just so you know. Kindly keep an eye on it, if you will. Khirurg (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome. While my activity is likely to remain spotty for a while (so no promises), I will try to do so. Certainly, there's no harm in reporting problems to me about it here. The worse that could happen is that I won't be around to help... El_C 03:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time for an in-depth response El C. The RfC which Khirurg filed was prepared without even waiting for involved editors to respond and its framing is skewed in favor of one narrative. I've asked for him to retract it until a question can be agreed by all editors, but he claims that I don't have to participate if I think that it is an invalid RfC. Isn't any RfC option in the aftermath of a full protection supposed to be the result of at least a basic discussion between editors? This one was essentially decided by two editors who agree with each other within a couple of hours and now I'm told that I "dont have to participate". --Maleschreiber (talk) 03:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of editors, including from your side, participated in the discussion on the RfC, and I took their statements into consideration. There seemed to be no major objections, so I went ahead with it. You don't have veto power of RfCs. Khirurg (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I phrased Option B exactly as your side wanted it. And typically in the event of no consensus, the article reverts to the stable version. At least that is my understanding. What version is it supposed to revert to? Your preferred one? Khirurg (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, I am disappointed at Maleschreiber calling the RfC invalid when it is the one who, without consulting with other editors, rammed into the article his preferred version: [9] (which does not reflect WP:CONSENSUS and ignores what the WP:RS says). His bold action to insert his preferred version to the article without discussing it with the rest of the editors, triggered the edit war right before you stepped in and locked the article. Now the RfC was opened to provide a solution based on the problem Maleschreiber caused (and mind you, his favored version still remains on the now-locked article). And now seeing him coming both here and to the RfC complaining that the RfC isn't valid, speaks volumes. He brute-forced his preferred info to the article, he skipped consensus, he objects to WP:RS and now he calls the RfC invalid (even though the RfC includes his preferred version which he brute-forced to the article as "Option B"). Sorry but this is too much. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 03:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article has no lede. It was expanded from 12k to 50k and that triggered a dispute about what the lede should be. The dispute didn't start today. It can't be asked that in the case of "no consensus" the article should revert to the lede of the 12k version of the article. It's not about what I want or I don't want. The article should have a lede that reflects what it discusses. The lede of the 12k version which you have been trying to keep afloat for the past week, objectively isn't the WP:STABLE and can't be the WP:LEDE because it isn't a concise overview of the article's topic. whatever you believe that the "concise overview" consists of. You don't have to agree with me in order to accept that as the objective reality.--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Side comment: I have no side - if you read beyond the binary of "agrees with me"/"disagrees with me" you would realize that.--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article has had a lede since it was created. And it did provide a concise overview. The proposed newer versions are just as concise and in fact quite similar. I've filed dozens of RfCs. I don't recall requiring anyone's permission to do so. There is nothing in WP:RFC about a consensus on RfCs. If that were the case, RfCs would be pointless. We can't seem to agree on anything, if we start getting into RfCs about RfCs where does it end? Bottom line is you rammed through a highly POV lede earlier today without any discussion or consensus and now you are demanding veto power over the RfC. It is simply impossible to resolve any dispute with this kind of mentality. Khirurg (talk) 03:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about you agree to have reverted your unilateral changes to the lede which you made without consulting anyone earlier today [10] (at least as far as I can tell on-wiki) as a sign of good faith? Khirurg (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I'm understanding this correctly (if this represents what is actually happening — I haven't checked), this is a strange one. Usually, an RfC has a longstanding version and a contending version, and that's it. I'm not sure I've ever seen an RfC that has two contending versions and a longstanding one which is not in dispute (at least not per se.). Maybe I'm forgetting —I've been an editor since 2004 and an admin since 2005— but nothing like this comes to mind. In the final analysis, Khirurg has probably got it right. I realize a no consensus outcome is likely, which is not ideal if we're ending up with a now-incomplete lead. But what else was he supposed to do? I mean, imagine had he omitted mention of there being a longstanding version not in dispute (again, per se.) so that we have only the two contending versions — which one gets to be displayed in the event of a no consensus outcome? Neither one is longstanding, so how can that be decided? Silver lining — perhaps such a looming impasse will lead toward a greater willingness to compromise. El_C 04:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And it's not a given that there won't be consensus. How can one make such a claim? I'm pretty sure there will be some kind of consensus. I've participated in innumerable RfCs, there's usually some kind of resolution. So all this seems much ado about nothing. Khirurg (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At a recent RfC which I filed, Khirurg had every opportunity for many days to make suggestions and changes to the RfC question - which he did Talk:Parga#Draft_troops_RfC_discussion. Now, the RfC question discussion began at 00:43 and the RfC was filed 89 minutes later at 02:12. But according to Khirurg if I didn't participate, that's on me. Where's the consensus building in this procedure? The RfC question itself is heavily skewed towards one of the two narratives because in its references list it includes only one citation and it supports that narrative - it should have no sources which suggest one or the other option. The editors who read the RfC are have to judge OPTION A and OPTION B with only one source presented to them by the RfC - the one source which supports the narrative of what Khirurg has been putting forward, while all other sources have been excluded.

The pre-expansion version was 465 words long, the current version is 4X that. A WP:STABLE should be agreed before the RfC and the two questions should be placed impartially without selective use of bibliography in reftalk. A "no consensus" scenario is the most likely for many reasons. The proposed RfC version only guarantees that if that happens there will be another round of heavy disputes because it was filed without any form of consensus or input and the proposed WP:STABLE doesn't reflect even a minimal version from which we can all work on towards dispute resolution.--Maleschreiber (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the connection to Parga, which at the time of writing this I did not know what it was — now checked: apparently it's a town (I guessed food). Anyway, Khirurg might have felt it redundant to engage in consultations in the case of Atintanians. But I agree with you that within reason, each respective side should have a certain amount of control over how their preferred version is represented, with respect to sources, and so on. So, I would invite you to apply said modifications as you see fit. For all you know, Khirurg may end up being perfectly content with these. As for a prospective impasse that brings us back around again — all I can say is that, if that happens, all of you better start doing something different. I mean, in my experience, it's rare for there to be a magic bullet for these sort of disputes. There's either hard work that mostly involves incrementally refining dis/agreements, or it's basically a waste of time and energy to bother with. Which I doubt is news to any participant here, but I still felt it was worth saying. El_C 07:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, the remaining two citations in the language section (whose lack in the RfC is what Maleschreiber is complaining about) were added to the RfC hours ago [11]. So his claims about all other sources have been excluded are totally baseless. In fact if you look at the timestamp of the edit to the RfC, the sources were added long before Maleschreiber's latest comment. Khirurg (talk) 07:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, I got your ping, though tbh I am not willing to read all what is written above. I have career, family and relatives I care about and want to give most of my time to. I first said on the article's tp that I hoped we did not have to open a RfC on a clear detail. But after the reverting cycle continued and a new editor, Demetrios, joined, then I decided to proceed with the RfC. I asked you to clarify sth about RfC practices, and you did so together with protecting the page. You and I did nothing wrong. As a matter of fact, when I came to your tp, the article had the other side's version. A page protection does not settle a dispute. As you said when the Religion in Albania dispute was concerned, what is the stable version is decided by the community consenus that can be in the form of a RfC closure. Regarding the accusations above, people tend to keep accusing others of things they themselves do. Khirurg takes things too personally by repeatedly accusing others of making edits "out of spite" and for "revenge". Indeed, he keeps accusing other editors of "tag teaming", though the only one here sanctioned as part of a group of disruptive editors at AE is Khirurg. Now, I have other things to do, and will not respond to any other frivolous accusation by people who throw those accusations while staying behind a computer screen. If anyone has facts, AE is very much willing to welcome them. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El, in an effort of addressing complaints and concerns in the RfC discussion about a missing timestamp on the RfC, I looked for the "unsigned timestamp" string of code but wouldn't find it. I remember it used to be listed somewhere in one of the Wikipedia's guidelines but it has been too long since I last saw it. Therefore I added it manually so that editors can see who made the RfC. Is that procedure [12] correctly done? If there is a better way to do it, I would appreciate if you let me know.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 15:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, Βατο was kind to do it now for us.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 15:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SilentResident, I added the Template:Unsigned but after realizing that you edited the original RfC, I removed it. – Βατο (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, good luck, everyone. Again, I'm not sure I'll be around to be able to immediately help (an absence of a week or more on my part remains a strong possibility at any time), but still, feel free to call on me if any problems arise. While I doubt I can offer much beyond a cursory examination of anything at this time, so long as that works for participants, hopefully, I can still be of help. Happy editing! El_C 16:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GPinkerton

You might want to read what I wrote and who removed it from his talkpage.[13] Debresser (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser, noted. Thank you for sharing your perspective. El_C 01:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rite of Memphis-Misraim

The spammer keeps on coming back on Rite of Memphis-Misraim. Regards --Devokewater (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 17:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Devokewater (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IBAN issue

On 30 July, you placed a one-way IBAN, broadly construed, on Newimpartial and stated that they were not to mention or interact with me again "in any way" [14]. Newimpartial has skated around the edges of the IBAN since, but in the past week has, imo, directly violated it. They don't think they have, so I'm afraid we need your input.

On 3 December, Newimpartial was pinged by another user, Bilorv, to participate in a discussion Bilorv began about my editing on the Graham Linehan page. I saw on Bilorv's talk page that Newimpartial responded they couldn't bc of a "stealth" IBAN that was placed on them by you, then linked a revision I had made on a different article eight months ago that had been disputed by Bilorv to remind Bilorv about it and called it "far beyond my threshold for drama" [15]

On 7 December, Newimpartial joined the discussion about my editing on the Linehan page anyway, if only to agree with another user [16]

I responded on 7 December that Newimpartial wasn't supposed to be participating in a discussion of my editing, and today Newimpartial responded very clearly to me, but by putting the words "To the room" at the beginning of their response, that they feel their participation is not covered by the IBAN [17]

Sorry to bother you with this again, but it seems to me that since Newimpartial was told by you that the IBAN means they cannot interact or mention me, this is a violation. If I am wrong, I apologize. Lilipo25 (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lilipo25, I'm afraid my activity is a bit spotty as of late, so you may wish to document any violations you perceive of the aforementioned ban at AE. Now, at a glance (a real cursory glance, which is all I am able to do at this time), I'm not seeing where you have been addressed or mentioned by Newimpartial. They are allowed to engage content disputes, even when these also involve your edits. In fact, you are the one who is interacting with them — which is a big no-no. Now, a lot of admins don't even bother with one-way interaction bans (too much trouble enforcing), but here is my take of these: I view them as being, for all intents and purposes, as basically 2-way bans, but where one of the parties simply does not suffer the blemish of being logged as such. So, that would be the correct way to approach this ban from now on. Good luck and sorry I was unable to offer any immediate help. El_C 00:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, El C, I didn't look at your page and realize you weren't as involved as you used to be here until after I typed my request and then thought I'd better not delete because I'd already sent the ping. For the record, though, the mention of me was Newimpartial reminding Bilorv on Bilorv's talk page on 3 Dec of an interaction Bilorv had with me over 8 months ago [18] & occurred well before any interaction involving me on the Linehan page.

But I will do as you suggest and document further issues at AE. Sorry to have bothered you at a very busy time. Lilipo25 (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lilipo25, no, not at all. Not a bother. I agree that that "stealth ban" comment was not great. And, needless to say, I take exception to the implication that there was anything amiss with that AE action on my part. As I mentioned to another participant above (about the Balkan DS), for the last few years, I've been the admin most active in arbitration enforcement (which I think the log bears out), and I would challenge that my track record has been good. Now, Newimpartial has several avenues of appeal: they can appeal the ban to a quorum of uninvolved admins at AE. They could appeal directly to the Arbitration Committee. Or they could appeal to the community at AN. So, yeah, talking about the ban outside of these formal setting is generally a bad idea. But some limited venting, especially if it concerns something that I have done, well, I make it a point to have a pretty high tolerance for that. El_C 06:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A thought

Hi El C,

It's been more than a year now since Malik Shabazz left the project, and his apparent nemesis Icewhiz was blocked for some mysterious off-wiki harassment.

I was reading User talk:Malik Shabazz, and thinking what a shame it was. Malik certainly did lose his cool, but in light of what Icewhiz turned out to be, it is harder to blame Malik.

I just wondered whether, now that so much water has passed under the bridge, whether you might consider posting a something on Malik's talk page to help heal the wounds. Just in case he pops by to see what is happening.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile, while I've always respected Malik's contributions, and admired his poignancy and breadth of knowledge, I'm not sure what I would even say to him at this time. My block of him (for personal attacks after warning) was especially lenient, I felt. As far as the maxim of enforcement escalation for bright-line rule recidivism goes, that block should have been for at least a few weeks. Instead, it was for a mere 72 hours. So, again, what would I say? All of this? Anyway, while I do hope he ends up returning, I'm not that inclined toward posting a "heal the wounds" sort of gesture on his talk page at the present time — in part, because I feel the leniency of my action already constituted such a gesture. In any case, it's not just that I feel that this isn't my cross to bear, but I'd also feel awkward about saying anything on his talk page right now. Hope that makes sense. El_C 00:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I should note that the personal attack for which I imposed the block was not directed toward Icewhiz, but rather was aimed at the blocking admin who came before me. If there was an Icewhiz impetus to that attack (which I suppose is possible), that is not something that I am able to immediately recollect. El_C 01:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C, I understand. It was just a passing thought. I do think most fall outs happen when both sides are convinced they were fair. I don’t know what it was that made Malik decide to leave but I did see someone commented on his page that he was de-sysoped but I couldn’t see where/when that happened.

On Icewhiz, the reason I thought there was a connection is Malik’s last ever Wikipedia comment was on a thread entitled Icewhiz. He talks about “his stalker” by which I assume he meant Icewhiz but I may be wrong.

Onceinawhile (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Malik was an outstanding content contributor and a very good administrator, working in areas of underrepresentation and misrepresentation. He was provoked and harassed by malicious parties and made some mistakes in responding. He blew his stack but in hindsight, his reaction appears more understandable. I for one wish that he freely decides to return to this project. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I miss him, too. He put in quite a lot of time as an admin. But when things came crashing down, I think he hit his limit of what he wanted to put up with here after a lot of micro aggressions directed at him over the years and burned his bridges. I'd like it if he came back but I think he really said "Good bye". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Burger Chef murders

This page only has 1 protection log entry which I know what is is for 'Persistent sockpuppetry'. It has been over 1 year of protection. Do you think unprotection is okay? --93.78.2.139 (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Big Belly Burger

This page only has 1 protection log entry which I know what is is for 'Persistent sockpuppetry'. It has been over 1 year of protection. Do you think unprotection is okay? --93.78.2.139 (talk) 08:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm going to test the waters by unprotecting any of the Burger articles (there's probably over 100 of them), I'm not going to do it piecemeal. Though possibly in sizable batches. But I doubt that's something I'd venture to do any time soon. That said, if another admin wishes to take it upon themselves to lift protection from one and all of these, I welcome them to do so (with the expectation that they'd keep a close enough eye). The place to request that is: Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_reduction_in_protection_level. El_C 09:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is is okay to ask for a shortening of protection duration? --93.78.2.139 (talk) 10:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay to ask anything. I'm just unlikely to find the time to attend to this matter (in any way) in the foreseeable future, I'm afraid. So, again, if you wish to see this expedited, RfPP would be the venue to forward such requests. El_C 10:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pashtunfacts

Unfortunately this user [19] hasn't changed his conduct. He keeps adding unsourced content, while also removing information in articles such as Pashtunistan, which he has been edit warring in since November. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 22:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Worrying new editor

A little while ago you blocked User:Snagemit. I have encountered another user, User:Freezingwedge who appears to have the same characteristics as Snagemit (and so could possibly be the same person). These are:

Lack of edit summaries
Very rapid transition from editing one article to the next - these are largely unrelated articles, so one wonders how the editing is based on any sources
Edits appear to simply come out of the editor's head - there is no evidence that any source has been consulted. An example of this is the edit [20]. The edit is to part of an article that has deficiencies - one of which is the reference given the refname "index". This gives an online link to the index of the book in question - there is no way of accessing the book itself online. The content of the article (before and after the edit in the link) is difficult to find in the book (which I have in front of me and have previously read). So I am puzzled as to how an editor can amend text that is supported by a deficient reference without amending the reference. This supports my view that this editor does not use sources, or does not use them in the same way as other more diligent editors.
Some edits are silly changes to the article content that erode the usefulness of the article.

