User talk:El C

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

Archived Discussions

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

For you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oooo. Purdy!

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

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

Seasons Greetings

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

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

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

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

Happy Groundhog Day

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

Chippies

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

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

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

Book?

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

4Tality Fractal

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

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

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

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

El_C 07:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Rev-dels

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

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

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

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

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

Edit Tag on Gaza Strip

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

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

GretLomborg

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

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

Inquisition

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

The issue is on the article Inquisition

There is a mistranslation. Bp. Grosseteste is quoted as saying heresy is "an opinion created by human reason, founded on the Scriptures, contrary to the teachings of Christ, publicly avowed and obstinately held." The citation is to an edition of Matthew Paris's Chronicle maiorum; however, that source actually reads: "Heresias est sententia humano sensu electa, Scriptura Sacrae contraria, palam edocta, pertinaciter defensa."

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

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

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

What to do?

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

Regards, Pavel

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

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

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

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

thanks and update

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

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

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

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

Romania

And all I got was this... Whoa!

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

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

And all I got was a ^^^

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

El_C 06:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Iran

Hello El C

The statement regarding the government of Iran has been on the article for quite some time (a year if not several), now it's suddenly flooding with people randomly removing it (the one being a random user with like 10 edits, 30% of them being reverts) and not even bothering to write a message on the talk page. How does that work exactly? Imho it should be restored back to status quo, since no consensus has been reached. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Maybe launch a Request for comment for some more outside input, where you can make that very argument. El_C 16:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

So basically I have to clean up for others who just remove sourced stuff (disruptive editing) and don't even disuss about it? And their disruptive revision ends up staying? I'm good. I'm not an expert on Wikipedia rules but I do know as long there has been no consensus the original revision should stay. Someone can't just spam the revert button to have their way. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not disruptive editing, it's a content dispute. And I'm not allowed to pick sides in it, even when I want to. Yes, the status quo ante may likely weather this in the end, but the version that ends up being protected during a content dispute's edit war is ultimately random. El_C 17:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

SashiRolls AE

I think you may have missed something regarding the answer to your question: "the article under contention, who started editing it first?". Can I discuss this with you here? Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Go for it. But easy on the TLDR, please. El_C 02:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I only have a moment so I will have to keep it short anyway. User:SashiRolls edited the article under contention after a discussion relating to the Séralini affair at Talk:Glyphosate with User:Kingofaces43 and User:Tryptofish. It wasn't as though Tryptofish randomly followed SashiRolls to WP:Séralini affair, if that was the implication. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

That was not the implication. I was just trying to find out who gets to edit the article under the IBAN. It turns out it is Tryptofish who does. El_C 03:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just responding to the ping after just seeing the AE, but the sanction on Tryptofish came as a huge surprise. El C, could you specify why you went two-way?

My main concern is there wasn't really evidence presented of Tryptofish being a problem to indicate they needed a ban. Even Sashirolls last unblock appeal was heavy with declines due to WP:NOTTHEM problems (see Ivanvector's comment) also seen at this AE. A one-way would have accomplished the same thing with fewer complications, especially if you mainly intended for Sashirolls to avoid where Tryptofish edits. I completely understand wanting to get something done even if it was a no-fault two-way for Tryptofish, but I'm also wary of cases where people get hounded by an editor and swept up in sanctions too.

Your clarification above helped with some concerns, but I'm also trying to make sure this doesn't cause confusion down the line. I'm not planning to add more TLDR on your page beyond this. Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm just trying the have those two stay away from one another, and this is the simplest way I could think of, based on evidence from both of them that lacked both clarity and cohesion. But I have to admit that SashiRolls' battleground response to me just a few minute ago, does not inspire confidence. I said that much to them just before they blanked their talk page. I found their veiled threats particularly troublesome. Indeed, maybe it ought to have been one-way. El_C 04:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Their response is not unexpected based on what I just linked to (the GMO topic gets messy when editors like that pop in). All I'll say is do at least mull over changing it to one-way, but it's probably better to let Tryptofish talk to you at this point on that, so I'll stop pestering. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The first one to break it will settle the question. – Levivich 04:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC) Sorry for the double-post, El C, but in trying to be brief I poorly-worded my earlier comment. This isn't about pitting two editors against each other, it's about finding a way for them both to keep contributing to the encyclopedia without either one of them feeling bothered by the other. I think this temporary "time out" will help, and hopefully it can be appealed and dropped after sufficient time. By the way, if the editor interaction analyzer doesn't work for you, you should be aware that this is the full list of articles the two of them have ever both edited: Jill Stein (Sashi first), Séralini affair (Tryp first), Glyphosate (T), Roundup (herbicide) (T), Monsanto legal cases (T), Pizzagate conspiracy theory (S), Criticism of Wikipedia (S). So it's 4-3 in Tryp's favor, and it's only 7 articles anyway. And they've been editing for years. This does not strike me as a huge burden. – Levivich 05:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Levivich, for the much needed clarity and perspective. El_C 05:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I understand that you're just trying to end conflict between two editors, but my concern is that SashiRolls' conduct has yet again not been evaluated. You stated: "This report has become too lengthy. It's difficult to tell what's going on anymore. I'm not sure other admins would feel motivated to look into this.". This is exactly what happened at the AN/I report I had referenced. Unlike the conflicts between SashiRolls and Tryptofish, and SashiRolls and Snooganssnoogans, which seem to stretch back years, my conflict with SashiRolls was isolated and brief, and I have provided evidence of SashiRolls' battleground behavior that I feel has both clarity and cohesion. If you (understandably) did not take a look, I showed that SashiRolls falsely accused Snooganssnoogans of stalking him, and then attacked me for showing that truth. SashiRolls' pattern of filling reports with convoluted webs of false accusations (accompanied by editors' obligatory defenses) has effectively shielded SashiRolls from scrutiny. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

That may well be so. But at the time of making my evaluation, both users presented evidence that was neither cogent, cohesive, coherent, nor crucially, condensed. I don't view an IBAN in the context of user-specific DS as some sort of badge of shame, but merely as a tool at conflict resolution. Something had to be done and someone had to do it. Certainly, I would advise SashiRolls to tread lightly in the future, especially in light of the exchange we had yesterday and the aforementioned veiled threats contained therein — which I was unimpressed by, to say the least. El_C 16:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that what you did was a good resolution of their conflict, but I think you should expect that SashiRolls will not tread lightly in the future. This is what every administrator before you has repeatedly advised him, but from what I have seen, SashiRolls will continue to threaten or attack anyone and everyone who crosses his path, as he just did to you, and as he just did to me one month ago. When he was unblocked in November 2018 there [was] considerable skepticism of unblocking, even among some of the supporters, but I have not seen a lot of critical eyes looking at their post-unblock behavior. Instead, SashiRolls has continued to become Somebody else's problem, to quote User: Robert McClenon. Something still has to be done and someone has to do it. I am doing my part, but an administrator has to do theirs. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I feel like I did my part, and I stand by my decision based on the quality of the evidence presented. It's easy to criticize in a breath after the fact, but I find those sort of exclamations, ultimately, unhelpful. El_C 17:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I have been trying to say that I support how you handled that particular conflict, but I want you to do more.  My personal experience with SashiRolls was never litigated so if you could make that happen I think that would be helpful. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry, I've sort of had enough of all of this, for now. But if future issues arise, please don't hesitate to drop me a line. El_C 18:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Is it appropriate for me to add my experience with SashiRolls to the current AE discussion? I've already made several failed attempts at getting this looked at, but American politics AE may actually be the right venue. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The IBAN was a good idea: it will put a stop to the harassment that has been going on since 2016 at Jill Stein. The ABAN was not a good idea. For improving articles on Roundup, Glyphosate, the Séralini Affair I have been effectively banned from any page related to Monsanto, gardening, garden, flower pot, Japanese rock garden, Chinese room, religion, fruit, etc. Perhaps more crucially, I am effectively banned from writing about cyberbullying, WP:HARASSMENT, WP:Tag Team, WP:Disruptive Editing on wiki. It is not a threat to say that I may chose to write about these things (particularly tag teaming) and this affair in other venues. ~~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Those absolutely were veiled threats, and they were out of line. I don't want to see you two editing the same articles, pure and simple. We already established that the reference is to substantive edits and that it does not apply to project pages, so I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with that line of argument. (See Levivic's comment for context.) El_C 17:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

