User talk:El C: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:05, 20 May 2020

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

Archived Discussions

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

For you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oooo. Purdy!

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

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

Seasons Greetings

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

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

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

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

Happy Groundhog Day

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

Chippies

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

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

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

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

Book?

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

4 Tality Fractal

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

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

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

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

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

Rev-dels

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

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

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

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

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

Romania

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

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

And all I got was a ^^^

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

Precious anniversary

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

Nice. Thanks, Gerda!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gerda's corner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for tagging me, El_C!

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

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

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

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

Black hole

So now we know about admin back channeling. I was wondering about how you were gone for years and years, ad then appeared to bright and suddenly, always informed. You have other avenues of info. Delighted if you could prove me wrong and if your protection for protection was because of otherwise Ceoil (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have a watchlist of almost 88,888 articles, Ceoil. El_C 02:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not my problem. Why then and now. Ceoil (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you're trying to say. El_C 02:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there was an off line request re use buttons on a content issue, and so dutifully you protected the page to back a fellow admin. There was no immediate risk, it all seems bizzare. My conclusion...you reacted too fast and showed how you actually work. Either that and you are incompetent, protecting pages at random. Ceoil (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil, I take exception to that. First, I protected the page on your version. Second, your opponent in this edit war is not an admin. Third, I am supposed to protect on a random version, which is what I did. El_C 02:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But but but...not the point!....any earlier edits were from march, Feb, jan, and all by established editors. What was you basis for protecting at all? Edit/action count? audit needed here Ceoil (talk) 02:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil, you were both at 3 reverts each. I wanted to make sure either of you don't exceed 3RR so that sanctions would not need to be applied. But by all means, audit away. El_C 02:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gaudi9223

The user Gaudi9223 has been abusing the minor edit check box. They've been using it for edits that are not minor edits. I left a message on their talk page telling them that. I just wanted to let you know so that you could perhaps keep an eye on them. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 06:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll try to have a word with them, also. El_C 15:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I see that they removed your message to them, which I take to indicate that they read it. Let's wait to see what they do next. El_C 15:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User Ahri6279

Hi El C, regarding this block, please see 210.242.153.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I already warned user and IP, and reverted the last edit. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 09:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, DVdm. See also my recent warning to them at User talk:211.75.72.139 (I also semi'd Planck units for a month). Please let me know if they continue using IPs to edit those pages. May just have to protect the lot of em. El_C 15:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. By the way, have you seen this action by MrClog (pinging)? If indeed this account is globally locked, shouldn't that User:Ahri6279/sandbox, extensively edited today by IP 210.242.153.202 (and by 210.242.153.200), be deleted as well? Just wondering. - DVdm (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DVdm, no I was unaware of that. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I'm not sure those pages should be deleted due to the account being globally locked, as the pages were created before the lock. Unless, of course, the account was locked due to prior socking (unclear from the lock), which does however seem likely (see this). But those pages may be deleted for other reasons, like using Wikipedia as a webhost for original research, etc. I'll think about it, in any case. El_C 15:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, upon further thought I deleted the userpage and sandbox. El_C 15:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, thanks. We might have to keep a little eye on that one

. Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Need help in administrators' noticeboard discussion

Hi El C, could you help me in this discussion: Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring? Actually, im the first who reported about that case, but it seems like my report has been archived. Since there is no administrators joined in that discussion, i hope you can give your opinion about that case. Thank you. Stvbastian (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Stvbastian. JzG is, in fact, an admin, so further queries about this report should be addressed to them. Regards, El_C 15:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you 16:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Indefinite blocks

Was digging through general sanctions procedures, and remembered that what I knew to be true for ARBCOM-authorized sanctions is also trye, to the best of my knowledge, for community-authorized DS blocks; they are limited to a year. I don't think any of the indefinite blocks we've placed are a problem, but they would convert to regular admin actions after a year, unless I'm much mistaken...Sandstein, you're likely the most experienced in this area; can you help clarify whether the 1-year limitation on DS blocks applies to community-authorized DS regimes too? Vanamonde (Talk) 17:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93, WP:AC/DS allows blocks of up to one year, but that applies only to ArbCom-authorized sanctions. The comunity can make up whatever other discretionary sanctions regime it wants to. Sandstein 17:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: Okay, thanks for the clarification; however, when discussions authorizing these things are closed, they've generally been closed "sanctions are authorized", as far as I can see, without explicit guidance on what sanctions are permitted and what are not (this) is the example relevant here. Does this mean we've got total discretion in that topic area, then? I may raise this at ARBCOM/N if you're uncertain; the purpose of these things is to reduce drama, and the last thing we want from that perspective is for disgruntled users to be yelling about admin abuse at ARBCOM because of questionable documentation. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93, it is also unclear to me what the sanctions that the community authorized in that case are. Arbcom is unlikely to be helpful here, because community sanctions are not their business. I've not engaged with any community-authorized sanctions so far and cannot therefore provide further advice either. Sandstein 17:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: Thanks. I agree that community sanctions are not ARBCOM's bailiwick; however, if an administrator is charged with overstepping that discretion, then that will be ARBCOM's problem. Perhaps I will try AN first, though. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde, I always considered the one year DS limit to be a procedural anomaly — a peculiarity that GS, thankfully, is not bound by. I see that you've opened Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Limits_to_administrator_discretion:_GS_vs_AC/DS, so it would be interesting to see whether others' also feel that way. El_C 17:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly an anomaly, but I want to be sure that my actions under community-authorized regimes are not over-reaching. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. My understanding is that they are not. In any case, let's hope common sense prevails. El_C 18:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given the recent clarification to GS procedures, might it be worth leaving a clarificatory note at GS/IRANPOL, as I have, about the one indef block you've imposed? Vanamonde (Talk) 20:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have already blocked that user indefinitely, with talk access disabled, for simple disruption, so that supersedes that partial IRANPOL GS block that I logged there before hand. El_C 20:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood; noting that in the log could avoid confusion later, though. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended protection for article about Richard Stallman

Hi! You added 500/30 protection to the article about Richard Stallman when there was a controversy in the news about him. I think that this protection is no longer necessarily and could be removed, or at least be reduced to semi-protection because he stepped down from his positions as FSF president and visiting scientist at MIT. Dwaro (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, let's test the waters — why not? El_C 20:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tablighi Jamaat coronavirus hotspot in Delhi

Hi El C, could you perhaps also restore the talk page of the article? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 01:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Tablighi Jamaat coronavirus hotspot in Delhi DRV

Sorry to see you overturned this. The DRV discussion I thought was exceptionally poor with many !keep voters from the AfD commentating and other overturn voters not explicitly commenting on the deletion rationale. A difficult discussion to close so I also appreciate you closing it, but I just wanted to drop a note and say I don't think the right result was achieved here on a purely technical level (I have no interest in the topic.) SportingFlyer T·C 02:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer, I welcome your dissent. I also appreciated your thoughtful participation in that discussion. But I disagree with your conclusion about the close being incorrect, be it "on a purely technical level," or otherwise. At any event, thank you for letting me know about your own evaluation with respect to the close decision. El_C 02:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help please

Any chance you'd look at the last edit on my talk and at Jamesville-DeWitt High School and toss a couple obvious VOA blocks? Thanks. Trying my best to keep my patience. John from Idegon (talk) 03:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning issued. Please keep me appraised. El_C 03:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please semi the article. There's a group of bored kiddos at play. John from Idegon (talk) 03:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. El_C 03:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is the semi-protection of 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Trinidad and Tobago still necessary

The page has become a quiet backwater. I've added the website link local health authority to the infobox, so people will at least know what the correct source is. KittenKlub (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we go by enhanced standards for COVID articles, per WP:GS/COVID19. Thanks for helping to improve the article. El_C 13:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your warning

I interpreted their removal of your warning, like the others, as equivalent to a middle finger. They ignored the others and I figured they planned to do the same. I'm sorry if you felt I undermined your approach.--v/r - T P 17:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just took it as them having read it. That's fine, though, a short block works, too. El_C 17:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anne

In case this question isn't rhetorical, Anne is the apocryphal name for Jesus's maternal grandmother (i.e. Mary's mother). Because she's mentioned in the Koran but not in the Bible, there's always been a weird kind of rivalry between Islam and the varieties of Christianity that practice Mariolatry, as the Christians feel she ought to be important but there's not much written about her in non-Islamic sources. We have a very poor quality article about her at Saint Anne, which I assume the crank is objecting to. ‑ Iridescent 20:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Iridescent, for the detailed explanation. Much appreciated. El_C 20:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carmaker1 and Dennis Bratland ANI

Thanks for closing the ANI case RE:Carmaker1. One thing i think was missed was that Carmaker1 has repeated their moaning about a trivial mention of "American hicks" waaaaaay back in 2017. They brought it up on their talk page and at Arbcom and again at ANI. They seem to think there is a "long held grudge" over this "hick" alleged slur. Somebody, please, explain to Carmaker1:

hick is not a taboo word, not an ethnic slur, not a forbidden offensive word. Please refer Carmaker1 to any dictionary, which does not preceded the word with any annotations that it's a swear word, offensive, etc. It's merely defined as "an unsophisticated provincial person". So writing "h*ck" as if you were writing fuck and didn't want to say fuck so you wrote f*ck (like that somehow makes it better?) is, well, wrong. Hick is a normal word. Calling someone a hick is an extremely mild G-rated putdown. Nobody ever called Carmaker1 a hick. Or me. Or anyone. It's not a thing.
The entire "incident" Carmaker1 has spent the last three years (YEARS!) running around complaining over was an irrelevant bit of side banter between me and User:EEng in which they punned the word driving, "So "carmaker1" is "driving" other editors away?" and I replied in kind with a mild gibe about UK English preferring motoring to driving, "Motoring them away. Only hick Americans say 'driving'."
The entire thing was off topic. It was an aside. EEng couldn't resist making a pun. It wasn't a pun about Carmaker1 at all. I replied with a little quip that wasn't about Carmaker1. At. All.

Everything I'm saying is extremely obvious. I think that's why nobody has condescended to set Carmaker1 straight. I don't have any grudge over this "hick Americans" thing. It's less than nothing.