I have reverted the edit shown above and would expect a good faith editor to come back and challenge me on that (hopefully with some references to support their position). I don't feel inclined to tackle Freezingwedge on their talk page, though acknowledge that I probably should.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an afterthought, I am not much of an expert on all the Wikipedia procedures for this sort of thing - I concentrate more on article content than the cut and thrust of editor interaction.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThoughtIdRetired, yes, you probably should. Because a record of pertinent warnings would make it much simpler for an admin to undertake any necessary enforcement action. As opposed to having said admin, themselves, needing to launch their own investigation into the editing in question. Which, regretfully, I doubt is something I can find the time for in the immediate future (my current level of activity is a bit spotty as of late). That said, if you are able to draft a report that is both poignant and succinct (and well-documented), there are noticeboards that can serve as review mechanisms. But, again, generally the expectation is that you'd, at very least, try to touch base with the editor in question. Because, there is a good chance that in failing to even attempt such a gesture, your report may end up being viewed unfavourably. I can't tell to what the extent this may be true, because I'm short on details. Nor do I have a firm recollection of that other editor whom I blocked indefinitely and their possible connection to this. If right now (or at some point in the future) you deem there to be conclusive enough evidence of socking, SPI would be the place to report this. Anyway, so I'll leave all of that at your discretion. Good luck and sorry I was unable to offer any immediate relief. El_C 22:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda's December corner

... and I do appreciate the November offer, see preview? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, nice (sugar and spice)! Speaking of Beethoven, I'm dying to know what you thought of that electric guitar Moonlight Sonata (3rd movement) rendition I linked to back in the November corner (→ video link again)... El_C 23:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

that's what I meant by "do appreciate", - impressive! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I know, right? So impressive. I think if Beethoven were alive (and had his hearing), he'd be the first to say that that composition was made for the electric guitar. At least when performed by someone with such superhuman prowess as Tina S (17 at the time!). I remember reading somewhere that, after performing alongside guitar god and master technicalist Joe Satriani, he said that: "she is beyond genius," and "not of this planet." Not sure if you remember, but in the first corner (still displayed on this talk page for posterity), I noted similar praise being (rightly) bestowed on Dimash. Imagine, then, if Dimash were to attempt a vocal rendition of the 3rd Movement? I submit to you that it can't be done. But, man, am I ever hopeful to be proven wrong there... Because I would love to bear witness to that performance! El_C 00:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, shall we acoustic it up? (performed by Marcin Patrzalek) El_C 06:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beethoven in 1803

Great match for the birthday display! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, I just finished reading this article (Hebrew) about his love life, and saw your comment while still listening to the video embedded in the piece (YouTube link), which features a performance by the Berlin Philharmonic. Let's keep this synchronicity going! El_C 16:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, and I wanted to write about Fidelio today, and that's what comes on radio by chance ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! Sorry, I got nothing on the happenstance front so far today. But I do have a failsafe: Duet with cat! El_C 19:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please take a look at Talk:Vespro della Beata Vergine where a "consensus" was claimed and enacted of two people while I slept? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On Beethoven: there was a little note that he was baptised OTD on 17 December in 1770, - too little if you ask me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked, but I wasn't really able to follow much of anything there. I confess to having a rather poor grasp of, well, Christianity (ecumenically and otherwise), in general. But, as a basic rule of thumb, if someone claims their changes are backed by consensus while another disputes that, the best way to disentangle this may be in expressing the dispute in the form of a dispute resolution request (like an RfC) that is properly closed. Such a closure would codify consensus or lack thereof. Until such a request is closed, it is customary for the status quo ante version to be the one that is being displayed. El_C 18:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I understand. I'm seeing mention of it, but what do you mean by "little" or "too little"? We appear to be experiencing some cultural dissonance here... El_C 18:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last first: the 250th anniversary of baptism of one of the greatest composers ever might have come with an image and with saying so, rather than letting readers do the math, I think.

I reverted to the pro-ante version, twice. All the rhetoric is about referring to the psalms set to music in the composition with the Hebrew numbering or the Catholic (abbreviated from the official names). The article had the Hebrew (which is the original, and the one our article titles follow, and known to the majority of readers), but explained that Monteverdi knew the other. Featured article, passed reviews. Editor A changed all occurrences to Catholic, I reverted. Editor B reverted to A's version. I reverted once more to pro-ante and asked to talk per WP:BRD. B reverted once more and asked me to talk. I was too tired to do anything. In the morning I found that editor C had restored pro-ante, but A and B had agreed on the talk that they formed a consensus, and had implemented that. I have no time for such things. In the end, after quite some rhetoric ("fake news", "aspersions") B told me something about wasted time, on my talk also. How true ;) - I have no time nor nerves to even look which version we have now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked, and editor D restored to pro-ante. Please just watch. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, because the Baptism signifies Beethoven's birthdate — gotcha. As for Vespro della Beata Vergine, will do, but I get the sense that the worse if over as far as that dispute is concerned. More importantly, sorry to hear about the tragedy that has befallen your family. Hope you find solace in all that is precious. El_C 23:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I removed the latter from my talk, as too private. The bickering seemed just so extra pointless on the background. I may come again, just saying editor B, ok? take courage - my current headline - was what I told myself when it hit me five years ago, and I'm still here. I supported this DYK with a great deal of sympathy, a great woman who chose that line for a title. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And thank goodness you are! Through whatever perils we find ourselves, it is this courage which is the true measure of grace. So, keep on keeping on the good fight, always. Now, if I may venture to cheer you up: I'm watching Cracked.com's series on YouTube that features (to quote from the Wikipedia article): "Honest Commercials – Jack Hunter portrays Roger Horton, a businessman who promotes products of his various companies with brutal honesty." It is fun and funny and merciless. Highly recommended. El_C 21:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, looked and liked, and I see I could spend a lot of time ... - Best wishes for 2021! - Taking the courage to add to the above bickering situation that someone should perhaps tell editor B that telling others such as my dear friend Olive that they have to "grasp" how Wikipedia works, and more about aspersions, is not the kindest way of interaction, on top of not without irony. - I don't send season's greeting, - just watch my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you, too! Anyway, I agree it is neither a respectful nor an intellectually honest way for one to conduct themselves. Honestly, I would have said something, but everyone seems to have left the page after last we spoke. In any case, it clearly falls short of the sort of collaborative editing and discourse expected on the project. *** Of course, here is the obligatory music video. Lately, I find myself liking the Sam Brown rendition of The Great Gig in the Sky even more than the original Clare Torry version (I know, sacrilege!). A few months ago, Pink Floyd released a restored version. Here it is in all of its glory: Link. El_C 22:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! Have a good new year 2021! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Same to you. 2021 UTC timestamp! El_C 00:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts about the recent AE case

Hi, El_C. I am writing because the situation seems to develop in a totally unexpected direction, and that is very worrying.

Briefly, I am especially astounded by your description of the problem. You write "Here we have one admin asking for Arbitration enforcement sanctions to be placed on another admin", which is totally incorrect. Here we have one user (Ymblanter) asking for AE sanctions against another user (Michael). Both the later and the former are acting purely in an editorial capacity, so the fact that both of them are admins is totally irrelevant to that case. Normally, the reported user is expected to respond promptly. Correct me if I am wrong, but user's silence for more than few days (provided that they are active on other pages) is considered to be unacceptable, and the action may be taken without waiting for a response from the reported user. In that case, the reported user is remaining silent, but, as the diffs provided by me demonstrated) he continues to edit in exactly the the same style that caused Ymblanter's report. In my opinion, that is a clear disrespect to the AE procedure. According to WP:ADMINCOND, "administrators should lead by example". What example can we, humble mortals, see here? That "some animals are more equal", so admins may ignore AE? Before that incident, I disagreed with some users who called admins "Wikipedia gods", but now I see that there is some ground for that. Clearly, Mzajac's behaviour demonstrates that he feels that his admin's status protects him, to some degree, from sanctions. Therefore, although he was not misusing administrative tools, we can speak about some misuse of admin's status.

I am asking myself: "what if Ymblanter were not an admin, but just an ordinary user? Does it mean there would be no reaction from "fellow admins" at all?"

I am also wondering if the admin who shows such a disrespect to the AE procedure can be allowed to act as an uninvolved admin in other AE cases. Do you find that correct?

In summary, although I find Mzajac's violations (listed by Ymblanter and me) not too serious to warrant severe sanctions, the subsequent events (actually, the lack thereof) are really worrying, and, in my opinion, they form a separate case that deserves a separate consideration. I respect you, so I decided to share my thoughts with you first. Maybe, we can think together how to minimize the negative impact of that case on Wikipedia as whole.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, thank you for sharing your concerns with me directly. I value your feedback, always. But what you are attributing to me is simply not true. Your interpretation with the manner in which this report was attended to by myself (singlehandedly) thus far, is also not true. Your assumption about there being any special treatment is, as well, patently untrue. Please be aware that my mindset is already hardcoded against any discrimination. To me, falling short of that ethical imperative amounts to a betrayal of the community's trust, and of my own values. It would be just plain corrupt. But Michael getting busy and me granting them another week is not something which I view as being "disrespect[ful] to the AE procedure" (whatever you perceive that procedure to be). I would not treat a non-admin any different. I always try to be laid back (whenever matters are otherwise calm), with anyone and everyone. True, I called attention to there being a weird three admin trifecta. But I only noted that because I found it an odd, curious thing. But that's all that was. A comment in passing which is otherwise of zero significance. It's just that I almost never see an admin face a strong AE complaint. It's so exceedingly rare. In the final analysis, admin or non-admin, whether it ends up taking a couple of weeks versus a couple of days, why does it matter? I mean, if I am to impose a sanction here (which is likely), I don't really envision it being for less than six months (probably closer to a year). Above all other things, I specifically said that I do not feel in any way obliged to defer to a quorum of admins if I were to remain the sole uninvolved admin overseeing this case. That's because I do not intend to allow for this complaint to fall through the cracks, which does happen with some regularity on AE. I'm committed to seeing it through. And I hope that the manner in which I conclude it lives up to your expectations as well as that of the community, overall. But if it doesn't, well, I might be due for some serious soul searching... Thanks again for dropping by. Please do not hesitate to keep sharing any concerns with me, about anything. I'd always prefer being told that there may be a problem than to just have someone think it in silence. El_C 00:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, sorry if I misunderstood something. It is quite likely that that is your normal manner to communicate your viewpoint, but that style looks unusually soft for AE. At least, my impression is that admins are, as a rule, much less liberal when they comment on DS violation reports. That is why I attributed that to the fact that Mzajac is an admin.

I still think that three things are totally unusual here, and I found that worrying. First, except you, no other admins voiced their opinion, and the case was archived. As you correctly noted, a situation when an admin faces a strong AE complaint is extremely rare, and, therefore, it is expected to draw attention of the whole admins community. Instead, it seems they demonstrated zero attention to that case.

Second, usually, a very big attention is paid to observing due procedural rules at AE, and the reported user is supposed to respond timely. I can agree that we all are busy in our real life, and, had Mzajac "disappeared from radars" for one week or even ten days contemplating a response, that would be ok. However, he seems to continue editing Wikipedia, and his edits follow the very same scheme that was reported by Ymblanter (Kiev->Kyiv replacement, one of those examples can be found in my comments). That is what I call a clear and direct demonstration of disrespect.

Third, Mzajac does not observe even the schedule proposed by him himself: on 10th of December, he wrote " I will respond today", and there are no posts from him even today. Again, I doubt admins would be equally tolerant to other users.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Iv'e just noticed another admin commented on Mzajac, so one of my concerns has been partially addressed. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, now it's coming together for me! I overlooked that Dec 11 diff you quote in the report. I don't know why but I was under the misapprehension that Michael was simply inactive throughout all this time. Indeed, I also find that edit to be disrespectful toward the AE procedure. Jeez, no wonder you were scratching your head. Talk about a gushing softness to a "fellow admin." That looks terrible. What can I say? I'm sorry. I'm sorry for faltering. I guess I've been more scattered than I realized (just been really busy lately). Will take note and will try to do better. Anyway, I'll address all of that in the report momentarily (and will link to this discussion). But before I do that I'd like to thank you, Paul. Thank you for speaking out and thank you for bearing with me. Kind regards, El_C 01:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, El_C. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Siebert, FWIW, don't assume that because multiple admins didn't comment that none were watching closely or that they wouldn't have commented if they thought it were necessary/helpful. If I'd had a comment I thought would add insight, I'd have made it. —valereee (talk) 13:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Er, and sorry for commenting on a stale discussion. :D —valereee (talk) 13:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your insight please

Given your experience regarding this topic, could I ask for your insight please? Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein, I have done so. Needless to say, I'm not happy by what I'm seeing (again). What a mess. El_C 09:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my belated thanks. I know it's a real mess and I am sorry if there are wrongdoings on my part. But I told them from the very first days that the new RFC was not an improvement to the previous discussions ([21]&[22]). I remember you described the situations precisely as "vortex" somewhere on the TP and it's like a vortex. Consensus Required restriction was a really helpful step but I think, now RFCs are being misused to bypass that restrictions. Discussion is replaced by awkward ANI, SPI (which you saw recently) and RFCs. I am thinking over your suggestions at AN. Thanks again. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein, I've always felt it healthy, and representative of the scholarship, that the two sides in the MEK dispute were matched fairly evenly. But lately, I'm seeing a growing imbalance that, frankly, puzzles me... I'm not sure how the pro-MEK side became dominant over the anti-MEK one recently (since it appears to have happened during my absence), but here we are.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 19:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am seeing the trend. This happens when you can use RFCs to reach your goals. Once it is successful, you may try it more, specially when you're told NUMBER can be taken into account. So this does not surprise me. But, when arguments are weighed properly, this unusual trend will certainly stop. Thank you again. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring anon

On a Polish-Jewish WWII controversy bio at Józef Franczak. Mind slapping 500/30? Thank you. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protected indefinitely. El_C 02:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on requested moves

Hey! If you have the time, I was wondering if you could give me some advice regarding a move request for multiple pages that I've made: [23] I'm proposing to move the majority of the historically Armenian populated towns in the region of Nagorno-Karabakh/the breakaway Republic of Artsakh to their most likely common names (their Armenian-language names in the majority of the cases) per WP:COMMONNAME - with the possibility of corrections afterwards in case the Armenian names are not the common names for some localities.

Right now the article names are mostly based on the official names of the towns/villages, apart from larger ones such as Stepanakert, Martakert and Martuni, Nagorno Karabakh - which have had separate move discussions. The official names are often newer Azerbaijani names decided on by the government of Azerbaijan. When needed I've also argued for using ", Nagorno-Karabakh" as a disambiguation tag - as I believe that it's the most suitable per WP:NPOV with regard to the long-disputed nature of the region - similarly to how towns are named for other disputed/autonomous regions on Wikipedia such as Kosovo, Transnistria and Gagauzia.

I've only included three example names in my request, which I have stated explicitly in the text - and I've linked this list of articles in the text: [24] with an explanation, to display the towns I'm proposing to move.

After going through WP:RMCM, I just wanted to make sure - is this ok to do? Or would you say I need to relist/redo the move request in some way? Listing every village (+100) would be very impractical so I assumed that it would be possible to use a couple of the larger settlements in NK as examples.

I've also listed the request on the Nagorno-Karabakh talk page and the Republic of Artsakh talk page in order to make the request as open as possible.