El_C, I have a small question by way of clarification. You stated in the decision: "an WP:ABAN on articles the other party has edited first." At WP:ABAN, it says: "The word "article" usually refers only to mainspace pages. If any other related pages (such as the page's talk page) are to be covered it will usually be stated explicitly." My understanding of your intent is that the sanction applies to the article talk pages of covered articles, in addition to the articles themselves, but you did not state that explicitly. Could you please clarify explicitly that article talk pages are also included? (If they are not, there will be a world of trouble.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I basically want you to stay away from, and neither comment at or about, each other. El_C 17:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much. With that, I'm sure that I understand fully what you intend. As far as I'm concerned, everything is fine with me, no problems. I also want to say thank you to the editors who suggested a 1-way instead. I appreciate that, and I will say that it is more like what should be happening, but I actually do not care about the difference. El_C, thanks for your help. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, well. SashiRolls has blanked their talk page again. They have a right to do that, but it is never a good sign. Maybe I am more likely to avoid them than some editors are. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

For info, I've archived my talk page to the User Talk:SashiRolls/The Been. I've also recently helped someone trying to write about an Algerian mosque which you (correctly) rejected at AFC [here]. Feel free to comment on whether you think that page (without the images) is ready to go into mainspace now. Since there is celebration going on here I will remove this user:talk page from my watchlist so people will stop being tempted to revel. Back to work, everyone. Please leave El C alone. ~~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

If that is intended to be an accessible archive please add a permanent link to your talkpage. If you would like to discuss further please invite me to your talkpage. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

2-way IBAN

I don't know if the ping worked, but sometime when you have a chance please take a moment to reply to the request for clarification on my page. Best, ~~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 02:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Copy that. El_C 03:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Could you also copy my opposition to the unnameable user asking for having their half of the I-ban lifted. Based on the quality of the evidence produced, it should be one way in the opposite direction, but a two-way ban was proposed for lack of time to properly investigate the depth of the SWAPP suit statement.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Casting aspersions

SashiRolls now says I will happily pitch in to compile an off-wiki list of all the dramaboard GMO cases and recurring actors to help the press get a handle on what is going on If that's not casting aspersions I don't know what is. They are implying that myself, Tryptofish and Kingofaces43 are paid shills of Monsanto and threatening to report us to journalists. This should not be acceptable when there is zero evidence whatsoever. SmartSE (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The referenced conversation is WT:RFA#Why not recruit admins to fill underserved area?. – Levivich 00:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Jeez, even though I didn't expected the I-ban to keep things tamped down forever, I wasn't expecting something like that on the topic so quick again . El C, just as background, we had to pass a specific principle on aspersions at the GMO arbcom at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Casting_aspersions in part because of battleground behavior and shill gambits outlined in the principle. That threat of getting the press on this is is getting into that territory, fits more as a parallel with a WP:CHILLINGEFFECT that is never ok. That kind of stuff is why I asked for a topic ban originally.

I don't want to be the one pushing for more after just after they got sanctioned, but I agree with SmartSE this is going beyond normal griping after getting sanctioned and into very unacceptable territory. That's as much as I want to say on it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Final warning left, but I was seriously considering just blocking. As mentioned, it's one thing to issue veiled threats to me ("time for the press to be alerted"; "being frank when interviewed"), it's another to do it to other users. That will no longer be tolerated. El_C 00:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks and also to Levivich. Looking around more I see that this is not the first time, hopefully it will be the last. Belatedly adding the diff - apologies - it was getting late. SmartSE (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Request for change to 1-way

I would like to request that the part of the sanction that applies to me be lifted, thus changing it from a 2-way IBAN to a 1-way IBAN.

I think that I have amply demonstrated that I have been acting in a responsible and trustworthy manner, and I would prefer not to have the restriction hanging over my head any longer. I recognize, of course, that if hypothetically I were to abuse the situation, the sanction would be reinstated. I also have no intention of interacting with the other editor in any case. I do not want to cross paths with them, and I have zero interest in editing the articles that they edit, and it's just the right thing to do anyway.

I'm making a courtesy ping to Vanamonde93, as the other admin who was involved in the case. Thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

While I understand why the sanction was imposed as it was, I have no objections to reducing it to a one-way IBAN, and would have a preference for that outcome. I do not however have the time to investigate this further. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll just chime in as the original AE filer that I mirror Vanamonde's thoughts. As discussed above, Tryptofish's sanction was essentially no-fault with no real evidence brought at the AE against them to require any warnings etc., so changes to the sanctions are mainly just making sure there won't be more disruption from Sashirolls at this point. I think the conversation after the initial sanction has shown that the relevant conflicts involving Sashirolls aren't so entangled that a two-way is needed even if "no-fault". Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The 2-way, no fault IBAN was placed on both users as a matter of expediency. Because no one had the time to investigate this request further — it was simply too lengthy and convoluted, spanning a considerable timeline. Vanamonde93, who I consider as informed about this as I am, if not more so, says they have no time to investigate this further. Well, neither do I. Sorry, I'm just stretched a bit thin right now to justify devoting any additional time to what is essentially a formality. A rather hollow formality, because it's a no fault sanction, anyway. I'll tell you what, though, if and/or when Vanamonde93 finds the time, they should feel more than free to implement a one-way IBAN and may do so without consulting me further in any way. El_C 15:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, KofA, for the support. And a sincere thank you as well to El_C, because I know that everyone here is a volunteer and you have made a genuine effort to deal with this situation as best you can. I'll also ping Vanamonde93, to make sure you see what El_C just said. I actually do agree, and have agreed all along, that 2-way no-fault is no big deal as far as I'm concerned. But I also believe that it's a no-brainer to see that a 1-way would accomplish everything necessary that the 2-way does, and I don't have time is an inadequate explanation for putting a restriction on me or on anyone else. I'm not particularly bothered by the 2-way, but I also see no good reason why it should remain something that I have to have hanging over my head. I'm in no hurry, and I'll let this sit for a couple of days before deciding whether to take this to AE. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

There's no need to wait. I have no time to investigate this further. Yes, feel free to bring this to AE — if it's, indeed, such a no-brainer, your request should be granted quickly. Again, I have no objection and do not need to be consulted in anyway. El_C 20:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• (Posting here because it seems the AE hasn't been filed yet, and because what prompted me to post this was something El C posted here.) FWIW, speaking from extensive experience, "2-way, no fault IBAN"s are not actually a thing, even if some editors who have never actually been subject to them assume they are. (This is not meant as an insult to such editors -- TonyBallioni, one of my favourite Wikipedians, is one of them.) In the past seven years I have requested such IBANs on several occasions, and requested they be lifted when they were no longer serving their intended purpose, with my requests usually being granted. But in the past six months or so I have had about a half-dozen users suggest that the existence of such IBANs indicates that I am a problem user in and of itself, regardless of the fact that I only requested the bans to minimize drama, and several of said users have proposed (and been granted a sympathetic ear by the community!) that I be site-banned for having those IBANs (even going back and counting the bans that were lifted all the way back in 2013, claiming them to still be in effect). I fully sympathize with Tryptofish's "hanging over my head" point, and support lifting his ban. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

BLP vio in protected page

History of the Jews in Poland - while being in the non-STABLE version or using a non academic sourcs published by an individual designated by the SPLC (at RSN, no consensus to use) may fall under WRONGVERSION (though frankly, user introducing such a source for Holocaust history should be banned) - a version with BLP violations should not be allowed to stand. The present version states - "Based on research into court records, Łukasz Krzyżanowski [pl] concludes that the possession of "a relatively large number of properties" was returned. - this is a severe misrepresentation of Krzyżanowski - and beyond that, due to the modern politics involved, may be seen as extreme political stmt. This should be removed. See Talk:History of the Jews in Poland#Krzyżanowski which shows Krzyżanowski actually wrote more or less the opposite in Polish. In a subsequent English paper citing his Polish work he wrote: "The persistent anti-Semitism in the immediate aftermath of the war, violent attacks and the fear that plagued Holocaust survivors in Kalisz and many other Polish cities often pushed the surviving Jews out of these locations, forcing them to settle in the larger Polish cities or to emigrate. Moreover, the new social, economic and political reality of post-war Poland did not facilitate the rebuilding of the lives of individual survivors. The aforementioned problems, together with the difficulties in recovering private homes and communal property – an issue that deserves a separate detailed study65 – resulted in the lack of the stability necessary for postwar resettlement...." (ref65 - his chapter in Klucze i kasa) - "These processes broke the survivors’ social networks and resulted in the disappearance of the Jewish community in post-war Kalisz and in many other Polish towns.. Krzyzanowski, Lukasz. "An Ordinary Polish Town: The Homecoming of Holocaust Survivors to Kalisz in the Immediate Aftermath of the War." European History Quarterly 48.1 (2018): 92-112. This is a young scholar, and being named next to such a stmt may impact his career. Respectfully - this should be removed.Icewhiz (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