I have numerous motor vehicle articles on my watchlist. My watchlist regularly erupts with drama over Carmaker1's inability to refrain from attacking other editors when they mistakenly get the model year date of a car wrong by 1 year. That's the deal. I am one of many editors in the motor vehicle topic space who have brought complaints against them for incivility. There's no grudge. We only want them to stop making personal attacks, and there's mountains of evidence that they never, ever will. Carmaker1 has elaborated in detail all the reasons why they will never submit to Wikipedia's norms of conduct. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh super, now I'm an exhibit in an Arbcom case. That'll teach me to keep my big mouth shut. E Eng 01:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That case looks like it's going to take the decline train, so fear not my cheerful friend! El_C 01:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Bratland, I realize there is animosity, but if you stay off of their user talk page, and not go out of your way to interact with them, I think we can just move on. When you do meet via watchlist or whatever, stay matter-of-fact, addressing only the material. Does that sound like a plan? El_C 01:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with TomStar81. The community has failed spectacularly, time and time again, to address what should be an open-and-shut civility case. Arbcom needs to handle it, but now they want ANI to fail one last time before they do the obvious. I have no problem with staying off Carmaker1's talk page. Another non-issue.

At least EEng will finally learn to never, ever pun. Not even once. Look what happens. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with staying off Carmaker1's talk page. That commitment was all that was needed, Dennis Bratland, to resolve this matter, at least in so far as our immediate purposes go. El_C 02:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EEng will finally learn to never, ever pun – You spoke too soon, I'm afraid. [2] E Eng 02:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. Where's Iridescent to explain it to thick-headed yours truly? El_C 02:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll save Arid Desiccant the trouble. See, the subject of Protestantism came up, and Premeditated_Chaos joked Let's Talk About Sects. Then TonyBallioni mentioned something about the lay faithful, so I came along and ... well, lay – get it? Admittedly it's a bit involved. E Eng 02:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think it is now crystallizing into an understanding on my part, somehow. El_C 02:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You see, it's funny because they lay faithful can have the sex. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which may or may not also involve "creepy spanking porn"... El_C 02:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iri's been pinged. He has a favourite image on commons of suggestively arranged cookies he'll show you if you're lucky. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, I'd be up for something suggestively arranged. El_C 02:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this one? (If you see anything other than a plate of cookies, you're the pervert.) ‑ Iridescent 07:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is suggestively arranged! El_C 07:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moved comment from User talk:Carmaker1

Originally posted by Carmaker1 on their talk page:

Sorry to bother you again, but I'm finding a particular issue developing again regarding User: Dennis Bratland, following me around to other Wikipedia pages and interjecting in a manner that's designed to antagonize or counteract, barely in relation to content. I am not the most objective person in the world nor am I perfect, but yes I did bring up 2-4 discussions today and removed an irrelevant, toxic response to my commendation of other editors on this page [3]. A look at their diff history on 19 April 2020 expresses this [4], as well as the discussions in question [5][6][7].--Carmaker1 (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response, originally posted at User talk:Carmaker1:

Once again, I have a large number of motor vehicle articles on my watchlist, and these perpetual Carmaker1 passion plays appear there. Having participated in discussions at ANI, Arbcom, and Wikiproject automobiles about their conduct. I have firsthand knowledge of their numerous broken promises to focus on content, not disparage other editors or attribute nefarious motives to them over content disputes. So now, as ever, I see Carmaker1 cutting a swath through various car articles, accusing other editors of baseless misdeeds and attempting to bully them with Carmaker1's claimed expert credentials.

In spite of several community decisions clearly expressing what behavior is forbidden, Carmaker1 displays a very poor understanding of the WP:OWN policy, finding several ways of incorrectly claiming that this or that editor is forbidden from editing this or that article, or commenting on this or that talk page. Carmaker1 does not accept the basic premise that Wikipedia is a collaborative project open to all, including WP:Randy in Boise.

Now they have taken to deleting my posts, violating WP:TPO. Everything I'm saying is consistent wit the most recent ANI complaint about Carmaker1, and the Arbcom complaint, and the last 2 or 3 previous ANI complaints, all by different editors, as well as the last ANI complaint I initiated back in 2017. It's the same behavior as ever, which they promised several times to quit.

Carmaker1 couldn't even go one day after the last Arbcom case to resume attacking others. If they could simply refrain from characterizing other editors and their motives, focusing only on content, none of this drama would be happening. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Bratland, this is unacceptable. You not only break your promise not to edit Carmaker1's talk page, you edit war there, too — really? If you see something written there that you feel violates policy, you report it, to me or at ANI or wherever. But not there. If you didn't already recieve a strong warning for that, I would apply immediate sanctions. I also don't understand why it has to be you to respond to multiple comments by Carmaker1 yourself. If there are issues with these, again, report them. But direct interaction seems like more a provocation than a dialogue at this time. Needless to say, I'm disappointing. El_C 17:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carmaker1's incivility has been reported to ANI many times, and the few blocks that were imposed were undone, and each time Carmaker1 instantly reverted to their disruptive personal attacks, in spite of promises to abide by the civility rules. Carmaker1 was given a 3 month ban on mentioning other editors, and that lasted exactly 3 months. After that, same old abuse. The promised blocks for repeat violations didn't happen.

I'm repeating myself here, but I'm also repeating what TomStar81 said motivated them to close an ANI complaint and move it to ArbCom. For whatever reasons, the community has been inexplicably incapable of dealing with Carmaker1's pattern of abuse of other editors. My lack of faith in the system in this case isn't something I dreamed up one day. It's something others have noticed too. It shouldn't come as too much of a surprise that I wasn't confident merely reporting it would get me anywhere.

I'm not the only one who thinks it's implied when banning others from one's talk page that you cannot proceed to use your talk page to post diatribes against them. It's a basic principle of fairness to be able to answer accusations in the same venue in which the accusations were made. Nobody should expect a user talk page ban to be enforced if they proceed to talk about the person they ostensibly wanted no contact with. That is in fact where one should turn to ANI or other forums for help. The one place they should not post accusations is the place where the accused is banned from replying.

Since not everyone seems to recognized this principle, I think a proposal is needed to spell this out explicitly at WP:TALK. Maybe I'll take that up lather when all this has cooled down.

In this case, when I hit upon the idea of moving the thread to the obvious place it belonged, your talk page, and posted my reply there, I was satisfied.

I would suggest that in the future if you warn someone off a user's talk page, you could save everyone some drama if you warned the talk page owner to limit their mentions of the banned editor, since I'm hardly the only one who would react this way. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Bratland, I have cautioned Carmaker1 not to mention you on their talk page, precisely because you are unable to respond there. However, there was absolutely no caveat allowing you to break your promise to refrain from editing their talk page, which why you were admonished, and came precariously close to facing sanctions. El_C 16:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that is what transpired. I'm not criticizing anything you've done; it makes sense from your point of view. At the time I thought my justification for acting was obvious but now I'm aware that not everyone sees it that way. That's why we should probably propose some language to spell out in the talk ban rules what the boundaries are so this kind of thing won't happen again. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Bratland, fair enough. But from your comments at ANI, I get the impression that you still don't seem to have taken on board that two wrongs don't make a right. Which is, basically, what I said in response there. Anyway, at this point maybe a jointly agreed-upon IBAN (including refraining from mentioning of one another) for a few months will be useful. El_C 18:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say anything was "right"? Or "wrong"? I explained the reasoning for my actions. All I've really been saying is that even if I was wrong, my reasoning had at least some basis, and I am not alone. There are other respected editors who would have seen it the same way, according to their posts on the subject. I didn't say I was right; only that my actions were not totally unjustified or totally outside accepted norms.

I don't know why you're suggesting an iban now. What exactly is that a solution to? My original issue with Carmaker1 -- misleading and provocative edit summaries and talk page comments, which I felt needed to be debunked, led to them making multiple unsuccessful ANI complaints against me for what they think Wikihounding is. The problem I perceived of Carmaker1 abusing their talk page ban has been resolved now that, after the whole drama there, Carmaker1 has received an admin warning not to criticize me on their talk page. Problem solved.

The larger issue of Carmaker1's attacks, ongoing for years, on every single person who has ever edited the same automotive content they are editing (correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure they have insulted and bullied 100% of the editors who have touched the same car articles in proximity to their edits) has now received significantly more attention. While the last 3 or 4 ANI complaints against them went nowhere, I don't believe they will continue to get away with their incivility. The whole conflict of interest thing is a whole other ball of wax, which stands a good chance of forcing Carmaker1 finally cease berating anybody who dares to edit an automobile related article (again, I'm open to examples of times when they have not done so).

So I'd ask you to take it from the top, and begin at the beginning: what is your objective? What current unresolved problem are you now fixing? Is there even an open case in front of you now requiring action? I thought the last ANI complaint was wrapped up. I think you handled all of it just fine, even if you and I have slightly different judgements an a few finer points. Could be my opinions on those points is wrong. I've been wrong before. I'll be wrong again about something else in the future, no doubt. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to be proactive about preventing future direct conflict between you two, considering all that transpired recently. That is my objective. I'm perfectly fine with wrapping this up. But if there is further trouble, it will probably involve sanctions rather than warnings and admonishments, to whichever one of you is found to be at greater fault, or possibly both of you, regardless. So, the expectation to both of you would be to tread lightly. El_C 23:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Will do. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing RfC forked

Hi El C, it's been awhile, hope all is in order and you're well in this trying time. I'm here to ask for your stewardship on Talk:Religion in Albania. You may recall the long edit war and talk page fight that ensued after the version stable from October to February October February was changed. I cannot blame you if you disengaged from that matter, I wish I could as it has been quite unpleasant. Since your absence, an RfC was opened about whether the census figure should be allowed in the lede. Although it has not concluded, a second RfC has been open about which picture should be in the lede, without any option for a census pic (and apparently implying there can only be one, rather than a panel as has been discussed). This would appear to confuse the matter of the already ongoing RfC. Can something be done about it? Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one thing that could be done about it is to close the first RfC as "No consensus" (let's face it, that's not going to change). and focus on trying to find a solution through the second RfC. Khirurg (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed the second RfC as premature. El_C 17:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, the user with the most reverts is issuing an ultimatum and appears to be waiting for the page protection to expire so that he or someone else who agrees with him restores the "stable version" [8]. Khirurg (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only the RfC closure will determine the consensus version. Full stop. El_C 18:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Today you prevented what would have been a very chaotic situation that would have benefited nobody. You have my thanks. --Calthinus (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, Calthinus. Happy to be of service. El_C 18:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giant mouse lemur

Hi, can you reduce Giant mouse lemur's protection. It was yesterday's TFA, so vandalism is unlikely to repeat. Regards. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 19:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 20:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RE "Escalated Warning" & Second Warnings

Generally speaking, we only need one warning for a specific subject. Refer to the discussion above your post and do say which part of your section wasn't already covered. Augend (drop a line) 21:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Escalated speaks to the urgency of the matter. I don't care that it was already discussed before. As the closer of the ANI report you authored, I am emphasizing to you the precarious position you are in. El_C 22:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear...