AntonSamuel (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AntonSamuel, this is a highly controversial subject matter (subject to WP:ARBAA2), so I would advise caution. Maybe note that the three proposed moves are representative of a sample by listing the request at Centralized discussion... Certainly, if you're able to secure consensus for the moves, you can go on to move other pages, though maybe it would be best to undertake this somewhat gradually in batches. But that's getting ahead of ourseleves. First, make sure you have consensus to move those 3 villages before moving on to (the many) others. Hope this helps. El_C 19:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice! I've listed the discussion on Wikipedia:Centralized discussion now. AntonSamuel (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AntonSamuel, I reverted your addition to CENT but wanted to give a more thorough reason than would fit in the edit summary. Move requests have their own advertising process, so editors interested specifically in move requests will see and consider your proposal. For that reason, move requests are usually only listed at CENT if they are large (like renaming #### AD titles to #### CE) or unusually controversial. While controversial, this request isn't unusually so, and while it may provide support for or against a larger move proposal, it's only 3 pages at the moment. So it's better to use the typical RM advertisement process and wait until there's a large request or RfC to list at CENT. — Wug·a·po·des 22:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wugapodes, there's large for a given topic area (as it is here for ARBAA2) and then there's truly grand, like calendar naming conventions. My problem is that there is no central place to advertise this key ARBAA2 change so as to account for its coverage of many articles. So, what is there to be done? Giving a single (regularly-advertised) RM the weight of 100 RMs doesn't make much sense. Whereas undertaking 100 separate RMs makes even less sense. So, short of CENT, how is such a multi-RM request to be properly advertised? Certainly, I'm open to suggestions. El_C 22:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping: AntonSamuel. El_C 23:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see what you're saying. In my opinion CENT is for things that need all hands on deck. I think the balance is whether someone with no interest in the specific topic would still want to give input. So RMs that are testing a particular interpretation of policy or which may make major news thus reflecting on the project. Editors without subject-area knowledge can still contribute value to those discussions. But if the discussion centers on some piece of subject knowledge, CENT probably won't attract many people (or worse, people who don't understand the question). I'm totally willing to be wrong, but it seemed like this set of RMs really requires an understanding of the culture of the area and the geopolitics of Armenia and Azerbaijan. I think the better option is to post messages at relevant wikiprojects and maybe a village pump. This way it has wide advertisement to people who know and care about the subject. If wikiproject notifications don't work out I'd be happy to add a notice back to CENT, and feel free to ask for more input at WT:CENT since others may feel differently from me. — Wug·a·po·des 04:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I suppose what stood out in my mind pertained to WP:ARBMAC2: when Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC was listed on CENT... But that does seem to be an exception to the rule, so indeed WP:VPPROP might be a better fit. As for WP:ARBAA2-related Wikiprojects, that was actually my first go-to, but unfortunately, those all seem too inactive to be of much use at the present time. El_C 07:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All right, so what would you say is best to do at this point, to wait and see with the existing move request, or would you advise me to summarize my request and post it on WP:VPR? AntonSamuel (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before doing anything else, I would actually advise that you attempt to list articles that would be affected by the request. El_C 18:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've created an infopage with a list of the towns claimed or controlled by the Republic of Artsakh which were Armenian-majority in 1989 - which would therefore be affected by the move request if not already moved to their common names (with smoother/correct transliterations used) or using the ", Nagorno-Karabakh" disambiguation tag, based on the List of cities and towns in Artsakh article, which also contains localities claimed, controlled or previously controlled by Artsakh which had Azerbaijani majorities in 1989. AntonSamuel (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now that you've done that, it looks to me like you would be facing a three-pronged challenge. 1. Making a convincing argument for the naming convention change, overall. 2. Eliminate those exceptions that would need to be evaluated on a more case-by-case basis. 3. Ability to avoid the bad optics of having launched such an effort so soon after the recent war. In any case, good luck! El_C 22:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback! AntonSamuel (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lifting of a partial block

Back in June you indefinitely blocked an editor from editing the article COVID-19 pandemic in Greece and its talk page. I declined an unblock request shortly afterwards, and then I likewise declined a request for reconsideration on my talk page. Now, 6 months later, I have received another request for unblock on my talk page, and this time I have accepted it. You explicitly said on the editor's talk page that any administrator could unblock without consulting you, but I am letting you know as a courtesy so that if you wish to you can check what has been said. If you don't wish to do so, please ignore this message. If you wish to see it, it's at User talk:Randam#Your recent request for lifting of your partial block. JBW (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JBW, works for me. Thanks for picking up the slack. El_C 22:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For being there when you're needed, for being a superb admin in general, and for making those tough calls (even when they ended up earning you flak). Your work can't be appreciated enough. Thank you for your hard work! LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 08:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, LightandDark2000! That is Admin's Barnstar number 11 (yes, I'm still counting!). Anyway, I greatly appreciate your kindness and encouragement. Season's Greetings! El_C 22:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! :D LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

EI_C, I might be obsessed by now with new accounts following me, and I believe this is just a coincidence, and I am overreacting. However, please still take a quick look at this edit, when you get a chance [25]. Please see the nature of the edit as well as the "Tag: Reverted" - tagged the same as my last edit to that article [26]. I just want you guys to know that I have nothing to do with that new account. Sarah, please note that as well, thanks. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GizzyCatBella, the reverted tag is automatically attached to an edit that has been reverted. Yesterday, Sarah reverted you, hence the tag got automatically attached to your edit. Whereas Ealdgyth has reverted Freezingwedge, hence the tag/s there. At a glance, ~~nothing about the edits of Freezingwedge stand out (with respect to the topic area and beyond)...~~ On closer look: some similar problems with their editing have been raised elsewhere. El_C 23:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and there's really no need to offer a preemptive defense against socking, especially on the part of someone who never socked before. In any case, the edits appear unrelated. El_C 23:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, yeah... I must be obsessed, I’m sorry... I need a break I think.. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. All good. El_C 23:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable arrival of IP troll

@El C:, thank you very much for your work during the tortured Kiev > Kyiv move discussion. I have read the discussion and your decision at [[27]]. As you know, my name came up in that discussion in a favorable light. The decision was dated: 02:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC). The last couple of days, the following has happened on my Talk Page: [28], [29], [30], and [31]. I'm not saying definitively that they are linked to the ban, but the timing is suspect since I haven't edited any controversial linguistic articles for a long time. Thank you again for your willingness to walk on fire to make Wikipedia a better place. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, TaivoLinguist. That's kind of you to say. I actually didn't intend on doing that much with that AE complaint that featured Mzajac. I hoped to fire-and-forget my 2 cents, mostly because I didn't really have the time to deal with it. In the end, I had to make time. Anyway, me taking the helm there pretty much happened organically, which wasn't the greatest for me, but oh well, at least that part of it is done now. I suppose we'll see if (prompted or unprompted) the Committee itself decides to further intervene... Anyway, Mzajac says that they may appeal, but I struggle to conceive how an effective appeal can be launched on their part for, well, the foreseeable future. As for that IP,

Blocked – for a period of one month. If they return to harass you with a different IP, let me know. It doesn't look like your talk page is visited that frequently by IPs (last one was August), so if you'd want to have it protected for a long time, we can do that. Regards, El_C 22:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for blocking that IP. No, I don't get many anon IPs dropping by, so I don't think I need anything more serious. Take care. Have a Happy Holiday season and stay safe. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For sure, Taivo. Merry Christmas! El_C 23:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of the topic ban

Must I avoid all Kyiv-related discussions? Would it violate the ban to point out that an editor rolled back three edits when they apparently only intended to revert the last one? Must I avoid editing pages like this one in my own user space: user:Mzajac/Kyiv? Thanks. —Michael Z. 17:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you must avoid all Kyiv-related discussions. Yes, it would violate the ban. Yes, avoid editing pages like this one in [your] own user space. That is what broadly construed means. That is why I linked to WP:BROADLY on your talk page. Save for an appeal, it is intended as a blanket prohibition. El_C 17:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bates method

I'm not sure that you count as an "uninvolved" administrator, since you blocked me previously. So perhaps you should move your comment. And maybe change it after reading my statement. Belteshazzar (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am sure. As WP:UNINVOLVED reads: an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. Hope that clears things up. El_C 22:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom restriction

Hi, could you protect the following article Polish irredentism, according to the 500/30 ArbCom restriction? It was created by what looks like a sock puppet and now what is clearly a sock puppet anon ip account is edit warring over it. The article itself is a borderline hoax as none of the sources actually support any of the text. Someone (the first IP) just wrote a bunch of original research text and tacked on irrelevant citations to make it look legit. Volunteer Marek 19:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protected indefinitely. As far as the 500-30 restriction goes, not really an WP:APL matter, but rather an WP:ARBEE one. But, meh — doesn't really matter. Anyway, even if the article was up to par, seems weird and redundant to seemingly duplicate the Greater Poland page for no apparent reason... Oh well, onwards and upwards! El_C 21:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, at further glance, perhaps the Greater Poland article and the Greater Poland alternate name noted in the non-redirect version of Polish irredentism are not actually the same thing (?). Well, regardless, better to err on the side of severity as far as the topic area is concerned, overall. El_C 21:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah in this context “Greater Poland” means “Older Poland” (it’s kind of a mistranslation) in contrast to Lesser Poland which means “Newer Poland” (though older here means 10th century and newer means 11th century). The irredentism stuff is just a very minor potential sub set of Polish nationalism. Volunteer Marek 21:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Thanks, I learned something new! El_C 21:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by a new account on Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia

I think this should be protected under ArbCom’s 500/30 restriction? [32] - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely and

Extended confirmed protected indefinitely. El_C 06:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Ho Ho

Donner60 (talk) is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20}} to your friends' talk pages.

Yo Ho Ho

M.Bitton (talk) is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20}} to your friends' talk pages.

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello El C, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021.
Happy editing,
Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:54, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Natalis soli invicto!

		Natalis soli invicto!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas !

---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} is wishing you a Merry Christmas!

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:47, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive IP

Hi El C, there is a IP [33] whose edits are very similiar to that of the user Pashtunfacts (whom you recently banned). Just like, he removes/alters information whilst using dishonest edit summaries (these are just some examples: [34] [35] [36] [37]). He has already been blocked for disruptive editing once, yet he continues. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 3 months. El_C 20:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

unfortunate close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Larson (politician)

Wellllll... this close was against procedure, and it wasn't really a good edit. And kind of even more so since you're not an administrator (I assume), and non-admins should be careful about closes, and should basically never close a complicated XfD before it's proper time has run. Particulary with, basically, no good or rule-based reason. The things you said are cogent, and fine for a "vote", but not fine for a summary close in violation of normal Wikipedia procedures. I'm sure you see the difference. (Also you're supposed to note non-admin closes as such).

For instance "Not sure why this request sidesteps the rather wide-ranging news coverage..." (I'm sorry you're not sure, it was explained reasonably well I think. It's fine to admit when you're not sure of something, but it's not a reason for ignoring Wikipedia procedures). As to "I do count [the 2018 AfD] as a real AfD, and I find this claim to the contrary to be otherwise without basis" [N.B.: it has basis] I mean, it's good have opinions about stuff, but not so much to used to summarily close against usual procedure (not even considering that a AfD from two years ago that ran for two days doesn't really prevent this AfD). And so forth.

I'm confident you were just having a bad moment, and it's fine. We all do; God knows I do. I'm not mad or wanting to chastise you or anything. I'm sure you're a good editor and I don't want to leave a sour note. Just wanting to be helpful and explain my revert to prevent any misunderstanding. Carry on, colleague! Herostratus (talk) 22:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Herostratus, El C has been an administrator for 15 years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:54, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. However, I don't see how this nomination meets any of the WP:SK criteria, even if it almost certainly will be kept. Black Kite (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously Herostratus made a mistake in assuming you're not an administrator but I agree with the gist of his post. Your close appears to be a supervote, not a summary of a discussion (which had barely begun). It's also out of process and too early to invoke the snowball clause, and I'm not seeing any justification for invoking IAR. I would politely request that you reopen the AfD and let it run its course, and post your comments as a vote if you feel so inclined. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Herostratus, you check user rights like so: Special:UserRights/El_C. If you wish to see more of my admin stats, these are available here. HJ Mitchell, Black Kite, I do not consider my close to be a WP:SUPERVOTE. The request proposed that the last AfD close be termed invalid due to...reasons. I have found procedural fault with that alone. At this point, I'd rather see it taken for wider review at WP:DRV. El_C 23:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, I have no strong feelings about the article but I feel the close was premature and out of process and your rationale was a supervote. It's nearly midnight and I'm on a phone but I will file a DRV tomorrow when I can get to my laptop if it hasn't been done by then. I think it's unfortunate that you haven't heeded the concerns raised by three people (so far) with your actions and have tried to resolve it informally. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:43, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell, key words: "at this point." Anyway, my view is that, procedurally, Herostratus should have taken Ritchie333's close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Larson (political candidate) onto DRV rather than having them create a new deletion discussion. A deletion discussion in which they argued that the 2018 close was decided apparently purely on preliminary headcount at the time, or the closer just liked the article, or something. That sounds like a DRV, not an AfD, matter. Sorry if my admittedly somewhat defused closing summary failed to sharpen this maxim. Certainly, if you still find me to be in error, I encourage you to take whatever steps you see fit to remedy that. Happy to continue discussing this informally, too. But, again, at this point in time, I am not prepared to undo my close. El_C 23:59, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, El C. Yes I know how to check rights; I just assumed that you weren't an administrator. Partly because you don't care to say so on your user page for some reason, but mainly for another reason; but it doesn't matter very much to the question at hand anyway. I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure that that shutdown was a bad edit. It's not supposed to matter much on article pages, because it can sorted out sooner or later, per WP:BRD. However, procedural pages are sometimes different; if a procedural page is quashed, that cripples the procedure, and that really can't be easily undone. Nobody is going to vote on the matter now, so that even if there was a plethora of Keep "votes" ready to come thru (not super likely, but you never know), they would be silenced. If the page is restored after say a week or so back-and-forth, the page has lost its immediacy, and doesn't show up in the recent AfD list, and so forth. Another AfD could be opened, but then it's all kind of a mess. And it's not necessary, and not even allowed. (WP:SNOW is a bad page, because -- as here -- it's commonly used to valorize supervotes, and we've all seen cases -- not frequent, but sometimes -- of say eight Delete "votes" followed within a few days by 12 Keep "votes" or whatever. See also WP:PI.) Even in meatspace recently we've seen times when early returns don't necessarily decide the issue after all. Not that headcount is the main thing here -- we have a guideline against what is claimed (reasonably if not necessarily correctly) a policy consideration. If you're relying solely on headcounts, particularly early returns, to close XfDs... maybe that's not excellent.