What is the context of "relatively large number of properties" — can you quote the entire passage which includes that quote? El_C 04:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The context is initial court decress, in two small towns, which granted a possession order - not ownership. The decree was theb usually sold to the invaders occupying the house who were not evicted. Quote of entire page (translated):

1. It is difficult to say whether the three examples of attempts at judicial retrieval of movable property belonging to Polish Jews can be considered typical or rather exceptions. Cases regarding movables are undoubtedly a rarity among the documentation of municipal courts in both Radom and Kalisz. The vast majority of preserved files concern buildings and squares. It seems likely that movable property of Polish Jews, otherwise less real estate, was recovered if at all) without the mediation of the state and courts, by direct communication between survivors and Poles who refused the thesis. The principle also seems to claim that the majority of items belonging to Jews, which were in Polish hands during the war, never left these hands and perhaps even to this day they are passed on to future generations as family keepsakes. A more detailed description of the fate of Jewish movable property in post-war Poland requires the use of other sources than court files. If you want to explore this topic, you should turn to personal documents and relationships.".
2. "It is impossible to determine the total number of cases of the private property being recovered by the Jews after the Second World War in in Radom and Kalisz. On the basis of court files from both cities, it can be concluded that possession, not ownership, of a relatively large number of properties was restored to the Holocaust survivors who returned to their places of origin8. In order to reclaim their own or their family's assets, the Jews had to fight against regulations limiting the rights of persons deprived of property and to overcome many other obstacles. Because of the poverty of the survivors, the mass emigration of most of them from Poland and Warsaw, with the complicated situation in which many Jewish properties found their way after 1945, most of the recovered properties were immediately resold to Poles. The rapid sale also depended members of criminal groups involved in the illegal takeover of Jewish real estate. The cases of restitution of estates declared by the state as "abandoned" did not change the general trend of Jewish ownership in non-Jewish hands, which may be considered the last stage of the expropriation process that began in the Polish territories during the German occupation and continued after the war. The transfer of ownership, initiated by the Germans and continued after the liberation, met the approval of many Poles who became the owners of Jewish property. This process was also in line with the post-war communist regime, which tended to create a homogeneous and mono-ethnic state82.

As for the modern day far right politics - [2].Icewhiz (talk) 04:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Those far-right protests are, indeed, disturbing. As for your major query, based on the full quote, I'm not sure that I'm seeing any outstanding BLP issues that would necessitate editing the protected page. I realise that most of the recovered properties were immediately resold, and that this can, then, be seen to signify the last stage of the expropriation process. But weren't Poles themselves also subject to post-war communist expropriation of private property (under whose government ownership is supplanted by possession for Poles, too). Or are we speaking primarily about personal property in contradistinction to private property? Anyway, from what I'm able to deduce, it may be a novel interpretation of the material —I'm not familiar enough with said material to conclusively tell— but to argue that this goes on to damage the reputation of a young scholar... I'm just not sure that this is so. El_C 05:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Krzyżanowski is a reputable scholar - reading our article one may conclude otherwise. Polish private property (as opposed to large businesses) was not nationalized (outside of Warsaw) - so no - this is totally different - private Jewish homes were invaded into (or, in some cases, transferred by the Nazi authorities) during the war, and "legally" taken over on the basis they were "abandoned". Inheritance laws were tightened so that distant relatives (limited to "direct line" - e.g. sons, not cousins - who were previously able to inherit) wouldn't be able to inherit (Poles - generally had surviving close relatives. Furthermore - the Polish state (as stated by Krzyżanowski in the next page - ""In this way, the Polish state became the beneficiary of the murder of millions of its Jewish citizens, who were deprived of all their property before death) took over properties the Nazis "nationalized" (or stole, the usual terminology). Beyond the out of context use of Krzyżanowski, he wrote (translated from Polish): "It is impossible to determine the total number of cases of the private property being recovered by the Jews after the Second World War in in Radom and Kalisz. On the basis of court files from both cities, it can be concluded that possession, not ownership, of a relatively large number of properties was restored to the Holocaust survivors who returned to their places of origin". Even if we were to use this out of context sentence, it is being misrepresented in several fashions:

1. It is limited to Radom and Kalisz only (particular courthouses, in two small-medium towns (less than 1% of Poland).
2. It is qualified "On the basis of court files from both cities, it can be concluded" - a qualification that is important given the widespread fraud covered by the same author in the rest of his conclusion.
3. He says clearly "possession, not ownership" - in the technical discussion here (where the court gave an initial decree - which didn't actually transfer the property nor evict the tenants residing illegally within) - this is an immensely important distinction.

Out of context use, coupled with attribution of something he didn't even say in that sentence - yes - we are placing a reputation damaging statement in Krzyżanowski's mouth. Our misquotation may imply he belongs to a very small and a very extreme historical school of thought that is rejected by most reputable scholars inside Poland, and overwhelmingly repudiated by international academia. Krzyżanowski is currently in Free University of Berlin (postdoc[3]). Even if this were a "novel interpretation" of a BLP's research (stated in our voice - and attributed to him - "Łukasz Krzyżanowski [pl] concludes" - we're stating this is his conclusion in our text, not merely citing this) - it would be a BLP issue to be removed. In this case - this is far beyond novel - to the point this is career damaging. Icewhiz (talk) 07:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The Krzyżanowski quote reads: "On the basis of court files from both cities, it can be concluded that possession, not ownership, of a relatively large number of properties was restored to the Holocaust survivors who returned to their places of origin." While the article states "Krzyżanowski concludes that the possession of "a relatively large number of properties" was returned." Both passages refer to "possession" (though the original emphasizes "not ownership), and both passages refer to "large number of properties." In what way is there misrepresentation in this narrow sense? Granted there is a superfluous "the" before possession, but that seem like more a grammatical error than anything. El_C 07:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

In the following ways:

1. The statement is clearly qualified to Radom (213k pop today) and Kalisz (101k pop today) (present in previous sentence, this sentence is "in both cities") - and not to Poland as a whole (38,430k pop today) - the study is on two locations, less than 1% of the population of Poland - Krzyżanowski doesn't generalize this sentence - at best this sentence can be used for Radom and Kalisz.
2. Krzyżanowski qualifies his statement to "On the basis of court files from both cities, it can be concluded" - he does not draw the conclusion himself, but says that looking at the court records one can conclude - this distinction is important as (and this expanded at length elsewhere in the source, as well as in the continuation of the paragraph - "The rapid sale also depended members of criminal groups involved in the illegal takeover of Jewish real estate.") there was widespread fraud in these cases - what is written in the court record doesn't actually necessarily mean the claimant was actually the owner/heir (as opposed to someone presenting himself as such).
3. "returned" is incorrect (as evident in the chapter, and as Krzyżanowski is very careful in qualifying). The properties weren't actually returned (despite the possession order) - " possession, not ownership" in this case means a "court order for possession" (which is qualified with "On the basis of court files from both cities") - it did not evict the actual tenants who resided in the property (to whom there was generally a rapid resale).