... are you saying that in future if someone adds a reliable source about a BLP matter and keeps the unreliable source, and then someone decides to remove the reliable source and keep the unreliable source, you will be fine with this? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in speculating on a hypothetical. Again, in this instance, the date of birth is not in dispute, so migrating any citations you see fit would have been enough. El_C 00:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not a hypothetical, I got taken to WP:AN/I because I removed unreliable sources not realising that someone had literally gone into the Kylie Minogue article, removed the reliable sources and only kept a reference to a gossip mag! Which, under WP:BLPREMOVE I duly got rid of, without knowing that this had happened.

Now do you understand my annoyance? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no, I am unable to follow your train of thought. Somehow, you get taken to ANI (no diff), then this latest incident is... extrapolated? I'm not sure. El_C 15:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martial law

Thanks for your edit to Martial law. I do not know why you do not show up in blue on Huggle :\ A a s i m 05:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. No idea about Huggle. I don't use it, in any case. El_C 05:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Mobile Jewish: Exterminated to Chamber" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mobile Jewish: Exterminated to Chamber. Since you had some involvement with the Mobile Jewish: Exterminated to Chamber redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hb1290 (talk) 05:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. El_C 05:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism in Indonesia

please do not revert because 170 visa excemption is correct

Only the source determines the number. Get a new source, or leave the original number stipulated in the current source. El_C 16:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

just please do not revert because 170 visa excemption is correct due to article page of visa policy of indonesia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseatienza (talk • contribs) 05:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Repetition is unhelpful. Please log in to your account when you edit Wikipedia. El_C 11:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El_C Please listen to me do not revert because 170 jurisdictions visa-free enter indonesia according to article page of visa policy of indonesia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseatienza (talk • contribs) 12:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, WP:CITE away. El_C 13:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source for an old file - help me save it!

Hi!

I found this file on ko.wiki ko:File:Noapartheid.jpg.

That file links to Commons:File:ApartheidSignEnglishAfrikaans.jpg.

That file links to File:Aprt.jpg on enwiki.

That file was deleted because it had no source.

However it also mention a permission from the photographer that leads here.

That is an edit you made in January 2005.

The link is ofcourse no longer active User_talk:Dewet#Here_you_go.

But if we go to the archive User_talk:Dewet/Archive_1#Here_you_go we find it.

There is a link to File:Apartheid sign.JPG.

That file is deleted because it is also on Commons.

The current file on Commons is Commons:File:Apartheid sign.jpg (with small letters) and that is from 2012.

If you force Commons to pick capital JPG you get Commons:File:Apartheid sign.JPG.

That was also deleted because it had no source.

So my question is if you can remember the photo and if you were the photographer. If yes I think we should get it undeleted because it is historical signs. So I hope you made it all the way down here. --MGA73 (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made it all the way down! But unfortunately, I no longer recall who the photographer was or much about that image, save the reminder that the photograph of the sign was taken at District Six Museum. Sorry I couldn't have been of more help. Regards, El_C 16:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for trying :-) --MGA73 (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editnotices/Page/Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign

I realize you're not a fan of the 24hr BRD rule, so I wanted to ask if you would object to me modifying the above template to include the BRD sanction. If nothing else, I'd like the sanction to be consistent with the existing sanctions on Joe Biden and the new Joe Biden sexual assault allegation page, as well as with the template that's already on Talk:Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign (not sure whether that was intentional or just a copy-paste from Talk:Joe Biden). ~Awilley (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against adding any enhancement at this time, Awilley, be it BRD or CR. That I prefer to apply one over the other, is not really material to this in any way (I have applied both on multiple occasions, usually depending on the request, in any case). As I wrote on Talk:Joe_Biden_2020_presidential_campaign#1RR_now_in_effect, 1RR is now in effect (enforceable). If you find it is still not enough, there are enhancements that can be applied further toward the article's stability — but let's hope we don't need em. So, I object to the general notion of adding these enhancements preemptively or as part of a series. I don't believe doing so represents the prevailing consensus. El_C 19:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thank you for adjusting the talk page template. ~Awilley (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion on discretionary sanctions

Hi El_C, you're more experienced with arbitration enforcement than I am, and I wanted to get your opinion on what to do about this situation. I was hopeful that my previous warning would have kept them from escalating, but they seem to still be goading each other on. I feel like a two-way IBAN would help improve the editing environment, but I'd appreciate a second opinion. The last thing I want to do is to let this drag on, so if you have ideas on what would work best here I would appreciate the input! — Wug·a·po·des 00:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Wugapodes. I'm not entirely sure how to best address this conflict between these two editors. Kolya Butternut writing about your sanctions to to SPECIFICO, is a bit odd, because SPECIFICO is not under sanctions. It's a bit more nuanced. They have received a logged warning recently (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive264#SPECIFICO) to focus on content. If you find that SPECIFICO failed in that, then maybe sanctions are due. I don't really have an opinion about an IBAN (I am unfamiliar with the history between the two editors, in any case). If you feel that that is the best course of action, then I encourage you to apply it. From what I'm seeing at a glance, both editors are skirting the line, anyway, so perhaps that solution, while not the most elegant (the content dispute does go on, after all), may indeed hit the spot. Hope this helps! El_C 00:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP disruptive editing at Fujian

219.74.51.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) You had blocked them for making the same edits in January: [9] [10], and now doing the exact same [11], [12]. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 13:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. El_C 13:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COVID19 Anti-Israeli / Anti-Semitic

Hi El C, I just made this edit [13] at our page about misinformation on COVID19, and wanted to run it past you. I'm not wholly sure if we treat anti-Israeli bias or sentiment as more or less the same as anti-semitic bias or sentiment, or not. All examples given in the section check out in the references, but some appear to be about the longstanding Iran-Israel rivalry, whereas others specifically pertain to antisemitism. -Darouet (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Darouet. I would actually rather reserve my own view on this matter so as to continue to remain an uninvolved admin in this and related areas. Certainly, if there are no objections to the change, that would imply consensus by virtue of WP:SILENCE. All the best, El_C 17:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes sense. I was thinking more that we probably already have a policy on this that I'm unaware of. Thanks for reply. -Darouet (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Req

Could you semi-protect my userpage? I don't want to see socks or meats on my page again. Puduḫepa 22:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 22:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

70.112.229.80

El C, it looks like you've already blocked this IP once for PA's – based on their recent behavior at my Talk page and Talk:Katherine McNamara, it doesn't look to me like they've learned their lesson. Just so you're aware... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IJBall, ♫I'm not aware of too many things, I know what I know, if you know what I mean♫ El_C 08:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want different music check out the first "listen" on my talk ;) - with the "obscene" number of oboes (18) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. So many oboes, so ~~little~~ much time in which to listen to said oboes! El_C 08:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IJBall, okay, left the IP a warning. Hopefully, that does it. El_C 08:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, El C. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 09:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read and replied. El_C 09:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Topic Ban advice

Hi El C, Could you please advise me if adding evidence here[14] would violate my topic ban[15]? GizzyCatBella🍁 04:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would, right? :( GizzyCatBella🍁 04:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. El_C 04:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... GizzyCatBella🍁 04:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain to me how it would violate said topic ban? I actually thought it would not, as I thought there is an exception in content-topic bans for dispute resolution and administrative processes. I have trouble drawing the line between the intention of this topic ban and why it would prevent the user from adding evidence against to a SPI. I don't think the intention of this topic ban was to prevent the editor from helping identify and catch socks of an indef banned user? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is covered in Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Exceptions_to_limited_bans: I'm not seeing anything listed there that goes outside queries which pertain to the user's own ban itself. If there are shortage of unbanned users able to provide evidence, there is also always the option of asking for a targeted exemption from the Arbitration Committee, which may itself request evidence even from a banned user, if they so choose. At any rate, I consider it being outside my remit to permit. El_C 05:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For your quick revdel! I placed an email to the Oversight team, but it looks like you beat everyone to it. Thank you! —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you could please do the same again, that'd be great... —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Warning escalated. Thanks, MelbourneStar, I appreciate your recognition very much! Best regards, El_C 14:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, and you're welcome! all the best, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hey El_C, I’m trying hard to keep perspective but I have PTSD and it’s doing my head in. People are treating me like a joke and I genuinely am spiralling out of control. I’m not quite sure what to do. My head is a mess. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Chris. As mentioned, disengaging from what causes you distress may the best thing you can possibly do. I hope you feel better. If there's anything I could do to help, please do not hesitate. El_C 17:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure anyone can do anything for me right now except show me kindness. I know this will pass, it’s just very difficult. I’m having a cry at the moment. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hang in there, brother. It's going to be okay. El_C 17:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kim

Judging by this, I think the full-protection was intentional. Also see the talk page, and all the requests I just removed. – bradv🍁 03:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, that my bad, Bradv. Thanks for pointing this out to me. El_C 03:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey no problem. Twitter is full of rumours of his death, but the mainstream media is largely silent. Which makes one wonder how we'll actually know for sure either way... – bradv🍁 03:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, all I'm seeing is "reports" about it. This will have to be attended to with due caution. El_C 03:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The last thing we want is for some lazy journalist to use Wikipedia as a source. It's been known to happen. – bradv🍁 03:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Our reputation is especially at stakes when it comes to news of that magnitude. El_C 03:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tagteaming harassment and edit-warring by coordinating accounts