My two cents is that I don't think it's worth you fighting over. I believe that it's a terrible article, it is not an ornament to the project, and it's probably or at least possibly put here to "get" this guy. So the policy WP:IAR is in play, see Wikipedia:The one question for where I'm coming from. I'm not here to abet or even ignore character assassination, so would you please at least let me have my day in court. I'll probably lose anyway (but you never know!) and anyway, for people who like the article, a proper and complete AfD, if it ends with Keep, will better inoculate the article against further AfDs than a rapid shutdown without proper argument, n'est-ce pas? So let's just let it go, please an thank you, and not get into an edit war because then we're going to spend more time on this and it's just not necessary. The wider review, if you want to press the issue, will have to be at WP:ANI rather than WP:DRV I guess, and what a waste that would be. Herostratus (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Herostratus. Listen, you need to stop expunging my close. I am an admin in good standing, that is not an appropriate action for you to engage in at this time. Anyway, I'm not sure why you think a wider review concerning an AfD close belongs on ANI rather than DRV. You don't really elaborate about that. Oh well. Either works for me. As I make clear above, you should have touched base with Ritchie333 and/or taken their close to DRV, seeing again as you contend that he based it apparently purely on preliminary headcount at the time, or the closer just liked the article, or something. That is something which I think is worth responding to, even if only briefly. El_C 01:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Herostratus: El C is a long-term and highly active admin and your insinuations about why you "assumed" he was not an admin presumably roll off his back, but I do not in the least appreciate your assumption of bad faith about the article: "I believe that it's a terrible article, it is not an ornament to the project, and it's probably or at least possibly put here to 'get' this guy", you said. Please re-read the first AfD, where those who participated judged it to be a neutral article on a challenging topic. Whether you like it or not, we need articles on people who are "notorious" as well as on people who are "famous", and we need editors with the gumption to write them. Yes, as I admitted at the AfD you started (in which you ignored nationwide news coverage by reliable sources such as the Washington Post that you had apparently also removed from the article), it is a challenging article to maintain and I have regretted taking this tiger by the tail and in fact walked away after one particular editor insisted on overbalancing it. I regret that. But I have the self-confidence to respond to your aspersions—if you still think they are not aspersions, then please examine the versions of the article that I wrote, and the sources I cited—the next editor who writes on a notable topic that is unpleasant (or that you consider unpleasant), may not have that self-confidence to stand up for their work. I also suggest you do a little "before" and read up for yourself on Larson, or any future topic where your animus leads you to assume GNG is not met but the motivation must rather have been hostility. That way you might instead help balance any unbalanced articles on notable topics that you examine. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yngvadottir:OK. I hear you. Wow, you are right on that point. That was out of line for me to assume bad faith, and dead wrong. It was just an aside not important to the main points, and I certainly shouldn't have said it. I forgot to apply WP:BLP to you so to speak, and that was hurtful, and I'm really am sorry. I don't know you well but I understand that you're an excellent editor, more accomplished than me probably, and an excellent person to boot, and I sincerely thank you for your many contributions. And the article is well put together, really professional level work. It's not "terrible" in that sense. I just meant it shouldn't exist. I didn't need to have said "terrible" I guess, but the Wikipedia can't be a respecter of persons. It's just business. I've had similar said about my articles. It's not fun though. But I know it's hard work shepherding fraught articles, so again sorry for any shade.

And but we do see this sort of thing. This guy is the sort of person that isn't going to be popular here, and you do get a lot of people using the Wikipedia to score points for their side.

I am a bear on WP:BLP. I have been for 15 years since the B____ P______ situation and I'm not going to stop. Maybe that makes me less kind than I should be. I get that most people don't care that much about BLP, want to define it as narrowly as possible, and get around it when possible, and some even think that their moral obligations in the world are somehow superseded when they sit at a keyboard. I don't agree with that, at all. And I'm allowed to present my case, or should be. Maybe some people will be like "hmmm, fair point" or maybe not. Maybe by one editor at a time we can get people to consider this different perspective. But we can't do that if we're, I don't know, not even allowed to speak can we, and that's my beef with El C.

If I deleted your Washington Post ref it's because I deleted the material it supported. You can see what that is in the history. I mean, maybe he did it, maybe he didn't. Maybe he'll be found innocent or maybe not. Maybe the charges will be dropped or maybe he'll plea bargain to a lesser offense. A lot of people get arrested who aren't actually guilty. But then it'd be too late wouldn't it. For one thing, our articles get mirrored, a lot. (I understand that the situation doesn't look too good for him right now, but then neither did O. J. Simpson's, and so "nah, c'mon, he's slam-dunk guilty" can't be a thing we do.)

Yes I understand your points on the merits of the article and maybe you're right, it's the merits of the close that I'm concerned with though. Yes I know that we have lots of articles "Joe Shmoe is an American murderer..." and so forth. And that's fine, usually. I wrote George Feigley myself (he's dead though, and don't read the article, it's just gruesome). This article is different. It just is. That's my opinion, and maybe it's wrong but I've explained it at length and I don't accept that my opinion, while possibly wrong, is unfitting of consideration. Herostratus (talk) 06:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I dunno, Herostratus... You respond at such length above, but you have yet to spare a word that touches on my principal assertion. Which is that you committed the procedural violation of explicitly disregarding the 2018 AfD, not bothering going through WP:CLOSECHALLENGE steps with its closing admin, or failing that, taking the matter to DRV (not AfD). Nor do you seemingly spare a word about how you, the involved editor who filed the request, continued edit warring to expunge my close, even after you learned that I was acting in my capacity as an uninvolved admin. And uninvolved I remain until it is determined otherwise, with this determination following a set procedure. Now, within the confines of this procedure, you're free to make your case to overturn my close, for which you may well end up succeeding. But what you don't get to do is to circumvent the process by unilaterally over-ruling me. So, I admit to being dissapointed that, even now, all of that remains unacknowledged by yourself. El_C 06:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Well, it's not clear to me what is the deal with the previous AfD in 2018. Suppose I want to nominate an article for deletion. It was nominated, but kept, a couple of years ago. Instead of starting a new nomination, I'd have to instead get a DRV overturn on the previous AfD ? I've never heard of that. If I'm reading you correctly, if an AfD is closed as Keep, and it's a proper close (and can't be overturned), the article could never be nominated again. But I'm certain that that's not practice. The 2018 close was by SNOW, but how does that change anything? I'm willing to be educated on this, I'm just puzzled.

Yeah I get where you're coming from, but what I'm not getting is why. Just in simple English explain to me "I am sticking with the quick shutdown to the last ditch, because it's just imperative that this AfD be closed now now now or else the Wikipedia will be damaged in the following way: ______________". What goes in the blank? Fill in the blank for me and we can take it from there. Can you?

You should basically never use the essay WP:SNOW. I mean the generic "you", but also you in particular, I'd have to say, if this is an example. One reason is a lot of people don't like it, so why force it on them. I mean, look what happened here. Worth it, you think? I don't consider SNOW closes -- at least like this one -- to be legitimate. But you do. So it's contentious, and something to fight over, alienate people over, and spend project time and energy over, and for what? For nothing. So a discussion can be closed early. Which is meaningless at best. Read WP:PI for more.

WP:SNOW is just not a good tool if you don't know how to use it or don't care. If you know how to use it you didn't demonstrate that today. It's alright, nobody's good with every tool; you're probably a whiz at history merges or whatever; but it's important to know not to use (say) the welding torch if you don't know how it's supposed to be used.

But anyway I mean you win. I can't fight an admin, I like it here. Can't go to ANI, since rolling back closes is against some rule I'm sure (and its a good rule too), and that's your home ground anyway. If there's a DRV, you'd have the whip hand because you need a positive decision to overturn and that's hard, and because you're going to get people who are like "Well, I think the article's OK, so I say uphold the close", and because people just trust you I guess (I'm sure they have good reason, but you made a mistake here, is all). You made a mistake, and you boxed me in so there's no remedy, and as a bonus have one pretty pissed off editor here. That's not good staff development for a volunteer organization. Something to think about in the light of day, maybe. 08:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Look, Herostratus, I'm not sure why you're acting so defeated. You may well end up persevering at DRV, even if you don't participate (HJ Mitchell may file one soon, regardless). Then, if overturned, the AfD will be reopened for the full 7 days (unless it SNOWs even before then), after which it will almost certainly be closed as keep. Even minor damage to Wikipedia in either scenario seem unlikely. Do I still think a successful re-opening would be a needless timesink? I do. But that's not the point. Do I also find that your nomination is basically a policy discussion (granted, with Larson at its nexus) masquerading as a specific deletion discussion? I do, as well. But that isn't the point, either.

No, of course, one is free to renominate an article for deletion a few years after it was kept. It would, indeed, be puzzling if that was prohibited, with one needing to go to DRV as a matter of course. My problem is that it was you who chose to question the 2018 AfD close. It was you who chose to advance that it was invalid. I keep quoting you on this for a reason, because when you maintain that the closing admin's decision was based apparently purely on preliminary headcount at the time, or the closer just liked the article, or something, you are effectively arguing that their closure was invalid. It is a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, that while made in passing, does not see the admin facing the challenge even being pinged to the discussion to defend their action (which, hey, it's certainly possible that they could not care less). But also key is to view all of that in concert with you launching such an AfD in the midst of there being an avalanche of publicity about the subject. I mean, as much as I'd like to suspend my disbelief, it confounds common sense. Is that a WP:SUPERVOTE? Jeez, I hope not. But maybe.

Regardless, I still don't understand what you're trying to accomplish with this nomination. Short of it just being some sort of social experiment. I suppose I just don't see the point. It seems like a frivolous exercise. El_C 09:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Herostratus, At this point your choices are suck it up or file a DRV. I'm still away from a proper computer but I intend to do the latter later today. You're welcome to beat me to it but edit warring over the close wasn't appropriate and nor is continuing to badger El C, who has politely (if disappointingly) declined to reverse their decision. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, HJ Mitchell, I don't feel like I was being badgered, certainly not in the course of the discussion here — even if it did get a bit longwinded and even though a "mainly for another reason" awkwardness was introduced. I'm all good on that front, though. Still, to me, this AfD honestly also came across as a borderline-POINTy nomination, in need of being speedied. And I think if the DRV were to succeed in overturning my close, it won't benefit the project any. But, again, it isn't going to hurt it much, either. This nomination, my speedy close of it, the discussion of my closure, the forthcoming DRV — I don't envision any of these in having any sort of a lasting impact (not even remotely). Certainly, not a good reason to get upset over (I hope!). Whatever will be, will be. Regardless of the outcome, I'm sure it'll turn out fine in the end. 2020, right? What a ride! Best wishes all. El_C 11:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, the proper course of action when reasonable people disagree in good faith is to seek outside opinions rather than continuing to post large volumes of text. For the record, I have now opened a DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 December 26. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updating the thread that I overturned myself by closing the DRV early. As mentioned in my closing summary, while it still feels like a mistake, it looks like in this case, a "feeling" just isn't good enough. Anyway, as also mentioned, I will do my best to take the input offered on-board so as to avoid future missteps. Thanks goes to everyone for the abundance of patience and careful consideration. El_C 20:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Herostratus, I regret to say this but I must. In my opinion, your behavior on this matter is way out of line. This person is notable for multiple self-reinforcing reasons and a comprehensive encyclopedia with over six million articles ought to have an article about him. Your indignant insistence that the article must go, no matter what other editors think, is unseemly. Your dogmatic approach is leading you to assume bad faith. Please rethink your approach. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. You are talking about the merits of the article. I'm talking here about merits of the close. Two different things. See the difference? Good grief, I'm not insisting that the article should go regardless of what other people think, what would make you think that? I'm just insisting the matter should be able to be, you know, discussed. See the difference? If the community wants to keep it, then fine. The system worked. Probably would have been kept, but I've got a decent argument and I've seen bigger turnarounds. But now we'll never know will we. Herostratus (talk) 08:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C, thanks for closing the DRV. Can you restore the AfD notice on the article? SarahSV ^(talk) 20:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah,

Done. BTW, above Cullen links to my RfA — I don't know about you, but that brings me back! El_C 20:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm too young to have taken part in that RfA, El C, but it does look like fun! SarahSV ^(talk) 21:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And fun-in-the-sun it was! Also, you seem to be in the know: Fountain of Youth — a real thing? Asking for a friend. El_C 21:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And it appears to be snowing. Good faith no doubt, but these misconceptions have caused one pointless time sink (AFD, DRV, BLPN, and now ANI). Perhaps no speedy keep criteria was met, but early close “criteria” certainly were. A moot point now, but still; our tendencies for hearty discussion never fail to waste time. In other news, happy boxing! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:GPinkerton

A question (and not an accusation): is this a violation of GPinkerton's topic ban from "Islam and post-1453 CE middle east"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero might also want to weigh in on this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken, I don't see why it would be; neither Islam nor the middle east are in any way mentioned ... GPinkerton (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it depends on what the operative definition of the "Middle East" is. "Middle East" is a pretty slippery concept. Is Pakistan part of the Middle East or not? I think many people -- perhaps erroneously -- would consider it as such. And then there's the fact the discussion is about a holiday celebrating the birthday of an Islamic leader in an Islamic country. Generally "and" when used in a topic ban does not indicate the intersection of two subjects -- i.e. Islam but only in the Middle East -- but instead is about the union of the two -- i.e. topic banned from Islam and also topic banned from post-1454 CE Middle East -- but I'm not certain which was meant in this case, and whether the topic ban is "broadly construed, as they very often are. Hence my question to ElC and Guerillero.

To be clear, if your comment is a violation, I'm not advocating for any action in response except an explanation/warning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken, no, it is not a violation. Pakistan is in South Asia, not the Middle East. And the word Islam is not mentioned once on the Jinnah's Birthday article (well, aside from Islamabad, but that hardly counts). Even if the sanction was explicitly a broadly construed sanction, which it is not, there's no way it would apply in this case. Incidentally, I have logged the sanction at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Voluntary earlier today — 2-weeks after the fact, but better late than later, I suppose. El_C 21:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, I'll not argue the point, except to quote from our article Middle East: "The broader concept of the "Greater Middle East" (aka the Middle East and North Africa or the MENAP) also includes the Maghreb, Sudan, Djibouti, Somalia, the Comoros, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and sometimes Transcaucasia and Central Asia into the region. The term "Middle East" has led to some confusion over its changing definitions." As I said, a slippery concept which has shifted historically. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my apologies to GPinkerton. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just briefly note that the Pakistan country article is what I would consider the authority as to its continental classification. But beyond that, the modern definition of the Middle East does not even include Afghanistan, not to mention Pakistan — as can also be seen in the map attached to the infobox of the Middle East article. This in contradistinction to the more recent concept of the Greater Middle East, which, loosely defined, stretches all the way from Western Sahara in the west to Kazakhstan in the east as well as from Greece in the north to Somalia in the south, somehow.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 21:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:GPinkerton again