Icewhiz (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I can appreciate some of these distinctions, like that "returned" is not (legally) "restored," and so on, but all I really care about is whether there is a reputation-harming BLP violation, which my evaluation still concludes against. Some leeway is allowed when it comes to historiographical interpretation. But I might well be wrong about drawing this conclusion in this case, so feel free to take to BLPN. I'd happily conform to any consensus reached there. El_C 16:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I think this is beyond the pale (I'm afraid you don't realize just where we're placing Krzyżanowski politically with this very out of context and misrepresented attribution - if the darned sentence didn't have "Łukasz Krzyżanowski [pl] concludes" it wouldn't be as bad (as no one reads citations, and WP:OR/misquotes of citations do occur) - but with Krzyżanowski's name in our text - this quite bad). I won't be taking this to BLP/n (if I were to take it anywhere - it would be AE - BLP/n will be a mess of involved editors and go no where) - as if you don't see the problem - I suspect there won't be a consensus this a red-line BLP vio (even though it is - at least for anyone who is aware of the nuances involved here). If you would consider just removing (struck in quote) the attribution - "Based on research into court records, Łukasz Krzyżanowski [pl] concludes that the possession of "a relatively large number of properties" was returned. - I would be much obliged as this would resolve the BLP issue vs. Krzyżanowski who really may be harmed here. Icewhiz (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see the problem (getting some outside input at BLPN). And I don't think this would be looked at favourably at AE. But neither do I see any pressing harm in removing the author's name from that passage, so  Done on that front. El_C 16:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. As for BLP/n - look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold? - outside editors are keeping out of the topic area, unfortunately. Mainly involved voices.Icewhiz (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The currently protected version does NOT have "BLP vio"s in it. Icewhiz is disingenuously pretending that because his own idiosyncratic interpretation of the source is not reflected in current text then that's a BLP vio against the author of the source. That's absurd and WP:TEND.

The current version is just as stable (or not-stable) as Icewhiz's version. Most of this material in either version is of pretty recent vintage. Icewhiz just likes to pretend that whatever version he prefers is *always* the "stable" one. This is of course also absurd.

The reason why outside editors are keeping out of the topic area, as indicated by Ealdgyth, the only actual "outside" editor in the RSN discussion, is because of people who refuse to compromise and who spam these discussions with walls of unreadable text. People like Icewhiz. It's absurd for him to try and pretend that the problem stems from somewhere else when it's exactly him that *is* the problem. On this topic area and others too.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I removed the name just to be on the safe side (even though I felt it to have been mostly unnecessary, but didn't see the harm in doing so, either), but I did keep the passage — it's just in Wiki voice now. Sorry, I don't have any immediate plans on getting further involved in this beyond having issued the protection to stop the edit war. Mostly, because it involves parsing the historiographical consensus from a lot of material that I am scarcely familiar with. El_C 19:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

There you go again!

Thanks for blocking Special:Contributions/66.199.206.130. You're so fast! I was about to contact you about blocking them! :) - BilCat (talk)

I'm good! El_C 18:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Scary good, LOL. - BilCat (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Glenn Gilbertti Returns to Impact Wrestling

Hey Glenn Gilbertti Returns to Impact Wrestling 17 may 2019 Jocer Blandino (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Please feel free to attribute that to a reliable source. El_C 21:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Duggar Family

Why did you remove the children-in-law and grandchildren from the Duggar family section? AC12AC (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

For the reasons outlined here. El_C 04:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, El C. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 02:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

BilCat (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Closure of LavScam RfC

@Darryl Kerrigan: This might be a better place to talk about the RfC than the Arbcom case page, I think they frown on that. Also, WP:NHC but I counted 11-54 so I dunno what's going on there... the last yes vote wasn't bolded though (edit: And Curly voted twice). El_C, would your close include any prejudice against having a new RfC depending on the outcome of the Arbcom case? Since it was close, it's conceivable that might have an impact. Safrolic (talk) 04:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I miscounted just now, but I don't see how that matters all that much. RfC is not a vote and I used my discretion to weight the arguments rather than merely tally the preferences. I don't see what the RfC closure has to do with the Arbitration case nor do I feel that what the Committee decides has any bearing on this particular RfC. El_C 04:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the RfC closure doesn't have anything to do with the Arbitration case, and that's not what I mean. But as I understand it, the case is about resolving an underlying intractable conduct issue. I think it's very plausible that conduct issue could have affected the RfC itself. The resolution of that issue might cause one or multiple of the most passionate editors on either side to not take part in a future discussion. Also, I want to point out that you just defended your closure finding no consensus in a 9-5 vote due to the argument strength, stressing that it was close, and two editors changing their !votes to no had an affect on the outcome. But we just counted again and saw that it was 11-4, over 70% support, and one of the editors who 'changed their vote' (the one you double-counted), is the editor whose actions removing "LavScam" from the lead caused the RfC in the first place. I know closing isn't about counting heads, it's about argument strength,... but arguments are supposed to be pretty dang strong to go against a vote spread that large, I thought. I'm not asking you to undo your close here- that would cause more problems than it'd solve, with the open case. Asking instead that if the committee finds that there is a conduct issue meriting sanctions or editor restrictions, which would have impacted the RfC had they been in place before, it would be alright to re-run it. Safrolic (talk) 04:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

It's possible. It depends on what the Committee decides, but I seriously doubt it. I, however, reiterate that I do stand by my no consensus closure. I evaluated the arguments and closely weighed each preference (that I had to quickly re-count these now, and may have miscounted, is not relevant to anything). Certainly, feel free to bring it back up once the case concludes. I'm not going to tell you not to do that. But I don't want to give you false hope, either. El_C 05:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree with the close, but you have already ready why. The numbers are not determinative, but they are not irrelevant either. The arguments about prevalence convinced one, and not many others. The initial concerns about weight were not able to be addressed as alternate terms were not forthcoming. Some editors conduct there (not yours) may need to be the subject of arbitration, which is why I raised it. But I take your note that it is not the proper forum. I shall strike it through, as removing it now may not be appropriate (unless I later hear otherwise).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

No need to necessarily strike it, but I think we've exhausted that venue for that purpose. Anyway, as mentioned, this was part of a whole series of RfC closures I did at ANRFC. It was not the only unpopular closure result, but out of the ten or so RfCs, it was by far the closest. It really hung by a thread. But a decision had to be made, and I made it. And for better or worse the matter is now closed. That's just how Wikipedia works. It's not perfect, but it's better than the (pure vote) alternative. El_C 04:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I have closed some politically charged RfCs myself and done so against a strict vote count so I am no stranger to the concept. I was prepared to close that RfC and would have done so in the opposite way. I ultimately decided not to because I am friendly with the person who opened the RfC. However, I have a very hard time seeing so much policy weight in the 4 nos to outweigh the arguments the 11 were making. Could you explain better how policy would outweigh the sort of comments made by editors such as Britishfinance, SWL36, Darryl Kerrigan, and Safrolic who made at least as policy based !vote as any of the four editors who suggested the answer was no. I wasn't originally going to say anything but since it's already been brought up, I would like to better understand your thinking in light of WP:NHC If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Mostly, it was those arguments advanced in the Note for closer section, wherein the application of due weight into the rather fractional nature of usage did not see counter-arguments with as much substance as to its prevalence in reliable sources. El_C 04:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

El C, thanks for your reply. I want to think further before responding (or deciding to even respond in a substantive way). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The RfC made no mention of whether the term "LavScam" could be mentioned in the article – it was just about the opening sentence. Rather than trying to overturn this RfC to make it seem like there is consensus to put it bolded in the first line (which there clearly is not), could we work together to find a way to include this and other terms used by the media into the body of the article in a more neutral way? Many of the participants in the RfC made good points, and I'd certainly be open to further discussion. – bradv🍁 05:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the different names given by the media should be discussed in the body of the article first, and said so in my vote originally. This is the second time I've linked that vote to dispute someone else's contention that its sentiment did not exist. I'm not sure that it's clear there's not consensus, even the closer said it was close- but I do think that the same conduct issues which affected the RfC will also make revisiting or rearguing about it during the arbitration a distracting waste of time. I'd like for everyone to see an interest in letting it be for now. Safrolic (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I brought that up more than once. Nobody bit. Priorities appear to be elsewhere. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The status quo

"Please figure out whether there is consensus for that usage (or variations therein) before adding it to multiple articles, Novel compound. While discussion is ongoing, the convention is for the status quo ante to remain in place."

Ohmigosh, El_C; Nice4What has been pushing a non-neutral POV by repeatedly deleting the neutral word "survivor" from 3 articles. In two of the three articles, presence of the word "survivor" was the status quo – it was not added by me – and Nice4What has the gall to claim that my restoration of the status quo constitutes edit warring. Speaking of ongoing discussion, 188.176.129.120 posted a comment that was supportive of removing the neutral phrase "abortion survivor" at 21:48, and Nice4What declared that a "consensus" had been reached only two minutes later. Novel compound (talk) 06:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

As said on the talk page (surprised that I have to repeat this), but that was because the other two editors involved in the dispute had agreed too. As you can read in the IP's initial post, they noted I had started a talk page discussion while they were about to do the same. Nice4What (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not familiar enough with the discussion (where?) to tell whether consensus has been reached yet. El_C 12:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I am being a party-pooper?