Hi El C. If you have the time, could you please check the coordinated attempts of Ktrimi and Resnjari to suppress maintenance tags on the article Reaction in Greece to the Yugoslav Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). These two accounts gave me edit-warring messages on my talkpage withing one minute of each other. This is blatant tagteaming and coordinated edit-warring harassment. I placed the tags in the article in an attempt to pinpoint the specific problems in the exact sentences and it took me a long time and lots of work to do that. These accounts are reverting my tags and harassing me in a coordinated fashion. I request your assistance. Thank you. Dr. K. 13:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.K., I have restored the tag. I agree that it was inappropriate to remove it. I'll try to look into the dispute, but I cannot guarantee I cna find the time to do so in an in depth manner. All the best, El_C 13:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am disappointed by the claims made here by Dr K. I have engaged the editor on the talkpage as one would any other and responses have of this sort, i.e: [16] If you are dense and don't understand what people are telling you it's not your fault, but don't presume to provide garbage advice to competent editors. How are other editors expected to engage with this kind of rapport?Resnjari (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resnjari makes a compelling point, Dr.K. You need to tone it down. Conduct yourself with greater moderation, please. El_C 13:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, the "dense" comment came out at the end after a long series of comments where Resnjari either methodically misrepresented my arguments, or did not understand what I told him. At one point he told me that I may not like libraries or books. I am confident if you look at the discussion you will discern the obtuseness and/or trolling by that account. I always try to be very civil but there are limits when I meet with IDHT intransigence. Dr. K. 13:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.K, "trolling" is a poor choice of word and can be construed as personal attack. If you do find you are encountering tendentious editing, ANI would be the forum in which to compile evidence to that effect. El_C 13:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, I will not argue this point further, neither will I dispute the wisdom of your finding. Thank you again. Dr. K. 13:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be on the record that i did not misrepresent comments. I kindly made a suggestion for book to be read which was relevant to the topic and RS. I also said its up to you if you do want read it [17]. Your response was this: [18], and was made more apparent here [19] As far as the Greek stance during the Yugo wars, it is a subject that leaves me cold. I couldn't care less about it. But I do care about COATRACKS and their use in advancing POV and propaganda. How can an editor work with this? The claim is disinterest, but actions show deep interest. Now about books, i outlined to the editor that at the moment there is difficulty in getting academic books from university libraries [20], [21]due to the covid lockdown in Melbourne. As there was some misunderstanding on the editor's part about my intention over academic resources, i answered a question asked of me about my current situation. I replied i was doing things at home during the lockdown [22]. Then the reply given to me, in lieu of something i said to another editor [23]about the talkpage situation turning into a jungle was [24] Trolling or not, I found the part about the renovations quite hilarious. This guy's got talent. On the other hand, if I hear again about the closed library and the books, I'll buy him a one-way ticket to the jungle where he can enjoy the books without bothering anyone.. And then much later, there was this [25] OK, we got it. You are the official jungle greeter. I suggest you try becoming a Walmart greeter instead. You'll have a much brighter future. Followed on by that last comment made to me that I highlighted in my previous post here. I mean, this kind of commentary in the talkpage does not address the topic. I hope there is nothing personal toward me. In all my comments i tried to make it about the topic, except about home renovations, i tried to break the ice after i was asked what i was doing. Hence my skepticism and reverts, when the deluge of tags were placed in the article, following all these exchanges. I expect this from a newbie or individuals who are not here to contribute to an encyclopedia, not someone like Dr.K. If positions were reversed and I said these things to the editor, would a warning or immediate sanction by an admin be in order for me lickity split, without a moment to explain. I do wonder. I'm just saying it’s very disappointing, that whatever this is, was resorted too as a form of rapport.Resnjari (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resnjari, I told Dr.K. (above) that he must start doing better by refraining from innuendo and attacks. I am hopeful that he will live up to that expectation. El_C 15:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ok. I hope your advice is taken on board, so things pan out differently, that despite talkpage discussions or disagreements there (done respectfully of course), it’s only about the topic.Resnjari (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there is no advice for WP:STONEWALLING, obfuscation, IDHT, distortions, misrepresentations, and other similar tactics, and even if there was/were I am pretty certain it would not be taken onboard by certain editors. Dr. K. 20:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also saying to someone: Maleschreiber, your now starting to figure out how real wikipedia on Balkan topics works with a few certain editors. Welcome to the jungle newbie. is a base personal attack by innuendo against editors you disagree with, including me. I took your jungle reference and tried to make light of it to diffuse the tension you created. Yet, you come here and act offended by my replies to your original jungle comment. Please clean up your act. Dr. K. 20:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of your constant digs while defiantly defending your jungle insult: :Passing the time, makes one do many things. I have been to an actual jungle in the past. Its an interesting place, hence my use as a metaphor for here. Quite apt. If books and libraries offend you, your loss. Making Wikipedia a better place requires those tools, not intransigence or being unconstructive.Resnjari (talk) 06:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC) Here, casting absurd WP:ASPERSIONS that books and libraries offend me and that I am being intransigent and unconstructive for not acquiescing to your POV, in total defiance to what I actually wrote on talk. How long do you think one has to suffer these obtuse comments before calling you out on it? Dr. K. 22:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My responses to you were due to the comments you gave. For example on academic literature, it was repeatedly dismissed on your part, outright at times. I outlined in my previous comment the whole context and sequence that led to the comment by me you highlight there. The talkpage is about the article and elements related to it like its sources and content. Not these other things. And to a new editor i did compare the situation to a jungle, as a metaphor. I have been to one and thought it was apt into what the talkpage was descending into. Your are a seasoned editor, you know better, or one hopes you do. As for WP:PERSONALATTACKS, really. Do i really have to get into that as to what you wrote toward me. Move on and and just focus on the subject matter of the article for discussions.Resnjari (talk) 06:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You started the WP:NPAs when you compared the editing environment created by myself and Khirurg to the jungle. As usual, you admit no responsibility for your actions and you are defending this base personal attack and the equally clueless attack that books and libraries offend me. You also added ouright falsehoods in your response. You say: For example on academic literature, it was repeatedly dismissed on your part, outright at times. I expect you to provide diffs where you show that I repeatedly dismissed academic literature, and the times (provide diffs) that I did it "outright". If you don't provide diffs, you should retract your outright falsehoods. Dr. K. 15:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was busy these past few days, but i am back. It’s disappointing your comments, refereeing to my responsibility etc, etc, yet not retracting anything said by you. As i said i expect this from newbies and individuals who are not here to edit Wikipedia, not yourself. I showed the diffs above. I stand by what is shown. That's about it.Resnjari (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, since you became involved in the dispute, can you discuss on the article's talk page? I do not see you or anyone else explaining clearly why the article has POV issues, and what are the other views backed by RS that the article does not cover? Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am an uninvolved admin in this matter. My evaluation is that Dr.K. and Sadkσ have established their position with regards to the neutrality concerns they identify. Certainly, feel free to query them for further detail, so you can methodically address any outstanding issues. El_C 13:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) My respect goes out to you, El C. You are an editor's admin and a content admin and this project sorely needs more of your kind. Thank you, and please do look into this if and when you are able to. Take care. Dr. K. 13:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dr.K. That's high praise coming from someone who is such an accomplished editor as yourself. I greatly appreciate your kind words. El_C 13:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome, El C. I reciprocate your kind words and thank you, in turn, for being a great editor and admin. Dr. K. 13:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C. An uninvolved admin knows that the POV tag is added with a clear explanation on the talk page about what the issues are and how they can be solved. The relevant guideline says that The talk page should explain, to those unfamiliar with any of the sides in the argument, what the sides are and try to point to some neutral language that all sides might agree on.. Now, since you added the tag, can you tell me where on the talk page have the issues been listed, and where how they can be solved is explained? Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ktrimi991, I'm not going to address the content facet here. But it is my evaluation that the grounds for the tag have been substantiated at length in said discussion. Again, I recommend methodically going through the components in dispute to reach resolution. El_C 13:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sadko and I have explained the reasons of the POV tag on the talkpage. I also placed strategic tags on article sentences requesting attribution and indicating POV weasel words and SYNTH points; tags that you removed in a coordinated tagteaming fashion with Resnjari. Tags which indicate, one by one, the problematic WEASEL, SYNTH, OR, and POV points in the article. Are you seriously claiming that I did not minutely pinpoint to you and everyone the POV of that article? Dr. K. 13:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C. No, it does not work that way. You can not point out to any list of issues based on RS and how that can be solved on the talk page, as there no such thing on the talk page. Hence the removal of the tag. Sorry but you merely did what another editor asked you to do. It is sad, really sad. But I assume that other editors will remove the tag you added if nobody uses RS to show the article has POV issues within a reasonable period of time. It is just sad you added a tag without looking at the dicsussion on the talk page. If we all start tagging artlcies that way without clearly giving a rationale based on RS and a way to solve them, Wiki would become a disaster. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ktrimi991, I did look at the discussion. My action reflects that. The tag may not be removed until the outstanding related issues are resolved. If you reach an impasse on the article talk page, you can make use of any dispute resolution request you see fit to gain further outside input into the dispute, with the goal of reaching consensus. El_C 14:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My conclusion from your response is that you rushed to add a tag not in line with the guidelines without making sure enough that what the guideline says is respected. Anyways, many editors see that page and can act accordigly on the talk page or on the article itself. Out of curiosity, what will you do if other editors remove the tag? Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That conclusion is false. I gave the matter due attention. If someone removes the tag, they will face sanctions. El_C 14:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out to which policy says that an admin should decide whether there are POV issues with an article, and if a POV tag is removed with the rationale that there is no POV issue justified with RS on the talk page, that admin can impose sanctions? Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed the article under discretionary sanctions, which gives me a lot of leeway in ensuring the stability of the editorial process. El_C 14:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are not responding to my question. All I am asking for is clarification. What policy gives the right to an admin to place a POV tag on the article and impose sanctions on those who remove it because there is not RS to back it? As far as I can see from discretionary sanctions, it does not give that right. I would like you point out to where that rule is written. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the time being, I am revoking its removal because I deem that removal to be disruptive and tendentious at this time. El_C 14:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ktrimi991, surely you know that not all policy is written. Exercising common sense in interpreting policy is not only allowed, it is encouraged. El_C 14:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, I know that you want to help solve the problem, and I have thanked several times in the past for your good contributions to Balkan articles. But now you are not giving me a response to my question. Sorry but IMO you are practically saying that your position is not based on a policy but on what you consider common sense. Is common sense imposing sanctions on those who do you share your opinion? The page of the template says that This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public. There is no reliable source provided that gives another point of view on what the article currently says. If anyone find such RS, they are free to add content based on it to the article. Also, why so many tags while there is a WP:Tagbombing? Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are distorting what I'm saying. I am referring to using common sense to interpret policy, written and unwritten alike. As for there being multiple tags, surely that's because there are multiple issues which editors find to be pressing. El_C 15:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are not following a policy verbatim but are interpreting one, tell me which one is that policy. Why do not you respect what the page of the template itself says? Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to engage in semantic plays, Ktrimi991. My enforcement of policy is correct, I challenge. You can, of course, disagree and are free to appeal my decision in any forum you see fit. El_C 15:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, based on what happens on the article in the few coming days, you will be invited to further discuss your common sense at AN. I can not find the policy that supports your actions, but others might find it. Or not. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You do whatever you see fit, Ktrimi991. El_C 15:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's really sad that specific editors can't understand the meaning of the pov tag. Blindly removing it in zero time using aggressive edit summaries as an excuse isn't a productive sign of the said editors.Alexikoua (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for involving yourself in the dispute. Some admin oversight was long due in that discussion. I have repeatedly asked Dr.K. and another user a)to explain why they feel the POV tag is necessary b)to present an alternative. All they've done is to insist that it is "obviously POV". The closest thing to an exlanation about the tag had to do with Takis Michas, a well-known Greek journalist in the Balkans - probably the only Greek journalist that Bosniaks know by his name - who in the 1990s exposed a large network of Greek Nazis, businesspeople, church dignitaries and state officials who were involved in the Bosnian War and the Srebrenica massacre through the Greek Volunteer Guard and unofficial support to the Mladic, Karadzic and other figures. Michas's work has been acknowledged both in Greece, in Bosnia and throughout Europe for standing up and doing very hard research in very difficult times. He was one of the very few OSCE observers who were welcome in Bosnia in the country's first elections in 1997. He also got death threats from convicted Bosnian Serb war criminals. Now, the only explanation against him is that "he's not NPOV and he's a poor source" to which I reply a)if "not NPOV" here means that he actively exposed a Nazi network and war criminals, then their interpretation of what "NPOV" means is radically different to mine b)someone whose research has defined an era and is now considered "canonical" cannot be a "poor source".
I don't think that their political interpretations of why Michas is "not NPOV" will change with a discussion on the talkpage and I think that the community should get involved. Should I start a discussion on WP:RSN or somewhere else?
Also, as I've read again and again the policy about WP:NPOV I don't understand how someone like Dr.K. can insist on that tag without ever making a single point about it. If an admin were to assess the discussion and try to find Dr.K. arguments, all he would find is the comment "it's obviously POV". I'm not the sort of person who likes to rely on bureaucratic handling of discussions - it was actually one of my many reservations before getting involved in wikipedia - but there have to be some sort of common "rules" we all follow. Formal argumentation in favor of a position is one of those. If Dr.K. can't even name which source or which phrase/sentence/paragraph is POV and how it should be changed, then what is the content of this dispute? That makes the tag placement a WP:IDONTLIKEIT case and not a legitimate concern that can be resolved.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.K., Dr.K., Dr.K.... How many times are you going to invoke my username for no good reason? What purpose does it serve to pretend that I didn't tell you which segments of the article are POV? My reply to your WP:IDHT comments is just above. First read the link I provided, then go, fix the problems as indicated by the strategically-placed tags and don't complain that I placed them for no reason and try to defend their removal by edit-warring. Dr. K. 19:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good day to you, Dr.K. I haven't made any edit to that article for the past two days, so I don't know what you're referring to. You're acting in the same way I described in my previous assessment of the situation. You're throwing tags around but there is no argument here. You're saying that the article is POV but you refuse to "name which source or which phrase/sentence/paragraph is POV and how it should be changed". Resnjari has asked you "who is disputing" the parts you've tagged for attribution. You haven't listed any answer about that, too. I've asked maybe four or five times about which sources are POV and why, but still there's no answer. Can you do that on the talkpage?--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I am familiar with Church-related articles, I used to refrain from editing this one due to the large number of POV issues I have found in it, which require time and input to resolve. However I can't help but express my disappointment with the attitude certain editors have here against Dr. K., a highly respected member of our community who is well known for his neutrality and objective approach to the issues (and who does this job for much longer than many of us did). I agree with Admin El_C that the POV Tags must remain until the related POV issues are resolved. IMO, the article is in need for serious WP:NEUTRALITY improvements and only once the content is in line with Wikipedia's NPOV rules, the POV tags may be removed. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