Sorry for bothering you, but I saw that you're the unblocking/converting administrator of this editor. In his request for unblocking, he claims: "I think I am ready to return to editing. I recognize that I have handled disputes poorly and I will endeavour to avoid conflict like that in future." and I think he's far from that. Today I added a better description of a monument [38] (and fixed two small issues), which was dedicated to two things - in honor of the Bulgarian people and in memory of Jews of Thrace, Macedonia, and Pirot. He blindly reverted the two edits ([39]) claiming something, which is far from the truth, and which can be confermed by the photo of the monument. I did a rewording to the text, so the part he wants is included, according to the monument inscription ([40]) and warned him to not start another edit war ([41]). What I got from him in return is a revert of my warning with summary "hypocrisy" ([42]). I don't think that this behavior is collaborative and constructive. Maybe the administrator that declined his last unblocking request was right when he wrote: "You have very clearly established that you are here to right great wrongs and not to collaboratly build an encyclopedia.". Maybe you can review and reconsider your decision to convert the "indefinite block" to "topic ban". Regards. --StanProg (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I'm right in thinking that StanProg disagrees with the original wording because the phrase "Bulgarian Jews" appears. StanProg has made plain that they believe that all the Jews sent to their deaths by Bulgaria were un-Bulgarian (as according to the Law for Protection of the Nation). Reliable sources, however, take a different stance. GPinkerton (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your belief is wrong. You could have added ", in the Bulgarian Jewish Forest", and that would have been perfectly fine (I shortened it because I added a way more important text and the image description became too long). Instead, you reverted my 2 edits (one of them with small fixes), revered my comment on your talk page claiming that it's "hypocrisy". That's exactly working toward conflict, which conflicts with your promise to do "endeavour to avoid conflict like that in future". --StanProg (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going reinstate the indef over this dispute, StanProg, and I take a dim view of you holding it over GPinkerton's head, especially in a warning that seems aimed at intimidation. I also have no idea what great wrongs you are alleging that GPinkerton was attempting to right here. In any case, the WP:ONUS was on actually you to establish consensus for your changes. That said, GPinkerton, I can confirm that StanProg's addition includes a correct translation of the Hebrew text inscribed on the left side of that monument. They are not embellishing anything. Anyway, I would ask both of you to take greater care with any article that is covered by discretionary sanctions (EE, in this case). The fact that neither one of you made any usage of the article talk page in the course of this dispute reflects poorly on both of you. El_C 23:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have overlooked something important when I wrote the above. GPinkerton, your assertion that StanProg has made plain that they believe that all the Jews sent to their deaths by Bulgaria were un-Bulgarian is rather bizarre to me. What do you even mean by that? And where is the diff or collection of diffs that establish the factual varsity of that assertion? You do realize that without an evidentiary basis, that allegation counts as an aspersion, right? Which is a serious problem. Tread lightly, please. El_C 00:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, I was basing that on this edit: "they were not Bulgarian citizens and Bulgaria had no authority over them, they were German subjects, unlike the Bulgarian Jews who were saved" from 14 April on the talk page of what was then still called the "Rescue of the Bulgarian Jews". This was in reference to those self-same territories occupied by Bulgaria in accordance with the Axis Tripartite Pact, from which, under the authority of the Bulgarian Ministry of the Interior, all Jews were arrested, imprisoned in occupied Skopje, in Blagoevgrad, and in Dupnitsa for several weeks, then sent to death camps in German-occupied territory. A salient fact is that some of those Jews who could prove they had citizenship of a country other than Bulgaria were actually let off the train. GPinkerton (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look, GPinkerton, you need to figure out how to better navigate troubled waters, or you might as well not even dip your toe in controversial topics. You're not gonna get many more chances — quite the opposite, in fact. To that: how do you go from StanProg discussing the finer points of wartime citizenship laws, to somehow contending that they "believe that all the Jews sent to their deaths by Bulgaria were un-Bulgarian"? Un-Bulgarian — really? I'm sorry, but that poor choice of words is not a good look. El_C 01:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I would suggest a scheme of mentoring, where GPinkerton would submit drafts of potential edits, with suggested edit summaries, to an established volunteer who has a good sense of the 'tone' of the community. This would have to be acceptable to GP and previous admins involved in various issue areas that have become apparent. This would be for a limited period of maybe 1-3 months at most. Simon Adler (talk) 02:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Adler, I would rather such a sanction be applied to the other party, frankly. GPinkerton (talk) 02:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you would. Wow. El_C 02:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, this edit removed mention of "Bulgarian Jews". I reverted this undiscussed change to the long-standing formula, and I am accused of edit-warring and the user complains, neither to me, nor on the talk page. I sorry for this understanding, I wasn't aware it possible to interpret "they were not Bulgarian citizens and Bulgaria had no authority over them, they were German subjects, unlike the Bulgarian Jews who were saved" as meaning something other than "they were not Bulgarian". this edit says much the same thing. Apparently I'm wrong. GPinkerton (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... Are you not getting that calling it un-nationality is not the as same as calling it non-nationality, like in the HUAC sense? Hmm. El_C 02:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, in the context of the Law for Protection of the Nation, the meaning is the same. According to that legislation, Jews were ineligible for Bulgarian citizenship "for the protection of the nation" and were thereby made stateless in Bulgarian-annexed parts of Greece and Yugoslavia (particularly what is now North Macedonia). The Law was drafted by Alexander Belev, who was sent to Germany to study the Nuremberg Laws. I apologize if that wasn't clear. GPinkerton (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mentorship is not a sanction GPinkerton, it is a mechanism for improving standing and good faith in the eyes of other volunteers. You have an issue with the tone of some of your comments. Not necessarily the substance of your points. It is a question of tone, which mentorship may assist in helping to address. Misunderstandings, of which a classic example is above, can be damaging. Simon Adler (talk) 02:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Adler, I certainly agree misunderstandings are damaging. GPinkerton (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It would appear your present usage of edit summaries is the most problematic at this time (and figured in your previous travails) GPinkerton. In this light, how would you now word that edit summary GP? Just a little thought experiment. Would you accept mentoring? Regards Simon Adler (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Adler, which edit summary? GPinkerton (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c):::::::GPinkerton, I apologise that I mistook your sentence "StanProg has made plain that they believe that all the Jews sent to their deaths by Bulgaria were un-Bulgarian (as according to the Law for Protection of the Nation)" as an edit summary. But how would you reword it, as it appears to sound problematic to other readers. Simon Adler (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GPinkerton, Your original edit summary of your edit which is the subject of this thread. Simon Adler (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Honetsly, GPinkerton, I simply am not that inclined to get into the content weeds of it all at this time. Myself grasping in detail this dispute you two are having over interpretations of citizenship laws for Jews in wartime Bulgaria just doesn't seem that germane to my role here. Which is to instruct both of you to avail yourself of dispute resolution whenever conflict flares (obvious failure on that front). Also, I don't understand why you say that StanProg's edit removed mention of "Bulgarian Jews"? Because, no it didn't. Again, the image of that monument displays several inscriptions: three in English, one in Hebrew, and one in what I presume is Bulgarian. By all means, both of you should feel free to explore how to best summarize these for the caption (or to argue against doing that, whatever), but the expectation is that you do so without edit warring. El_C 03:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, I'm sorry I should have worded it better. StanProg's edit removed the description of the exterminated Jews as "Bulgarian Jews" and replaced them with "the Jews of Thrace, Macedonia, and Pirot". I want to avoid the suggestion that only the Jews that survived the Holocaust were Bulgarian, an ideology which has the unique distinction of having been dogma for both the People's Republic of Bulgaria and the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. Separating the subjects of the Holocaust in Bulgaria into "Bulgarian Jews" (survived, though subjected to confiscation, deportation, and forced labour) and "non-Bulgarian citizens" of the Bulgarian-occupied irredenta in Greece and Yugoslavia (exterminated to make way for ethnic Bulgarian settlers) is a key component in the long-standing mythology of the "Rescue of the Bulgarian Jews" and any suggestion of falling into this habit ought to be avoided in Wikivoice. GPinkerton (talk) 03:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also one revert does not an edit war make, so I'm not sure what the relevance of that suggestion is. GPinkerton (talk) 03:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps 'Un-Bulgarian' would have been better GP. It is minor nuances which can rather skew things. Simon Adler (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Adler, the capital letter? I'm afraid you've lost me ... GPinkerton (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, GPinkerton using single quotation marks, i.e 'un-Bulgarian'. It read like you were using the term in your own words, instead of using the quotation marks as in the context of the Law for Protection of the Nation which would have distanced you from ownership of the term un-Bulgarian. I hope that clarifies. Simon Adler (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Adler, Oh riiight, I see what you mean. Noted. GPinkerton (talk) 04:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I also was like... General Practitioner — what? Okay, GPinkerton, looks like I misread the Dec 23 revert as related. But the fact is that both of you reverted, resulting in one escalation after another. Not long ago you were indefinitely blocked, and you may well have remained so had it not been for me. So, I have to tell you that I find it disappointing to see you reverting pretty much any contentious page in such a way, even once. Bringing your objection to the article talk page before reverting would have been the prudent thing to do. You do understand that, in an informal sense, you're in a probationary period, right? The shadow of that indef still looms large. Now, you may think and say that you have been vindicated (somehow), but to my knowledge, that isn't something you have been able to prove to anyone. So, I just don't understand why you would be so reckless with an undiscussed revert, in the first place. Yes, even though ONUS is on your side. About the content: briefly, I agree that establishing what's what when it comes to the Rescue of the Bulgarian Jews is an important facet of Holocaust historiography. As always, being undogmatic is key. The best sources should prevail. El_C 04:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, indeed. I have mostly rewritten the article (and much expanded it) based on the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, vol. 3: Camps and Ghettos under European Regimes Aligned with Nazi Germany and the Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence. Talk:The_Holocaust_in_Bulgaria#NPOV this bad tempered discussion from that time focusses on papers produced by a certain right-wing "discussion forum" on the forced labour of the Jews in Bulgaria at the National Academy of Sciences, which alleged the whole exercise was an elaborate ploy to shield them from the Nazis (!), followed by the consequent outrage of Bulgaria's and the world's Jewish organizations condemning the revisionism. GPinkerton (talk) 04:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Happy New Year 2021
I hope your New Year holiday is enjoyable and the coming year is much better than the one we are leaving behind.
Best wishes from Los Angeles. // Timothy :: talk

Happy New Year, El C!

Happy New Year!

El C,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

ANI

Hey, I don't know what happened but somehow I replaced an entire section. You were the only person who replied in the meanwhile, you may want to insert your edit back. I'm sorry that happened! --BunnyyHop (^talk) 02:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, BunnyyHop. I didn't notice anything and, now glancing at it, all appears to be well. Regards, El_C 02:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January

January songs

Did you see that a Magnificat began the new year? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How interesting! It shows how perilous the road to identify what is or isn't authentic can be. A sign of the times...? El_C 23:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone moved the page, it's now at Meine Seele erhebt den Herren (Hoffmann). I pinged you to the talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll have a look. El_C 19:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are now at Magnificat in A minor, or: much ado about nothing. Next is that someone will come and say that there's no other Magnificat in A minor. Also, the discussion about German grammar is hilarious ;) - why always the same editor B? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reached the end of my ability to explain, so would be interested if you would understand (that Kleine Magnificat cannot stand by itself, only with an article that established the gender "neutral", - in this case "das kleine Magnificat", - otherwise it's feminine). I probably don't know the proper grammar terms.). Unwatching for today ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Me? Sorry, I don't really understand any of it. Not the language, not the topic. None of it. I thought initially that maybe he is following you around, but on closer look, editing this area of interest just seems to be what he always does on the project. I'm happy to help if I can, but I wouldn't know how to do so at this time. El_C 17:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not the question, I wanted to know if you understand the problem (that by a faulty translation of a journal title, wrong grammar crept into naming a piece). I may be back tomorrow, - pleasantly busy now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm not explaining it right. What I don't understand (among other things) is the question itself. El_C 22:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article history

On 13 December, I heard a charming piece of music, and decided: an article about that would be a good start into 2021, Magnificat being one of the key texts for my biography (Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a and several others), and fitting on a Marian feast which 1 January is. All went well, only I had too little time to expand the article properly, due - pleasantly - to company and the holidays. A day later, the article was moved, without discussion, to what had been a red link to the same piece, Meine Seele erhebt den Herren (Hoffmann), and the former title was made a disambiguation of two compositions by the composer which could be named Magnificat. This left all former links - including DYK discussions and archive broken which annoyed me greatly.

I still believe that the title I gave the article, Magnificat (Hoffmann), was good. After discussions which didn't increase happiness, the article was moved again, to the official title used NOW by reliable sources, Magnificat in A minor (Hoffmann), which is fine by me, and if it been moved to there, leaving a redirect to it, all would have been fine even with an undiscussed move.

We now have two problems left:

The redirect Magnificat (Hoffmann) doesn't go to Magnificat in A minor (Hoffmann), but a general disambiguation for the German Magnificat, only to distinguish two compositions by Hoffmann which could be handled by a hatnote, and one isn't even well-known as Magnificat afaik, but commonly referred to as Meine Seele rühmt und preist, BWV 189. Both compositions were believed to be works by Bach.
The redirect Kleine Magnificat is a violation of German grammar, while Kleines Magnificat is correct. It should not be mentioned in the article, imho, because it hurts every reader who knows the language.
Short explanation: German has three articles, lets call them genders: der die das, for m(asculine), f(eminine), and n(eutral), der Mann (the man), die Frau (the woman), das Kind (the child). If we add the adjective "klein" to them, we arrive at "der kleine Mann, die kleine Frau, das kleine Kind". BUT: in a title, we would combine article and adjective, but (!) leaving an indication of the gender by changing the adjective: kleiner Mann, kleine Frau, kleines Kind. Magnificat is n, like Kind, so Kleines Magnificat. Kleine Magnificat makes it f, wrong gender. Whenever there's an article, however, as in the journal article header that editor B cites again and again, "kleine" is of course correct, but not as a title, without. Confusing enough?)

The move could have been discussed, and grammar knowledge by a native speaker could have be accepted, - that's not OR. To read in the current lead that it is known as "incorrect name", and also as "correct name" hurts. It's not known at all, but a hidden gem ;) - a good start into 2021. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Magnificat (Hoffmann) was just moved again, now to the composer's sacred works. Better, but not what I'd do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever there's an article, however, as in the journal article header that editor B cites again and again, "kleine" is of course correct, but not as a title, without. Of course! I mean, what? Suffice to say that the article on Holomorphic function, for example, made more sense to me than your explanation — so I suppose that in itself is a feat. In any case, congrats on becoming a master confusionist! El_C 14:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, better don't try to learn German then ;) - A frequent term in German theatres is Kleines Haus (small hall), vs. Großes Haus (large hall). It's short for "Das kleine Haus". You might want to say "We saw Otello in the Kleinen Haus", or "I like to go to the Kleine Haus", but you should NOT derive from such a sentence that the name was Kleinen Haus or Kleine Haus, - it's still Kleines Haus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mass removal of well-sourced content

I am concerned about this [43] edit on Amendment_to_the_Act_on_the_Institute_of_National_Remembrance in which Volunteer Marek reverted to an old version of the article (ignoring a more recent revision which was stable for 2 months)[44] therefore removing almost half the article content, most of it well-sourced from scholarly sources commenting on the amendment. (t · c) buidhe 01:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that both of you are making conflicting claims about the status and tenure of different revisions, but I'm unable to immediately corroborate much of anything at this point, not even to the point of getting a sense of who is actually on the right side of WP:ONUS. Still, him removing tens of thousands of bytes strikes me as a bit odd, mostly because I'm unable to tell the actual origin of all that material that he removed. I'll drop him a note to slow down. El_C 01:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment on talk page there. Yes, I restored an older "stable version" (though I still don't think there is anything special about "stable versions") but then I restored most of the subsequent edits which I could verify. Not all. I kept some stuff out and explained why. Volunteer Marek 02:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, sure...? Still no idea what's going on. My view, though, is that a stable version can be seen as special whenever it provides refuge from an edit war. But, sure, aside from that, there's nothing inherently special about the quality of the given material therein, quality which often varies highly. As always, being undogmatic is key. Anyway, I hope you're both able to find enough common ground and go from there. El_C 03:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: ANI thread

Thanks for your interest. I'm afraid I might not have made myself quite clear - I wasn't not looking for consensus on the action itself, I was just looking for anyone neutral and experience to tell me if they see any red flags in me going ahead to apply discretionary sanctions. The editor and admin numbers who are in the know about this topic area is notoriously small on the English Wikipedia, and there's always some possibility of overlap with people who are active like myself, perhaps not this year but generally speaking over the last 20 or so years. This is a common fallacy, actually - these sanctions wouldn't be called discretionary if we needed other people's approval before we applied them in clear-cut cases. And with all the experience I have under my belt dealing with abuse in this topic area, I think it'd be disingenuous of me to say I don't recognize a clear-cut case when I see it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the rest of my notification backlog and noticed that you closed that discussion, that in the meantime grew into another flamewar. I suppose it's good that you closed it, because it stopped being constructive. I found one comment there that relates to my query:

“

The other examples of Sadko's supposed tendentious behaviour provided by Joy are also giant nothing burgers. For example, the Yugoslav Partisans dispute. The onus is on Joy to explain why Sadko's support for adding the (reliably sourced) ethnic makeup of the Partisan movement to that article's lead section is a blockable or TBAN offence. Joy has previously mused about topic banning or blocking other users simply because they had the audacity to take the opposite view in a deletion discussion. [192] Well guess what. The Balkans are a contentious area. There are going to be vehement disputes and engaging in them without violating wiki policy isn't grounds for a TBAN or permanent block. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

”

On the matter of whether they're 'giant nothing burgers', we will agree to disagree. On the matter of the YP dispute, that incident of misinterpreting WP:V was not an offence in itself (although inability to work with core principles of Wikipedia isn't exactly great either), but it seems to provide context for his later offence of treating other people like shit at Narentines and Talk:Narentines. On the matter of that deletion discussion, oh my goodness, yes, I actually had forgotten that bit of abuse, and that further reinforces my stance that Sadko is WP:NOTHERE. (I am entirely unsurprised how that dumpster fire of an article was not actually resurrected in the last half a year, despite the claims of the proponents that surely it can be salvaged. It is so much easier to write a tendentious pamphlet on that topic than a proper Wikipedia article.)