Wikipedia:WikiProject Oshwah, which was originally an April Fools joke, is now running amok and threatening to become a social media page. Or am I just an anal middle-ager trying to deny teenagers some good clean fun? I'm tempted to AFD it, or at least ask for full protection, but I'm trying to decide if I'd be peeing in the wind first. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe so! Sorry, but it just seems to me like some harmless fun (indeed, among some of our younger editors). I would be inclined against taking any action at this time. El_C 12:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the honest response. I'll leave them be. - BilCat (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Names of massacre victims

This edit to the 2017 Las Vegas shooting article with an edit summary saying "(not appropriate to add names of victims)" caught my eye. I'm not contesting this here, but I'm not aware of any WP policy or guideline regarding this appropriateness concern; perhaps I've missed that because this is an area of concern which I've not previously run up against. I ask because the edit brought the contrast with Maguindanao massacre#Victims to mind. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

There's WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:VL. The general trend seems to be against listing victims of mass casualty events. I also think that WP:BLP (and all of its weight) should be invoked to guard non-notable victims' privacy (and more crucially, that of their families), even when sources exist to that effect. I'm not sure if that's considered a novel application of BLP, but WP:BLP#People_who_are_relatively_unknown ("exercise restraint"), WP:BLP#Subjects_notable_only_for_one_event ("individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources"), and WP:BLP#Privacy_of_names ("when the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated") leads me to believe that it isn't. El_C 12:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll bring it up on the talk page of that other article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

No good faith

Do you really believe that someone named Ahmedo Semsurî who is a Kurd and always try to make the Yazidis to Kurds or Christans, acts in a good faith? I know that you are not familiar with this material but „Kurds typically claim Yazidis as ethnic Kurds“.[4] and for many Yazidis it is an insult to be called Kurdish. Many Yazidis get angry when someone called them Kurdish. It looks very much like vandalism and an attempt to explain the Yazidis as ethnic Kurds and to provoke the Yazidis. Now he has also added a source claiming that the Armenian Apostolic Church is a Yazidi religion. As an administrator you need to know if someone has good intentions or not. This is really frustrating but Wikipedia does not reflect the world. Nevertheless, one should try to present articles as possible as they correspond in reality instead of looking for sources to show the articles in a different light.46.188.123.197 (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am not a mind reader and, again, am not familiar enough with the pertinent history and historiography to want to be drawn further into this content dispute. I already suggested for you to make use of such resources as the Reliable sources noticeboard and the Neutral point of view noticeboard, and I stand by that recommendation. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with all of this innuendo and aspersions of bad faith. Also, please consider registering a username. All these multiple IPs are making this needlessly complicated and confusing. El_C 23:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Iran editprotect

Hi El C, did you mean to UNprotect editing at Iran? — xaosflux ^Talk 11:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Protection automatically expired today. El_C 11:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Boeing 737 MAX groundings

Hi, thanks for the protection as it offers participants (including me) the occasion to cool down - while the dispute continues in talk pages. But it may be a little extreme as the reverts were only for the WP:EL section, not the rest of the article, and the subject is evolving rapidly, so it is lacking new developments. Thanks.ping me if you reply, I don't follow your talk page--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Marc Lacoste, doesn't matter what the edit war is about, what matters is that it takes place. If you need to add to the article, you may do so via edit requests. El_C 17:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

2019 Indian general election

Did you mean to remove all page protection? The IPs have begun deleting sources and sourced content, and another 48-hour PP may help keep it stable as the traffic peaks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, it's on the Main page now, so it's best to keep it open for as long as humanly possible. El_C 22:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

That said, if it gets truly untenable, please let me (or RfPP) know. El_C 22:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Canadian Politics Arbitration Case

If you do not want to receive further notifications for this case, please remove yourself from this list.
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 7, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

1RR

Hi. You posted on a bunch of talk pages in the past two days that you are placing them under 1RR (much needed at least for some of them!), however you did not log the restriction of any of them in Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2019. And I didn't check all of them, but Rafał Pankowski‎ for instance doesn't have an edit notice nor a talk page banner. If left in this manner - it's probably unenforceable (though an ambiguous state of AE-rules I guess). Could you follow through here ? Icewhiz (talk) 09:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 13:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! However you also need to update the Talk page banner - e.g. see Talk:Jeremy Corbyn which has a page level sanction - it has a "Ds/talk notice|blp|long|restriction=1RR" on top. Or Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland (which has a bunch of restrictions) - which has them all listed in a tmbox on top.Icewhiz (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not gonna do that. That's overkill. El_C 13:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Not asking for those restrictions - they are an overkill. But the talk page banner is required IIRC.14:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's the case. Talk page template should be enough. El_C 14:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism

Here are several IPs and accounts which engage in vandalism by indiscriminately adding "Ezidkhan settlement" stuff to articles. Please take a look and take action if needed. I'm asking you since you've recently protected similar articles. wumbolo ^^^ 13:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd rather protect the remaining articles than start blocking a bunch of never-ending random IPs. Feel free to list those here. El_C 13:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Heartbeat Bill page extended protection

I understand the need to protect the heartbeat bill page from vandals, but it isn't being updated regularly by extended confirmed users, and it is an actively shifting page. The information is almost 2 days out of date, and no one with access to edit has viewed it recently. Wouldn't it make sense to reduce the protection to semi and monitor heavily? That way, thise of us who don't quite meet extended requirements can still help update it. Darkwolf0218 (talk) 04:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not a sufficient reason to reduce protection, in light of the level of disruption suffered by the article. Non extended confirmed users are welcome to propose changes to the article via edit requests. El_C 04:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Anti-abortion movement

Thanks. That was odd, hard to see it as a coincidence. I revert and someone with a couple of edits comes in to revert me? Also, the person I reverted to a dab page and turned it into an article.[5] Interesting guy this blogger. [6] "Some provocateurs now argue that disallowing exceptions is not just an uncomfortable outgrowth of a strict moral position, but an act with affirmative benefits. “Rapists love abortion because it helps them cover up their crime,” Matt Walsh wrote in a column arguing against exceptions this week. “If [a] hypothetical 15-year-old victim does have her baby, the rapist father could be conclusively proven guilty with a DNA test. But if the incestuous abuser can enlist Planned Parenthood to destroy the evidence for him, he will walk away scot-free and continue molesting his daughter for years to come.” Wow, just wow. Doug Weller talk 18:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. Indeed, I was surprised to see that the 2019 AEL section was blank before I added to it this week. Despite the existence of WP:ARBAB, it seems as if the abortion sets of articles have become a sort of free-for-all and I'll have none of it. El_C 19:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Tag Teaming

Isn't WP:Tag Team supposed to be against the rules? Calthinus is appealing to his friends to enter the article and back him up.[7]76.168.122.183 (talk) 20:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Asking for other experienced editors to examine a dispute is not against the rules. Sorry, but this has become too disruptive, so I have semiprotected to page for three months. Feel free to continue the conversation on the article talk page and try to gain consensus there. But please watch for violations to our living persons policy — I can't stress that enough. El_C 20:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Please do not put words in my mouth. You allege that I described a living person when in fact I described an article in a shady newspaper.76.168.122.183 (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, that's fair enough. It's still rather inflammatory, but it does appear I have misread. El_C 21:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

This IP and Ymladdwr was probably User:Jacob Peters. My very best wishes (talk) 23:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Recent protection prince and Karan

El_C I asked for permanant protection though because too much vandalism and edit warring Prince Narula — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.146.229.148 (talk • contribs)

We'll cross that bridge in November. El_C 21:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for Page Protection

I warned the IP user they were being disruptive. Even though they made a couple of correct changes that I could double-check, most of the other changes removed truthful information from the article about participants - one example is that they removed the genre of "Danger" from a magic act that involved extremely dangerous magical tricks, which boggled my mind. Anyway, thanks again! GUtt01 (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. They are free to return to the mainspace in a week, hopefully, this time with explanations to their edits. Until then, the article talk page will do. El_C 22:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the IP user has an established user on Wikipedia. A short moment ago, I saw the same exact edits being done by Joshua7900, in the exact same manner as the IP user, with no explanation. I don't know what they are doing, but I have sent them a warning to not conduct any disruptive editing on the page; that was why the Semi-Protection was put on the article in the first place. GUtt01 (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I up'd the protection to extended confirmed. El_C 22:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Kay Ivey