María-Esther Vidal

Hi. A dynamic IP recently edited in the article of Venezuelan scientist María-Esther Vidal, removing references and adding unreferenced content. I reverted said edit because of these reasons, but it appears that a recently created account reverted the content back, without explanation. From what I gather, I can't revert because of the 0R restriction and because the edit is not obvious vandalism. I also left a notification warning that the content did not have references, again without response. How could this be solved? --Jamez42 (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamez42, I am temporarily exempting you from the restriction for the duration of this dispute. El_C 14:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Many thanks. I'll let you know about any advancements. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, Jamez. Good luck in amicably resolving the dispute. If you encounter disruptive or tendentious editing, please let me know so I can help with that. El_C 14:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:OTD-Ông Tuấn Dũng555. = User:Japanese555

They're the same I think Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems likely, indeed. But they also seem to have stopped after the final warning. Please let me know if they (or any other account with similar edits) continue editing disruptively. Thanks. El_C 17:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is David Icke political, broadly construed?

El C, please forgive me for approaching you, but since you edited the David Icke page earlier today, you no doubt understand the context better than any other administrator I could ask for guidance.

New tweets from England question the recent editing of this BLP by Philip Cross, who is indefinitely topic banned from post-1978 British politics, broadly construed. The person on Twitter alleges that Cross breached ARBCOM's topic ban by editing the 5G and Covid-19 subsection of Icke's page. Their accusation is that this relates to post-1978 British politics, broadly construed, because:

among the categories listed at the bottom of Icke's BLP are English political writers and Green Party politicians (UK)
the 5G and Covid-19 controversy in which Icke is embroiled (and which Cross has repeatedly edited) involves such inherently political matters as public health policy and government censorship.

I apologize for bothering you with something that stems from Twitter, but I have been concerned for some time about the bashing that Wikipedia takes on social media, usually unfairly. It would ease my mind to better understand this particular criticism. I will not engage in any off-wiki communication with these people, but perhaps your clarification might find its way to them without my help. They seem to watch anything related to Mr. Cross quite closely. NedFausa (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users NedFausa and El C, this query belongs under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement and the suggestion I have broken my topic ban originates on Twitter from a banned user. Philip Cross (talk) 06:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a violation of the ban, because the subject is much more related now to WP:FRINGE than they do UK politics, specifically (peripheral connection only with the latter). El_C 17:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, El C. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 01:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Vanamonde (Talk) 01:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93, read and replied. El_C 17:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanese politicians

There has been a concerted attack on Lebanese politicians - I see you have already protected Michel Aoun, but there are 6 more waiting at WP:RPP and probably others I haven't spotted. Could I ask if you are willing to "jump the queue" and deal with these, as the attacks are getting very tiresome - thanks - Arjayay (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC) ‎[reply]

Done. Feel free to list any additional ones to me directly. El_C 20:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I've been watching Ali Hassan Khalil, but need to log off - Arjayay (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also

Done. El_C 20:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protection level on Kim Jong-un

When you recently fully protected the article Kim Jong-un you didn't appear to remove the already existing pending changes protection. Could you fix that if possible? According to the article history there's still pending changes. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 00:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to lift pending changes when the protection is that brief. El_C 00:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

partial blocks

Is this [[26]] a correct interpretation of your recent partial block of Александр Мотин?Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was by design. They may still use the article talk page, for now. El_C 15:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Biainili again

Biainili (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi El C. You recently blocked this user for a week for persistent disruptive editing and personal attacks.[27] As soon as his block ended, today, he resumed his disruptive editorial pattern:

Removed "Iranian" which was accompanied by 5 WP:RS sources, and swapped it with "Armenian".[28]
Reinstated the same edit after being reverted.[29]
Removed the sourced Kurdish transliteration from a Kurdish-majority province in Turkey, only keeping the Armenian transliteration.[30] He has tried to do belittle the province's Kurdish ethnos numerous times in the recent past.[31]-[32]

Looking at the compelling evidence, this user is not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: LouisAragon, HistoryofIran are actively trying to remove any Armenian reference from Ancient History related Wikipedia pages, those 5 "reliable sources" you are talking about:

Garsoian, Nina (2005). "Tigran II". Encyclopaedia Iranica. → Article about Tigranes the Great, no mention of Ptolemaeus of Commagene
Babaie, Sussan; Grigor, Talinn (2015). Persian Kingship and Architecture: Strategies of Power in Iran from the Achaemenids to the Pahlavis → Book written by Iranian Art historian
Marciak, Michał (2017). Sophene, Gordyene, and Adiabene: Three Regna Minora of Northern Mesopotamia Between East and West → Read page 157 again, there's no mention of Ptolemaeus, but mention of Orontid dyansty, no "Iranian" reference whatsoever

These are not 5 WP:RS sources, HistoryofIran posts random sources all the time, without actually reading them carefully.

Page: Ptolemaeus_of_Commagene

" Ptolemaeus' father was King Orontes IV of Armenia, son of Arsames I."

Arsames I (Armenian: Արշամ) seems to have taken control of Commagene, Sophene and Armenia in the year 260 BC after the death of his grandfather Orontes III, king of Armenia, and his father Sames, king of Commagene.

Page: Sames_I

Samos[1][2] or Sames (Armenian: Շամուշ, Greek: Σάμος) was satrap of Commagene, Armenian king of Commagene and Sophene.[1][3]

References

Wayne G. Sayles, "Ancient Coin Collecting VI: Non-Classical Cultures", Krause Publications, 1999, ISBN 0-87341-753-4, p. 29

Michael Blömer / Religious Life of Commagene in the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman Period pp.95-129/The Letter of Mara bar Sarapion in Context. Proceedings of the Symposium Held at Utrecht University, 10–12 December 2009 /BRILL 2012

In doing so, Samosata, the Commagenian capital and hometown of Mara bar Sarapion, would suit best as the prime object of investigation. The place was one of the most important sites along the Upper Euphrates. It offered an easy crossing of the river and was occupied since Chalcolithic times. It is named Kummuḫ in Iron Age sources and was the centre of an eponymous independent Syro-Hittite kingdom from the 12th to the 8th century BCE. The Assyrian king Sargon II conquered Kummuḫ in 708 BCE, but it remained an important provincial town during late Iron Age. In Hellenistic times it was capital of the kingdom of Commagene. The city was renamed Samosata by a predecessor of the Commagenian royal family, the Armenian king Samos I, in the 3rd century BCE. After the Roman occupation in CE 72, Samosata prospered as a major commercial, cultural and military centre of the Roman province of Syria.