To sum it all up, El C, do you see any reason for me not to apply discretionary sanctions? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Joy. Well, in so far as your 2012 edits to the article rendering you permanently INVOLVED for that page — on the face of it, I would say no. But also taking into account your recent comment on the talk page, that makes me less sure. At the very least, the optics probably would not be great. But if there is clear WP:FRINGE violations... maybe? Again, I'm not sure. Like many contentious disputes I am asked to look into, I don't really have a firm grasp as to what's going on (see the section directly above as an example of that), at least in so far as being able to corroborate conflicting claims. Still, a crucial concern I have is whether the uninvolved admin in question is engaging the given dispute even-handedly. And to be blunt, it does look like you have failed on that front —the deescalation front, that is— at least by omission.

To that: the conversation (such as it is) begins with Miki Filigranski (no pings, I don't want a spillover of that dispute onto here) tersely writing to Sadko about their recent disruptive reverts and pinging them directly with the question: what's the issue besides biased personal viewpoint?. So, off to a bad start. Escalation soon follows, with Sadko responding Try again; learn how to talk to people, I believe that you are 18+ and that you know how to do so. This is no way to start any discussion. Notions of "biased pesonal viewpoints" are just laughable and it shows that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Fire, check. Gasoline, check. The next (third) comment is yours, but again it does nothing to really deescalate this dumpster fire. And boy does it ever escalate. Miki Filigranski sticks to their personal viewpoint guns, Sadko goes nuclear with an almost-unbelievable your hate speech, which, in my view, is in and of itself, blockable. But also, Miki Filigranski having started out and continued the conversation as aggressively as they did, with their history, that is probably topic ban worthy.

Anyway, myself, I've dealt with this topic area probably more than most (as can be seen in the 2019 and 2020 sections of the log), but not in a while. So much so that Miki Filigranski and Mikola22 sorta got blended into the same person in my head just now.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ To reiterate: an uninvolved admin being firm as well as being even-handed is key. Immediately, more so with respect to the behaviour of participants. Figuring out whether this or that given content is fringe in nature can come after. And this is where correctly utilizing AE resources (with WP:AE being chief among them) may also come into play. So, as to the question of whether an AE report concerning this particular dispute would be worth submitting — my sense is that it would. Because what I am seeing here is highly problematic. It really does look like any semblance of order and civility has pretty much gone out the window. Ending up with sanctions being imposed upon several participants is likely to be the logical conclusion to this entire mess.

To sum up: I advise against you applying any discretionary sanctions unilaterally. Rather, I would strongly suggest that a report be submitted to the AE noticeboard. This way, a quorum of uninvolved admins will be the ones tasked with figuring out what's what. Good luck! El_C 18:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it's just unacceptable. I guess we differ in the idea of whether this can be de-escalated. How do you de-escalate a situation where an editor who's been with us for 10 years sees an article with 62 references but then proceeds to add a claim in the lead section that they themselves know to be controversial, based on a reference to a work that is literally 1000 years old, and then proceeds to have a revert war over that? What can we now teach this kind of an editor about WP:V and WP:NPOV and WP:CIV and WP:ARBMAC that they couldn't have learned over the last decade? If we as admins see this blatant disregard for these policies and tolerate it, and instead focus on trying to somehow rehabilitate egregiously misbehaving editors, doesn't that send a message to all other editors that they are free to recklessly violate policies, as all these rules of this place are not actually enforced? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, de-escalation should begin by ensuring that any personal animosity between participants is kept to a minimum, then going on to deal with any fringe issues by making use of available AE resources. Which no one has done here, so the lack of immediate enforcement isn't really that surprising. There needs to be a summary, there needs to be diff evidence, there needs to be a coherent report. Otherwise, how are admins expected to make sense of any of it? El_C 22:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example from yesterday where I attempted to deescalate from having even mild animosity coming to the fore: diff. And, not to boast, but it looks like it worked: diff. El_C 22:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably clarify that I didn't go into that harsh reaction with a preconception that the user was here for 10 years; I vaguely recognized the name so I assumed at least some tenure, but the exact number I looked up only today. I suppose it's possible to try to intervene in less harsh terms first, but this edit war really rubbed me the wrong way. It started with this edit, where the editor in question wrote an edit summary that sounded immediately irritated, like they were undoing an earlier edit. I thought the recent 5k changes made by the other involved editor, who challenged that, had included that change, and it was a typical case of one-upmanship I've observed elsewhere before, something of a WP:OWN violation. I've come to see this as a clear sign that nothing else than a strict reaction would be fruitful.

But now that I typed this here, I went to verify my interpretation of events again, just in case I got something wrong, and found that that edit was not actually undoing anything recent. Trawling a bit through history, I found that the earlier edit they were reacting to had to have been this one from July, or a number of instances of the same from August 2018 or January 2018 or 2016, ... it probably goes even further back but I got tired of searching. I'm not saying it was Sadko who had prompted those edits, but they certainly latched on to the issue that's been simmering for quite a while. While looking at those, I also observed an amusing 'discussion' at Talk:Narentines/Archive 2#Consensus where a bunch of long-time abusers 'voted' on changing that (to be fair, not all of the people listed there were abusers, but it certainly grates me to see just how many of them are now permanently blocked).

And yet the even weirder thing I noticed is that, between July and now, Sadko had made an unrelated edit elsewhere in the same article, and in turn got into an edit war with some obnoxious Croatian anonymous editor over that. This is all just completely silly, and only reinforces my instinct that there's a very negative pattern of behavior here, where they're apparently not actually looking at this article in a constructive, holistic manner, rather they're just carving out these little battlefields inside it. It's almost like a poster child for WP:BATTLE.

So anyway, a lot of this behavior has been tolerated by admins for years now (myself included!), and yet we're still having to rehash these arguments. That's basically why I've grown less tolerant of these kinds of behaviors. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, El C hope you're well. I fully agree with the procedure which you've described. @Joy: Miki Filigranski has been blocked as a likely sock of User:Crovata based on behavioral evidence, but the issues are what they are and the community has to deal with them on a daily basis. Peacemaker67 faced another similar problem in very clean manner: he filed an AE report and it was discussed in a very organized manner with diffs and arguments. A community discussion is the only way to deal with these problems as it allows input from other admins/editors and it also allows the other editor to defend themselves.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It's been tolerated because no one is really able to follow any of it. So, unless one is able to demonstrate unambiguously that an edit or a series of edits are fringe, all that is left for an admin to immediately discern is behaviour, per se. Now, I'm probably on the rare side of admins in that I, myself, have actually imposed AE sanctions on almost every editor involved with the latest. I have sanctioned Sadko, I have sanctioned Miki Filigranski and I have sanctioned Mikola22. And, sure, the burden of evidence for renewing (probably alongside an escalation in) sanctions, ideally should be less than before. Yet, as this case perhaps perfectly illustrates (with me), it doesn't always work that way. Because with me at least, I think part of the problem is that, unless these past sanctions are still somewhat recent, I just tend to not really remember a lot of it. It's doubtful I'm the only admin experiencing this.

In any case, there has to be this aforementioned bare minimum which, again, consists of concise summaries and diff evidence, that therefore would make for an overall coherent report. Otherwise, not much is likely to happen, and so all you're gonna get from "growing less tolerant" of these problems, is in turn, feeling extra-dissapointed when they don't get resolved with ease. But these problems very rarely get resolved with ease, that is the point. If you want the path of least resistance, you need those evidentiary prerequisites submitted to the right forum in a timely manner. No one is denying that it is, at times, a deeply imperfect system, but the reality is that this is its current nature, this is the form it now assumes. One should fight to improve it, sure, but at the same time, it's important to remain grounded in the present reality. To be realistic about reaching resolution, despite and with the awareness of these constraints. El_C 01:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See, that's the part I don't get. We tell everyone that admins have discretionary sanctions at their disposal, but then keep talking about making reports and evidentiary prerequisites. That's explicitly NOT how the sanctions are defined! The evidence is already there; compiling it in a form where it's even more blatantly obvious is not actually necessary. Only if there's some ambiguity, should there be a consensus-building effort at AE. I am aware of my own editing way back, and that creates some uncertainty, but if every random lack of information is inherently treated as ambiguity that is critical to the process, we effectively handcuff ourselves. Which effectively makes abusive behavior run rampant, and makes normal editors like Amanuensis say things like "There are going to be vehement disputes" - no, if we enforced rules of decorum, the disputes would not be half as vehement. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be rather nice to simply ask me what is my thinking/perception or anything similar to that, rather than discussing my ban/implementation of some sanctions/ without even attempting to communicate/reach out, while, at the same time, jumping to conclusion based on personal bad experiences from the past. I am a a man of dialogue and I have engaged heavily on the TP whenever there was any sort of dispute. cheers and a Happy New year to you all. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 01:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should count yourself lucky for not being currently blocked for that "hate speech" comment. I would dial down on the grandstanding if I were you. El_C 01:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Looks like you actually made two "hate speech" comments, once on Nov 6 on this very talk page (while I wasn't around), and once more yesterday. I dunno... a little weird. El_C 02:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first remark was a bit much and I removed it, I take your point about that. The second one was a response to a recently banned sock who dismissed editors based on their alleged ethnicity, called them propagandists and liars, laughable, posting "bullshit comments", claiming that people are "out of touch from reality", stating that they should find another project to work on etc. [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] If calling out hate speech (in attempt) which is coming from an editor who claimed that other people are biased and should be ignored because of their alleged ethnicity is not okay, then I really do not know what to do, ignore it? I do not think that my behaviour is a textbook example, but I do not and can't tolerate discrimination of other people and their opinion based on their ethnic heritage, and that goes for this project, my work or any other aspect of RL or VL. Anyhow, I'll take your advice, I'll dial down and reflect. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 04:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miki Filigranski (joined 2017) blocked for socking today — plot twist! El_C 05:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Un/conclusion?

Anyway, I can't really seem to follow much of it. I realize there are two sides here (as in legit-ish sides in a longstanding regional dispute), but the problem arises when either side claim certain members of the other are bonkers. Here we have admin Joy asking what I think about them imposing discretionary sanctions on Sadko for promoting fringe content. To quote them: do you see any reason for me not to apply discretionary sanctions? To which I basically answered with: no, don't do it. Granted, I know Sadko to be rough around the AE edges (I know), but to have this admin (whom, full disclosure, I just met yesterday for the first time) claim that they are, in fact, NOTHERE because... they say that this tribe is actually Serbian or South Slavic or neither or both? How bizarre. Who can follow any of this? Then to have someone like Miki Filigranski, whom I've known for years, get indeffed for socking today. Too much. El_C 05:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And, yes, I know Serbs are South Slavic — I said that, in part, for dramatic effect. The point I'm haplessly trying to articulate is that it never really ceases to amaze me how some people get so swept with, say, a dispute over the origin or composition of this or that tribe, that they expect outsiders to, somehow, magically gain the knowledge they have so as to provide an informed opinion. But, no, it doesn't work like that. Not on Wikipedia, not anywhere. Going through RfCs, going through RSN, filing AE reports when needed. Being concise. Compiling an intelligible evidentiary basis. What else is there to do? True, all those things are a grind, but anything less is just tilting at windmills (I write, while tilting at windmills!). El_C 06:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, this is how this should work. If the other editor who engaged in the edit war was blocked for violating some other policy, using some other procedure, that's wonderful, because it relieved the burden on us to process them on these kinds of behavioral grounds. But at the same time, that doesn't imply we should stop processing bad behavior. The more we let these bizarre little battles continue, the harder to follow the matter will become. Even if you as the admin don't know the details of a feud, you need to feel free to moderate the toxic behavior that comes with it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be blunt, that's not actually what you did. You focused on aggression by one party (Sadko) but seem to have given the aggression by the other party (Miki) a pass. That's why in my first response to you in this thread, I told you that I thought you failed in being even-handed. Anyway, over the last few years, I might be the admin who has been most active on the discretionary sanctions front (as can be seen when glancing at the log) — and I don't think I've ever had to submit an AE report, for anything whatsoever. Myself, I'm usually reasonably confident with the lack of ambiguity when it comes to my use of DS.

To that: far above, you take issue with needing to go to AE at this point, but it strikes me that you fail to realize that it was you, in fact, who has brought about that as being pretty much a prerequisite for further action here. Whatever ambiguity is present in my mind right now so as to prefer doing that, is because you didn't actually act. Instead, you went to ANI and pinged a bunch of admins to a summary which was totally devoid of a even a single diff. An ANI discussion which soon thereafter spiraled into such a trainwreck, I had to summarily close it.

I'm sorry to say, but that doesn't really inspire much confidence. Had you, instead, simply and confidently applied discretionary sanctions (on whomever), then that would be a done deal. Then the sanctioned party or parties could choose to appeal that: to the community at AN/ANI, to a quorum of uninvolved admins at AE, or to the Committee directly at ARCA. And that would be that. But, again, because you didn't do that, that is why we are where we are. You made your case to me here, which didn't make enough sense to me so as to recommend that you act unilaterally — maybe it'd make more sense in the form of a coherent report submitted to a quorum of uninvolved admins at AE, is all I'm saying. Who knows.

In any case, and I told that recently to another editor concerning a different DS topic area, I think you (and others in the dispute) are simply overestimating the volunteer resources that are available on the project. Which is why, absent the confidence to act single-handedly, failure to make optimal use of the (AE, etc.) procedures already in place, is likely to lead to a dead-end, at least in the immediate sense. El_C 18:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, I ignored the combative response of this Miki fellow because I observed that they had added a bunch of referenced material in the article, that hadn't been challenged, and only then engaged in a flamewar with someone who had added apparent flamebait in the lead. I'm not sure how you judge editorial contribution, but I default to preferring to listen to folks who try. Heck, for years I listened to Antidiskriminator, because he at least made some sort of a contribution that had a semblance of positive impact... trivial nationalist button pushing is not that.

Yes, I pinged people who I remember having helped in the past, because I was uncertain whether to act or not. I'm not sure why you're implying that this in itself was somehow improper. Are we as admins not ever supposed to confer with one another on matters relevant to our work? I'm pretty sure other editors would be way more concerned about the correctness of our actions if we never discussed our rationales... But at the same time I don't think that the only choices are doing nothing and going to AE. There needs to be sensible middle ground.

I'm not so sure it would be a done deal... I'm pretty sure there would be cries of WP:INVOLVED if I went ahead with no questions asked. I'm not saying they would be legit, but they'd be there, and it might make me seem reckless.

I suppose we have a different definition of the term "optimal" :) Thank you for your time in any event. I'll wait a bit more until I hear from those folks I pinged if there are any second opinions, and if not, try to find some time to go about the more bureaucratic route.

--Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that Miki isn't a fellow, but is a woman. Also, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to take preferring to listen to folks who try, nor do I know who Antidiskriminator is. But I don't think it really matters, either way. So, regardless, if you think a diff-less ANI post is the best way to engage AE disputes, by all means, try it again — I won't touch it next time. But my prediction is that it is almost certain to end up badly. I already noted that the AE noticeboard is better because it is more orderly; because there's a word limit; and because there's an expectation that evidence be submitted in the form of diffs. Not to be unduly harsh, but I don't think it's to your credit that you keep sidestepping a response to that assertion. Oh well, I tried. El_C 22:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just said fellow because "Miki Filigranski" sounds masculine in Croatian (the word would end with the letter a if it was feminine). Antidiskriminator is a person who spent many many years adding badly researched material in support of various nationalist talking points in the ARBMAC topic area, before they were finally indefinitely topic banned. I used to criticize their edits a lot because I saw a pattern of not understanding WP:V, but they didn't just plain edit-war over relative trivialities, so I used to have a sense that they at least tried, that they made an effort. With regard to AE, like I said before, I will indeed proceed to do that if I don't hear back from anyone else. I'm giving people a bit more time simply because it's the holiday season. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I seem to remember her telling me (I think in passing) that she is a woman. Plus, in her appeal (which incidentally, I declined) she talks about how she has "a husband who is a historian, a speaker of Serbo-Croatian language, and children," and so on. In any case, not important. Anyway, good luck in being able to gain some positive traction in the topic area, however that comes about. I am rooting for you. Thanks for following up. Best, El_C 17:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Is it appopriate to remove expired requests from Wikipedia:Reward board?--YerelDahi (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, probably...? I really have zero experience with that page. I see that it is on my watchlist, but frankly, I have forgotten it even existed. El_C 18:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP Troll: 79.140.150.131

Hi, this IP is re-adding WP:PRIMARY and POV sources in articles which I removed. They are also making extremely inappropriate remarks such as "butthurt albanians" here [50][51] and also on my personal talk page [52]. Can something be done about it? Ahmet Q. (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. El_C 18:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ahmet Q. (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New IP today 77.222.24.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and a new account Bellator9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which immediately launched a "vandalism" report against Ahmet Q. in its first edit. --Maleschreiber (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Protected the articles in question. Hopefully, they get the hint. El_C 14:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

	Happy New Year!
	I hope things are going well for you so far and for the rest of this year ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mitch! Same to you. All the best to you and yours. El_C 17:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe problem

Greetings, and all the best in the new year. I have a problem with two editors which working together and support fringe information in Višeslav of Serbia article. Fringe theory ie information is confirmed on RSN [53], everything is explane on talk page[54] and in edit summary [55]. Since this is the first time I have faced this kind of edit, of some editor (which does not respect decisions of RSN ie that some information is fringe) what can be done in this case? Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 08:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please if you are going to report me I will do the same to you because you are misusing WP:OR over Serbian related articles and deleting everything you don't like. The problem is that user Mikola22 posted the question on Wikipedia fringe theories but he is now trying to remove another information which is confirmed in early medieval Balkan by Fine and Novakovic, in Fine you can see these informations on pg 159. 202 and 225. Theonewithreason (talk). 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Not sure in what sense a "decision" has been made at RSN, but in any case, this is not an area with which I am familiar. El_C 14:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. "Decision", I meant to say neutral opinion on FTN. I think this is and final opinion because DAI does not state that Serbs coming to Duklja nor does sources say that. Anyway, I didn't ask for your engagement because I guess you don't know what it's about, but I ask for your opinion on what to do as editor if fringe information is promoted. I proved that it is a fringe information. If two editors want to keep this information in the article I don't mind, it is essential that I have worked in good faith to improve the accuracy of the article. If they want fringe information in the article they will have it, I move on. I'm just interested in what to do in such cases. Mikola22 (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but how can it be fringe information if it is in reliable source from one of the most respected historians John Antwerp Fine (book Early medieval Balkan) if you think that some information is fringe you should first seek it in other sources. Theonewithreason (talk). 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Theonewithreason: "According to the DAI..the other Serb-inhabited lands that were mentioned include Duklja." Cite this source and page where it says that or some other source(According to the DAI...) and page which say that. Therefore this information does not exist and it is fringe information. It is important that I as the editor, pointed out that fringe information exist and goodbye, I'm going edit other articles. Mikola22 (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EL_C It seems there is a miscommunication here, I am pointing one thing and the User other, anyway sorry for disturbing your talk page even though you are quite familiar with Balkan editors as I can see. I was not aware of of problems you had this past days.Theonewithreason (talk). 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, again, I have no opinion due to having pretty much zero familiarity with the subject. And I'd appreciate if the content dispute was to not spill over onto my talk page — I doubt it would help much discussing it here, anyway. El_C 16:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Theonewithreason: No, you didn't know about the "Balkan editors" problem and every day you are behind me and the editor Sadko. Therefore information about Serb which settled Duklja acording to DAI do not exist and the proof is your answer in which you did not exposed quote. This is called on Wikipedia's original research and fringe information. El_C if you can direct me to someone who would know the answer to my question I would be grateful if you don't know I understand. Cherrs and this is my last answer in this thread. Mikola22 (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Mikola22, no one immediately comes to mind. El_C 17:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El C, Mikola22 by strange coincidence I have some knowledge in this area and have responded there. Copies of the De administrando imperio and the commentary live on my desk. I can confirm that most of the points raised by Mikola (and by the now-blocked editor on the talk page) are substantially correct. GPinkerton (talk) 10:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EdDakhla (again)

Hi. I really don't know what to do with this editor that (see previous ANI report that you closed). They are back again trying to impose the Moroccan claim to Western Sahara by introducing a map that clearly violates the NPOV policy. Your help in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 16:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for taking the time to resolve the issue. M.Bitton (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you missed my comment, since I'm not welcome on their talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw it. I unblocked conditional on the user's promise to cease from engaging the topic area (along with any other disruption whatsoever). While I believe a global lock is pretty much an inevitability, I'd rather stay out of anything cross-wiki, if possible. El_C 17:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they have ignored your advice. Please let me know whether I should respond or ignore them. M.Bitton (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe take a look at the timestamps and see that I didn't ignore his advice? Nice try. EdDakhla 20:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akkawi page

I noticed that the akkawi page is locked and that it contains information that may be interpreted as controversial. Multiple contributors have commented on the talk page about possible bias or incorrect information. Can we observe the page and try to better word the statements mentioned on that page? Reinhearted (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, observe away. I'm just not really sure what you're asking me here. El_C 21:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

discussions

I'm so sorry if things got too personal at AN. I have huge respect for you and your opinions. —valereee (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No apology needed, Val. I didn't feel like our discussion got personal at any point. It seemed entirely dispassionate, and remaining friendly even when we didn't see eye to eye. Many thanks for your kind words. Please know that I hold you in utmost regard. All the best, El_C 23:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GPinkerton topic ban violation

Hello, GPinkerton has once again for the fourth? time now violated her topic ban by opening an arb case about the Middle East: [56]

She never received one single block for her previews violations. It is time for a lengthy block and her topic ban from the Middle East should be greatly extended. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I note on GPinkerton's talk page, the ban is temporarily waived when addressing the Committee. El_C 10:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The irony here is too much. GPinkerton (talk) 10:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of info on various pages

Can you take a look at this user --> Emblemmor? They keep removing sourced information about Kurds on various articles and then have the audacity to call me the vandal? Thanks --Semsûrî (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're been violating wikipedia rules it's vandalism. Stop adding Kurdish in Lorestan province. this province has no Kurdish speaker, it's Luri and Laki. Emblemmor (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And what is Laki language? Stop removing well-sourced information. Its nothing but pure disruption. --Semsûrî (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 17:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment

Hi El C, thanks for your earlier comment. It has certainly been an unbelievable day in US politics. I started today with a few enjoyable edits here, and figured the political world was going to get much simpler from now. Sadly not. I still cannot believe someone died in the Capitol.

Anyway, you asked what happened to change the dynamic. I clearly struck a nerve when I created this particular article, and it resulted in two external attacks: here and here which I would rather not link directly anywhere else. I think this raised the temperature greatly, and it is not something I have experienced before. Onceinawhile (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Onceinawhile. No doubt, what a day! To see a protester at the steps of the US Capitol Complex wearing camouflage which made him seem almost indistinguishable to the FBI SWAT he was facing, except they had long guns drawn and aimed at him — truly unbelievable.

To the AE matter at hand: I suppose I'm just a bit surprised you got off-balanced by virtue of not expecting a strong backlash to using an Apartheid nomenclature for an ARBPIA article title. I mean, to me, that would be a given... El_C 04:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I expected some to dislike it, but the term is so normative in IP scholarship and media, and has been used so widely in Israel, that I had figured that after discussion it would be accepted as the common name. I envisaged a conversation where some would say “I don’t like it” and the rest would focus on policy. That proved not to happen; perhaps 95% of sources were brought by one side of the discussion, and the vast majority of opposing editors simply would not engage on the policy discussion. Whilst this behavior is clearly not unprecedented in ARBPIA, the scale of reaction was something I had not experienced, not even close. Nothing like it. Having multiple off-wiki groups whip up sentiment against me and my choice of name is disturbing, as it is clearly intended to be, and undoubtedly influenced the nature of the discussion on all sides. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Onceinawhile, but that's just not coming together for me. The only way I can really conceive of you to have realistically expected a mere "dislike" for the title, would be that you generally lack an appreciation for the mainstream Israeli position on the matter, which pretty much views any Apartheid nomenclature usage directed at the Israeli State as highly pejorative. Which is exactly what the בנטוסטן article, for example, says in its final section titled "Post-Apartheid", and I quote from my own rough translation (2nd paragraph, bold is my emphasis): Bantustan has become a pejorative term for an artificial ethnic territory whose independence is superficial or is devoid of territorial contiguity. One of the most common modern usages is in connection to the territories of the Palestinian Authority, where it is frequently used (alongside the term Apartheid) in pro-Palestinian rhetoric, by pointing out a number of similarities: separation, absence of territorial contiguity, independence and partial autonomy, and so on. So, considering that passage as a representative example of the mainstream Israeli position, I'm not at all surprised at the vehemence you've encountered (onwiki, at least, I can't really speak to anything that happens offwiki). To reiterate, I suppose my surprise is that it caught you by surprise, because this aversion to the Apartheid nomenclature is such a fundamental part of the current Israeli zeitgeist. Perhaps, then, you're simply much (much) more familiar with the Palestinian view than you are with the Israeli one. Which, indeed, would explain a lot about all of this. El_C 10:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly I read that same paragraph, with google-translate, before I started the article. But the paragraph is unsourced, and was introduced 15 years ago[57] without any explanation, so I could not put any stock behind it. Even so, I don't think editors are expected to judge usage in Hebrew, as this is English wikipedia. I judge the mainstream Israeli position through what I read in Ha'aretz, but perhaps my conception of mainstream is overly optimistic.

It is such a normative term for this situation nowadays, in the world's highest quality publications, particularly since the unveiling of the Trump peace plan (the first time details of the proposals has ever been published). Perhaps then the key point is that this topic has never been discussed before on Wikipedia talk pages to my knowledge; it is exceedingly rare in the IP area to find a highly charged topic which has not already been debated to death at some point. I cannot think of the last time. Normally we are just building on pre-trodden ground. Perhaps that is also the reason for the off-wiki excitement about the same, which I could not possibly have anticipated as I have never seen anything like it before. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't normative in Israel, Onceinawhile, nor was it ever. The Apartheid nomenclature has been an anathema in the Israeli mainstream for decades. And, sure, you're not expected to look for sources in Hebrew — but it took me like 10 seconds to find this English-language Ynet op-ed piece just now, authored by Noah Klieger, which is titled "Do you even know what apartheid means?" Now that is representative of the Israeli mainstream. If anything, the Hebrew Wikipedia is far more moderate than any other Israeli mainstream source I can immediately think of. And which Haaretz just plainly isn't. "Overly optimistic"? I'd say wildly optimistic. No, Haaretz isn't at all representative of Israel's mainstream, as can be seen by its very low circulation — which is what now, like 3 percent? And even that's about half of what it was the decade before. If you're operating under the assumption that the Israeli mainstream is reflected by that publication, you're in for a rude awakening. Which maybe you were. Perhaps that's emblematic of a larger Israeli-Palestinian divide... El_C 14:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify one point, which we had at the debates, since I am enjoying the quality of this discussion. You are accidentally making fallacy of division in your comment above. You are right that the word apartheid in anathema in the Israeli mainstream, and it is anathema in the global mainstream. Israel just is not an apartheid country, irrespective of what some propagandists might say. The fallacy of division is the mistaken argument that "something that is true for a whole must also be true of all or some of its parts". Yes bantustans were part of apartheid, just as my car has four wheels. You might tell me I have a cheap and unattractive car, but that doesn't mean that its wheels are cheap and unattractive, even if they are a fundamental part of the car. So we cannot imply people's view about the word bantustan from their views about the word apartheid.

On a wider note, the situation in the West Bank is very different from that in Israel, and most Israelis who have been born in the post-67 world simply don't understand it. The publications which you describe as representative of the Israeli mainstream never educate their readers on the conditions of the Palestinians. So the subject of this Wikipedia article is not really in scope of those publications. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe we can't imply it as a pure epistemological construct, but in the more concrete historical context of Israel and the apartheid analogy, I still would emphasize that it should come as no surprise that, as such a key component of apartheid policy, it's generally met with hostility from the Israeli mainstream. And, sure, there's no denying that there's great dissonance between Israelis and Palestinians — it's not for naught that I ended my last comment by alluding to the "Israeli-Palestinian divide." El_C 17:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. Out of interest, do you think that I should not have created the article given the risk that it would be met with hostility from the Israeli mainstream? Onceinawhile (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, on the contrary, I commend you for having authored an article about this important topic, irrespective of the dispute over the title itself and notwithstanding all the friction that followed. El_C 18:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is stupid that this is still bothering me but here goes

It still bothers me that it bothered you, so by way of explanation, I quote Illeism#In everyday speech: Illeism in everyday speech can have a variety of intentions depending on context ... third person self-referral can be associated with self-irony and not taking oneself too seriously (since the excessive use of pronoun "I" is often seen as a sign of narcissism and egocentrism), as well as with eccentricity in general. Psychological studies show that thinking and speaking of oneself in the third person increases wisdom and has a positive effect on one's mental state because an individual who does so is more intellectually humble, more capable of empathy and understanding the perspectives of others, and is able to distance emotionally from one's own problems. Levivich hopes El C comes around to the third person :-D Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C will not! No, it didn't bother me, it just seemed like somewhat of a non-sequitur, hence, a bit weird. Maybe that was the original intent...?¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 05:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish ArbCom Case

Hi El C, I also support an ArbCom Case on the general Kurdish issue. Could you look at User:Paradise Chronicle/ArbComCase and tell me what you think? I'll file a case right away, if you approve it. I opened the page upon advice of Levivich. As to my count, it has 440 words so far. I'll add some more diffs if requested, but they can also be provided during the discussion.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Chronicle, I'll try to at least give it a cursory glance soon, but beyond that, I'm not sure whether the Committee will take a favourable view toward filing an additional case while the current one remains pending (and/or shortly thereafter). I think, at the present moment, the effort to seek for the Committee to institute a wide Kurdish-centred sanctions regime, probably ought to be exclusively undertaken via the current pending case. El_C 01:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic user

Could you please take a look at this. This user has some strong feelings about Brazil and they think that WP is a good place to express that. They've written things like "brazil sucks" and "brazil stinks". Thank you. - Daveout(talk) 02:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 03:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Throughout the two months of discussion at the bantustans article, I have suspected a particular editor of being a sockpuppet of a well known banned user. I think I now have enough evidence to go to SPI, but the editor is the same one who opened the AE and I feel it would look like an inappropriate motivation. And to be honest there is obviously some related motivation. We see suspected socks all the time, but I rarely bother to do anything because it is a huge amount of effort to build a case and I would rather spend time elsewhere. So I am a bit torn and would appreciate any sage advice. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to advise. Obviously, the optics are what they are. I suppose much would depend on the strength of the evidence. In any case, if you do end up filing an SPI report, please make sure to also note of having done so at the AE report. An AE report which I would still think ought to be your top priority at the present moment. El_C 13:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this. I am going to focus on the AE report for now (albeit I am not allowed to add any more comments there unless asked). When I file the SPI I will then make it clear there there was an AE against me so that the SPI clerks can choose to apply healthy skepticism when assessing my evidence. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C, thanks again for the below. Now that this all seems to have settled, are you happy for me to submit the SPI? Onceinawhile (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I realize what you're trying to say, Onceinawhile, but in the interest of precision, let me preface that I was never "un/happy," I just gave you my impression about the risk of bad optics working to your detriment. Are the optics better now, noting also the exchange you've had with Awilley (which I just now noticed, sorry)? Yes, they are. Certainly, waiting till all is said and done (and logged), would be the safer bet. I suppose the user facing the SPI complaint (courtesy ping: 11Fox11; no need to comment, though) could still go on to say: 'this is retaliatory, I have filed an AE complaint against the filing editor which is still pending and where they are facing sanctions.' Would that carry much weight at this point? Who knows. Probably not, though. El_C 18:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK thank you, that is clear. Unless Awilley objects, I will go ahead and open the case, which I believe is strong enough to face of a healthy dose of skepticism. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Onceinawhile, maybe I'll just ask you about it here: earlier, Bearian voiced support for the title change by saying: Neutral and non-racist, as to opposed the current name — to which you responded with: I consider that an unacceptable attack. Please retract it or explain yourself (diff). Now, my read of that exchange is that they do not actually owe you an explanation, because how is that even an attack (not to mention an "unacceptable" one)? They are allowed to advance the viewpoint that the current title is racist. While I struggle to see how it is racist (at least in the classical sense of the word), that is not a comment on your person to be construed as an attack. They may be in error (in thinking that it's racist), you may be in error (in thinking that it isn't), but either way, holding those competing views is allowed. See, there's a difference between saying "you are a racist" or "you are being racist," or even "you possess some (any) racist views." [You'd be like "no, I'm an anti-racist!"] But it's another thing entirely to say (by implication): "as a construct, the position you hold has the (inadvertent) effect of being racist." Maybe at first glance, it seems like a minor distinction, but they're actually worlds apart. One attacks the person, while the other attacks the idea. El_C 10:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C, thanks for this. The good news is that I think you can tell from my comment at the time that I did consider it to be a comment on my person, even if I was wrong to do so. The exchange helps me understand your sentiment on the other specific exchange we discussed at the AE; i.e. what I wrote I did not consider to be a comment on the editor themself, and did not intend it to be so, but the analogy here is a good reminder that when things are close to the line they can be easily extrapolated in the minds of reasonable people.