Hi, there appears to be resolution on the talk page. Please consider removing the protection on the article. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 23:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Black Hebrew Israelites

Thank you for the protection, any chance I could make a wrong version argument? The material was discussed on the talk page several times and now he has started a RFC on the subject after his last two discussions found consensus for inclusion. Shouldn't the material remain in the article until the RFC is complete since the RFC is about removing the material? PackMecEng (talk) 02:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

No, the RfC is about whether the material should be retained (consensus for inclusion). Whether it is retained right now has no bearing on that question. Whether the material should be removed (consensus for removal) is the same question in reverse. But no consensus would, in this case, see the passage retained. Dialectical loopyness, eh? Smart to phrase the RfC question in the affirmative and lucky to have the negated version up. Bad RNG, PackMecEng. *** As for contested material already having consensus, I'm not sure that is clear in this instance. The argument Pharos makes, for example, seems substantive and compelling. Just so you know, I recently closed an RfC (discussion) that was 11/4 as no consensus. That was really close, mind you, but I'm just saying: I'm not one to be impressed by the raw numbers. I care about the strength of the arguments and agreements. Anyway, I digress. So, yeah, let's see how the RfC is closed and go from there. El_C 02:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Alrighty, thanks. PackMecEng (talk) 02:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia

I have upped your page protection of Uncyclopedia as the edit war just seemed to go on (and I am tempted to make it 1 or even 2 years ..). This is the second time that we have a spillover of a fight from Uncyclopedia to here (the other one in October 2015), and I am afraid it is not going to stop. (if someone wants to override my decision here, feel free to revert back to a lower level). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Is extended confirmed not gonna work, do you think? El_C 08:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Possibly (and I don't mind trying), but this is deeply rooted (some of the accounts that were active in 2015 will likely be extended confirmed). And I guess the post you reverted on my talkpage (thanks!) showed how deeply rooted this hate for Wikipedia is. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Seeing how deeply entrenched this fixation is, let's go with your approach, for now. El_C 10:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I just feel sorry that I apparently protected the wrong version, but then, I did not not expect that. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I just ran into a psychic IP today — nothing is gonna surprise me anymore! El_C 10:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Add a protection symbol for Dipika Kakar

Hi User: El C a user protected Dipika Kakars page and forgot to add the symbol, could u do that please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.146.229.148 (talk • contribs)

 Done. El_C 10:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Ananya Pandey

Hi admin, will you please see this article as it was redirected and you locked it and it was redirected as a result after discussion takes place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ananya Panday, and redirect is removed without any discussion at talk page. This BLP is failing WP:NACTOR as only one released movie she have right now and also there is a persistant block accounts history at Ananya Panday and after the protection they were shifted to Ananya Pandey. 122.8.238.126 (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 18:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Racism

Indeed our old "friend" Jakey Petrov likely doesn't even read his sources and we could write miles on issues with how he uses them [8]

I'm not from Russia and do not have any Russian or Slavic ancestry nor have I identified myself as such, but Calthinus derogatorily called me "Jakey Petrov" in order to attack me for supposedly being Russian. His racist logic is that anyone who disagrees with him in that article is Russian. 76.168.122.183 (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Regardless, calling someone a "racist," is a serious personal attack, especially when it's made on the basis of such flimsy reasoning. It is simply unacceptable. Please don't do it again. El_C 18:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

You put words in my mouth. I described his logic of assuming my nationality as racist. I absolutely did not say that he is a racist. I used racist as an adjective for his words, I did not use racist as a noun for him.76.168.122.183 (talk) 18:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Your section title speaks for itself. It is highly inflammatory and is not something we tolerate on the project. El_C 19:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Not mentioning that Jacob Peters was not Russian, but Latvian communist and Soviet Chekist. But I am sure that IP knows it.My very best wishes (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Abdnow

user:Abdnow is abusing her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed. El_C 19:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

She is still at it. CLCStudent (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, had to step out. El_C 20:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Demography in rojava article

Thanks El C for your comment on my talk page. I have added 4 more international unbiased sources on this. There is a ton of references out there, including a 100 page report by Amnesty, but I feel this number does the job for this article. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned on your talk page, violating 1RR to add those was the wrong call. But I will let this go with a warning, this time. El_C 22:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

No, I disagree on violating the 1RR rule. I didn't revert anybody's edit. I added more sources and new wording as per you comment. AND you are not part of the edit warring waged by AntonSamuel. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

You can't restore the Lavrov quote, et al. after already being reverted once before today. If you do this again, you will be sanctioned, even if not by me. At the event, the sources seem okay, so I'm not gonna report it and am warning you instead. El_C 22:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for that mistake on Bangladesh. I was trying to edit a part of the article but somehow i ended up removing the whole article. I did that by mistake, It won't happen again. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comeonduckling (talk • contribs)

No worries. I figured it was by accident. El_C 11:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you :D Comeonduckling (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	A few days overdue but worth giving. Trillfendi (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for the recognition, Trillfendi! I try. El_C 18:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism in the article

Kindly note, a user Ouseph1997 continuously adding POVs and wrong information in the article Syro-Malabar Catholic Church on founded date, theology and native name. Though I started a discussion in talk page, this user is not ready to share his views there. Also he never add any supporting references, edit summary etc. Requesting to revert his changes and warn this user on his destructive edits. Thanks - 171.61.105.42 (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Up'd the protections — that should do. El_C 16:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

unjustified reverts

Hello. Will you please take a look at Laki language, Feylis and the other pages that have been reverted by Shadegan for no reason other than accusing me of Pan-Kurdism. Thank you. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I've had a word with them. El_C 20:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Protecting all those pages is a move in the right direction, but I honestly believe that letting the stable version be the version he reverted to (which all have profound issues) is poor. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I can't tell what is or isn't stable at this time. I'm inclined to wait and see what Shadegan's response is. If it continues to be below par, or if they fail to respond, indeed, I might revert back. El_C 21:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough and thanks for the reply. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I believe Laki language should also be protected like the rest of them, especially since the user doesn't communicate. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 09:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 15:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Please help, the abuse is still ongoing

Hello El_C,

The abuse from Andrewgprout continues: now he is deleting from the talk page (Special:Diff/899226217) and edit-warring (BRR: Special:Diff/899315905) to enforce his action. He's unwilling to discuss. Please talk to him, after our recent discussion with Bbb, I'm afraid to file a report. Thank you. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   10:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

As you should be. Why are you adding {{anchor}} with their username, in the first place? I've never seen that done before. El_C 15:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The choice of anchor id could be anything. The user name was an obvious choice to mark his response to be linked from the EW report. I did not expect the choice of id would matter, but in the future, I will choose an id that reflects on the content, not the user name. As the anchors are referenced from the reports, he is breaking links. Deleting from talk pages is not accepted by the guidelines, thus I ask you please restore what was deleted. I have done it once, and cannot do it again.

I'd like to note that I don't appreciate being told I should be afraid. I feel threatened. I've proven my recent block was not called for by policies, as I've quit the EW, while OPs continued. The above diff shows OP is still edit-warring, and my right to raise such issue should not be threatened.

I do my best to give constructive feedback, with respect to your and Bbb23's continuous work for the stability of Wikipedia. I ask you to give equal respect. Thank you. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   16:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Except, you should be concerned. About being perceived to be making tendentious edits. As said, I've never seen {{anchor}} used in this way. Why can't you just edit the talk page normally, without such distractions. El_C 17:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I think I have explained the reason adequately, and anchors are not visible, thus not a distraction. Can we address the real disruption of deleting from talk pages? —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   18:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Not adequately, not to my satisfaction. El_C 18:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Annette Jacky Messomo

Hello! I am Jacky. I have been trying to make changes to the Wikipedia page but you seem to have protected it. The Wikipedia page contains wrong info and the information may harm me. Please assist on deleting the wrong info. Preferably I would like to completely delete the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.222.10 (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're in a conflict of interest. Feel free to make your case on the article talk page where you can expand on the reasons behind your proposed changes. El_C 21:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

How do I do that? The information is affecting me negatively and may even cause financial loss. I am not a Wikipedia expert. All I ask for is for the article/page to be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.222.10 (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion is not likely to happen. You explain your proposed changes to the article on the article talk page. El_C 21:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I looked and I don’t know where to explain at? Can I did out who created the article? Because it contains wrong information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.222.10 (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know how to explain this anymore clearly. El_C 22:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

(by talk page stalker) @50.121.222.10: Dear Jacky!