M. J. Versluys/ Visual Style and Constructing Identity in the Hellenistic World: Nemrud Dag and Commagene under Antiochos I/Cambridge University Press, 2017 г.—pp.48 (312) ISBN 1107141974, 9781107141971

We know nothing about the status of Commagene under Seleucid rule. The Armenian king Samos I is believed to have founded Samosata, later the capital of Commagene, in the middle of the third century BC. The second century BC saw the rise of the two powers that would play an important role in Commagene's future during the next centuries: Rome and Parthia. Their growing prominence, combined with the failing of the central Seleucid power, resulted in the rise of several small monarchies, of which Commagene was one. Other independent kingdoms that came into being around this time include Pergamon, Pontos, Baktria, Parthia, Armenia, Iudea and Nabatea. Diodorus tells us that a Seleucid epistates named Ptolemy rose to power in Commagene in 163 BC. Most scholars assume that Ptolemy was the first Commagenean king and that he descended from the Armenian Orontids. We know virtually nothing about the following decades. Samos II took power around 130 BC, as is concluded from some coins that have been preserved, showing a portrait with the inscription “king Samos.”

See: Talk:Ptolemaeus_of_Commagene [33]

Chahin, Mack (2001). The Kingdom of Armenia. Caucasus World. Routledge. pp. 190, 191. ISBN 978-0700714520.

[34]

Samus,Arsames,Xerxes(c.260-.212BC)

The connection between these Armenian Orontid kings and Commagene evidently very close. So much so that Armenia might well occupied part of that extensive principality. This theory is supported by presence of two large cities in Commagene, Samosata an Arsameia, built respectively by two successive Armenian kings. Furthermore, it was Ptolemaeus, the grandson of Arsames, and perhaps the nephew of Xerxes, who founded the royal dynasty of Commagene(c. 163BC). --Biainili (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Tigran II". Encyclopaedia Iranica ->"a branch of the earlier Eruandid dynasty of Iranian origin", the dynasty that Commagene belongs to.
Since when did an Iranian historian become unreliable? At least try to somewhat conceal your povish way of thinking.
Third source simply supports the statement that Commagene was ruled by a Orontid family, which was needed to be sourced. Admittedly I could have used it in a better way, how about I simply add some of the 10 citations used in Kingdom of Commagene :P? And do note that there is as difference between Armenian as a ethnic and geographic term. For example, one of the citations you just used, states this on page 68; "Its most famous king, Antiochus I, was the son of Seleucid princess Laodike (daughter of Antiochus VII of Syria) and of a local king of Iranian origin, Mithradates Kallinikos." Guess you missed that part as well? Also, you forgot to mention the 2 other citations. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. El_C 15:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block question

Good morning! You just blocked User:Александр Мотин from editing Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 for disruption, as per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_Boomerang_block. Since then he has carried on being disruptive on Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Was it your intention to block him from the talk page also or not? - Ahunt (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As I just mentioned one section up, allowances were still made for the user to edit the article talk page, for now. If there is also disruption there, too, please feel free to submit evidence to that effect here on at the ANI report. El_C 15:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I had missed that this had already been asked; sorry to trouble you. - Ahunt (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No trouble at all. Please keep me updated, if you are able to. El_C 15:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question I have about the article Kim Jong-un

I noticed that the article is currently protected so only admins can edit it, but I haven't seen a moment where it wasn't extended confirmed protected? Were there extended confirmed users who vandalized the article because if there weren't, I'm asking that you reduce the protection level to ECP (Note: I do not have plans to edit the article though). OcelotCreeper (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The admin in question took the extraordinary measure to fully protect the article because ECP would not have been sufficient. The protection expires in a few hours in which point we will reassess. El_C 15:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Yeah since the protection expires in a few hours, I think we should set it to ECP for a while to check if that protection level works. Oh also I think the pending trial settings are still on. OcelotCreeper (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I already mentioned elsewhere, there's no need to reset pending changes when the protection is that brief. I take your advisement into account and, again, will reassess (along with Ymblanter) in the immediate future. El_C 15:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added the article to my watchlist. Before the protection, I inspected the edits, and there was at least one edit by a extended confirmed user which was reverted by another extended confirmed user.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting here that the page was indefinitely semiprotected (pending changes reset), but that didn't last for long, so I had to ECP it. Will probably downgrade back to semi, and then perhaps pending changes after the situation calms. El_C 21:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SRC

There seems to be a massive edit war here Socialist Republic of Croatia, and on several other articles, by the same 2 users. ty Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Number 57 has this covered. Please feel free to let me know if things get out of hand further. El_C 21:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question I have about templates

Is there something on wikipedia that tells you what articles a template appears in? OcelotCreeper (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, go to the given template page and click What links here. El_C 22:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

I apologise for framing the enforcement request in such a way that it might have been constituted as personal attack. It just seemed so quick and obvious, I should have phrased better. I will certainly avoid stating any such possible events in future as matter of fact rather than possibility(please do keep in mind that English is not my first language so sometimes I come across more direct/rude than perhaps native English speakers are used to).--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I wrote for the benefit of Janj9088, that meant that caution was intended to them. You have nothing to be sorry for (that I picked up on, at least). El_C 21:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Gorsuch

Thanks for your help on Neil Gorsuch. Have you taken a look at the page's protection history? The page has been consistently vandalized despite multiple protections for more than a year. The previous protection was six months. Shouldn't the page be indefinitely semi-protected? Putwood (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 22:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vile personal attack at talk:Northern Epirus by N.Hoxha

Hi El C. Please see this comment by N.Hoxha: I am extremely saddened to see that user Dr.K would consider the inclusion of the content about the murder of multiple innocent persons to be of equal importance as that of a poorly made banner.. N.Hoxha refers to this edit by Khirurg which, by the way, refers to altercations, and not any murders whatsoever in Athens, after Katsifas's killing. My response dealt with adding pieces about the events in Athens and Albania where football fans celebrated the killing of Katsifas. As you know, this is a very contested area of the wiki. It is one thing to have to deal with POV edits and quite another to have editors like N.Hoxha to make up stories about you that you disregard non-existent murders. This is a vile personal attack and equally vile WP:ASPERSION. I would appreciate your advice on this. Thank you. Dr. K. 04:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that is not an acceptable manner for one to conduct themselves. I have warned N.Hoxha about aspersions and unresponsiveness in no uncertain terms. El_C 04:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, El C. Take care and stay safe. Dr. K. 04:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather not have the discussion split between two venues. But feel free to refactor. El_C 11:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again El C. Another partisan has descended on N.Hoxha's talk and is using my userpage identifiers to attack me and also misrepresents my comments to Calthinus. He is also pinging me to make sure I read his attacks. This is getting out of control. I request your assistance from these unbelievable partisan attacks. I would like all references to my possible origin based on my userpage identifiers be removed from the partisan attack. Thank you again and sorry for imposing again. Dr. K. 07:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't said a single thing abour your origins and nobody has made a single personal comment about you. So, no, I didn't "reveal" something non-public that requires anyone to delete anything I wrote. I only said that it is a very reasonable assumption that you have some more knowledge and links to Corfu (by looking at your public user page and uploads to that page - just as someone could assume that I have some more knowledge and links to the Cem valley because of my public profile (this means nothing about my origins or yours though). Nobody implied anything like that. N.Hoxha could reasonably assume from your public user page that you could have known about that very well-known event too. I hope that clarifies that nobody has made any "partisan attack" here.--Maleschreiber (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have no business speculating where I live, where I come from or what place I am connected to in order to draw conclusions about what I know and what news I watch or read. You have no business to try to invade my personal privacy using speculation from the images that I display on my personal pages and to try to dox me for partisan purposes. This is my last response to you as I wish to have no further contact with you. Dr. K. 09:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't made any speculation about where you live or where you come from as I haven't written a single thing about any of those things. Please don't interpret my comments in any way other than what I wrote. And please don't make unfounded accusations against me. Accusing someone of doxing - searching private information about someone is a very serious accusation which you should retract because all I did was to comment on your ***public*** user page without any speculation about your private life. I basically said "ok, you have a lot of information about Corfu on your userpage, so why is it so strange that N.Hoxha could possibly assume that you might know about incidents like that of Petrit Zilfe which was a very well-known event in the recent history of the island". The equivalent on this page would be El C to accuse me of doxing and "revealing" info about his private life if I commented that it's reasonable to assume that he has read the April theses because he has a portrait of Lenin on his userpage. Thank you. --Maleschreiber (talk) 09:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing in Rishi Kapoor

Persistent vandalism – Heavy IP edit disruption due to a recent incident. Placed a WP:RFPP but there is a backlog, and the disruption is going on. Thank you. Amkgp (talk) 05:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 05:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Amkgp (talk) 05:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gorani

Can you take a look at the Gorani article?[35] I have now asked for clarification for their edits but academic references keep getting removed for an author that has been discussed at RS and deprecated.[36] I'm waiting for admins' decision on protection, but there is a long queue. Also '46.106.92.92' and 'Benahol' edits on many articles are very similar and I believe it's some sort of meatpuppetry. --Semsûrî (talk) 11:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 11:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same editor, same topic, same issue. Please have a look.[37] --Semsûrî (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm unable to follow the material from your explanation. El_C 18:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First issue I have (beside the awful map) is the removal of the sentence: "and they are often described as Zaza Kurds" in the introduction.[38] This sentence is relevant since many researchers use the term 'Zaza Kurds' (Google Books 'Zaza Kurds'Google Books 'Zaza Kurdish') and the sentence was well-sourced with four examples of academic texts using this term. Now, the whole sentence was removed for "but they are often described as Zaza or Dımıli" which is, already-mentioned in the first sentence of the article in bold, but also off-topic.

The essence is that, despite the disputed ethnic origin of these Zazas (also known as Dimili), they are often termed 'Zaza Kurds' in academia (and outside). That has been removed. And it has been removed in a lazy manner where the four references remain while six random references (including a blog) has been added as 'clarification' that the term 'Zaza Kurds' is not always used in literature.