To answer your specific questions here, the logic in my mind at the time was "the editor is claiming that I chose to write something racist". The language used "Neutral and non-racist, as to opposed the current name" is the same as I would use if I was proposing to change the name of article about an African-American person whose article has been created with the n-word in brackets after the subject's name. In the scenario, I think we would all agree that the original author of such an article, would, in fact, be racist. The truth is, when we judge these questions, we cannot help but be influenced by our own judgements as to whether we think the actual decision to write something is in-and-of-itself a racist action.

Onceinawhile (talk) 11:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile, the AGF imperative should drive one to consider that when someone else says: "this title is racist," they, as the author of that title, should actually read it as basically saying: "this title is racist, but I of course acknowledge that the title's author did not purposefully construct it with racist intent." This, of course, is in contradistinction to racist titles that are actually correct as such (in an encyclopedic sense), like with the alternate title for And Then There Were None. In other words, the editor making the "racist title" argument is not actually required to add such a lengthy qualification in that instance. Rather, per AGF (within reason), this notion of attacking the idea rather than the person is an intent which is automatically assumed, unless there's something (anything) to indicate otherwise. Hope that makes sense. El_C 18:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C, thanks for helping me think through this. OK I agree that AGF requires that conclusion, in both directions. I think the slight nuance, which equally applies to my characterization of certain statements made by other editors as anti-Palestinian, is (1) AGF applies to us as Wikipedians but does not apply to the world at large who can read our discussions freely, and (2) racism is a charge of such great magnitude that reducing ambiguity is often warranted.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I agree that, to take the specific example above, I should not have assumed the comment applied to me personally, but it is also reasonable for me to have hoped for or asked for a clarification given the magnitude of the potential charge in the eyes of those who do not need to AGF. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Onceinawhile, happy to help! To your point: unless you mean it as a matter of principle, I think you're greatly overestimating the readership of article talk pages, even top-tier ones, which West Bank bantustans clearly isn't. Granted, when one says that this or that thing is "racist," it isn't to their credit when they fail to substantiate that (whatsoever, even with a "per X" reference point). So, indeed, certainly not ideal. But, at the same time, not an attack, either. El_C 21:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry :-(

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Statement_by_Objective3000_2. I'm really sorry to do that. I hate escalating stuff, but it has apparently caused Objective3000 to retire, and the more I look at it the more I think it's really unfair to someone whose only intention was to help resolve the problem. ~Awilley (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, really? Wow. That sucks. No, I never doubted that their intent was to be anything but helpful —nor at any time did I intimate that it was meant to be underhanded— I just wanted to emphasize that this was a violation. That arguments to the contrary are simply not sound. And that is also why I stressed in the AE report's closing summary that I did not intend for the warning to serve as a "blemish" on their record. I guess there was just no way to get this point across meaningfully without inflicting considerable damage...(?) That makes me sad. Anyway, thanks for updating me, Awilley. I'll take a look at your request at ARCA presently. Regards, El_C 02:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a closer read of WP:EW. You quoted part of the following passage, leaving out the part that appears to show there was no vio on my part.

The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period.

I did two reverts, not "more than three". I'd like to know where you see a vio, please. Note that 1RR is suspended there. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss, respectfully, seeing as the matter is now before the Committee at ARCA, I would rather not split the discussion further and prefer to address any concerns at that venue. El_C 03:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, my matter is not at ARCA as I read it, only O3000's matter. That's why I posted here. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The entire AE report is now under Committee review at ARCA, so that is where I prefer to discuss any of its components (whatsoever) at this time. El_C 03:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The heading is Amendment request: Warning of Objective3000. Information about amendment request: Remove the warning to Objective3000 (leaving only a warning for Mandruss). My warning does not appear to be under discussion there at all. So I can't discuss this there, and I can't discuss it here, either, and it looks for all appearances that I was completely innocent. I'd say that sorta sucks, wouldn't you? How about I fucking retire from this place too? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that would be most unfortunate. I still disagree about your interpretation of the actual scope of the ARCA review, but okay, I'll try to sum up my position for you here, as well. When you had explicitly refused to self-revert, you in effect acknowledged that 1RR was in effect. Then, when you self-reverted after Objective3000 offered to revert the edit back, that was the violation. Hope that makes sense. El_C 04:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not make sense. I just noted above that 1RR is suspended at that article, and I noted same in the AE complaint. Given that 1RR is suspended, how could I have in effect acknowledged that 1RR was in effect? One of us is seriously confused here. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss, two things. First, you made no mention of this suspension when you refused to self-revert. Then, when you did actually self-revert following Objective3000's offer to revert the edit back, I count that as an acknowledgment of it being in effect. Secondly, I don't see how any such suspension can be seen to be in place, in the first place. Both Template:Editnotices/Page/Donald Trump on the article and Template:Editnotices/Group/Talk:Donald Trump on the article talk page are quite unambiguous about that. El_C 04:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I never acknowledged any 1RR, and I never would have done so knowing full well that 1RR was suspended. I don't see how any such suspension can be seen to be in effect - Then you may follow either the wikilink that I provided in the AE complaint, or the identical one that I provided near the bottom of this subsection. Or you could just have a higher level of awareness of what's going on at an article where you propose to issue logged warnings. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I realize you may not have acknowledged it explicitly, but in my view, your actions speak to it. Also, this is now the second time where I have asked you to cut down on the snark. I realize this is upsetting, but unless you are able to keep it in check, maybe it's better to just table this for another day. El_C 04:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yer damn right I'm upset. Under these entirely unacceptable conditions I consider it a show of restraint to limit myself to mere snark. Tabled indefinitely. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel that way. It's too bad, because I was hoping this can be discussed in a purely matter-of-fact way. But if not, then not. Anyway, not to be unduly repetitive, but the matter is still pending at ARCA, so if you believe that I have faltered, you are free to seek any remedy from the Committee that would see me censured or admonished. El_C 05:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 5) I thought of coming here first but I didn't want it to come off as "reconsider or else I'll file an ARCA" because I hate it when people use that as a (usually empty) threat. For what it's worth, I'm still not clear on why you think the edit restriction was circumvented. The edit restriction is clear: one revert per editor per 24 hours. That leaves open the possibility of tag-teaming. Was there tag teaming? Yes. Was the tag teaming disruptive? Not really. It removed recently-added contentious material restoring the Status Quo in the Lead of a highly visible article. Did it break any Wikipedia policies? No. Did it violate any discretionary sanctions? No. Did it circumvent any sanctions? So far as I can see, no, and I'm struggling to understand why you say yes. ~~Perhaps you could help me by specifying which sanction was circumvented?~~ Nevermind, given the above ~Awilley (talk) 03:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Honestly, Awilley, I don't think it makes sense for us to discuss this here and at ARCA concurrently.~~ El_C 04:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, obviously, we're discussing it now. El_C 05:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The edit restriction is clear: one revert per editor per 24 hours. Where do you see that? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: Editing Donald Trump shows this edit notice which spells it out. Unfortunately, most people skip banners because they are used to the noise. Johnuniq (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing there about "one revert per editor per 24 hours," which sounds a lot like 1RR to me, and 1RR is suspended by Awilley. If what IS there is equivalent to 1RR, what did it mean to suspend 1RR if we are still limited to one revert per 24 hours? This is supposedly "clear"? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Mandruss, I was a bit too terse in my summary of the sanction above. It's linked to the content, so it should be "each editor can only revert the same content once per 24 hours". With a discussion requirement. You get up to three reverts every day, but you can't make the same revert twice. ~Awilley (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Awilley, but that seems convoluted and confusing. El_C 04:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley you say "each editor can only revert the same content once per 24 hours" where is that written? PackMecEng (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El_C: It's pretty simple. Don't add or remove the same content more than one time per 24 hours. Mandruss removed the same content twice: that's a violation. Objective removed the content once: no violation. The other two users each added the content once: no violation. @PackMecEng, that is the effect of the following sanction: "If a change you make to this article is reverted, you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours." ~Awilley (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay I was confused by your use of quotation marks, made me think it was actually written down somewhere. So the AE log says one thing, the edit notice says another, the talk page yet another, and you use wording not found in any. I think there might be an issue somewhere. PackMecEng (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think PackMecEng's observation pretty much nails it, Awilley. Beyond that, I echo what others have argued before: that you tend to overrely on sanction customization, which, at times, appears to be somewhat esoteric in nature and unclear, or otherwise less than consistent. El_C 05:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gurbaksh Chahal

Since this page has been unaltered for months, can you please remove the unlock for this page as it's been over a year since you placed this lock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.238.106.82 (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP, the problem with that line of reasoning (which I encounter often enough) is that the fact that this page hasn't experienced any disruption for months may well be attributed to the very protection which you are seeking to lift. More pointedly, no, I don't really conceive of the protection being lifted any time soon. Probably not for years. I might be persuaded to test the waters by downgrading it, but I don't see that happening in the foreseeable future, either. El_C 00:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps the disruption ended due to whatever parties privy to vandalism, no longer exist on wikipedia. Time does make people move on to the next thing. May I suggest first downgrading it to [Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] and then perhaps taking it down further a month from now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.238.106.82 (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the long-term, chronic nature of the disruption on that page, I find that to be unlikely, so I am declining your request, for now. But please feel free query other admins at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_reduction_in_protection_level. I'll certainly take into account any additional feedback on the matter. El_C 03:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock case closed for EdDakhla

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that the global lock request for me and two other editors has been closed (section was removed) and dismissed. I will be going back to my normal edits of interest (with more caution of course). Thanks EdDakhla 16:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, what do you know? Well, good for you. I would emphasize a few things to you: I'd stress that you need to respect and observe the spirit of WP:ONUS in your edits, overall; that you need to engage other editors in good faith as a basic imperative; and finally, that if you are going to file any sort of a report (about anything), it should be relatively brief — since this is a volunteer project, you are unlikely to see much if any volunteer resources expended otherwise (generally, a good rule of thumb could be seen in the word limit stipulated at WP:AE). Anyway, good luck! El_C 16:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. Thank you. EdDakhla 16:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 945: / Line 945: @@
 {{od|::}}Hi El C, thanks again for the below. Now that this all seems to have settled, are you happy for me to submit the SPI? [[User:Onceinawhile|Onceinawhile]] ([[User talk:Onceinawhile|talk]]) 17:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 :I realize what you're trying to say, {{u|Onceinawhile}}, but in the interest of precision, let me preface that I was never "un/happy," I just gave you my impression about the risk of bad optics working to your detriment. Are the optics better now, noting also the exchange you've had with {{u|Awilley}} (which I just now noticed, sorry)? Yes, they are. Certainly, waiting till all is said and done (and logged), would be the safer bet. I suppose the user facing the SPI complaint (courtesy ping: {{u|11Fox11}}; no need to comment, though) could still go on to say: 'this is retaliatory, I have filed an AE complaint against the filing editor which is still pending and where they are facing sanctions.' Would that carry much weight at this point? Who knows. Probably not, though. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 18:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
+::OK thank you, that is clear. Unless {{u|Awilley}} objects, I will go ahead and open the case, which I believe is strong enough to face of a healthy dose of skepticism. [[User:Onceinawhile|Onceinawhile]] ([[User talk:Onceinawhile|talk]]) 21:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 -------
 :::Well, {{u|Onceinawhile}}, maybe I'll just ask you about it here: earlier, {{noping|Bearian}} voiced support for the title change by saying: {{tq|Neutral and non-racist, as to opposed the current name}} — to which you responded with: {{tq|I consider that an unacceptable attack. Please retract it or explain yourself}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:West_Bank_bantustans&diff=990504658&oldid=990503690 diff]). Now, my read of that exchange is that they do not actually owe you an explanation, because how is that even an attack (not to mention an "unacceptable" one)? They are allowed to advance the viewpoint that the current title is racist. While I struggle to see how it is racist (at least in the classical sense of the word), that is not a comment on your person to be construed as an attack. They may be in error (in thinking that it's racist), you may be in error (in thinking that it isn't), but either way, holding those competing views is allowed. See, there's a difference between saying "you are a racist" or "you are being racist," or even "you possess some (''any'') racist views." [You'd be like "no, I'm an anti-racist!"] But it's another thing entirely to say (by implication): "as a construct, the position you hold has the (''inadvertent'') effect of being racist." Maybe at first glance, it seems like a minor distinction, but they're actually worlds apart. One attacks the person, while the other attacks the idea. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 10:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:09, 11 January 2021

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

Edit warring user on exodus and related pages

Quaking in my slippers

How to upload link in wikipedia

Talk:Kyiv

E. Michael Jones

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Request for 500/30

Greetings

Move page help

Will the real Matthew Berdyck please stand up!

Question about RfC practices

GPinkerton

Rite of Memphis-Misraim

IBAN issue

A thought

Burger Chef murders

Big Belly Burger

Pashtunfacts

Worrying new editor

Gerda's December corner

Some thoughts about the recent AE case

Your insight please

Edit warring anon

Advice on requested moves

Lifting of a partial block

A barnstar for you!

Clarification

Questionable arrival of IP troll

Scope of the topic ban

Bates method

ArbCom restriction

Edits by a new account on Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia

Yo Ho Ho

Yo Ho Ho

Merry Christmas!

Natalis soli invicto!

Merry Christmas !

Disruptive IP

unfortunate close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Larson (politician)

User:GPinkerton

User:GPinkerton again

Happy New Year

Happy New Year, El C!

ANI

January

Article history

Mass removal of well-sourced content

Re: ANI thread

Un/conclusion?

Question

IP Troll: 79.140.150.131

Greetings

Fringe problem

EdDakhla (again)

Akkawi page

discussions

GPinkerton topic ban violation

Removal of info on various pages

Your comment

This is stupid that this is still bothering me but here goes

Kurdish ArbCom Case

Problematic user

Advice

Sorry :-(

Gurbaksh Chahal

Global lock case closed for EdDakhla

4 Tality Fractal