To talk to the editors of the page, visit the associated "Talk page" by clicking the "Talk" button on the top left (direct link), then click "New section" on the top right (direct link), there you can introduce yourself, and list the information that you wish to be removed, or added. See the wikipedia policy on biographies for the rules of removing problematic material. Provide evidence, that shows the information is incorrect. The best way to do so is to list links on the talk page of articles from "reliable" media sources, that reported about you. Editors will read these articles and correct the page accordingly. This might take days or more.

To see the editors of the page go back to the article and click the "View history" button on the top right (direct link). You will see the edits listed, with the user name in the middle. By clicking the "prev" link on the left side in any row, you will open that edit and see the changes made. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   23:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

They clearly already know how do edit a talk page and create section headers, they did so on this page. I suspect a language barrier. El_C 23:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah... "they" have not edited the article talk page yet. It's not obvious for an outsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aron Manning (talk • contribs) 00:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

If you meant to criticize my post: being helpful never hurts. Be positive ;-) —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   00:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Must you? El_C 00:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from refactoring on my talk page. El_C 00:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was editing my last reply, and did not expect you answering in... 1 minute. It is a weird merge result... feel free to move it down, as you see appropriate. Thank you for your understanding. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   01:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Expect me to be swift, always. It's okay, Sinebot got to it. El_C 01:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Wainathan Cligne

Hi. You just blocked this user. Would you kindly also block his sockpuppet?: User:136.228.172.210 Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 02:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Declined page protection

Hello, I asked for the page protection of India national basketball team. You said there is not enough disruptive activity. 17 of the past 25 edits have been pure vandalism by 6 different unregistered users. This has been going on for many years. In fact, as soon as protection of this page is lifted, the vandalism continues. If that does not justify protection then what does? Thank you so much -Stephreef (talk) 05:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I said there's "not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection" — the last edit was over a month ago. El_C 05:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Ethnocentric repeated edits

Dear El_C, during the past days due to inattenion by involved users and as a result ethnocentric abuse by some users that are involved in ethnic conflicts between two Iranan groups (Lurs and Kurds), all pages related to Lurish people have been under mass invasion to change their background and identity towards their desires and wishes. You can have a look to the recent edit history of pages: Lurs, Feyli Lurs, Iraqi Lurs, Lak people, Laki language, Southern Lurs, History of the Lurs to find their catastrophic footprint. Unfortunately, there are not Lurish users in the English wikipedia to demonstrate the facts butI wonder how some ethnocentric totalitarian users are doing everything to their desires and wishes in such a bad way?!! I expect you to help to clarify the facts by returning the original pages and I promise to bring their questions in the talk page of each paper. BestSHADEGAN (talk) 08:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

So you double-down on "ethnocentric" — not a good sign. Sorry, but you took too long, so I'm not gonna change those back now. And those are some very serious aspersions ("ethnocentric totalitarian users"), which are not acceptable. Please don't do that again — there will be no third warning. Indeed, I expect you to compose specific, well-thought out objections (on the basis of reliable sources and due weight in the scholarship and mainstream) to those changes you wish to see undone, in each individual article. El_C 16:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		CVU Anti-Vandalism Award
		This is for your excellent performance in saving Wikipedia from the harmful threats of vandalism. I appreciate your efforts and hardwork. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 11:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Path slopu! Greatly appreciated. El_C 16:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Tomsmith81727 - an account solely for reverting?. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'll have a look. El_C 16:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

AE alerts etc.

Hi El C,

I really appreciate this, but I didn't see any AE alerts or warnings; maybe I missed something. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Oops, I mistakenly sent it to the wrong user who were besides them in the edit history. What an embarrassment. Luckily, they did not seem to have noticed. Still, not good. Now  Done here. El_C 16:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, but the problematic editor was actually User:Cautious. It's possible (even probable) that the IP is also User:Cautious, but I don't think they'll notice it on that IP talk page. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Šubić family

Hi,"Vassal" is very dirty word for someone who has not been defeated in a war conflict ,but has voluntarily joined the Union to cooperate with another kingdom.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.74.35 (talk • contribs) I guess Sinebot is on vacation again!

I'm not sure that this is so, but that is certainly something you could have argued on the article talk page, had you not continued to evade your block in order to attack another user. You have now been banned from those articles, so there is nothing to talk about. El_C 16:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Responding to accusations and the world limit

Here is an example of how difficult it is to respond to accusations at AE and stay within the word limit:

Icewhiz says: 06:32, 26 May 2019 - restoring WP:BLPSPS (not under ABOUTSELF exception), with several REDFLAGs. (see Talk:Antony Polonsky#Alleged PDF by Stachura).

That's about 20 words, depending on whether you count the date. Here is the diff he provides [9]

To adequately respond to this I have to point out that:

1. This references a letter that a BLP (Stachura) wrote in response to the criticism of him (by Polonsky) already included in the article for some reason (the article is actually not about Stachura)
2. The criticism itself was in response to a review the BLP (Stachura) wrote about a third party (Chodakiewicz) (the article is actually not about Chodakiewicz)
3. I would have to point about that WP:ABOUTSELF does indeed permit the use of a source published by the author in this case (since it is a response to a criticism of him)
4. In any case, the criticism that Stachura is responding to is ... itself a WP:BLPSPS vio (if you believe Icewhiz's interpretation of ABOUTSELF). The criticism is a letter from Polonsky. The source for this is... the letter by Polonsky! So, according to Icewhiz, it is okay to use one person's SPS (a letter in a journal), but NOT another person's SPS (also a letter in a journal)

To summarize this part, Icewhiz thinks it's just fine to use a SPS letter which attacks a BLP (that he doesn't like) but thinks that using a letter which responds to the attack is some super awful transgression that must be punished by WP:AE!!! And that's putting aside the issue of how one actually interprets ABOUTSELF. Can you see the problem we're dealing with here? There is no consistency in application of policy by Icewhiz here. It's a "I get to do it, but if you do it I WILL BRING YOU TO AE AND SAY AWFUL THINGS ABOUT YOU!!!". It's sheer hypocrisy and cynical WP:GAME.

But wait, that's not all.

If you're confused about what any of this has to do with the actual article, I totally understand it. To respond to Icewhiz's accusation I also have to provide context:

1. The article itself is about Antony Polonsky.
2. This article, unlike ANY article I have ever seen has a section titled by Icewhiz "Criticism of other academics" [10].
3. Generally we frown upon "Criticism" sections in BLPs unless the controversy is quite notable, but this isn't even that here. It's worse. The article was WP:COATRACKed to include attacks on OTHER BLPs (that Icewhiz doesn't like)
4. What Icewhiz doesn't mention is that in a follow up edit I simply removed the entire section. Frankly neither Stachura nor Michilic nor Polonsky's letter about Stachura belonged in the article as this was not even a notable event in Polonsky's long and distinguished career. These aren't even journal articles arguing with each other. They're freakin' letters to the editor! The ONLY reason this was added in there is so that Icewhiz could use Polonsky's article to attack Stachura. Which is a pretty blatant BLP violation. I removed it. That's what should've been done.

See how convoluted this is? At first glance, it's just a single diff and what looks like a straight forward accusation. But it's not. It's a response to a response to a response which is a BLPVIO (I think that's the right number of "a response).

Like I said. It's simple to make a false accusation against someone. It takes a lot more to explain why that accusation is false. As the saying goes "by the time truth gets a hearing, the lie has traveled half way around the world".Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

And I know I'm wordy and over explain things (I think that's a good thing sometimes), but can you see how responding to a single 20 word accusation I can pretty much eat up half my word limit (actually the above is almost 500 words but with some effort I could cut it down I guess)? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

According to the talk page, the controversy section has been there for years. Are you implying Icewhiz created that section a few days ago? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Really, a section just titled Criticism of other academics? But I don't see them having reverted its removal. Yes, I appreciate the difficulty. They have since shortened their request, so that should give you more to work with. But I can't but advise you to follow my original suggestion, for now. I'm still waiting to hear from others whether this should be settled at AE or go straight to Arbitration, so you may as well master some sort of a response. Finally, I do note that issues of, at the very least, civility and battleground remain, so it's possible for you to be subject to some sort of sanction or restriction on that basis alone. El_C 20:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

He may not have reverted its removal, but he is bringing that up to WP:AE, right? If the section indeed needed to be removed, why are my edits suppose to be sanctionable? Why doesn't Icewhiz present the fact that I actually removed the whole section (which looks like an attempt at misrepresenting the situation)? Why does he apply BLPSPS to one author (the one he doesn't like), but no to the other (the one he likes)? In this particular case, like I already said, it's the sheer hypocrisy and the cynical abuse of Wikipedia policy by Icewhiz that is glaring (which is reflective of the general problem here, and really the underlying reason for these disputes, as mentioned by User:Zero0000 at WP:AE).