Secondly, while not removing any of the references, "Many Zazas consider themselves ethnic Kurds" has been changed to "A part of Zazas consider themselves ethnic Kurds and Turks". And if you claim that any Zaza would consider themselves ethnic Turkish, you better have reliable references with page added. This has not been the case. --Semsûrî (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We messaging with him about this. Sources were added by adding resources. Semsûrî urgently wants to cooperate with kurdish You can check the Turkish version. Wants the matter to lock up as he wants. As he did in gorani . This is fascism. wants to use you Benahol (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you're here. Can you explain your edits above? --Semsûrî (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)--Semsûrî (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There were zazas that called themselves Turkish and kurdish in history, but this is not the case today. According to the Konda survey company, about 1.5 million people have identified themselves as Zaza. Resources that evaluate the people of Zaza in Turkish and Kurdish have already been added. Benahol (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can't remove sourced information because disagree personally. You write 'but this is not the case today'. Source? And what source did you use for the claim that there are Zazas who consider themselves ethnic Turkish? --Semsûrî (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benahol blocked for 72 hours for engaging in egregious personal attacks. El_C 21:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to the discussion page. Semsûrî deleted a lot of data he did not want from the pages. (see Zaza nationalism as an example) (Kurdish nationalist views kept on the page and deleted most of the other views) Benahol (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please ensure content is backed up by reliable sources. Feel free to attach diffs to summaries to provide proper evidence here. El_C 22:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has returned after their seven days block and continues where they left off by just adding all information found online to make their point. The edits include own translation used as quote and maps with no reference. And you see this small and canny change of wording here[39]? Well, that's a good old POV-push. This is getting ridiculous and the quality of these articles have worsened. --Semsûrî (talk) 11:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the ref the map cites in the caption? El_C 11:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first reference did not have a similar map nor info that corresponds to that specific map. The second one (Ludwig) needs a page for verification. --Semsûrî (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

please block me indefinitely. I understand you are disturbed by the information I added (Semsûrî ) I'm tired of dealing with you Benahol (talk) 11:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Dr. Ludwig Paul and Frankfurt Zaza Language Institute divides Zaza Language into three main dialects. In addition, there are transitions and edge accents that have a special position and cannot be fully included in any dialect group. ^[1] ^[2] (resources for map) and (Also, the maps saved on Wikipedia, I did not prepare myself) Benahol (talk) 11:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disturbed by anything. Just trying to figure out what's what. I suggest you will yourself toward exhibiting greater patience. El_C 11:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semsûrî I do not find you sincere There are dozens of non-cited maps on Kurdish pages. Would you delete them too. Also, the maps saved on Wikipedia, I did not prepare myself. And the sources I added match the map.Benahol (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maps uploaded on Wikipedia and Commons should not be used if they are not reliably sourced. That includes maps on Kurds. --Semsûrî (talk) 12:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Paul, Ludwig: Zazaki - Versuch einer Dialektologie. Reichert Verlag, 1998, Wiesbaden.
^ Keskin, Mesut.Notes on Zaza Language

Most maps and images added to Wikipedia; it is examined and reliable. Because it is compatible with information.. Benahol (talk) 12:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help. There is a section called reference. I could not fix it. (Thanks.) [40] Benahol (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes for Dilip Ghosh (politician)

Please provide a Indefinite pending changes protection because of persistent disruptive editing like adding non-sense text, removal profile picture etc. Thank you. Amkgp (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amkgp, respectfully, I would rather my user talk page doesn't become a spillover to RfPP. Once in a while is fine, but there's a limit. Regards, El_C 18:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, there is a huge backlog but now onward will place at WP:RFPP only. Amkgp (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Amkgp. Thanks for understanding. El_C 19:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-liked YouTube videos

Hi, do you remember my request for the indefinitive protection for List of most-viewed YouTube videos? Can you protect also List of most-liked YouTube videos? In this page we have the same problem, after the end of the one year protection vandalism restart again, can you protect the page please? Like the others YouTube's list--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 22:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete empty cat

Hello El C,

Can you please delete the empty category Category:Mahatma_Gandhi_Central_University? Thanks. A a s i m 01:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aasim. Uh, okay. Sure,

Done. El_C 01:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

maybe nine years of adminship

Wishing El C a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Thanks, Chris. Happy May Day! El_C 14:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very C happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El_C 19:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-dispute

On Northern Epirus one of the sub-issues which led me to add the POV tag is the fact that I had added the electoral results of the two minority parties in the local elections of 2015 but they were removed. I then started a new section on the talkpage about why they were removed and the replies I got are that what I added misrepresents X, Y, Z, topics. I've asked many times on the talkpage why and how what I added and was reverted is related to X, Y, Z topics by fully quoting the reverted edit and explaining that they - IMO - obviously are not related but every time IMO my questions are not replied at all and I just get the remark "you are still OR" and my tag is being explained away as "Tag playing isn't an argument". As I did with the Katsifas case I eventually resorted to noticeboard procedures to get community input and it was really helpful, but before going to another such procedure I would like some outside feedback because at the moment I'm very confused because I feel that I've overexplained myself and asked the same question 3-4 times with same full quote without getting similar feedback.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, as I already noted on the article talk page, a detailed explanation requires similarly detailed substantiation in response, not general pronouncements. So, I support your efforts to engage in amicable discourse to that effect, and I'm sorry to learn you've encountered difficulties with that. What can I do to help? El_C 15:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on the article talk page, Maleschreiber, which I hope you find to be of use. El_C 15:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! I'm slowly realizing that the best way to start resolving a dispute is to ask for uninvolved input.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Absolutely, uninvolved input is gold on Wikipedia. El_C 00:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It goes on and on

Hello El C, I saw your inputs and debate on [41] It seems to me that nothing has changed....

Removal of sourced content in the same manner as before [42] [43]

Identital fringe viewpoints (notice that there are ~10 RS presented on the article) [44]

Ignoring other user’s concerns [45] [46]

Complaints about past “lost battles” which led to his/her ban in the fist place [47] [48]

Continuing to push questionable notions on the same page where edit-warring was taking place (the other editor involved has been permanently banned, so it seems that the editor think he has carte blanche for his work) [49] [50]

All in all, the whole fringe narrative continues, and this is only a tip of the iceberg. I'm not sure which action should be taken (and should I make any moves), and I just wanted to inform you on this, because the same sort of behaviour is repeated over and over, and it seems to me that very little time has passed since his/her unban. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sadko, sorry to learn that problems persist. They are limited to 1RR as an AE DS I applied. I'm not sure there's much more I can immediately do, because I'm not that familiar with the general subject matter. Perhaps a request at AE for an outright topic ban...? El_C

Yeah, I really thought that something would change, at least to some point. If you can, keep a closer look at his/her work, from time to time. TBAN is a good suggestion, I'll probably make a report in the near future. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan, Sadko — please ping me if and/or when you file a report at AE. Sure, I'll try my best to keep an eye in the meantime. El_C 16:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadko: You don't have to wait near future, report me immediately so we all can see where I went wrong.
Removal of sourced content in the same manner as before [51] [52] Nothing is remove from here.
Complaints about past “lost battles” which led to his/her ban in the fist place [53] [54] I don't know what is wrong here? Opinion expressed on talk page.
Ignoring other user’s concerns [55] [56]

I edited first article in accordance with reliable sources and on talk page "Eparchy of Marča" I talked about information which is frogery and exist in the article for which Serbian academician Sima Ćirković says that is false information, I cannot delete this information from the article even though it is a forgery and because you don't want this. This is frogery I quote: "A letter of King Matthias from 12 January 1483 mentions that 200,000 Serbs had settled the Hungarian kingdom(Slavonia Croatia) in the last four years". Information is in the article "Serbs of Croatia", "Rascians" and this article "Eparchy of Marča". The original information is I quote: "Matthias Corvinus complained in a letter from 1462 that 200,000 peoples during previous three years had been taken from his country by Turks" (Serbian academician Sima Ćirković).

Continuing to push questionable notions on the same page where edit-warring was taking place (the other editor involved has been permanently banned, so it seems that the editor think he has carte blanche for his work [57] [58]. I'm putting information from a book of Austrian historian Karl Kasser who in the book talks about Slavonia, the Varaždin Generalate and Statuta Valachorum (population, migration, bureaucracy of that area etc) Each editor, and there are thousands of them, can edit information from book of Karl Kaser in their own way. All editors who are here must work to make the article as accurate as possible. That's what wikipedia tells us to do.
Identital fringe viewpoints (notice that there are ~10 RS presented on the article) [59]

10 RS presented in the article saying that Svetozar Boroević is Croatian and he declared himself as Croatian, I don't know what's here fringe viewpoints?

Otherwise for intention to change Statuta Valachorum article for the better you earlier said I do it because I'm a follower of the Nazis I quote: "This is another popular narrative in Croatia, mostly in right-wing and modern Ustaše circles". Who are Ustaše? Wikipedia source: "Croatian fascist, ultranationalist and terrorist organization", "They were known for their particularly brutal and sadistic methods of execution", "Much of the ideology of the Ustaše was based on Nazi racial theory", "Like the Nazis, the Ustaše deemed Jews". And you have not been punished for this personal attack.[60] You would report me for changing articles for the better in accordance with reliable sources as evidence and no one punished you even though you were reported for personal insult, you did not want to throw a single forgery information out of any article even though you knew that they are forgerys. @El_C sorry I used your talk page for answer but I hope the editor Sadko will now report me with your support. Let's see which rule I broke, I'm interested in that, too. Cheers. Mikola22 (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you don't get to witness something like this every day. The same narrative is repeated, once again. Please present a real diff so that all of us can what really happened. I shall help with just these two. [61] [62] There will be no more posts from me on this TP. Stay safe, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you welcome review, Mikola22. That is a good sign and is to your credit. El_C 19:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sadko, again, I encourage you to submit a report documenting your complaint. El_C 19:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward for report, thank you and see you there. Mikola22 (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda's May corner ...

Thanking you for speaking my mind better than I could at WP:Great Dismal Swamp, while I slept. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, Gerda. That was truly sickening. El_C 08:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

happier today - I even dared to go for FAC --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy is good!

♫Whose afraid of the big bad FAC, the big bad FAC, the big bad FAC?♫ El_C 22:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

not me ;) - less happy about Ann Katharine Mitchell, - isn't it sad enough that she died? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fake warnings/sig

Thanks for blocking 175.193.218.8 (talk · contribs), I trust that you noticed the fake warnings with forged sig e.g. [63]. Dl2000 (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not at first, but eventually (blocked accordingly for 2 weeks). Yes, this is not new for this LTA. They've done so with my own signature in the past, as well. El_C 16:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct of User:Biainili while blocked

See particularly this edit to User talk:Biainili and the messages it restored.

It is generally understood that users are not supposed to be engaging in substantive editing while blocked. This conduct on the talk page feels to me like an attempt to solicit proxy editing while this user is blocked. What's your take on it? Do you agree that it's an attempt at an end run around the block? Or do you think that if they're engaging constructively with at least one editor, it's a start? (For the record, I do not feel like the other editor is necessarily at fault here, if they're editing in good faith and using independent judgment about the merits of the edits.)