More generally, even shortened, there's 15 diffs there - you say less is more, but how am I suppose to know which one of these am I - and the admins - are suppose to take seriously and which ones are just gonna be considered fluff? To keep within the limit I would need some guidance as to which ones to respond to.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

VM, I really don't have a answer to that. It likely is an inherent limitation of the AE format itself. Myself, I have no problem ignoring the word limit, but other admins do. Regarding Polonsky, again, I'm not sure it would be appropriate for me to respond further to that here on my user talk page. Ultimately, I would say that focusing on context rather than getting bogged down by details may be your best bet in convincing other respondents that there is a systemic problem that needs to be addressed. El_C 00:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

---

In regards to VM's comments above - I added nothing of substance to Polonsky, I did remove, for good cause (after running across some of the other sources in a different context), content in 2018. Polonsky's letter to history (which was published and printed - so PRIMARY, but not BLPSPS) was in the article from 2012.

As for the word limit - I cut it down. I think it is at around 500 now. Should I cut more?Icewhiz (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I already responded to that on the AE board. I'm not sure how appropriate it is to continue discussing all of this outside of that venue. At any case, less is more. El_C 20:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

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

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

You've got mail!

Hello, El C. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 22:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

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

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

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

Icewhiz

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

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

El_C, are you aware of this: [11]? "He's a cancer on Wikipedia" is so far outside collegiality, and this is a repeat offense, at AE, targeting Icewhiz in particular and admin generally. In light of what happened just a couple months ago, I'd ask you to consider picking up where Sandstein left off rather than issuing a warning. – Levivich 04:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

I don't know how old you are or what part of the world you live in, but I think you overreacted wildly to what I wrote yesterday. Perhaps you're not aware that the phrase has been well-known in the U.S. for 45 years and is being used more and more these days.[12] — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok this is getting out of hand

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

El C, can you please do something about Icewhiz making odious accusations against me like he did here? I did not do any "Jew marking", wtf that means. As I already explained - and you pointed out the same thing to him - I restored his removal of SIX PARAGRAPHS, which effectively blanked the article. Somewhere in these six paragraphs was an indication of the subject's ethnicity (which may or may not be relevant to the subject's notability - regardless, I don't much care whether it's there or not one bit, and I removed it here). Icewhiz NEVER indicated that this was his problem with the text. Neither on talk nor in the edit summary. It's pretty damn obvious of what he is trying to insinuate here by making this false accusation and I'm not going to sit here and let him spread lies about me like that. I am going to lose my temper (and he might very well be trying to provoke me with this), as I think anyone decent would when being falsely accused of such things. He needs to strike that crap, or you or another admin needs to do something about this per WP:ASPERSIONS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC) In fact, that crap needs to be oversighted. And how the hell is he not indef'd for making false accusations like that??? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC) Removal summary: "mostly added by blocked sock. A number of NPOV, MOS, V, and SYNTH issue" (Ethnicity (which I highlighted), half the article being SYNTH (events / people loosely related), POV, several bits failing V - e.g. "Romkowski himself taught Różański everything about torture" - source says - that Różański said that Romkowski was one of his instructors - I spent time looking at the article and sources (even though WP:REVERTBAN may apply, I examined the content carefully - it needs a pretty big rewrite). VM chose to revert. It should have been clear to him he was re-instating content added by a block sock (clearly stated in the edit summary). WP:PROXYING is crystal clear: "Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content.". VM is fully responsible for all the content he restored - which includes multiple problems - including "Jew marking" in the first sentence of the lede. Icewhiz (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC) I didn't do any "Jew marking". Fuck off.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC) Accusing someone of "jew marking" is a very very very serious accusation. It's already been explained to Icewhiz MULTIPLE TIMES what happened here - he deleted six paragraphs, I restored it, at no point did he indicate that his problem was with the mention of the subject's ethnicity (there's not a single comment from Icewhiz on the talk page (afaict) and it's not in the edit summary either). For him to persist in this false accusation of "jew marking" is beyond the pale. It is not just a personal attack but an extremely grievous smear. That's why it needs to be over sighted. And this is exactly the kind of crap that deserves an indef ban, until he figures out that you can't go around baselessly accusing people of stuff like that. Why the hell is he allowed to get away with this? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC) FWIW - per WP:AGF, I actually think VM probably did not vet what he restored - which included clear and obvious "Jew marking" in the first sentence of the lead - "Roman Romkowski born Natan Grünspan-Kikiel,[1] (May 22, 1907 – July 1, 1965) was a Polish communist official of Jewish background trained...". However - per WP:PROXYING he is still fully responsible for the content - as if he had written this himself. Furthermore - if he hadn't vetted the content (and just reverted this along with several other edits of mine (I have some 24 revert bells still up on the top of the wiki screen)) - this is a WP:CIR and WP:AGF issue from VM's side. I will note that if he had actually spent time and vetted this (as he seems to claim he has done in - diff at AE - "it is exceedingly unlikely that VM vetted the content he was restoring " - oh ffs, there is such a thing as having more than one browser tab open.....) - the conclusion here if far less charitable. Icewhiz (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC) You need to strike your bullshit accusation. Now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Overlinking by IP hopper

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

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

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

VM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2016

• EE
• sock report
• AP2
• AP2 (CR)
• AP2
• SCW

2017

• AP2
• AP2 (same archive as above)
• AP2 (CR?)
• Reported as EE, but dismissed because it was outside that topic. (incivility)
• AP2 (CR)

2018

• AP2 (civility)
• AP2 (aspersions)
• ARBPIA
• EE (VM and Icewiz both topic banned 3 months)

---

No personal comments sanction applied for AP2 19 Aug 2018

• EE (suspected topic ban violation)

2019

• ARBPIA
• EE

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

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

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

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

Miki Filigranski

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

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

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

I'm not sure if this is what you mean: [13] [14] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilipo25 (talk • contribs)

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

El_C, this is the same editor I warned you the other day for personal attacks on me ("like today to deal with lying and accusations by a user ([15], [16], [17], [18])"). I made an extensive reply [19] at the article's talk page. The editor is making false claims, the information is well and reliably sourced, not defamatory, and it was reverted back previously by confirmed editors for the exact reasoning. I really do not understand the editor's oppsession with this family members. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 03:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The thing is a good part of the information on the Frankopan family article, and all the information in individual member articles, were written by other editors. It is attributing to me "statements", "slanderous statements" and other when most of them I did not even write. That is my "biased opinion", that I am "bashing", or now again ([20]), talking about how I "disapprove" (instead of the sources) and that is "smacks of a personal vendetta".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 03:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You've blocked the wrong IP

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

• reasonably clear rvv,
• obvious rvv,
• rv quite unpleasant racist vandalism.

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

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

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

Quick question

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

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

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

Please retract

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

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

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

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

Please, take a look

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

 Done. El_C 15:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Ahmedo Semsurî

First, I apologize because of my last inappropriate used phrases that you warned me later. User Ahmedo Semsurî recently had several edits that I beleive they are not constructive and good. For example he has redirected page Iraqi Lurs to page Feyli Lurs without any logic and reasonings. I asked hm in the talk page the reason for redirection but he failed to bring any reaonable testimony.[21] Now he has reverted several times my edits and every time he sladered me of vandalism and ..... Please have a look over these pages to see our communication and reasoning. I expect you to help to reach a simple solution. BestSHADEGAN (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

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

I need your help in editing Israel Adesanya's page

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

References

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

Causes of transsexuality article

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

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

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

Excellent work at WP:ANRFC

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

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

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

IP you encountered at RW Emerson

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

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

Herodotus

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

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

George Tiller

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitration Amendment Request archived

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

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

Edit conflict

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

 Done. El_C 23:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)