As blocking admin, I'd like your take on the matter first. My next stop would be WP:ANI to discuss extension of the block, revocation of talk page access, and/or a topic ban. —C.Fred (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have cautioned Biainili against editing by proxy and have removed their request to do so. El_C 16:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ARBPIA

Hi El C, per your comment[64], I read CLOSECHALLENGE, which I guess in this case I have already done and you declined. Could you help me understand this for future reference? I am convinced that an article like Ain Jalut is supposed to be captured by ARBPIA, but I accept that that is open to interpretation. I spent some time looking around the old arbitration pages for some discussion which may reflect consensus on how the phrase "Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted" is intended to be interpreted, but I could not find anything? Onceinawhile (talk) 09:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has long been usual to consider that former Arab villages which were depopulated during Zionist settlement in Palestine are included in ARBPIA. That this description applies to Ein Jalud is not obvious at the moment, since the article text does not currently mention it. However, it is true and will be added with a source. There were 9 families living here until one of the Zionist land companies purchased it from its absentee owners in the late 19th century. In my opinion that makes ARBPIA inclusion clear. Zero^talk 10:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think Onceinawhile revealed his motives to create the WP:POVFORK article by arguing about the topic area he really wanted to push the Arabic name while hiding the Hebrew one.As he admits himself that it about names [65] --Shrike (talk) 10:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is my explanation for why a variety of editors have brought emotion and aggression into what should be a mundane discussion. The sources are crystal clear that noone knows, or can know, the actual location of this place mentioned in just a single sentence in the Bible. Obviously Wikipedia should not be taking firm views on these things. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only editor ho argued that the names are a political issue, and the only editor repeatedly trying to erase or diminish the Hebrew name in favor of the Arab name. Wikipedia indeed doesn't need to take a position on question of the proper identification of the biblical name - and it doesn't. The article you keep trying to rename describes the issue, talks about the difficulty in proper identification, and mentioned the scholarly debate abut it. Add it does so using the Arabic name for the well. But this is not the issue we are discussing at AN/I - we are discussing your disruptive behavior in trying to circumvent community decision when you didn't get your way regarding the article name and your forum shopping. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 13:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to have this debate, either. El_C 13:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the article itself, I still think the connection to ARBPIA seems tenuous at best. But feel free to bring it up at AE (but not AN/ANI — ARBPIA spilling over to those noticeboards is generally a bad idea), I have no objection to the matter being re-opened there and I take the possibility that I was wrong with my assessment into account. El_C 12:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A few days later and a lot has happened, much of it not to my credit. Suffice to say that I overlooked the Jewish purchase of land at Ain Jalut in relation to the local inhabitants. Among other things, I have amended my ANI close to read the opposite of what it did: ~~not~~ related. I've also covered the article under ARBPIA "related content," including removing the outdated "original author" provision. I've also blocked Levivich. Then —incorrectly— unblocked him. In any case, not my proudest moment. I'll strive to do better. El_C 03:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From GizzyCatBella

Hello EI_C, I'm busy with grandchildren for another few hours, please give me some time to respond to your concerns here [66]. I'll do it as soon as I get back home. GizzyCatBella🍁 18:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, there's no rush. El_C 18:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that’s good, thank you so much! GizzyCatBella🍁 18:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello EI_C again, I left you a message on my case page. Thank you. GizzyCatBella🍁 19:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the ping, but okay. El_C 19:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... unless you think there is no point to address these accusations... Did you get a chance to look deeper into it or your judgement was based solely on the actual K.e.coffman presentation alone? If you didn’t have time look deeper into it I will explain in detail. But perhaps you think there is no point to address them because you made up your mind already. And I should wait even longer with the appeal, as you originally suggested. If so, please let me know. To be honest, I'm exhausted already :( but I can still explain my edits. I'll check your response later tonight. Thank you.GizzyCatBella 🍁 20:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. I always try to keep an open mind, but to be forthright, I am already strongly leaning toward declining at this time. It's up to you whether you wish to address K.e.coffman's complaint, even if only for the record. El_C 20:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello El_C, I just addressed K.e.coffman concerns [67] but I think I'm too tired to answer to SarahSV and Ealdgyth tonight. I'll try, but it will be most likely tomorrow.GizzyCatBella 🍁 07:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GizzyCatBella, I'm not saying it's your fault, your appeal has become unwieldy. El_C 03:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I screw up so badly with those references... I'm so embarrassed I want to cry.. :( ... GizzyCatBella🍁 04:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chin up, it's not the end of the world. There's so much to contribute about outside the topic ban's scope. Just try your best to edit in an exemplary manner for another 2 years, we can reassess then. All the best, El_C 04:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you El_C, I feel better today, I think I’m getting too old, I can’t handle the stress as good I did before. I’ll still post a link for SV and Ealdgyth in there so they can look at it, maybe it will be useful for them. Thank you for your time on that case too. GizzyCatBella🍁 17:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GizzyCatBella, you're welcome. Best of luck for the future. El_C 17:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mass Fabrications

I've seen you dealing with the doubt changes recently pls protect Voyager of the Seas, and the other article that have been massively been changed into false claim. MoralesKapitan (talk) 10:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Yeah, that LTA really likes ships. El_C 10:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They sometimes occur when an another ship was hit with the pandemic, seemingly tries to edit with false info with gibberish name. Thanks for handling it. MoralesKapitan (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harcha

Just a quick question: Are editors allowed to use different usernames to access different wiki projects (project in different languages)? If not, is there a global SPI board where such users can be reported? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is Harcha? Anyway, in answer to your question, yes, even though I've only ever used this username across all projects, so what do I know? El_C 00:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's disappointing. As for Harcha, I was about to ask a question about the concerned article, then changed my mind and forgot to change the section's name. M.Bitton (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please log Peel Commission

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

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

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

Rollback

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

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

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

Visioncurve

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

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

New messages

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

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

Do you know a wikipedian who understands chinese?

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

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

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

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

Rojava map

@El C: Hi again! There is now another new user (GlobalMilInfo) that has made the same edits as MehmetFarukSahin to the map on all the Rojava-related articles. I believe there is some involvement of the blocked user Bill497, as he canvassed on Wikimedia Commons [68] and the edits he called for are being conducted by multiple users now, and none use the talk page to discuss the issue. So whether it's actual sockpuppets were talking about or users acting as proxies should I use SPI for this issue? I want to be careful so I do it correctly. AntonSamuel (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

copyvio

Are you sure you're not aiding and abetting with copyvio, El_C? Cf. [69] & Talk:2020_Royal_Chapel_of_Milot_fire. This account was previously blocked as an IP. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 04:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Communist Party of Cuba

I need to come clean, im afraid i have overstepped massively without thinking about it, i have reverted a particular edit way more than i should. So there is a person who removes communism and replaces it with socialism in the infobox. To back this up, this person uses an article from the guardian, which is regarded as a reliable source. However the article is about communism being removed from the 2018 draft cuban constitution, whereas in the final 2019 version of the constitution, Cuba is still dedicated to a communist future [70]. And even if what the article says were correct, the national constitution is not the party constitution. This person also uses a new IP for every edit, which i believe is against wikipedia ToS. Now, i feel like i cant justify reverting this edit any further, so could you or anyone you know look into the problem for me? Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:Mars Effect

The socker is back [71] this time with an even more unreliable source. Tknifton (talk) 14:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Vargas

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

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

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

My main point is based on WP:NCPLACE since references still widely use the name the name of "Vargas", even after its official change on 2020: [72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79] This is even more common in Spanish sources, which are commonly used in related articles in the English Wikipedia: [80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91] The reason why I bolded "if" is because I'm arguing that either the widely accepted English name and the widely accepted historical English name are "Vargas" (which includes historic uses such as the Vargas tragedy).

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

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

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

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

ANI

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

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

As advised above, the edit dispute on Talk:Military_Assistance_Command,_Vietnam#Move_of_DAO_section_to_Embassy_of_the_United_States,_Saigon was resolved in May 2019. The issue at hand is this: [92] where Buckshot06 seeks to solicit a User with whom I have another dispute and then his comments on the ANI, copied above, where he throws a range of criticisms at me despite us not having had an edit dispute since May 2019. Mztourist (talk) 10:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

El C thank you for revising the ANI close. In relation to your comment that I made claims of personal attacks without providing any evidence, the evidence is Buckshot06's "I believe you're far too biased toward a very U.S.-military centric view" above and his earlier comments and queries about my affiliation: [93] which amounts to "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" as stated under Wikipedia:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack?. Please tell me what Buckshot06 again accusing me of WP:STONEWALL and WP:OWNERSHIP without any evidence are if not personal attacks? Mztourist (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

User:NomdeA & Piers Robinson

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

Conspiracy theorist

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

Huff Post for a BLP?

Huff Post again

Conspiracy theorist as occupation and again

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

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

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

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

Cv

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

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

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

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

Article belonging to ARBPIA

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of Blond God from Yellow emperor wiki page

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

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

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

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

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

Modification of the Beirut wiki page

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

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

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

Deontay Wilder

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

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

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

Anantapur

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

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

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

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

Open proxies

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

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

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

Someone's socks

Hey El C,

Could you please check these?[94][95] Thanks. François Robere (talk) 10:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Macuto

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

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

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

Protection on Kim Jong-un

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

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

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

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

Question about discretionary sanctions on List of concentration and internment camps

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

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

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

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

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

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

MB

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

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

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

ARCA

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

[1] Paul, Ludwig: Zazaki - Versuch einer Dialektologie. Reichert Verlag, 1998, Wiesbaden.

[refMuratkeskinzazacaüzerine-2] Keskin, Mesut.Notes on Zaza Language

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 1,085: / Line 1,085: @@
 :Perhaps. But we don't investigate what reliable sources write — we leave that to other reliable sources. Rather, we apply [[WP:DUE|due weight]] to the given material, which may or may not be the case here. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 02:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 ::On closer look, it seems that entire subsection is ''highly'' excessive in relation to an encyclopedia article about the county. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 02:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
+== ARCA ==
+Hi El C, I've asked for clarification on the awareness requirements for the 1RR at ARCA. I listed you as a party as the block/unblock earlier made it seem murky and thought you might have thoughts to add. You can find it [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Palestine-Israel_articles_4|here]]. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 06:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)</small>